The Ethics of Legalizing Marijuana, Essay Example

One of the most controversial ethical topics raging in American politics today is whether or not to legalize marijuana, completely or at least for medical purposes. While fourteen states have legalized marijuana due to evidence that they feel proves the medical benefits of the plant, many still hold to the belief that the plants Cannabis sativa and Cannabis indica are intrinsically bad, causing problems for both individuals and for society at large. While it is easy list the benefits that legalizing marijuana can bring to the community, both by its direct health benefits to patients and its indirect effects on the economy that thrives around, the issue at stake when discussing marijuana is not simply a financial one, it is an ethical one. People have very strong feelings on both sides of the medical marijuana battle. Those who favor it believe that it is their right to be able to access a medication that benefits their health. On the opposing side are those who still view marijuana as a social ill, and many opponents hold the religious position that marijuana is morally and spiritually wrong. There is a pervasive, however illogical and unfounded it may be, fear that by legalizing marijuana America will be turned into a moral-less state full of stoned out junkies. Ironically, it is not legalization of marijuana that has caused the societal ills associated with, but more appropriately it is the prohibition of marijuana that has ultimately had the most negative effects on the country, costing taxpayers billions of dollars a year in law enforcement for what is, in the end, a victimless crime. The classical theory of utilitarianism could best be applied to understanding and solving the ethical issue of medical marijuana. It will be by utilizing relativism that the egos of those opposed to marijuana legalization will be able to understand the benefits that it brings to individuals and its positive impact on the economy, enabling them to look past their own cultural biases about marijuana and see how legalization will benefit not only their fellow Americans but themselves as well.

Marijuana is a natural plant that has been cultivated and used by humans in various forms for thousands of years. It has only recently been deemed subversive by society, starting in the 1930’s, when the U.S. government, led by Harry J. Anslinger, launched a highly publicized anti-marijuana propaganda campaign. The result was The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 which effectively banned marijuana, making a plant that had been cultivated and harvested by humans for over 10,000 years, illegal. The issue was ethical. Based on the propaganda movies such as “Reefer Madness”, citizens came to fear marijuana and the people that smoked it. The law to prohibit marijuana was similar to the one which prohibited alcohol for many years. The results of the two prohibitions have been strikingly similar. When alcohol was made illegal, it drove production into the underground. Secret bars, called Speakeasy’s, popped up around the country. Criminal groups such as the mafia ran the illegal booze and all kinds of crime and violence sprang up as a result. The prohibition of marijuana has also caused criminal activity and violence to grow in association with it. Powerful criminal undergrounds control the black-market marijuana industry. The ethical issue that begs to be asked, then, is if the crime of smoking marijuana, including the health benefits supposedly caused by it, is worse than the social ills that are caused by its prohibition.

Relativism is the perspective needed when looking at marijuana legalization. Fears about its negative health effects have been quelled by major studies which have found it to have no more detrimental effects than many legal pharmaceuticals. The Washington Post reported in May of 2006 that, “The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer (Kaufman, 2006).” According to WebMD in an article posted in July 2003, “Long-term and even daily marijuana use doesn’t appear to cause permanent brain damage, adding to evidence that it can be a safe and effective treatment for a wide range of diseases (Kircheimer, 2003).” Those that oppose marijuana often to so because of the supposed negative health effects of the plant, including that it causes brain damage and lung cancer. Thus, the ethical stance that many take against marijuana is simply found to be relative to the time period in which these concepts were believed to be true. Today, many patients benefit from marijuana as it reduces pain, treats nausea, stimulates appetite and generally relieves depression. There are many patients who have found it to be the only medicine that works for their problems. Is it ethical to deny patients a safe and effective treatment for their illness, or force them to become criminals by seeking the plant on the black market?

Health benefits aside, there is also economics to consider with marijuana legalization. In California, the first state in America to legalize marijuana, there is much  controversy  today  whether  medical  marijuana  should  be   legalized and   taxed.  In  the  state  of  California,  in  1996,  Proposition  215  was  passed,  which legalized  marijuana  use  for  patients  that  are  seriously  ill  and  in  chronic  pain.  Fifty-Six percent  of  California  voted  yes  on  Prop  215  making  it  more  votes  than  President  Bush, Clinton  and  any  other  elected  official  has  ever  received  (Conrad,1996).  Arizona  than  passed  their  law  on  legalizing  marijuana  with  an  even  higher  percentage  voting  ratio  of  65%.  The Supreme  Court  then  ruled  that  marijuana  is  as  legal  as  any  other  prescription  drug  under the  State  Law.

In  the  State  of  California,  medical  marijuana  is  a  billion  dollar  a  year  business.  If  marijuana  was  to  be  taxed  just  as  any  other  herbal  medicine  it  can  drastically  improve the  states  financial situation. Today, the state of California, like many states in the U.S., is facing a financial crisis. Marijuana legalization could take millions of dollars out of the hands of black market dealers, and instead place it in the hands of legal businessman. Taxing this revenue has the potential to be a huge boom to California at a time when it needs it most. Studies  have  shown  that  10%  (150,000-350,000)  of  people  that reside  in  California  all  use  medical  marijuana (Ammiano, 2009).  If  California  was  to  tax  medical  marijuana users  the  state  would  collect  billions  of  dollars  which  of  course  can  help  out  with  the economy  today.  The  State  of  California  is  already  spending  about  $160  million  a  year just  to  prosecute  and  imprison  marijuana  users.  So why not tax the people that purchase marijuana? The  patients  that  are  currently  purchasing  marijuana  consume  anywhere between  $870  million- 2  billion  in  weed  per  year,  if  all  this  was  to  be  taxed  the  state would  receive  anywhere  from  $70  million- $120  million  in  sales  tax (Ammiano, 2009).

The  top  three  uses  reported  by  Californians  for  medical  marijuana; 40%  chronic pain,  22%  AIDS  related,  15%  mood  disorders  and  23%  for  all  other  categories (Justice. Gov, 2008).  The DEA  is  strongly  against  prop  215  because  they  state  that  drug  traffickers  can  easily  hide behind  it.  If  caught  with  marijuana,  drug  traffickers  can  simply  escape  any  type  of prosecution  because  they  have  fake  marijuana  medical  claims.  Prosecutors  refuse  to  make any  attempt  to  charge  these  individuals  because  there  seems  to  be  a  state  of  confusion  in California. It is difficult to determine whether the marijuana is being grown for medical purposes or recreational use, therefore many drug traffickers are set free. Marijuana prohibition has only led to a state of confusion, opening the doors for criminal activity. The ethics that led to marijuana prohibition have led to the opposite of their original intention, creating criminal activity instead of eliminating it.

On  Feb. 3,2009  San  Francisco  assembly  member  Ammiano  introduced  assembly  bill  AB 390,  marijuana  control,  regulation  and  education  act.  The  bill  will  not  only legalize  marijuana  but  also  enable  any  person  over  the  age  21  to  posses  and  sell marijuana.  There  would  be  a  initial  franchise  fee  for  all  growers  and  wholesalers  of $5000  and  to  renew  the  fee  annually  there  would  be  a  $2500  charge  and  would  levy  a $50.00  per  ounce  fee  on  retailers.  If  this  bill  should  pass  it  would  officially  make California  the  first  state  to  legalize  the  use  of  marijuana  for  all  people  not  just  the seriously  ill  patients.  With  all  the  fees  and  taxes  collected  off  of  medical  marijuana  users it  would  dramatically  help  our  state  out  of  the  financial  crises  it  is  in.

Marijuana  usage is  one  of  California’s  largest  agricultural  industries. The fact  that  it  remains  untaxed and  unregulated  does not make either ethical or economical sense. It is a relic of a past misconception that marijuana consumption has no health benefits. Today, we have the benefit of medical science which has showed that marijuana is safer than most prescription drugs which are legal. It is unethical to deny patients access to marijuana just as it is unethical to deny the state the ability to tax and regulate a plant that would be a huge boon to farmers and the state. Legalizing the use of marijuana would be beneficial to us all for the simple fact that the State of California is in dire need of financial help. Unemployment level is at the highest it has ever been. Schools are closing and there are many home foreclosures. The economy is at its worst! By allowing this bill AB 390 to pass it may be the answer to the economic misery California is currently facing. At times like this we must be creative and think outside the box for ideas on how to assist California rise above this financial crises.

Those that favor marijuana prohibition cannot cite solid, scientific studies in order to justify their case since there are none, so instead they often rely on fallacious ad hominem arguments to justify their position. According to philosopher Maruice A. Finocchiaro (15), “a fallacy is defined as a type of common but logically incorrect argument.” In the case of marijuana prohibition, the arguments commonly cited as reasons to allow the criminalization to continue rests on the incorrect assumption that marijuana causes negative health affects on social problems. Many might disagree with this because they feel that marijuana can cause psychological damage or they believe that marijuana can cause an irate change in a person’s behavior. However, this is simply not true it as there have been many scientifically sound studies which have shown the opposite (Gieringer, 1994). “Patients who are terminally ill, suffering from chronic pain, or those dealing with degenerative neurological disorders tend to be most in need of reducing pain, reducing side effects of such treatments as chemotherapy, or even increasing appetite. Patients in this critical state who use marijuana oftentimes report improvements that the typically prescribed medications cannot (Sample, 2010).” Is it ethical to classify these patients in need as degenerates who have succumbed to the devilish powers of marijuana use and subject them to criminal status? Is it ethical to deny those in need access to a medicine that can ease their pain and suffering?

One of the most troubling aspects of the criminalization of marijuana is how it treats those who are caught ingesting or processing what is known as a personal amount of the plant. Marijuana crimes are most often what is known as victimless crimes. These are crimes in which an individuals actions have not caused harm to society, but only harm to himself. Other victimless crimes include prostitution between consenting adults and homosexual activity between consenting adults. The public debate over victimless crimes and whether there is justification for them at all was tackled in an article by Alan Wertheimer. In his article, Victimless Crimes, Wertheimer makes the argument that victimless crimes are justified by paternalism  when “persons cannot be expected to make informed and intelligent decisions about the products they consume (Wertheimer, 1977).” This argument is a typical example of one used by marijuana prohibitionists who claim that it is in the best interest of the individual consuming the drug that they are imprisoned and punished. However, the best scientific evidence today does not justify this argument as marijuana has not been found, scientifically, to cause any of the problems that prohibitionists claim that it causes. Marijuana users are not causing harm to themselves nor to society the live in. Instead, the typical marijuana user faces jail time and heavy fines. This victimless crime not only unjustly penalizes individuals, it also comes with a great economic cost for the state and the federal government, which in this day of financial crisis seems hardly necessary. “Legalizing marijuana  would save $7.7 billion per year in government expenditure on enforcement of prohibition. $5.3 billion of this savings would accrue to state and local governments, while $2.4 billion would accrue to the federal government (Miron, 2005).”

Legalizing  marijuana and creating a system that will effectively regulate and tax it will not only help the individuals suffering from health problems for which marijuana can help, it will be an economic boon. Instead of the government spending billions to punish marijuana users, it will instead bring in billions in revenue. More  jobs  will be created and instead  revenue could be diverted into social programs and even possibly be used to keep more schools from closing due to lack of funds.  The ethical issues of marijuana legalization need to be re-evaluated using a relative perspective. The arguments against marijuana legalization are only relative to the past when there was a lack of good scientific information regarding the effects of marijuana on the body. The moral objections that people hold against marijuana are ones that are fallacious and unfounded. Instead of alleviating social problems, marijuana prohibition only causes them by creating the opportunity for criminal elements to control marijuana distribution, leading to more violence and social ills. Marijuana legalization is an ethical issue that should be re-evaluated by the benefits it brings relative to the most current scientific and social understandings.

References

15 Legal Medical Marijuana States and DC: Laws, Fees and Possession Limits. Medical Marijuana ProCon Online. Retrieved from               http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000881

Buchanan, Wyatt (February, 2006) Ammiano Wants to Make Marijuana Legal in State. Retrieved from http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2009/02/get_up_stand_up_ammiano_introd.php

Conrad,C (1996) Who  Says  You  Can’t  Change  the  World?  Retrieved from  http://www.chrisconrad.com/expert.witness/Prop215

Finocchiaro, Maurice A. (January, 1981). Fallacies and the Evaluation of Reasoning.  American Philosphoical Quarterly 18(1), 13-22.

Gieringer, Dale (1994) Marijuna Health Mythology. Lycaeum Online. Web. Retrieved from http://www.lycaeum.org/paranoia/marijuana/facts/mj-health-mythology.html

United States Department of Justice (2008) Justice Online. Retrieved from http://www.justice.gov/dea/ongoing/calimarijuana.html

Kaufman, Marc (May, 2006) Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuna Connection. Washington Post Online. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729_pf.html

Kirchheimer, Sid (July, 2003) Heavy Marijuana Use Doesn’t Damage Brain. Web MD. Retrieved from http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20030701/heavy-marijuana-use-doesnt-damage-brain

Miron, Jeffrey (June, 2005). The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition. Prohibition Costs Online. Retrieved from             http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/mironreport.html

Sample, Joseph G. (June, 2010) Medical Marijuana Ethics: Part 2. Examiner Online. Retrieved from http://www.examiner.com/health-care-in-des-moines/medical-marijuana-ethics-part-2

Wertheimer, Alan (July, 1977) Victimless Crimes. Ethics 87(4), 302-318.