Anti Legalization Critical Thinking Essay

The beat of this paper is to logically apply reason to esteem the arguments for the legitimation of marihuana, and by doing so stop consonant bring out flaws in these arguments. Furtherto a greater extent, this paper go out assess the credibility and the source of these arguments, and present counter arguments to conclude that marijuana should non be a wakeless drug in California and the domiciliate of the United States. First I will convey The field of study Organizations for the correct of Marijuana Laws Principles of amenable Marijuana Use which is the foundation for their argument for the legalization of marijuana, and how this set of principles is flawed.Second I will dole out the decl ar that marijuana should be legal in a taxed and set manner and also compute the source of this engage. Third I will emphasize the negative social set up of legalization of marijuana in order to counter the claims for legalization. Finally I will conclude that abandoned these factors, legalization of marijuana would be harmful and detrimental to society as a whole, possessing little or no economic, social, or medical benefits.The National Organization for the remediate of Marijuana Law is the leading lobbyist group for the legalization of marijuana in the United States. This organization has made it their commitment to confirm marijuana legalized in a taxable way as baccy and intoxi loafert periodly are. This organization rationalizes its arguments with a instrument called the Principles of Responsible Marijuana Use in which is attempts to shrive marijuana reform in a socially accepted manner. The very title of the document is ambiguous, the vocalize responsible is a very circumstantial term and is subject to many a(prenominal) different interpretations.Furthermore the document assumes that if legalized, citizens will adhere to this unofficial code of ethics, that we can evidently collect with alcohol and tobacco plant that at that place i s ab implement regardless of the regulating laws. Despite this, NORML attempts to lay out their interpretation for what responsible marijuana engage is ( 4 ) their first draw a bead on is that marijuana is to be for heavy(p)s only, and that it is irresponsible to provide marijuana to children. The terms adults and children everywhere again are ambiguous, it is non clear where the line is pinched between what defines an adult or a child.This is a concern because many would assume a child is no longer a child after cardinal years of age, thus it can be determined that eighteen and over is considered a responsible user. It need not be said that current alcohol restrictions limit a user to twenty-one and over.According to a 2005 Monitoring the Future Study, three-fourths of 12th graders, more than two-thirds of 10th graders, and active two in every five 8th graders have consumed alcohol( 5 ), with this evidence it would be jealous thinking to assume marijuana would be any diff erent. To further consider this point 6.8% of children ages 12 to 17 use marijuana on an occasional basis ( 5 ). It would be reasonable to conclude that if marijuana was legalized that make out would enlarge drastically.Second the NORMLs Principles of Responsible Marijuana Use attempts to rationalize legal marijuana use by claiming that if legalized responsible users will refrain from driving ( 4 ). Although an punishable drug, it is not surprising that at that place are already statistics regarding marijuana impaired driving in many recites. California who that recently had a proposition for the legalization of marijuana has some of the most relevant statistics there are various counties in California that have a 16% or higher marijuana involved traffic fatalities ( 3 ). This number would only increase with the legalization, and that is not to include the the amount of non fatal accidents that would descend annually. A recent study by Alfred Crancer and Alan Crancer proje cted that traffic fatalities would increase by as much as 300% with legalization ( 3 ).Third NORML claims that The responsible cannabis user will carefully consider his/her set and setting, regulating use accordingly. In this claim there is much room for a line-drawing fallacy, in which it is difficult and conveniently vague and up to the individual to determine what set and setting is actually get hold of for usage. It could be assumed under this principle that its safe to use marijuana age caring for children, elderly, while driving, and also very relevantly while working. Forth NORML claims that a responsible marijuana user will hold out abuse. They define abuse by Abuse means harm. many cannabis use is harmful most is not. That which is harmful should be deter that which is not need not be.A clever statement however in reasoned and illogical. Drug abuse is defined as an uncontrollable iron out for constant seeking of intoxicants ( 2 ). Many users would be unaware of their abuse, until the point in which it has destroyed their livelihood, relationships, economic security, and health. Legalization would only increase the verse of active addicts, and make marijuana readily available for them, and being legal, accordingly restraining family, friends, and the courts from restricting an addicts use before to much harm is done.The final claim made by NORML is a Respect for Rights of Others in which they attempt to justify the fact that if marijuana was legal, non users will have to deal with it. Again it is wishful thinking to see that users will have respect for the others who are not users, however while illegal we can see that many unagitated cultivate marijuana, drive under the influence of it, and use it as socially as possible. A strict layout of parameters that must be followed with public and offstage use of the drug would be acceptable, however advocates for the cause prefer the vagueness, in which there are no absolute lines that can be drawn between legal and illegal use (ie. Driving, social events, age, etc.). The entire document is a rationalization and does not seem to give a valid or true pretense to satisfy desires.The most relevant claim argued against in this paper is the claim that marijuana should be legal in a taxed and regulated manner. This claim by itself has the vagueness and ambiguity of a typical bill or legislation. It is this vagueness and ambiguity that encroach on the freedoms of citizens everyday. The fact is that marijuana is a drug, it was made illegal by the federal Controlled nerve bet of 1970 to stop the violence and abuse that was common practice. We have seen in other countries failed attempts to regulate and tax drugs, like the Netherlands, and we have seen the damage drugs can have on society as a hole, like the hazardous drug cartels that rule Mexico. In evaluating this claim it is also important to consider the sources, one of the biggest supporters of marijuana legalization is Rober t Lee.Lee is president of Oaksterdam University a give instruction that teaches students how to cultivate, grow, process, and cure marijuana ( 3 ). It would seem highly logical to take that this man is not interested in the social repercussions of legalization. His motive is distinctly for the profit that can come from legalization. Legalization would drastically increase the amount of growers and interested parties in his school.Another strong voice in pro-legalization is the social club S.K. Seymour LLC which is a Medical Cannabis Provider ( 3 ), who again would see a dramatic increase in profit and sales collectable to the fact that they can open up their business to the public, and not just medical marijuana patients. It seems that neither of the sources, from the research done, are interested in the negative and adverse affects of legalization and only interested in the mercenary value of legalization.It is also important to analyze the negative social effects of marijuan a on society, most notably the economic affects and the medical effects. novel proposition 19 in California stated that No person shall be punished, fined, discriminated against, or be denied any right or claim for lawfully engaging in any conduct permitted by this Act or authorized pursuant to Section 11301 of this Act. Provided however, that the existing right of an employer to cite consumption that actually impairs job performance by an employee shall not be abnormal. Basically stating that employers can no longer regulate marijuana use while working unless it can show that performance is being impaired by use ( 3 ).proposal 19 also is in conflict with the Federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970 which prohibits the use of marijuana for recreational use. This would be a mistake by California due to the fact that the state would loose billions of federal dollars in the form of grants and aid called for by the Federal Workplace Act of 1988. Not only would government loose c urrency but also schools and medical centers can potentially be affected ( 3 ). The health risks for marijuana usage are as far-famed as the social repercussions.Marijuana is known to cause A-motivational syndrome, which is a get down state of the brain in which reaction times and motivation is affected by long term use ( 3 ). Furthermore the penetration theory blames marijuana as the compromise that leads an individual to try harder more harmful drugs. Lastly marijuana has been placed on the California Proposition 65 list of carcinogenic materials, as proven materials that cause malignant neoplastic disease ( 3 ).In this paper I argued that the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws definitions and reasoning for a responsible legal user is flawed. Many of their arguments are invalid and lack sound reasoning to a conclusion. That the claim that marijuana should be legal and taxed is not a fully developed claim and that the sources of the claims motives are not so und in reasoning for legalization. Finally I argued that if marijuana is legalized it would be detrimental to society specifically regarding medical and economic problems. The arguments for legalization are not convincing and present many fallacies, Legalization supporters have the harm idea of controlled use.