persuasive essay on drug legalization

• Share full article

Advertisement

The World’s View on Drugs Is Changing. Which Side Are You On?

Should we decriminalize drugs, or legalize.

Today on “The Argument,” is it time to legalize all drugs?

Last November, an overwhelming majority of Oregonians voted to decriminalize most drugs via referendum. Medical marijuana is now legal in Alabama. And in a matter of months, cannabis products could be available to those who qualify.

Truth of the matter is, there’s not nearly been enough evidence that has been acquired as to whether or not it is a gateway drug. And I want a lot more before I legalize it nationally.

President Biden may not be ready for legalized, recreational marijuana, but many states are way ahead of him. Connecticut just became the 18th state to legalize recreational marijuana. And it’s not just weed. Several cities have recently decriminalized magic mushrooms, and Oregon just decriminalized possession of small amounts of all drugs, including heroin, methamphetamines, and cocaine. It seems like the War on Drugs is over and drugs won big. I’m Jane Coaston, and there seems to be more and more consensus that jailing our way out of the addiction crisis in the United States is not working. But even hardcore drug policy reformers have vastly different takes on how we get to a better place with drugs, like our guests today. Ismail Ali is the Policy and Advocacy Director at the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, and Jonathan P. Caulkins is the H. Guyford Stever University Professor of Operations, Research, and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University’s Heinz College, and a member of the National Academy of Engineering. I started out by asking Ismail to define the difference between drug decriminalization and legalization.

So when people think of decriminalization, they’re usually thinking of the reduction or elimination of criminal penalties, sometimes including civil penalties. And legalization tends to be when the law actually is fully recognizing, regulating activity from point A to point Z. So you can decriminalize, for example, personal use and possession. But if every behavior up to that point is still illegal, you have an island of maybe legal or decriminalized behavior in a sea of illegal behavior. So they get through all this illegal behavior to get to the legal behavior. And I think legalization implies a full spectrum, regulated approach to the whole piece.

Ismail, you do think that ultimately the goal would be to legalize all drugs. Why?

I do think that legal, regulated access is likely the best environment for a number of drugs, but I think it’s going to depend very much on the substance itself, and factors that have to do with the supply and demand questions with respect to where and how it’s produced. Not having a legally regulated system puts us in a position where the very, very large and lucrative drug trade, which exists, whether or not there’s a regulated industry, entirely is captured by underground actors with various levels of ethics and morals. And I think that that whole conversation around legal access must also look at — and has looked at, historically — the uptake of all substances in illegal markets, and then the effects of those behaviors. My mother’s family is Colombian, and they left Colombia in the 1980s as a result in part of the massive increase in cocaine violence and cartel use. And that continued underground. Engagement has not really ceased — not just with cocaine, but with a number of other drugs. And even Colombia now is having a very serious conversation at the governmental level about what it would look like to legally regulate cocaine, because — despite pressure from the U.S. and other actors, they have realized that, actually, having some sort of legally regulated system could be the way to reduce the violence in the country. So while I do think that legalizing drugs, which sounds like such a scary thing to a lot of people, really means bringing them under more regulatory control. It’s hard, I think, to really think through what an effective addiction response strategy at the social level would be while we’re under an environment of prohibition, because prohibition does exacerbate some of those secondary effects of drugs, like, for example, addiction independence.

I’m curious as to your thoughts, Jonathan, on decriminalization versus legalization.

These have to be decided drug by drug. Drugs are different. For a long time, we’ve had caffeine be legal. That was probably fine. I don’t think that it’s — one should be cavalier about other substances. Opioids make the point. The prescription opioid crisis was a crisis that killed tens of thousands of people every year for a drug that was highly regulated, much more so than the typical recreational drug. Opioids are intrinsically dangerous, much more so than caffeine or cannabis. It has to be decided on a case by case basis.

I think that that’s something that’s also important to note here, is that, for instance, in Oregon — Oregon just passed Measure 110, which makes possession of small amounts of LSD, methamphetamines, cocaine, and heroin punishable by a civil citation. That is not legalization. That is decriminalization. So I’m interested, Jonathan, can you talk about — when we’re talking about decriminalization, it sounds to me that it is still a civil penalty in Oregon to possess these — crimes. It’s like a traffic ticket, but that’s still a crime-ish.

Yeah, with the ish. The other thing it’s important to say is that, usually, when people talk decriminalization, they’re talking about decriminalizing or changing the consequences for people possessing amounts suitable for personal use. Whereas if you just say legalize, without any qualification, the presumption is you’re legalizing supply. So there is a big difference there. And sometimes it helps to keep them straight by remembering a third term, which is legalizing use. So decriminalization is usually reducing penalties for use so that you don’t have people getting a criminal record for use. Then you can go a step farther, as Ismail was saying, and legalize use, meaning you don’t even get the equivalent of a fine or a traffic ticket. Both of those are very different than legalizing supply.

Jonathan, you made a really fascinating argument in a piece called “The Drug Policy Roulette,” and I’d like you to explain more about this, because it actually was counterintuitive for me, which is — my view was that legalizing drugs would do what the end of Prohibition did for alcohol, which is when you aren’t legally allowed to drink, you can drink all the time. But with the end of Prohibition and with a regulated alcohol market, you have places — you have counties that are dry. You have a liquor store that can only be open from this time to this time. There are prohibitions on drunk driving, and societal prohibitions against when you can — like, drinking in the morning, drinking by yourself, this is looked down on. And I think societal prohibitions play into how we think about using drugs and alcohol anyway. But in the case of drugs, you made the point in this piece that one of the issues that would be unexpected from this is that prohibition makes drugs expensive, and that drugs like heroin and cocaine would actually be pretty cheap to obtain if they were legalized, because a part of what makes them expensive is what’s called compensating wage differentials. Namely, it’s really hard to bring cocaine into the United States. You are paying for the cost of how hard it is to bring cocaine into the United States. But with that price collapse, the taxes required to make it so that you weren’t just having cheap cocaine everywhere would be incredibly high, which would then contribute to the kind of gray market smuggling that we see with cigarette smuggling in the United States and in other countries. This is a financial issue I had never thought about.

Sure. The first point is that prohibition prevents one from producing these things in straightforward ways. None of the drugs are hard to produce. If it was legal and you could allow a regular company to do it, then they become very cheap. You can see that, for instance, just in the price of cocaine in Colombia is about 1 percent or 2 percent what it is in the streets in the United States. And the illegal distribution system effectively charges $15,000 to move a kilogram from Bogota to New York City that would cost $70 on FedEx. So prohibition makes things far more expensive than it would be if they were legal. As a practical matter, there’s no way that we will have taxes high enough to prevent prices from declining substantially. And that is in part because there probably wouldn’t be the political will, but also in part because of practicalities. Drugs are very potent in the sense that it doesn’t take very much material. A daily cannabis user using one and a half grams a day consumes only a little more than a pound over a year, about the same weight as one 20 ounce can of beer. So we just can’t effectively collect very high taxes on these easy to smuggle commodities.

Yeah, and many people have talked now for some years about this concept, the Iron Law of Prohibition, which maybe it would be good to bring in here, which is essentially the idea that because smuggling is such a lucrative activity, and because smuggling smaller things, more concentrated substances is easier, it actually incentivizes higher concentrations of substances to be taken across borders. So for example, if you want to take enough heroin for 500 people, you need a trunk of a car. If you want to take enough fentanyl for 500 people, you need something about the size of your phone or maybe much, much, much smaller. So there might be the case where as smuggling gets more difficult, it’s actually incentivizing higher concentrations of drugs, because it’s easier to smuggle those drugs as opposed to ones that take up more physical space.

Well, we should unpack this, though. I mean, the movement from heroin to fentanyl is not a response to a change in the legal status of either substance. But the Iron Law of Prohibition has been completely refuted by the experience with cannabis legalization. It’s the iron law that holds no water. Cannabis did not exceed average potency of 5 percent until 2000, and now it’s — typical flower potency in a legal stores is over 20 percent. And we now have common use of vapes and dabs, which are much more potent than that. So the Iron Law of Prohibition has just been disproved by experience with cannabis legalization.

I’d probably push back on that a bit, because cannabis is also produced in state. We’re not talking as much about taking things across borders, but the big difference is that with a lot of cannabis products, they’re being produced at the place or near the place they’re being used, which is different from things that are crossing international borders.

The weight of drugs doesn’t matter much at all after they are legal, because the weight is so small. Again, I make reference this —

Yeah, no. I agree after they are legal, for sure.

So it doesn’t matter that at the moment we’re in this weird situation where we have a bunch of state specific markets. That’s a temporary artifact of the fact that there’s not yet national legalization. Once there’s national legalization, we can no longer have these state specific markets because of the Interstate Commerce Clause in the Constitution.

Jonathan, you brought up the opioid crisis. And I think that there have been a host of people who’ve written on how they used to support drug legalization. And the opioid epidemic and how it took place changed their minds. And I want to point to a great piece — my former colleague at Vox, German Lopez, wrote about this, where he said that essentially with opioids, you had companies that got a hold of a product. They marketed it irresponsibly and lobbied for lax rules in influencing government, and people died. As he points out, the United States historically is very bad at regulating drugs. Ismail, does the experience of the opioid epidemic — has that changed your viewpoint on what legalization would look like?

No, because I don’t see legalization as only a question of the regulations that have to do with the drug. I think that there are factors beyond just the way opioids are regulated and are regulated that has to do with why there’s a crisis today. And I actually personally tend to frame it as an overdose crisis. I do think opioids are a big part of that. But if you’ve been following the numbers for the last couple of years, it’s absolutely the case that overdoses with methamphetamine and other drugs are also extremely intensely increasing. And the way that, as you said, a certain framework of pharmaceutical regulation has operated with certain opioids is such a good example of what I imagine legalization to be. Like, I think if I were putting together a thinking through with people — what would be an ideal legalization scheme? And I really agree with what Jonathan said, where it’s a case by case basis. And there may be drugs that don’t need or shouldn’t have fully legally regulated systems, and maybe decriminalization is the appropriate environment for that. And maybe decriminalization of certain kinds of behaviors — and I think one really good example that feels like it’s at the center of this is this question about advertising and marketing. I think that what companies are allowed to say, what claims they’re allowed to make, how they’re allowed to advertise, what expectations are setting with consumers — those factors are pretty significant. That’s not to say that if there wasn’t the aggressive marketing campaign with some of these opioids that we’d be in the same or a different position today. It’s really difficult to tell. It’s a system that has been highly affected by interests that are not in that of the consumer, not in the interest of the public. When society was flooded with cigarette ads, a lot of people started smoking more cigarettes. That’s not — and of course, there’s a risk to smoking cigarettes. But to me, that’s an artificial pressure that comes from the market and its incentives. And I think that once you take out some of those things to the extent that that’s possible in a legal market, you might actually be able to adjust some of those outcomes.

But I think that’s the point. It’s easy to imagine an ideal legalization, but that’s not what we’re going to get. We’re going to get the legalization that comes out of our political process and institutions. And marketing is the concrete example. Once a product is legalized, the companies that produce it will enjoy First Amendment commercial free speech protections that will allow them to market.

Should they?

It doesn’t matter whether they should or should not. In the United States, under our Constitution, which protects commercial free speech, they will. In another country, with a different constitution, the government would have greater power to restrict advertising. Many of the current restrictions on cannabis advertising only are constitutional because it is still illegal under federal law.

Yeah, I spent a brief time looking at some of the ads that were made for OxyContin. And there’s one that says that, when you know acetaminophen won’t be enough, OxyContin 12 Hour — which is, like, acetaminophen is Tylenol. And going from Tylenol to OxyContin is a real — it’s a real leap. But I think that gets to something I’m curious about — because the United States has been a leader in determining the control of drug trade and practice, Jonathan, how do you think hypothetically that a legalization or decriminalization would impact international markets? Do you think that there would be a collapse in the price, internationally, of cocaine or heroin? What would that even look like?

Yeah, it’s a great question. And sort of the short answer is that in any place that legalizes and allows for profit industry, you’re going to see a price collapse. And because these things are so easy to smuggle, that would put downward pressure on other countries that are connected commercially to the country that legalized. And in an interconnected world, that’s a lot of places. You’re seeing some of this already, even without legalization, from the switch to synthetics which can be produced anywhere and are easier to produce surreptitiously than with crop based products. And legalization would be a little bit like the innovation of fentanyl coming into the market. It would greatly reduce the cost of production. And over time, that puts downward pressure on prices.

Ismail, I know that your organization has been thinking a lot about this with regard to psychedelics, so whether that’s LSD, whether that’s the use with MDMA in Oregon and other places, psychedelics and the use of psychedelics is getting increasing state support. The California State Senate in June of this year passed a bill that would legalize the social sharing and possession and use of psychedelics. It’s something that’s coming around. What does that look like, and how has your organization participated in that conversation?

Yeah, a couple of things. So I work for the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, which was founded in 1986 after MDMA was criminalized in an emergency scheduling decision by the D.E.A. MDMA — best known as the active ingredient in ecstasy. It’s now— through MAPS and the Public Benefit Corporation, which we work with — in that entity is taking MDMA through the F.D.A. process, with the intention of having it recognized as a prescription medicine. But while we’re focusing primarily on MDMA, it’s absolutely the case that one of the large goals and kind of value systems that MAPS has utilized over the last 35 years is toward legal, regulated access for psychedelic substances, and specifically, in a legal, medical, or cultural context. And while my personal perspective on this does have to do with really shifting drug laws for all of the substances involved, it is absolutely true that psychedelics are experiencing a kind of like zeitgeist, or some sort of like resurgence in society, now that we have a couple of decades of solid clinical and observational data, you know, depending on the substance, depending on the environment, that show that they may have benefits for certain people in certain mental health contexts. That’s happening simultaneously to this renewed awareness of the spiritual use of some of these substances in certain contexts, which regulatory and structurally speaking, looks very different from like a medicalized, or like, a medical adjacent system. So you mentioned Measure 110 in Oregon. At the same time, Oregon also passed Measure 109, which is a legal psilocybin services system, and psilocybin being the active ingredient in what people call magic mushrooms. And that’s relevant, because it’s actually the first legalized, or attempt at a legalized regulated system for access to one of these substances aside from cannabis. And I’ll just say — to kind of close this thought — that psychedelics are an interesting bridge, because while I think some people want them to be the silver bullet for mental health. And they have all these benefits, and it’s certainly true that for certain people and in certain contexts, they do have tremendous benefit. But they do come with risks. And the thing about psychedelics is that they’re actually more known for their psychological risks as opposed to their physical risks.

And that’s a really interesting thing, because it brings up how we actually navigate and handle mental health in the United States.

I want to push back very lightly on that, because I think that when — in D.C., the language around the decriminalization of mushrooms, which I supported, it very much implied that not only should mushrooms be decriminalized, but that you should do them.

I think that this gets into the question of — we don’t necessarily exist in the ideal regulatory and cultural marketplace for legalized psychedelics or legalized drugs in general. And I’m curious as to how you’re thinking about how, yes, it would be fantastic if these drugs would be used in these safe contexts, in these — whether secular or religious ceremonies, or with the right groups of people. But they won’t be. And I’m curious how you’re thinking about this.

Well, this brings me to the question of education, which we haven’t touched on too much in this conversation yet. I think that the current legal status of psychedelics has — and all drugs - has significantly warped the education that people receive about them. I was part of the DARE generation, and when I learned that —

Oh, I was too.

I was too. Some would say it did not prove effective.

Totally. Do you remember the doobies with the big googly eyes, like, they’re going to come get you. Like, when I learned that methamphetamine and marijuana were not the same, that were they were not equally dangerous, which is what I was taught in sixth grade, I experienced a big rupture where I actually — it was probably the beginning for me of beginning to really doubt what education I was receiving, not just about drugs, but about other things in general. And I would say now, especially looking back at what feels like propaganda for the drug war, it makes it really difficult to trust what kind of education and information people are getting. So to answer your question, you’re right. There’s absolutely no way to control the way people use drugs. Like, there’s no guarantee that even with the best regulatory system and the best policy in every way, people will use them the way that we want every time. However, I do think that stigma and misinformation and drug hysteria contributes to people using drugs in less educated ways. And that’s not to say that more information would fix the overdose crisis. It would not fix a lot of these issues with addiction. But I do think that with psychedelics specifically and especially, better education about the environment would make quite a big difference. One of the most persuasive things I can say when I’m doing advocacy work around psychedelics is that psychedelic therapy is not that fun. I mean, it is true that people can have super ecstatic and joyous experiences with psychedelics, but psychedelic therapy as a treatment modality is actually quite challenging. And dealing with one’s own internalized trauma is not a particularly fun process. It’s not something you want to do at a festival surrounded by your friends. You want to do it in a safe place, maybe with a blanket and some chill music going on, in a room where you can do that with people who you can trust. So it’s — a lot of that has to do with the environment that people are in. And because all psychedelics are equally illegal and you can’t do them anywhere, then that means you can do them anywhere, you know.

Yeah, when you’re surrounded by 90,000 people, it’s maybe not the best time to maybe encounter God.

On the psychedelics, the people who are optimistic about legalization are often very optimistic about the potential of education. My caution is when you allow a for profit industry, a lot of the education, quote unquote, is going to be provided by the industry. You referred earlier to — I may get the details wrong, but I think it might have been a Purdue advertisement that said when Tylenol is not enough, take Oxy. I mean, I don’t have the details right, but that is them trying to educate you about the right — in their mind — set and setting for drug use, not for your benefit, but for their profits’ benefit. Legalizing supply is night and day different than just decriminalizing. The power of the market that is unleashed when you create corporations that make money by inducing greater use of their product, coupled with — intrinsically, some of these products are appealing or addictive — that’s a potent combination we need to be very careful about.

Hi, Jane. My name is Blake and I live in Boston. One thought that’s been occupying my mind, and something I talked to my dad and family about, is on cryptocurrency — in particular, Bitcoin. And I guess one thing that I’ve been struggling with is trying to determine whether I believe it’s something that’s going to stick around or if it’s just a fad. It’s been really hard for me to find sources that are objective and look at both sides of the coin, no pun intended there. Thanks so much. Take care.

Hi Blake. Well, I have a lot of thoughts on cryptocurrency, but I think the question isn’t it a fad, or is it something that’s going to stick around forever, because the answer to both of those can be yes. I don’t think cryptocurrency is going to save the world. I also think that it’s going to be around for a long time. And it’s something that I’d like to learn more about. But I have a feeling that both sides tend to overstate either the importance or the lack of importance of cryptocurrency. That seems to be how this kind of thing goes.

What are you arguing about with your family, your friends, your frenemies? Tell me about the big debate you’re having in a voicemail by calling 347-915-4324, and we might play an excerpt of it on a future episode. Jonathan, can you talk a little bit about overdoses and the potential health impacts?

Opioids are particularly dangerous in terms of overdose risk, but what makes them less problematic because we do have pharmacological therapies for them, methadone being the original and most famous — perhaps buprenorphine. We do not have anything like that in terms of pharmacotherapies for the common stimulants. And it makes a difference, because if you’re going to legalize — particularly legalize supply, allow for profit companies to promote the use, you’re going to get more use. You’ll get more dependence. And it’s a very different thing. If you are choosing policies that promote dependence to something for which there is no real effective treatment, as opposed to opioids — it’s not that opioids are gentle, but we do at least have a treatment.

Ismail, how do we think about recovery, and how do we think about the aftershocks of legalization? I’m just curious how you think about addiction in this conversation.

Yeah, I have what might be a slightly unpopular opinion, especially in today’s time. Like, addiction itself — let’s say, like, drug dependency, to be a little more specific — itself, I don’t necessarily see as a social harm or a social bad. I think that a lot of people manage a lot of addictions totally fine, regularly, because it’s not disruptive to them, because they have access to a safe supply of what it is that they’re addicted to. Of course, the effects of a caffeine addiction or caffeine dependency are significantly less dramatic and less likely to cause some sort of antisocial behavior than a withdrawal from a different substance. But I think that what both Jonathan and you have mentioned, Jane, that I think is more relevant, has to do with the consequences and the secondary effects — of course, on the individual, but especially on society. Alcohol is a great example, because we do have what people would consider a safe supply of alcohol. It’s a regulated product with tons and tons of social externalities that are still there. The difference is that the purchase, the manufacture, the use of alcohol — if criminalized, I believe, would make our current alcohol related issues worse. But I do think that the big difference with other substances is that because they’re criminalized, you have all of those effects, those secondary antisocial effects of dependence or antisocial use, et cetera. And you have the additional layer of criminalization for the use itself. I’m curious about — especially Jonathan’s perspective on this, because there are examples where certain countries like Switzerland are using heroin to manage heroin addiction. Right, they’re actually allowing people to have a safe, consistent supply of heroin. In places like Portugal and Spain, you have a huge percentage of people who were on heroin in the ‘80s and ‘90s who’ve transitioned onto methadone, and are still on methadone decades later. But they’re able to have jobs. They’re able to have families. They’re able to do x, y, z — so.

I think this gets right to the heart of where you and I differ, if I may. I mean, on the last — we had legal supply of prescription opioids and still had a lot of overdoses. There’s no question that an inconsistent supply exacerbates the problem. But I don’t think legal supply of opioids would eliminate overdoses. But to be more fundamental about it, you and I differ on whether or not legal supply necessarily can stabilize a person who is dependent on the substance. To me, that’s substance specific. Caffeine and nicotine are two drugs for which if you have legal supply that is not adulterated and so on, the person can function in everyday life just fine, even if they are dependent. But for the stimulants — crack, methamphetamine, and for alcohol, just providing abundant amounts of unadulterated, free supply does not let those people stabilize their lives. And that has terrible repercussions for them and their families.

Yeah and I would just — to clarify, I don’t necessarily think that an uninterrupted, as much as you want, supply of any drug is going to be good for everyone. Like, I —

Well, that’s what for profit companies are going to want to supply if we legalize.

But there is nuance there. But my question — actually, back to you is — I wonder about your thoughts about why there hasn’t been the same — because while there is a tremendous amount of methamphetamine use, it’s not the case as far as I understand that the increase in methamphetamine use is a result of increased, for example, prescribing of dexamphetamine or other amphetamine analogs that are legal for various treatments, whereas you do see a little bit more of that shift from prescription opioids to underground use of opiates with that market. So I hear what you’re saying. And it seems to be the case that a regulated, safe supply of something like Adderall actually doesn’t have the same effect as in bringing people into a super unregulated, dangerous, unadulterated market in the same way you see with opioids. And it’s true that we also don’t have the pharmaceutical interventions for stimulants as we do with opioids, but I wonder what makes that different. Why are people going to meth in that way versus the other?

Yes, stimulants is a broad category. And some of them are tougher than others. I mean, at some level caffeine is a stimulant, but it’s not a very powerful one, to speak informally, whereas methamphetamine definitely is. Adderall is more on the caffeine end of the spectrum, blessedly, although there is actually some diversion of Adderall. But it’s a different feel. This is like somebody with access to Adderall selling it or giving it to their friend in college to help them study, because they think it’s going to be a performance enhancing smart drug. But on the whole —

I’ve never I’ve never heard of that happening, ever — definitely don’t know anything about that.

Adderall’s worth talking about for a minute here, because it does illustrate the phenomenon that — the trick with providing generous supply to some people is, in part, can they make money by diverting it to other people — money, or do favors for friends. The prescription opioids got out of control for a whole bunch of reasons, many reasons. But one of them was the fact that there was already this value in the illegal market. And you also could seek a prescription based on symptoms that could not be objectively assessed by the clinician. And that combination was a problem. You could show up and say, oh, my back hurts a lot. Give me these things for the cost of a co-pay, and I can turn around and sell them for a lot of money. We’re going to always be vulnerable if you, through the medical system, provide subsidized access to anything for which there is demand in the illegal market. And Adderall does have that character. It just fortunately is nowhere near as bad for you, or risk of overdose, as the opioids were.

Yeah, or meth. I hear that. That makes a lot of sense, and I appreciate that answer. And also I think that the other factor, especially with regulated stimulants — and this is, I think also one of the questions with respect to regulations in general, which is method of administration. Because I do think that the fact that you don’t have smokable amphetamines or injectable amphetamines through regulated system also means that people who are accessing it through a regulated market tend to be doing it in a way that’s not going to have the same super rapid onset, and then related withdrawal, et cetera that you might have with methamphetamine use or other related things.

Yeah, I’ll agree with that. And then it’s also location of administration. So cocaine is available as a medicine. It turns out to be a vasoconstrictor and topical anesthetic that’s useful in minor surgeries. We have no problem with diversion of medical cocaine to illegal markets, because it’s only used inside the medical facility, administered by the clinician. So if we were to talk about, like, psychedelics used by a psychiatrist, on site, under supervision, that sort of medical use would have next to no risk of diversion to a market. But if we were ever to say to somebody, here are two pills a day for the next month. Take them home, do what you want with them. Then, there’s much greater risk of some of those being diverted into the market.

Yeah, and just to clarify — the way that psychedelics are being incorporated into health care now, it’s more like a procedure or a surgery than it is like other psychiatric interventions, where it actually is in the presence of a therapist or a psychiatrist or someone who has specific training to work with both these altered states of consciousness as well with the substances themselves.

Jonathan, I’m curious. Are we asking some of the wrong questions about consumption and distribution if we’re thinking about something as big as what decriminalization or legalization of substances beyond marijuana would look like?

Well, first of all, the bigness of decriminalize and legalize are very, very different. Decriminalization would be a big change, but it’s not a change the world. Legalization of supply, that’s totally different. You said that’s a big shake up. It’s a once in a century event. I would just stress — it’s a once and for all time event. Once you create a legal industry, it’s going to be really hard to get rid of it. When you create a legal industry, you create a powerful lobbying force. One of the challenges we have is regulatory capture. It’s already starting with cannabis. We haven’t even gotten to national legalization yet. But you just presume- - if you’re going to legalize supply of something, presume that there will be regulatory capture, presume you will never go back. And presume that a lot of the regulations are actually going to be shaped by what’s in the industry interests much more so than public health. Public health doesn’t tend to win in the lobbying battles against industry.

I totally agree that legalizing drugs, legalizing supply would be a generational event. It would be a massive, massive shift in the way things are done — even though, as I like to remind people, drugs were legal and traded until about 100 years ago. And it was US pressure on international actors that really brought us into the realm of prohibition that we have now — among others, because even large colonial powers, the Dutch and the English and others, were very happily trading a lot of these drugs for a long time before prohibition in its current form existed. So I also think that we are in a new paradigm in the sense that people have much more awareness and a willingness to talk through the stigma around the dependency and addiction and so on. And that does give me hope, that as we look at these questions around advertising and marketing and so on, that maybe it is possible that these public health perspectives could be better considered. I hope that our experience with tobacco and with opioids could lead to a more rational drug policy with respect to legal access of other substances. That could be naively optimistic, but I feel like as a policy reform advocate, if I’m not somewhat optimistic, then there’s really no point to going forward. And I think it’s really good to have some level of possibility for what there could be beyond where — we currently are.

I admire that optimism. I’m usually the one who’s accused of being optimistic. Compared to you, I guess I’m the jaded, cynical one. We’ll see.

Jonathan, Ismail, thank you so much for joining me. And I really appreciated this conversation.

Good. It was a joy to be here.

Thanks so much, Jonathan. Thank you so much, Jane.

Ismail Ali is a Policy and Advocacy Director at the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies. Jonathan P. Caulkins is the H. Guyford Stever University Professor of Operations, Research, and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University’s Heinz College, and a member of the National Academy of Engineering. If you want to learn more about drug policy of the United States, I recommend “Is There A Case For Legalizing Heroin” by Benjamin Wallace-Wells in The New Yorker, published in April of 2021. For the other side, you can read “The Drug Policy Roulette” by Jonathan P. Caulkins and Michael A.C. Lee in the National Affairs Summer 2012 edition. And listen to “Michael Pollan’s ‘Trip Report,’” an episode on The New York Times opinion podcast “Sway.” You can find links to all of these in our episode notes.

“The Argument” is a production of New York Times opinion. It’s produced by Phoebe Lett, Elisa Gutierrez, and Vishakha Darbha, edited by Alison Bruzek and Sarah Geis, with original music and sound design by Isaac Jones. Additional engineering by Carole Sabouraud, and additional mixing by Sonia Herrero. Fact checking by Kate Sinclair, and audience strategy by Shannon Busta. Special thanks this week to Kristin Lin.

• Apple Podcasts
• Google Podcasts

Produced by ‘The Argument’

Medical marijuana is now legal in more than half of the country . The cities of Denver, Seattle , Washington and Oakland, Calif., have also decriminalized psilocybin (the psychedelic element in “magic mushrooms”). Oregon went one step further, decriminalizing all drugs in small quantities, including heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine.

Attitudes toward drugs have changed considerably over the years. But the question of whether all drugs should be legalized continues to be contentious. How much have attitudes toward illegal drugs changed? And why?

[You can listen to this episode of “The Argument” on Apple , Spotify or Google or wherever you get your podcasts .]

This week, Jane Coaston talks to Ismail Ali, the policy and advocacy director for the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, and Jonathan P. Caulkins, a professor of operations research and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University’s Heinz College, about the pros and cons of legalizing all drugs.

Mentioned in this episode:

“ Is there a Case for Legalizing Heroin? ” by Benjamin Wallace-Wells in The New Yorker

“ The Drug-Policy Roulette ” by Jonathan P. Caulkins and Michael A.C. Lee in the National Affairs Summer 2012 edition

“ Michael Pollan’s ‘Trip Report,’ ” on The New York Times Opinion podcast “Sway”

(A full transcript of the episode will be available midday on the Times website.)

Thoughts? Email us at [email protected] or leave us a voice mail message at (347) 915-4324. We want to hear what you’re arguing about with your family, your friends and your frenemies. (We may use excerpts from your message in a future episode.)

By leaving us a message, you are agreeing to be governed by our reader submission terms and agreeing that we may use and allow others to use your name, voice and message.

“The Argument” is produced by Phoebe Lett, Elisa Gutierrez and Vishakha Darbha and edited by Alison Bruzek and Sarah Geis; fact-checking by Kate Sinclair; music and sound design by Isaac Jones; mixing by Sonia Herrero, and audience strategy by Shannon Busta. Special thanks to Kristin Lin.

• Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
• Biostatistics
• Environmental Health and Engineering
• Epidemiology
• Health Policy and Management
• Health, Behavior and Society
• International Health
• Mental Health
• Molecular Microbiology and Immunology
• Population, Family and Reproductive Health
• Program Finder
• Admissions Services
• Course Directory
• Academic Calendar
• Hybrid Campus
• Lecture Series
• Convocation
• Strategy and Development
• Implementation and Impact
• Integrity and Oversight
• In the School
• In the Field
• In Baltimore
• Resources for Practitioners
• Articles & News Releases
• In The News
• Statements & Announcements
• At a Glance
• Student Life
• Strategic Priorities
• Inclusion, Diversity, Anti-Racism, and Equity (IDARE)
• What is Public Health?

The Evidence—and Lack Thereof—About Cannabis

Research is still needed on cannabis’s risks and benefits. 

Lindsay Smith Rogers

Although the use and possession of cannabis is illegal under federal law, medicinal and recreational cannabis use has become increasingly widespread.

Thirty-eight states and Washington, D.C., have legalized medical cannabis, while 23 states and D.C. have legalized recreational use. Cannabis legalization has benefits, such as removing the product from the illegal market so it can be taxed and regulated, but science is still trying to catch up as social norms evolve and different products become available. 

In this Q&A, adapted from the August 25 episode of Public Health On Call , Lindsay Smith Rogers talks with Johannes Thrul, PhD, MS , associate professor of Mental Health , about cannabis as medicine, potential risks involved with its use, and what research is showing about its safety and efficacy. 

Do you think medicinal cannabis paved the way for legalization of recreational use?

The momentum has been clear for a few years now. California was the first to legalize it for medical reasons [in 1996]. Washington and Colorado were the first states to legalize recreational use back in 2012. You see one state after another changing their laws, and over time, you see a change in social norms. It's clear from the national surveys that people are becoming more and more in favor of cannabis legalization. That started with medical use, and has now continued into recreational use.

But there is a murky differentiation between medical and recreational cannabis. I think a lot of people are using cannabis to self-medicate. It's not like a medication you get prescribed for a very narrow symptom or a specific disease. Anyone with a medical cannabis prescription, or who meets the age limit for recreational cannabis, can purchase it. Then what they use it for is really all over the place—maybe because it makes them feel good, or because it helps them deal with certain symptoms, diseases, and disorders.

Does cannabis have viable medicinal uses?

The evidence is mixed at this point. There hasn’t been a lot of funding going into testing cannabis in a rigorous way. There is more evidence for certain indications than for others, like CBD for seizures—one of the first indications that cannabis was approved for. And THC has been used effectively for things like nausea and appetite for people with cancer.

There are other indications where the evidence is a lot more mixed. For example, pain—one of the main reasons that people report for using cannabis. When we talk to patients, they say cannabis improved their quality of life. In the big studies that have been done so far, there are some indications from animal models that cannabis might help [with pain]. When we look at human studies, it's very much a mixed bag. 

And, when we say cannabis, in a way it's a misnomer because cannabis is so many things. We have different cannabinoids and different concentrations of different cannabinoids. The main cannabinoids that are being studied are THC and CBD, but there are dozens of other minor cannabinoids and terpenes in cannabis products, all of varying concentrations. And then you also have a lot of different routes of administration available. You can smoke, vape, take edibles, use tinctures and topicals. When you think about the explosion of all of the different combinations of different products and different routes of administration, it tells you how complicated it gets to study this in a rigorous way. You almost need a randomized trial for every single one of those and then for every single indication.

What do we know about the risks of marijuana use?  

Cannabis use disorder is a legitimate disorder in the DSM. There are, unfortunately, a lot of people who develop a problematic use of cannabis. We know there are risks for mental health consequences. The evidence is probably the strongest that if you have a family history of psychosis or schizophrenia, using cannabis early in adolescence is not the best idea. We know cannabis can trigger psychotic symptoms and potentially longer lasting problems with psychosis and schizophrenia. 

It is hard to study, because you also don't know if people are medicating early negative symptoms of schizophrenia. They wouldn't necessarily have a diagnosis yet, but maybe cannabis helps them to deal with negative symptoms, and then they develop psychosis. There is also some evidence that there could be something going on with the impact of cannabis on the developing brain that could prime you to be at greater risk of using other substances later down the road, or finding the use of other substances more reinforcing. 

What benefits do you see to legalization?

When we look at the public health landscape and the effect of legislation, in this case legalization, one of the big benefits is taking cannabis out of the underground illegal market. Taking cannabis out of that particular space is a great idea. You're taking it out of the illegal market and giving it to legitimate businesses where there is going to be oversight and testing of products, so you know what you're getting. And these products undergo quality control and are labeled. Those labels so far are a bit variable, but at least we're getting there. If you're picking up cannabis at the street corner, you have no idea what's in it. 

And we know that drug laws in general have been used to criminalize communities of color and minorities. Legalizing cannabis [can help] reduce the overpolicing of these populations.

What big questions about cannabis would you most like to see answered?

We know there are certain, most-often-mentioned conditions that people are already using medical cannabis for: pain, insomnia, anxiety, and PTSD. We really need to improve the evidence base for those. I think clinical trials for different cannabis products for those conditions are warranted.

Another question is, now that the states are getting more tax revenue from cannabis sales, what are they doing with that money? If you look at tobacco legislation, for example, certain states have required that those funds get used for research on those particular issues. To me, that would be a very good use of the tax revenue that is now coming in. We know, for example, that there’s a lot more tax revenue now that Maryland has legalized recreational use. Maryland could really step up here and help provide some of that evidence.

Are there studies looking into the risks you mentioned?

Large national studies are done every year or every other year to collect data, so we already have a pretty good sense of the prevalence of cannabis use disorder. Obviously, we'll keep tracking that to see if those numbers increase, for example, in states that are legalizing. But, you wouldn't necessarily expect to see an uptick in cannabis use disorder a month after legalization. The evidence from states that have legalized it has not demonstrated that we might all of a sudden see an increase in psychosis or in cannabis use disorder. This happens slowly over time with a change in social norms and availability, and potentially also with a change in marketing. And, with increasing use of an addictive substance, you will see over time a potential increase in problematic use and then also an increase in use disorder.

If you're interested in seeing if cannabis is right for you, is this something you can talk to your doctor about?

I think your mileage may vary there with how much your doctor is comfortable and knows about it. It's still relatively fringe. That will very much depend on who you talk to. But I think as providers and professionals, everybody needs to learn more about this, because patients are going to ask no matter what.

Lindsay Smith Rogers, MA, is the producer of the Public Health On Call podcast , an editor for Expert Insights , and the director of content strategy for the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

Could Medical Marijuana Help Address the Opioid Epidemic?

Policy Is Public Health

Medical Marijuana Laws Linked to Health and Labor Supply Benefits in Older Adults

Related Content

How a Video Game Community Became a Mental Health Support System for Military Veterans

What is Public Mental Health?

New Center Provides Resources for HIV-Related Stigma Research

U.S. Global Mental Health Alliance Hosts Congressional Briefing

More Than One-Third of Adults with Medical Debt and Depression or Anxiety Delayed Mental Health Care in Previous 12 Months

2018 Theses Doctoral

Essays on Cannabis Legalization

Thomas, Danna Kang

Though the drug remains illegal at the federal level, in recent years states and localities have increasingly liberalized their marijuana laws in order to generate tax revenue and save resources on marijuana law enforcement. Many states have adopted some form of medical marijuana and/or marijuana decriminalization laws, and as of 2017, Washington, Colorado, Maine, California, Oregon, Massachusetts, Nevada, Alaska, and the District of Columbia have all legalized marijuana for recreational use. In 2016 recreational marijuana generated over $1.8 billion in sales. Hence, studying marijuana reforms and the policies and outcomes of early recreational marijuana adopters is an important area of research. However, perhaps due to the fact that legalized recreational cannabis is a recent phenomenon, a scarcity of research exists on the impacts of recreational cannabis legalization and the efficacy and efficiency of cannabis regulation. This dissertation aims to fill this gap, using the Washington recreational marijuana market as the primary setting to study cannabis legalization in the United States. Of first order importance in the regulation of sin goods such as cannabis is quantifying the value of the marginal damages of negative externalities. Hence, Chapter 1 (co-authored with Lin Tian) explores the impact of marijuana dispensary location on neighborhood property values, exploiting plausibly exogenous variation in marijuana retailer location. Policymakers and advocates have long expressed concerns that the positive effects of the legalization--e.g., increases in tax revenue--are well spread spatially, but the negative effects are highly localized through channels such as crime. Hence, we use changes in property values to measure individuals' willingness to pay to avoid localized externalities caused by the arrival of marijuana dispensaries. Our key identification strategy is to compare changes in housing sales around winners and losers in a lottery for recreational marijuana retail licenses. (Due to location restrictions, license applicants were required to provide an address of where they would like to locate.) Hence, we have the locations of both actual entrants and potential entrants, which provides a natural difference-in-differences set-up. Using data from King County, Washington, we find an almost 2.4% decrease in the value of properties within a 0.5 mile radius of an entrant, a $9,400 decline in median property values. The aforementioned retail license lottery was used to distribute licenses due to a license quota. Retail license quotas are often used by states to regulate entry into sin goods markets as quotas can restrict consumption by decreasing access and by reducing competition (and, therefore, increasing markups). However, license quotas also create allocative inefficiency. For example, license quotas are often based on the population of a city or county. Hence, licenses are not necessarily allocated to the areas where they offer the highest marginal benefit. Moreover, as seen in the case of the Washington recreational marijuana market, licenses are often distributed via lottery, meaning that in the absence of an efficiency secondary market for licenses, the license recipients are not necessarily the most efficient potential entrants. This allocative inefficiency is generated by heterogeneity in firms and consumers. Therefore, in Chapter 2, I develop a model of demand and firm pricing in order to investigate firm-level heterogeneity and inefficiency. Demand is differentiated by geography and incorporates consumer demographics. I estimate this demand model using data on firm sales from Washington. Utilizing the estimates and firm pricing model, I back out a non-parametric distribution of firm variable costs. These variable costs differ by product and firm and provide a measure of firm inefficiency. I find that variable costs have lower inventory turnover; hence, randomly choosing entrants in a lottery could be a large contributor to allocative inefficiency. Chapter 3 explores the sources of allocative inefficiency in license distribution in the Washington recreational marijuana market. A difficulty in studying the welfare effects of license quotas is finding credible counterfactuals of unrestricted entry. Therefore, I take a structural approach: I first develop a three stage model that endogenizes firm entry and incorporates the spatial demand and pricing model discussed in Chapter 2. Using the estimates of the demand and pricing model, I estimate firms' fixed costs and use data on locations of those potential entrants that did not win Washington's retail license lottery to simulate counterfactual entry patterns. I find that allowing firms to enter freely at Washington's current marijuana tax rate increases total surplus by 21.5% relative to a baseline simulation of Washington's license quota regime. Geographic misallocation and random allocation of licenses account for 6.6\% and 65.9\% of this difference, respectively. Moreover, as the primary objective of these quotas is to mitigate the negative externalities of marijuana consumption, I study alternative state tax policies that directly control for the marginal damages of marijuana consumption. Free entry with tax rates that keep the quantity of marijuana or THC consumed equal to baseline consumption increases welfare by 6.9% and 11.7%, respectively. I also explore the possibility of heterogeneous marginal damages of consumption across geography, backing out the non-uniform sales tax across geography that is consistent with Washington's license quota policy. Free entry with a non-uniform sales tax increases efficiency by over 7% relative to the baseline simulation of license quotas due to improvements in license allocation.

• Cannabis--Law and legislation
• Marijuana industry
• Drug legalization
• Drugs--Economic aspects

More About This Work

• DOI Copy DOI to clipboard

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Most Americans Favor Legalizing Marijuana for Medical, Recreational Use

Legalizing recreational marijuana viewed as good for local economies; mixed views of impact on drug use, community safety, table of contents.

• The impact of legalizing marijuana for recreational use
• Partisan differences on impact of recreational use of marijuana
• Demographic, partisan differences in views of marijuana legalization
• Views of marijuana legalization vary by age within both parties
• Views of the effects of legalizing recreational marijuana among racial and ethnic groups
• Wide age gap on views of impact of legalizing recreational marijuana
• Acknowledgments
• The American Trends Panel survey methodology

Pew Research Center conducted this study to understand the public’s views about the legalization of marijuana in the United States. For this analysis, we surveyed 5,140 adults from Jan. 16 to Jan. 21, 2024. Everyone who took part in this survey is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATP’s methodology .

Here are the questions used for the report and its methodology .

As more states pass laws legalizing marijuana for recreational use , Americans continue to favor legalization of both medical and recreational use of the drug.

An overwhelming share of U.S. adults (88%) say marijuana should be legal for medical or recreational use.

Nearly six-in-ten Americans (57%) say that marijuana should be legal for medical and recreational purposes, while roughly a third (32%) say that marijuana should be legal for medical use only.

Just 11% of Americans say that the drug should not be legal at all.

Opinions about marijuana legalization have changed little over the past five years, according to the Pew Research Center survey, conducted Jan. 16-21, 2024, among 5,14o adults.

While a majority of Americans continue to say marijuana should be legal , there are varying views about the impacts of recreational legalization.

About half of Americans (52%) say that legalizing the recreational use of marijuana is good for local economies; just 17% think it is bad and 29% say it has no impact.

More adults also say legalizing marijuana for recreational use makes the criminal justice system more fair (42%) than less fair (18%); 38% say it has no impact.

However, Americans have mixed views on the impact of legalizing marijuana for recreational use on:

• Use of other drugs: About as many say it increases (29%) as say it decreases (27%) the use of other drugs, like heroin, fentanyl and cocaine (42% say it has no impact).
• Community safety: More Americans say legalizing recreational marijuana makes communities less safe (34%) than say it makes them safer (21%); 44% say it has no impact.

There are deep partisan divisions regarding the impact of marijuana legalization for recreational use.

Majorities of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say legalizing recreational marijuana is good for local economies (64% say this) and makes the criminal justice system fairer (58%).

Fewer Republicans and Republican leaners say legalization for recreational use has a positive effect on local economies (41%) and the criminal justice system (27%).

Republicans are more likely than Democrats to cite downsides from legalizing recreational marijuana:

• 42% of Republicans say it increases the use of other drugs, like heroin, fentanyl and cocaine, compared with just 17% of Democrats.
• 48% of Republicans say it makes communities less safe, more than double the share of Democrats (21%) who say this.

Sizable age and partisan differences persist on the issue of marijuana legalization though small shares of adults across demographic groups are completely opposed to it.

Older adults are far less likely than younger adults to favor marijuana legalization.

This is particularly the case among adults ages 75 and older: 31% say marijuana should be legal for both medical and recreational use.

By comparison, half of adults between the ages of 65 and 74 say marijuana should be legal for medical and recreational use, and larger shares in younger age groups say the same.

Republicans continue to be less supportive than Democrats of legalizing marijuana for both legal and recreational use: 42% of Republicans favor legalizing marijuana for both purposes, compared with 72% of Democrats.

There continue to be ideological differences within each party:

• 34% of conservative Republicans say marijuana should be legal for medical and recreational use, compared with a 57% majority of moderate and liberal Republicans.
• 62% of conservative and moderate Democrats say marijuana should be legal for medical and recreational use, while an overwhelming majority of liberal Democrats (84%) say this.

Along with differences by party and age, there are also age differences within each party on the issue.

A 57% majority of Republicans ages 18 to 29 favor making marijuana legal for medical and recreational use, compared with 52% among those ages 30 to 49 and much smaller shares of older Republicans.

Still, wide majorities of Republicans in all age groups favor legalizing marijuana at least for medical use. Among those ages 65 and older, just 20% say marijuana should not be legal even for medical purposes.

While majorities of Democrats across all age groups support legalizing marijuana for medical and recreational use, older Democrats are less likely to say this.

About half of Democrats ages 75 and older (53%) say marijuana should be legal for both purposes, but much larger shares of younger Democrats say the same (including 81% of Democrats ages 18 to 29). Still, only 7% of Democrats ages 65 and older think marijuana should not be legalized even for medical use, similar to the share of all other Democrats who say this.

Substantial shares of Americans across racial and ethnic groups say when marijuana is legal for recreational use, it has a more positive than negative impact on the economy and criminal justice system.

About half of White (52%), Black (53%) and Hispanic (51%) adults say legalizing recreational marijuana is good for local economies. A slightly smaller share of Asian adults (46%) say the same.

Criminal justice

Across racial and ethnic groups, about four-in-ten say that recreational marijuana being legal makes the criminal justice system fairer, with smaller shares saying it would make it less fair.

However, there are wider racial differences on questions regarding the impact of recreational marijuana on the use of other drugs and the safety of communities.

Use of other drugs

Nearly half of Black adults (48%) say recreational marijuana legalization doesn’t have an effect on the use of drugs like heroin, fentanyl and cocaine. Another 32% in this group say it decreases the use of these drugs and 18% say it increases their use.

In contrast, Hispanic adults are slightly more likely to say legal marijuana increases the use of these other drugs (39%) than to say it decreases this use (30%); 29% say it has no impact.

Among White adults, the balance of opinion is mixed: 28% say marijuana legalization increases the use of other drugs and 25% say it decreases their use (45% say it has no impact). Views among Asian adults are also mixed, though a smaller share (31%) say legalization has no impact on the use of other drugs.

Community safety

Hispanic and Asian adults also are more likely to say marijuana’s legalization makes communities less safe: 41% of Hispanic adults and 46% of Asian adults say this, compared with 34% of White adults and 24% of Black adults.

Young Americans view the legalization of marijuana for recreational use in more positive terms compared with their older counterparts.

Clear majorities of adults under 30 say it is good for local economies (71%) and that it makes the criminal justice system fairer (59%).

By comparison, a third of Americans ages 65 and older say legalizing the recreational use of marijuana is good for local economies; about as many (32%) say it makes the criminal justice system more fair.

There also are sizable differences in opinion by age about how legalizing recreational marijuana affects the use of other drugs and the safety of communities.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Drug Policy
• Health Policy
• Medicine & Health
• Political Issues

9 facts about Americans and marijuana

Most americans now live in a legal marijuana state – and most have at least one dispensary in their county, americans overwhelmingly say marijuana should be legal for medical or recreational use, clear majorities of black americans favor marijuana legalization, easing of criminal penalties, concern about drug addiction has declined in u.s., even in areas where fatal overdoses have risen the most, most popular, report materials.

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan, nonadvocacy fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It does not take policy positions. The Center conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, computational social science research and other data-driven research. Pew Research Center is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts , its primary funder.

© 2024 Pew Research Center

Home — Essay Samples — Law, Crime & Punishment — Marijuana Legalization

Essays on Marijuana Legalization

Persuasive speech: marijuana should be legal, the pros and cons of legalizing marijuana, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

The Reasons Why Marijuana Should Be Legal

The debate over marijuana legalization, arguments against the prohibition of marijuana, discussion on whether marijuana should be legal in the us, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Why Weed Should Be Legal: a Case for Legalizing in America

The legalization of marijuana would do more good than harm, should marijuana be legal for medicinal purposes, legalizing marijuana: examining the pros and cons, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

The Economic Benefits of Marijuana Legalization

Marijuana and the arguments for its legalization, legalization of marijuana: advantages outweigh the disadvantages, the reasoning why marijuana should be legal, why marijuana must remain illegalized, marijuana: the benefits are well worth the risks, a research paper on marijuana legalization, marijuana legalization issue: should marijuana be legalized, pros and cons to cannabis being legal, persuasive arguments why marijuana should be legal, argumentative why marijuanas should be legal in australia, the idea to legalize marijuana: a double-edged sword, marijuana is not a drug, it’s a remedy, persuasive why marijuana should be legal in canada, marijuana legalisation: positive and negative effects of marijuana, analytical heinrich’s evolving opinion on the idea to legalize marijuana, unpacking the debate: the pros and cons of legalizing marijuana, the reasons why i support the legalization of medical marijuana, medicinal marijuana: the plant that should be given a chance, the issue of legalization of cannabis in canada.

Marijuana, also known as cannabis, is a psychoactive drug derived from the Cannabis sativa plant. It is typically consumed for its mind-altering effects, which can induce feelings of relaxation, euphoria, and altered sensory perception. The plant contains various chemical compounds called cannabinoids, with delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) being the most well-known and responsible for its psychoactive properties.

Marijuana legalization in the United States refers to the process of legalizing the recreational and/or medicinal use of marijuana at the state level. Over the past few decades, there has been a significant shift in public opinion and policy towards marijuana, leading to various states enacting their own laws to regulate its use. The movement towards marijuana legalization gained momentum in the 1990s with the passage of medical marijuana laws in California and other states. These laws allowed patients with certain medical conditions to access marijuana for therapeutic purposes. Since then, many states have followed suit, legalizing medical marijuana and establishing regulated systems for cultivation, distribution, and consumption. In recent years, there has been a growing trend towards the legalization of recreational marijuana. As of now, several states, including Colorado, Washington, Oregon, and California, have legalized the recreational use of marijuana for adults. These states have implemented strict regulatory frameworks to control its production, sale, and use. It's important to note that while some states have legalized marijuana, it remains illegal at the federal level in the United States. This has created a complex legal landscape, with variations in regulations and enforcement across different jurisdictions.

The historical context of marijuana legalization in the world and the United States is marked by changing perceptions, legal battles, and evolving social attitudes. Globally, the prohibition of marijuana can be traced back to the early 20th century when various countries, influenced by international treaties, criminalized its use. However, in recent decades, several countries have started to challenge this approach. The Netherlands, for example, adopted a tolerant stance towards marijuana in the 1970s, allowing small quantities to be sold and consumed in designated coffee shops. Uruguay became the first country to fully legalize marijuana in 2013, followed by Canada in 2018. In the United States, marijuana was criminalized with the passage of the Marihuana Tax Act in 1937. The federal government classified it as a Schedule I controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, considering it to have no medical value and a high potential for abuse. However, starting in the 1990s, a wave of states began to pass medical marijuana laws to allow its use for medicinal purposes. This paved the way for further changes, and as of 2021, recreational marijuana is legal in several states, with more considering or implementing similar measures.

Public opinion on marijuana legalization has undergone a significant transformation in recent years. While marijuana was once heavily stigmatized and associated with criminality, the general attitude towards its legalization has become more favorable. Polls and surveys consistently show that a majority of Americans now support the legalization of marijuana. Public opinion has shifted primarily due to changing perceptions of marijuana's potential benefits and a reevaluation of the social and economic consequences of its prohibition. Supporters argue that marijuana legalization can generate tax revenue, create job opportunities, and redirect law enforcement resources towards more pressing issues. They also highlight the medicinal properties of marijuana, advocating for its use as a treatment option for various conditions. Opponents, on the other hand, express concerns about the potential risks associated with marijuana use, particularly among young people. They worry about increased accessibility, impaired driving, and the potential for marijuana to serve as a gateway drug.

1. Medicinal benefits: Marijuana has proven medical benefits for conditions such as chronic pain, epilepsy, and nausea associated with chemotherapy. 2. Economic opportunities: Legalizing marijuana can create a new industry, generate tax revenue, and create jobs. 3. Individual freedom: Advocates emphasize that adults should have the right to make decisions about their own bodies, including the choice to use marijuana responsibly. 4. Criminal justice reform: Marijuana legalization would help reduce arrests and convictions related to marijuana possession, alleviating the burden on the criminal justice system and addressing racial disparities in law enforcement. 5. Regulation and safety: Legalization allows for the regulation of marijuana production, quality control, and sales. This would help ensure product safety, discourage the use of illicit substances, and promote responsible consumption.

1. Health risks: Marijuana use can have negative health effects, including respiratory problems, cognitive impairment, and addiction. 2. Gateway drug: Marijuana can serve as a gateway drug, potentially leading to the use of more dangerous substances. 3. Impaired driving: Legalization may lead to an increase in impaired driving incidents, posing risks to public safety. 4. Youth exposure: Legalization may make marijuana more accessible to minors. 5. Public health and societal costs:Marijuana legalization could lead to increased healthcare costs, workplace productivity issues, and other social problems.

In recent years, there has been an increase in media coverage that highlights the potential benefits and challenges of marijuana legalization. Documentaries like "Weed" by CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta and "The Culture High" shed light on the medical uses of marijuana and the impact of prohibition on individuals and communities. News outlets have covered various aspects of marijuana legalization, including its economic impact, public health concerns, and criminal justice reform. Publications like The New York Times and The Washington Post have published opinion pieces and investigative reports discussing the pros and cons of legalization. Popular TV shows like "Weeds" and "High Maintenance" have depicted the marijuana industry and its cultural influence, showcasing both positive and negative aspects. Additionally, social media platforms have provided a space for diverse voices and perspectives on marijuana legalization. Online discussions, podcasts, and YouTube channels have emerged, allowing individuals to share their experiences and opinions.

1. According to a report by New Frontier Data, the legal cannabis industry in the United States was projected to generate $30 billion in annual sales by 2025, creating numerous job opportunities and contributing to tax revenues. 2. A survey conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2021 found that 91% of Americans believed marijuana should be legal for medical or recreational use, indicating a significant increase in support over the years. 3. In states where marijuana is legal, there has been a decrease in marijuana-related arrests, reducing the burden on the legal system and freeing up resources for more serious crimes. For example, a study published in the journal Drug and Alcohol Dependence found that states with legalized medical marijuana experienced a 20% decrease in arrests for possession of marijuana.

The topic of marijuana legalization is important to write an essay about due to its multifaceted impact on society, economy, and public health. With shifting attitudes and changing laws surrounding marijuana, understanding the implications of its legalization is crucial. Firstly, marijuana legalization has significant social and criminal justice implications. It affects the lives of individuals who use marijuana for medical or recreational purposes, as well as those who have been disproportionately affected by the war on drugs. Exploring the social justice aspects, such as racial disparities in marijuana-related arrests and convictions, can shed light on the need for equitable policies. Secondly, the economic impact of marijuana legalization is noteworthy. Legalizing and regulating the cannabis industry can stimulate economic growth, create jobs, and generate tax revenue. Analyzing the economic benefits and potential challenges, such as market competition and taxation, can provide insights into the broader economic landscape. Lastly, the public health implications of marijuana legalization cannot be overlooked. Studying the effects of marijuana on physical and mental health, as well as its potential therapeutic uses, can inform public health policies and interventions.

1. Caulkins, J. P., Kilmer, B., & Kleiman, M. A. R. (2016). Marijuana legalization: What everyone needs to know. Oxford University Press. 2. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). The health effects of cannabis and cannabinoids: The current state of evidence and recommendations for research. The National Academies Press. 3. Pacula, R. L., Kilmer, B., Wagenaar, A. C., & Chaloupka, F. J. (Eds.). (2014). Marijuana legalization: What everyone needs to know (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. 4. ProCon.org. (2021). Should marijuana be a medical option? Retrieved from https://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/ 5. Caulkins, J. P., & Bond, B. M. (2019). The marijuana legalization paradox. Addiction, 114(9), 1614-1620. 6. National Conference of State Legislatures. (2021). State medical marijuana laws. Retrieved from https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/state-medical-marijuana-laws.aspx 7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2021). Marijuana and public health. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/marijuana/index.htm 8. Rosenthal, E. (2013). The big book of buds: Marijuana varieties from the world's great seed breeders. Quick Trading Company. 9. Caulkins, J. P., Hawken, A., Kilmer, B., & Kleiman, M. A. R. (2012). Marijuana legalization: What everyone needs to know. Oxford University Press. 10. Drug Policy Alliance. (2021). Marijuana legalization and regulation. Retrieved from https://drugpolicy.org/marijuana-legalization-and-regulation

Relevant topics

• War on Drugs
• Community Policing
• Drunk Driving
• School Shooting
• Serial Killer
• Domestic Violence
• Gang Violence
• Cyber Crimes

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

The most convincing argument for legalizing LSD, shrooms, and other psychedelics

by German Lopez

I have a profound fear of death. It’s not bad enough to cause serious depression or anxiety. But it is bad enough to make me avoid thinking about the possibility of dying — to avoid a mini existential crisis in my mind.

But it turns out there may be a better cure for this fear than simply not thinking about it. It’s not yoga, a new therapy program, or a medicine currently on the (legal) market. It’s psychedelic drugs — LSD, ibogaine, and psilocybin, which is found in magic mushrooms.

This is the case for legalizing hallucinogens. Although the drugs have gotten some media attention in recent years for helping cancer patients deal with their fear of death and helping people quit smoking, there’s also a similar potential boon for the nonmedical, even recreational psychedelic user. As hallucinogens get a renewed look by researchers, they’re finding that the substances may improve almost anyone’s mood and quality of life — as long as they’re taken in the right setting, typically a controlled environment.

This isn’t something that even drug policy reformers are comfortable calling for yet. “There’s not any political momentum for that right now,” Jag Davies, who focuses on hallucinogen research at the Drug Policy Alliance, said, citing the general public’s views of psychedelics as extremely dangerous — close to drugs like crack cocaine, heroin, and meth.

But it’s an idea that experts and researchers are taking more seriously. And while the studies are new and ongoing, and a national regulatory model for legal hallucinogens is practically nonexistent, the available research is very promising — enough to reconsider the demonization and prohibition of these potentially amazing drugs.

Hallucinogens’ potentially huge benefit: ego death

Mushroom, mushroom.

The most remarkable potential benefit of hallucinogens is what’s called “ego death,” an experience in which people lose their sense of self-identity and, as a result, are able to detach themselves from worldly concerns like a fear of death, addiction, and anxiety over temporary — perhaps exaggerated — life events.

When people take a potent dose of a psychedelic, they can experience spiritual, hallucinogenic trips that can make them feel like they’re transcending their own bodies and even time and space. This, in turn, gives people a lot of perspective — if they can see themselves as a small part of a much broader universe, it’s a lot easier for them to discard personal, relatively insignificant and inconsequential concerns about their own lives and death.

That may sound like pseudoscience. And the research on hallucinogens is so early that scientists don’t fully grasp how it works. But it’s a concept that’s been found in some medical trials, and something that many people who’ve tried hallucinogens can vouch for experiencing. It’s one of the reasons why preliminary , small studies and research from the 1950s and ‘60s found hallucinogens can treat — and maybe cure — addiction, anxiety, and obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Charles Grob, a UCLA professor of psychiatry and pediatrics who studies psychedelics, conducted a study that gave psilocybin to late-stage cancer patients. “The reports I got back from the subjects, from their partners, from their families were very positive — that the experience was of great value, and it helped them regain a sense of purpose, a sense of meaning to their life,” he told me in 2014. “The quality of their lives notably improved.”

In a fantastic look at the research, Michael Pollan at the New Yorker captured the phenomenon through the stories of cancer patients who participated in hallucinogen trials:

Death looms large in the journeys taken by the cancer patients. A woman I’ll call Deborah Ames, a breast-cancer survivor in her sixties (she asked not to be identified), described zipping through space as if in a video game until she arrived at the wall of a crematorium and realized, with a fright, “I’ve died and now I’m going to be cremated. The next thing I know, I’m below the ground in this gorgeous forest, deep woods, loamy and brown. There are roots all around me and I’m seeing the trees growing, and I’m part of them. It didn’t feel sad or happy, just natural, contented, peaceful. I wasn’t gone. I was part of the earth.” Several patients described edging up to the precipice of death and looking over to the other side. Tammy Burgess, given a diagnosis of ovarian cancer at fifty-five, found herself gazing across “the great plain of consciousness. It was very serene and beautiful. I felt alone but I could reach out and touch anyone I’d ever known. When my time came, that’s where my life would go once it left me and that was O.K.”

But Mark Kleiman, a drug policy expert at New York University’s Marron Institute, noted that these benefits don’t apply only to terminally ill patients. The studies conducted so far have found benefits that apply to anyone : a reduced fear of death, greater psychological openness, and increased life satisfaction.

“It’s not required to have a disease to be afraid of dying,” Kleiman said. “But it’s probably an undesirable condition if you have the alternative available. And there’s now some evidence that these experiences can make the person less afraid to die.”

Kleiman added, “The obvious application is people who are currently dying with a terminal diagnosis. But being born is a terminal diagnosis. And people’s lives might be better if they live out of the valley of the shadow of death.”

Again, the current research on all of this is early, with much of the science still relying on studies from the ‘50s and ‘60s. But the most recent preliminary findings are promising enough that experts like Kleiman are cautiously considering how to build a model that would let people take these potentially beneficial drugs legally — while also acknowledging that psychedelics do pose some big risks.

The two big risks of hallucinogens: accidents and bad trips

Charles Grob, a UCLA professor of psychiatry and pediatrics, is leading the way in psychedelic research.

Hallucinogens aren’t perfectly safe, but they’re not dangerous in the way some people might think. As Grob previously told me , there’s little to no chance that someone will become addicted to psychedelics — they’re not physically addictive like heroin or tobacco, and the experiences are so demanding and draining that a great majority of people simply won’t be interested in constantly taking the drugs. He also said that hallucinogen persisting perception disorder, which can cause the disturbances widely known as “flashbacks,” is “uncommon, but you will see it, particularly among someone who has taken hallucinogens a lot.”

Kleiman drew a comparison to marijuana to explain the risks. “The risk with cannabis is, primarily, that you lose control of your cannabis taking,” he said. “The risk with LSD is primarily that you’ll do something stupid to ruin the experience, or you’ll have such a scary experience that it’ll leave you damaged. But those are safety risks rather than addiction risks.”

This gets to the two major dangers of hallucinogens: accidents and bad trips. The first risk is similar to what you’d expect from other drugs: When people are intoxicated in any way, they’re more prone to doing bad, dumb things. As Kleiman explained, “People take LSD and think they can fly and jump off buildings. It’s true that it’s a drug warrior fairy tale, but it’s also true in that it actually happens. People drop acid and run out in traffic. People do stupid shit under high doses of psychedelics.”

Bad trips are also a concern. A bad psychedelic experience can result in psychotic episodes, a lost sense of reality, and even long-term psychological trauma in very rare situations, especially among people using other drugs or with a history of mental health issues. Just like psychedelics can lead to long-term psychological benefits, they can lead to long-term psychological pain.

These risks are why not many people are seriously discussing legalizing hallucinogens in the same way the US allows alcohol or is now beginning to allow marijuana. But the potential benefits of hallucinogens are leading some experts to consider how these drugs could be legalized in some capacity.

“I think it’s a bad idea to treat hallucinogens like we treat cocaine or cannabis,” Kleiman said. “They pose different risks and offer different benefits.” He added, “But I don’t think we’re ever going to free these substances from careful legal control.”

How hallucinogens can be legalized

Drop some LSD — but maybe only in a controlled environment.

So how can you maximize the benefits and minimize the risks? The most convincing idea so far is letting people take psychedelics in a controlled setting, in which multiple participants can be watched over by trained supervisors who ensure the experience doesn’t go poorly.

So far, this is what the medical side has focused on: The typical medical trial involves doctors watching over a deathly ill patient or someone dealing with addiction who takes psilocybin. But if the concept is expanded to allow nonmedical users, then perhaps professionals who aren’t doctors but are trained in guiding someone through a trip could take up the role. “I imagine someone who has training in managing that experience, and a license, and liability insurance, and a facility,” Kleiman said.

Here’s how it would work: A psychedelic user would go through some sort of preparation period to make sure she knows what she’s getting into. Then she could make an appointment at a place offering these services. She would show up at this appointment, take the drug of her choice (or whatever the facility provides), and wait to allow it to kick in. As the trip occurs, a supervisor would watch over the user — not being too pushy, but making sure he’s available to guide her through any rough spots. In some studies, doctors have also prepared certain activities — a soundtrack or food, for example — that may help set the right mood and setting for someone on psychedelics. Different places will likely experiment with different approaches, including how many people can participate at once and how a room should look.

The most convincing idea so far is letting people take psychedelics in a controlled setting

Kleiman also envisions a potential system in which people can eventually graduate to using the drug solo. “It’s like Red Cross water safety instruction,” he said. “You start out, you’re a newbie. You don’t go into the pool without a trained, certified person to watch you, guide you, and keep you safe. After a while, your teacher gives you a test to certify that you’re safe to be in the water alone. And you might even get certified to become a trainer, so you can guide newbies yourself.”

If pulled off correctly, this would maximize the best possible outcomes and minimize the worst. Supervisors could help prevent accidents, and they could walk people through good and bad trips, letting users relax and get something meaningful out of the experience.

There are risks to the controlled setting. If a supervisor is poorly trained or malicious, it could lead to a horrific trip that could actually worsen someone’s mental state. This is why regulation and licensing will be crucial to getting the idea right.

Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, argued for a looser model that could, for example, allow psychedelics to be sold over the counter. “You dramatically decrease the black market. So long as you have people who have to go through some sort of gatekeeper, or who can be denied, you’re going to continue to have a black market,” Nadelmann said. “Secondly, this means the percent of consumers who got a product of known potency and purity from a reliable source would increase.”

But the black market demand for psychedelics is very small, with only 0.5 percent of Americans 12 and older in 2013 saying they used hallucinogens in the past month. So allowing over-the-counter sales would likely have a tiny benefit at best on public health and criminal groups’ profits from the black market.

The debate about which model works best will likely go on for some time, especially if different places test different approaches. There’s no doubt it will be tricky to hash out exactly how to legalize and regulate these drugs, as some states are learning with marijuana .

But if we know the benefits to public health and well-being are real, it’s irresponsible to let the potential go untapped. It may soon be time for America to seriously consider legalizing LSD, magic mushrooms, and other psychedelic drugs.

• Health Care

Most Popular

• Take a mental break with the newest Vox crossword
• The Israeli attacks in Lebanon could lead to the wider war we’ve been fearing
• Why America hates to love chicken nuggets
• Sally Rooney’s new book is an exquisite return to form
• I give to charity — but never to people on the street. Is that wrong?

Today, Explained

Understand the world with a daily explainer plus the most compelling stories of the day.

This is the title for the native ad

More in Explainers

Harris and Winfrey spoke to the family of Amber Thurman, who died after doctors delayed abortion-related care.

What to know about Meta’s new restrictions on young people’s social media use.

It’s a case that could have big implications for the future of Fox News.

The rapper’s indictment on sex trafficking and other charges is the latest in a months-long saga of sexual assault and violence allegations.

The US has often singled out Haitian immigrants. GOP attacks are the latest example.

It’s the latest blow to the scandal-ridden company.

103 Marijuana Legalization Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

🏆 best marijuana legalization topic ideas & essay examples, 👍 good essay topics on marijuana legalization, ⭐ most interesting marijuana legalization topics to write about, ✅ simple & easy marijuana legalization essay titles.

• Reason Why Marijuana Should Be Legal This is an important consideration since data on the prevalence of Marijuana indicates that the US is still the world’s largest single market for the drug.
• Legalization of Marijuana: Arguments For and Against It will therefore be difficult to regulate the use of marijuana among young people and other unauthorized people if it is legalized. It should be noted that marijuana has various negative effects to the health […]
• Legalizing Marijuana: Pros and Cons The focus of this paper will be on the impact of the legalization of the U.S.economy with possible positive and negative sides of the matter.
• Analysis of Arguments: Should Marijuana Be Legalized? Pro Arguments: The majority of Americans agree on the necessity to legalize marijuana. This initiative is accompanied by concerns regarding the actual use of marijuana.
• The Issue of Legalization of Marijuana The issue of the legalization of marijuana in the territory of the state is not unambiguous, therefore it is analyzed by a large number of specialists.
• Marijuana Legalization: Controversial Issue in Canada Canada became the second country in the world to legalize the cultivation and consumption of cannabis in 2018. Besides, the substance is addictive, and it is challenging to stop consuming it.
• Marijuana Legalization and Issues to Consider If marijuana is fully legalized, there might be a rise in use among youth, which is dangerous from the physiological point of view, and there will be no legal justification to end it.
• The Relationships Between Marijuana and the Legal System The most common ideas discussed within a framework of this debate are connected to the issues of permission to keep marijuana at home for personal needs such as medical needs, and a total ban on […]
• Pros and Cons of Legalization of Medical Marijuana It is evident that medical treatment with the use of marijuana would be beneficial for both: patients and the government because of the opportunity to earn on taxation.
• Legalization of Recreational Use of Marijuana The role of the Supreme Court in the specified case boils down to stating the conditions, in which the prescription and the following use of marijuana by the patient, can be deemed as legitimate.
• Marijuana Legalization: Chronic Seizure Treatment With that said, despite numerous states already having legalized one or both applications, the federal government remains opposed to either form of legalization, and marijuana possession and use remain federal offenses.
• Legalized Marijuana: Negative and Positive Sides The economy and finance from the very beginning were anticipating that this law will bring the largest income to the state’s budget and create plenty of job opportunities under the rule of law.
• Ethical Perspective of the Legalization of Marijuana In spite of a popular view of the medical benefits of marijuana, doctors insist that the use of marijuana provides the same dangerous effect as other drugs.
• Marijuana Legalize: Advanatages and Disadvantages The truth that marijuana is illegal and prohibited is suitably caused by the number of funds invested in the war against drugs.
• Medical Marijuana Legalization Concerns This change raises political concerns and requires the government to review its economy to adapt to the use of MM. The representation of the legal process highlighted the history of previous legislations and reported on […]
• Medical Marijuana: Legal and Research Concerns However, while the purpose of recreational marijuana is often disconnected from its long-term effects on people’s health in scholarly discussions, the use of medical marijuana is viewed from the point of patient’s health and the […]
• Marijuana Legalization in California The muscle relaxation effect of marijuana also appears to be a positive effect that should be used to argue for its legalization.
• Medical Marijuana Legalization by National Football League However, it must be realized that some of these players are usually in excruciating pain to the point that some may have lost consciousness.
• Medical Marijuana Legalization Rebuttal The claim of fact is that A.C.A.continues to be beneficial despite the arguments of Republican politicians and current challenges. The claim of policy is the appeal to Republicans and Democrats to work together on the […]
• Legal Marijuana Market Analysis and Taxes Impact Consequently, the primary goal of this paper is to understand the impact of taxes on the financial stability of the market for legal marijuana with the help of the law of supply and demand and […]
• Controversy Around Medical Marijuana Legalization The consideration of the problem of marijuana legalization from the perspective of public safety involves such points as crime rates and traffic accidents. The fact of economic benefits of the Cannabis legalization is also apparent: […]
• The Legalization of Marijuana: Regulation and Practice It is imperative to note that legalization of marijuana is a topic that has been quite controversial and has led to numerous discussions and disagreements.
• Concepts of Legalizing Marijuana Although in most cases, most individuals associate Marijuana with numerous health complications and social problems, for example, brain damage, and violent behavior hence, supporting its illegalization, such individuals take little consideration of its significance in […]
• Marijuana Legalization in Illinois The case for legalization of marijuana in Colorado evidences the need to alter federal laws prohibiting marijuana for its legalization law to have both statutory and federal backing in the state of Illinois.
• Public Safety and Marijuana Legalization Some of the states have failed to tax marijuana. Hence, it is difficult to get the precise figures in terms of tax values that states could collect from marijuana.
• History and Effects of Legalization of Marijuana As predicted, the legalization of marijuana in several states has led to an increase of marijuana abuse among youngsters Studies have shown a pattern of the use of cannabis and risky behavior of the individuals.
• Should Marijuana Be Legal? It is perhaps very essential to be acquainted with an account of laws that surround marijuana in order to understand the reasons why the drug ought to be legalized.
• How New York Would Benefit From Legalized Medical Marijuana The arrests resulting from possession of marijuana in New York is quite huge compared to those in California and New Jersey states in America.
• Should Be It Legal to Sell the Marijuana in the United States? What I want to know is the reasons of why so many people use such serious psychoactive drug as marijuana of their own accord and do not want to pay special attention to their activities […]
• Supporting of Marijuana Legalization Among the Adult Population Proponents argue that legalization of marijuana will lead to increased revenues for the government amid economic challenges. Legalizing marijuana will not lead to cancer and deaths but will spark the debate for apparent effects of […]
• Reasons for Legalization of Marijuana The legalization of the drug would bring to an end the discrimination of the African Americans in marijuana-related arrests, reduce the sales of the drug and its use among teenagers, encourage the development of hemp […]
• Should We Legalize Marijuana For Medical Use? In addition to that, the use of Marijuana especially by smoking either for medical reasons or to heal ailments, is a social activity that will help bring them together and improve their social ties.
• Why Marijuana Should Be Legalized? The government should save that money it uses in prohibiting the use of marijuana as it has no proved harm to the users.
• Arguments on Why Marijuana Should Be Illegalized The greater part of the population believes that the sustained use of this product is beneficial in numerous ways. Therefore, it is clear that the negative effects of the drug outdo the constructive ones.
• A Case for Legalizing Marijuana Marijuana is one of the drugs that the government policy targets and as it currently stands, the government uses a lot of resources in prosecuting and punishing marijuana consumers through the legal system.
• Federal Government Should Not Legalize the Use of Marijuana On the other hand the use of marijuana actually increased in the country. It is not only the DEA or the federal government that is reluctant in the legalization of marijuana.
• Does Legalizing Marijuana Help or Harm the United States? The latter measure is not merely being advocated by the proponents of marijuana use since the legalization of marijuana has been supported by NAACP not because it fully backs the smoking of marijuana.
• The Debates on the Legal Status of Marijuana This means that the use of marijuana encourages the consumption of other drugs such as alcohol and cigarettes. Additionally, the use of marijuana is associated with increase in crime and consumption of other illicit drugs.
• Argument About Legalizing Marijuana in America Therefore, if at all the government of the United States is to prohibit the use of marijuana in the country, it should be ready to cater for the high costs that come in hand with […]
• The Moral and Ethical Reasons Why Marijuana should be legal It is my humble opinion that the billions of dollars being spent on the war against marijuana should be diverted to more useful projects like feeding the less fortunate in the society.
• The Problem of Legalization of Marijuana and Hemp Many individuals tend to believe that the use of Marijuana is morally wrong as it alters the mental state of the user and leads to dangerous addictions and actions in the end.
• Minor and Major Arguments on Legalization of Marijuana Premises 1: If marijuana were to be legalized it would be impossible to regulate its’ sell to, and use by the minors. Making marijuana illegal is denying them a right to the use of this […]
• The Reasons Why Marijuana Should be Made Legal Among the reasons that support the legalization of marijuana include: the medical basis that marijuana has some benefits and that the state could gain revenue from the trade of marijuana as opposed to the costs […]
• Why Is Marijuana Legalized In Some States And Not Others? I consider the legalization of marijuana to be a positive step as its prohibition entails intrusion of personal freedom and just like any other substance it is only harmful when it is not taken in […]
• Marijuana Legalization and Crime Rates The possible outcome of this effort will be the safe consumption of the drug, easy monitoring, and creation of awareness to the public on the dangers of excessive use of the drug and lastly the […]
• The Effect of Legalization of marijuana in the Economy of California It has been predicted that if the government legalizes the drug, there will be a lot of changes pertaining to the demand for the drug in the market and as a result, there will be […]
• Marijuana Must Not Be Legalized According to the national institute of drug abuse, the active chemical in marijuana, tetrahydrocannabinol, act on the region of the brain responsible for time awareness, sensory, attention, thoughts, memory and pleasure.
• Policy Brief: Why Marijuana Use Should Be Legalized in the Us In this perspective, it is valid to argue that marijuana users may be undergoing long incarcerations in US jails due to the misconceived fantasies that took root in the public mind in the 1930’s, and […]
• Analyzing Arguments Against Marijuana Legalization
• America Requirements Medicinal Weed: Marijuana Legalization
• Arguing for Medical Marijuana Legalization
• Benefits Associated With Marijuana Legalization
• Analysis of Marijuana Legalization in Canada
• The Relationships Between Marijuana Legalization and the DEA
• Governmental Regulation of the Marijuana Legalization
• Exploring the Pros and Cons of Marijuana Legalization
• Defining the First Steps Toward Marijuana Legalization
• Going Green: Analyzing Marijuana Legalization
• How Marijuana Legalization Will Affect Public Health
• Debate on Whether It’s Time for Marijuana Legalization
• Economic Benefits of Marijuana Legalization
• Marijuana Legalization and How It Affects the GDP
• Link Between Marijuana Legalization and National Debt
• The Relationships Between Marijuana Legalization and Taxation
• Marijuana Legalization: Arguments and Criticism
• Benefits of Marijuana Legalization for Society
• Marijuana Legalization: Cause and Effect
• Benefits of Marijuana Legalization for Medical Purposes
• Marijuana Legalization Could Lower Crime Rates
• Social Issues Associated With Marijuana Legalization
• Marijuana Legalization: The Reasons for Legalizing Marijuana and for Keeping It Illegal
• Medical Marijuana Legalization and Controversy
• The Link Between Modern Liberalism and Marijuana Legalization
• Marijuana Legalization Could Reduce the Amount of Money the Government Spends on Prisons
• Principles of State and Federal Marijuana Legalization
• Marijuana Legalization: Good for the Nation?
• Support for Marijuana Legalization Against First Age
• Marijuana Legalization: Growing the Economy or Destroying Lives?
• The Controversy Over Marijuana Legalization
• Marijuana Legalization: Implications for Property or Casualty Insurance
• The Cross-Border Spillover Effects of Recreational Marijuana Legalization
• Marijuana Legalization: Should the Federal Government Legalize the Use of Marijuana?
• The Debate Over the Controversial Subject of Marijuana Legalization in the U.S.
• Marijuana Legalization: PREPARE and IMAGINE Models
• Overview of Medical Marijuana Legalization Initiative
• Marijuana Legalization: Adverse Health Effects
• The Problem of Marijuana Legalization and Criminalization
• Analysis of Marijuana Legalization and Possible Effects
• Drug Trafficking Research Topics
• Chronic Pain Research Ideas
• Economic Topics
• Social Media Marketing Topics
• Criminal Behavior Essay Topics
• Prison Paper Topics
• Organized Crime Titles
• Pharmacy Research Ideas
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, September 26). 103 Marijuana Legalization Essay Topic Ideas & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/marijuana-legalization-essay-topics/

"103 Marijuana Legalization Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." IvyPanda , 26 Sept. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/marijuana-legalization-essay-topics/.

IvyPanda . (2023) '103 Marijuana Legalization Essay Topic Ideas & Examples'. 26 September.

IvyPanda . 2023. "103 Marijuana Legalization Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." September 26, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/marijuana-legalization-essay-topics/.

1. IvyPanda . "103 Marijuana Legalization Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." September 26, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/marijuana-legalization-essay-topics/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "103 Marijuana Legalization Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." September 26, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/marijuana-legalization-essay-topics/.

IvyPanda uses cookies and similar technologies to enhance your experience, enabling functionalities such as:

• Basic site functions
• Ensuring secure, safe transactions
• Secure account login
• Remembering account, browser, and regional preferences
• Remembering privacy and security settings
• Analyzing site traffic and usage
• Personalized search, content, and recommendations
• Displaying relevant, targeted ads on and off IvyPanda

Please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy for detailed information.

Certain technologies we use are essential for critical functions such as security and site integrity, account authentication, security and privacy preferences, internal site usage and maintenance data, and ensuring the site operates correctly for browsing and transactions.

Cookies and similar technologies are used to enhance your experience by:

• Remembering general and regional preferences
• Personalizing content, search, recommendations, and offers

Some functions, such as personalized recommendations, account preferences, or localization, may not work correctly without these technologies. For more details, please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy .

To enable personalized advertising (such as interest-based ads), we may share your data with our marketing and advertising partners using cookies and other technologies. These partners may have their own information collected about you. Turning off the personalized advertising setting won't stop you from seeing IvyPanda ads, but it may make the ads you see less relevant or more repetitive.

Personalized advertising may be considered a "sale" or "sharing" of the information under California and other state privacy laws, and you may have the right to opt out. Turning off personalized advertising allows you to exercise your right to opt out. Learn more in IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy .

Civic Issues Blog

Just another Sites At Penn State site

Persuasive Essay on Decriminalization: Rough Draft

Everybody who has grown up in the United States in the past 40 years has heard the same spiel from their adults: all drugs are bad and addictive; never use them for any reason.  At the time, kids listen and grow up with this in mind, and never really question what they hear. However, the issue is actually far more complex than the anti-drug programs make it out to be.  The government’s “war on drugs” starting in the 1970’s has made it its goal to reduce the illegal drug trade, and this has included all types of drugs from heroin to marijuana. However, for marijuana specifically, the government’s classification and treatment of it has not only failed to achieve its original goal, but has also led to many unintended consequences that prove why the laws surrounding it are harsh.  Despite marijuana’s growing popularity for its medicinal benefits, the government’s archaic treatment of it have led to many more consequences than benefits for communities across the United States. Current marijuana laws should be revised to make marijuana decriminalized because the laws have not only failed to reduce drug use, but have also disproportionately imprisoned minorities.

To start, the War on Drugs incorrectly classified marijuana, and the subsequent enforcement of these laws have not been successful in their original goals.  As a response to increasing drug use in the 1970’s, Richard Nixon passed the Controlled Substances Act, which classified drugs based on their medical application and potential for abuse.  Schedule 1 drugs were considered the most dangerous, posing a high risk for addiction with little evidence of medical benefits. This list includes heroin, LSD, ecstasy, and marijuana, despite its well documented medical benefits.  Thus, when producing drug law legislation, the government treated marijuana with the same severity as heroin, already highlighting the ridiculousness of drug laws. The War on Drugs also included increased federal funding for drug control agencies and proposed strict measures (such as mandatory prison sentences) for drug crimes.  Although there is disparity between state and federal laws, the federal law still mandates a sentence of 6-12 months for over 1 kg of marijuana, a 5 year minimum for cultivation of 100 kgs, and a 10 year minimum for over 1000 kgs (safeaccess). Mandatory minimum sentences require jail time after your second possession for any amount of marijuana, and sale of marijuana also warrants jail time (norml)  Thus, although these laws differ from state to state, it is not difficult for a marijuana user to find themselves imprisoned (even if only for 15 days). Although this may seem harsh, if it has been successful, then what’s wrong with the laws? According to a Gallup poll, the amount of people who have said they have tried marijuana at some point in their lives has gone up from 4% in 1969 to 38% in 2013.  Since the implementation of stricter drug regulations in the 1970’s, the amount of marijuana users has drastically increased, meaning that the illegal trade of drugs has not decreased and the laws in place have not been successful in reducing illegal use. Therefore, marijuana laws, which are too harsh in the first place, have not been successful in their intended purpose, a strong reason for why they should not continue to be in place.  

Furthermore, not only are those laws overly harsh and inoperative, but they are also exceedingly expensive for the American public.  There are two aspects of these laws that are expensive to the American public: paying the law enforcement who enforce the laws on a day-to-day basis, and paying for the housing/care of those imprisoned for marijuana offenses.  According to a study by the ACLU in 2013, over the next 6 years, states will spend $20 billion enforcing marijuana laws; specifically, states pay $750 per marijuana-related arrest, and $95 is the national average per-diem cost of housing an inmate arrested due to a marijuana-related offense (CNBC).  Many of the monetary costs are incurred in apprehending and processing offenders, which is a time-consuming and expensive process, especially for non-violent offenders. The enforcement of these laws is also expensive in terms of time spent by the officers enforcing the laws. For example, it was estimated that the NYPD spent 1 million hours enforcing low-level marijuana offenses between 2002 and 2012 (CNBC).  Considering that most of these offenders are non-violent and utilizing a much less harmful drug than it is characterized, these numbers start to add up and the worth of these laws comes into question.

Furthermore, the enforcement of these marijuana laws is not consistent and is racially biased against African-Americans, despite their rate of use being similar to whites.  Looking at figure 2 below, for both whites and blacks between the ages of 18-25 years old, marijuana use has been similar for both groups, with whites actually edging out blacks every year in usage rates (ACLU).  Despite these similar usage rates, arrests for marijuana have shown that blacks are 4 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession, while in some states this number approaches 7-8 times as likely (ACLU).  The reasoning behind these astonishing numbers is most likely an economic motive by the law enforcement agencies. Federal programs like the Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program include number of arrests in their criteria for distributing funds to local law enforcement.  In order to increase their arrest statistics, law enforcement can concentrate on poorer neighborhoods (which are also more likely to be minority neighborhoods) to generate more busts for low-level offenses that will allow them to reach their numerical goal (NY Times). These minorities convicted of low level drug crimes now find themselves in an unfair position in comparison to their white counterparts, as they now face obstacles in getting jobs, getting professional licenses, or obtaining student loans.  Thus, marijuana laws are disproportionately enforced to arrest more minorities, which leaves them with further obstacles to get their lives back on track; this systematic racism all stems from the same marijuana laws from the War on Drugs.

Although these laws are unfairly targeting minorities, the amount of total offenders for marijuana are so large that it is contributing to the overcrowding of prisons.  Marijuana arrests account for a large percentage of arrests in the United States; the 587,000 arrests for marijuana related offenses accounted for about 5% of all arrests in the US, more than arrests for all crimes that the FBI classifies as violent combined (Washington Times).  These high numbers of arrests do not translate well when those arrested are put into prison: around 50% of federal inmates are there for drug related crimes, with 27.6% of these drug users in prison for marijuana charges (Huff Post). The large amount of prisoners are causing problems for the prisons themselves, who are being forced to put 2 to 3 bunk beds in one room and turn open spaces into living quarters.  If there was any single charge that one could point their finger towards in regards to what is causing overcrowded prisons, it’s drug offenses. Although some of those charged with drug offenses may deserve to be in federal prison, the large amount of people in for marijuana are in these prisons with people using/distributing much more dangerous drugs. Thus, marijuana users who are arguably unfairly in jail in the first place for using a drug that’s classified to be way more dangerous than it actually is are now contributing to the overcrowding of said prisons.  Thus, the marijuana laws of the War on Drugs days has had a multitude of unintended consequences that has negatively impacted the communities they were trying to fix.

Because of marijuana’s laws lack of productivity and production of negative consequences, it would be best to revise these laws to decriminalize marijuana federally to reverse its adverse effects.  Decriminalization means that marijuana will not be completely legal, but offenses for possessing marijuana will be treated similar to a traffic violation rather than a felony. Those caught with marijuana will receive a fine that they must pay, but they will not be arrested and the offense will not go on someone’s criminal record.  The first obvious benefit of decriminalization is there will be a dramatic decrease in arrests for non-violent drug offenses, which account for 5% of all arrests in the US. Releasing those imprisoned for marijuana offenses/preventing anymore prisoners to enter the prison system on marijuana charges is a significant step in reducing the prison population, which was mostly overcrowded by drug offenders.  However, decriminalization will not necessarily stop all the problems with the marijuana laws; the racial profiling and disproportionate arrests of minorities is a complex issue involving the entire criminal justice system. It does not stem entirely from the enforcement of marijuana laws. However, decriminalization is a step in the right direction to end the unfair arrests of minorities, as drug crimes is one of the largest reasons for arrest in the US, so many minorities affected by this will no longer feel these repercussions.  Some may also argue that decriminalization will come with its own set of consequences, such as proliferation of substance abuse and an increase in crime as the result of no marijuana enforcement. Even if both of these consequences did happen, decriminalization has effectively prepared the government to respond to these problems in the form of saving money. From the billions of dollars that would be saved via decriminalization, the government could funnel more money into drug education/addiction facilities, or could facilitate more money to local law enforcement so that they could lock down on the increase in crime.  These problems could also be stopped at their roots if more money is funneled into drug education and more people know the risks of what they’re using. Furthermore, any extra money that’s leftover from covering the unintended costs of decriminalization could be used for any other area of interest of the US government, such as infrastructure, healthcare, etc.

In conclusion, decriminalization would be an effective solution to the current failing marijuana laws as it would save the US money and help put an end to overcrowding of prisons and racial profiling in law enforcement.  Although decriminalization is not perfect and does not end the debate on drug abuse on how it should be handled, it is a good solution given the benefits that will arise from it and from the fact that the original marijuana laws weren’t productive in the first place.  In a country that is slowly gaining more and more support for legalization, the best place to start is by attacking at the root of these issues: the laws in place. By pushing for decriminalization, the dysfunctional laws will not only being replaced but the adverse effects that they caused will also be reversed.  This is the start of change for our drug laws in the US: will you help pull the “weeds?”

Sources: https://www.safeaccessnow.org/federal_marijuana_law

http://norml.org/laws/item/federal-penalties-2

https://www.cnbc.com/id/100791442

https://www.aclu.org/gallery/marijuana-arrests-numbers

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/04/us/marijuana-arrests-four-times-as-likely-for-blacks.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/09/26/more-people-were-arrested-last-year-over-pot-than-for-murder-rape-aggravated-assault-and-robbery-combined/?utm_term=.d4205eac9285

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/10/war-on-drugs-prisons-infographic_n_4914884.html

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.