persuasive speech on why marijuana should be legalized

Home » Uncategorized » Five Reasons Why We Should Legalize Cannabis

The Yale Ledger is a student-led magazine showcasing content from around the Yale community.

If you are affiliated with the Yale student community and have an article you want to share, please email Layla Winston .

If you notice any spam or inappropriate content, please contact us so we can remove it.

• February 2024
• January 2024
• December 2023
• November 2023
• October 2023
• September 2023
• August 2023
• February 2023
• January 2023
• December 2022
• November 2022
• October 2022
• September 2022
• August 2022
• February 2022
• January 2022
• December 2021
• September 2021
• August 2021
• February 2021
• January 2021

Five Reasons Why We Should Legalize Cannabis

Cannabis use in the United States has had a long and complicated history. For decades, people who used cannabis were subject to social ostracization and criminal prosecution. However, attitudes toward cannabis have been evolving in recent years. An increasing number of states have started to legalize cannabis for medical or recreational use. This shift in policy has been driven by a variety of factors including changing public attitudes and the potential economic benefits of legalization. In this article, we will explore the potential benefits of legalizing cannabis in our country.

1. Legalization for the Environment

Legalizing cannabis can have significant benefits for the environment. When cannabis is grown illegally, it is often done in environmentally damaging ways, such as using chemical pesticides or clearing primary forests to make room for crops. Legalization could allow customers to support more environmental growers. This will incentivize more responsible growing practices, such as the use of organic farming methods or the use of renewable energy sources to power indoor grow operations. In addition, the culture of growing cannabis can help to discover and preserve precious marijuana seeds , increasing biodiversity and facilitating a deeper understanding of cannabis plants and their cultivation.

2. Legalization for Justice

Where cannabis is illegal, people are being arrested and charged for possession or sale, which leads to costly court cases and a burden on the criminal justice system. Legalization would free up law enforcement resources to focus on more serious crimes and simultaneously reduce the number of people incarcerated for non-violent drug offenses. This could help to reduce the overall prison population and save taxpayers money.

In addition, legalization can have significant benefits for justice and equity, particularly for marginalized communities that have been disproportionately affected by the criminalization of cannabis. Communities of color have been particularly affected by the war on drugs, with Black Americans being nearly four times more likely to be arrested for cannabis possession than white Americans, despite similar rates of use.

By regulating cannabis cultivation and sales, legalization can help to eliminate the black market and reduce the involvement of criminal organizations in the cannabis industry. This can lead to safer communities and reduced drug-related violence in communities that have been most affected by the criminalization of cannabis.

3. Legalization for Public Health

Cannabis has been shown to have many beneficial and therapeutic effects on both physical and mental health. However, people may be hesitant to seek medical marijuana treatment due to fear of legal repercussions if cannabis is illegal. Legalization can allow more people to enjoy better health outcomes. It can also promote the safer use of cannabis by educating the public on appropriate cannabis use and providing quality control measures for cannabis products. Legalization can also lead to increased research into potential medical applications of cannabis and could lead to the development of innovative treatments.

Another potential perk of cannabis legalization is that it could reduce the use of more harmful drugs. In the absence of cannabis, people may turn to more dangerous drugs like heroin or fentanyl to manage chronic pain or other conditions. By legalizing cannabis, we can provide a safer alternative for these individuals and could reduce the overall demand for these more dangerous drugs. States that have legalized cannabis found a decrease in opioid overdose deaths and hospitalizations, suggesting that cannabis are an effective alternative to prescription painkillers.

4. Legalization for the Economy

The legalization of cannabis can generate significant tax revenue for governments and create new economic opportunities. When cannabis is illegal, it is sold on the black market, and no taxes are collected on these sales. However, when it is legal, sales can be regulated, and taxes can be imposed on those sales. In states that have legalized cannabis, tax revenue from cannabis sales has been in the millions of dollars , with California registering a whopping $1.2 billion in cannabis tax revenue in 2021. This impressive income can be used to reduce budget deficits, fund various public services such as education and healthcare, and create new opportunities for investment in projects that revitalize the economy.

Aside from tax revenue, legalizing cannabis can create new jobs. The cannabis industry is a rapidly growing industry, and legalization could lead to the creation of new jobs in areas such as cultivation, processing, and retail sales. This can help to reduce unemployment and create new gainful opportunities for people who may have struggled to find employment in other industries. Legalization can also lead to increased investment in related industries, such as the development of new products or technologies to improve cannabis cultivation or the creation of new retail businesses. There are now several venture capital funds and investment groups that focus solely on cannabis-related enterprises.

5. Legalization for Acceptance

Finally, legalization could help reduce the stigma surrounding cannabis use. Before cannabis legalization, people who use the plant were often viewed as criminals or deviants. Legalization can help change this perception and lead to more open and honest conversations about cannabis use. Ultimately, legalization could lead to a more accepting and inclusive society where individuals are not judged or discriminated against for their personal and healthcare choices. By legalizing cannabis, we can harness the power of a therapeutic plant. Legalization can heal not just physical and mental ailments of individuals but also the social wounds that have resulted from its criminalization.

Leave a comment 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.

Powered by WordPress / Academica WordPress Theme by WPZOOM

• 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

What We Know (and Don’t) About Nicotine Pouches

Majority of Acute Care Hospitals Do Not Admit Representative Proportion of Black Medicare Patients in Their Local Market

Fake Drugs, Real Dangers

How Dangerous is Dengue?

Research Identifies Characteristics of Cities That Would Support Young People’s Mental Health

Why We Must Legalize Marijuana

The federal prohibition of marijuana has been unnecessarily cruel—wasting billions of dollars, unjustly harming millions of lives, and furthering racist policies. 

by Robert Reich

May 28, 2019

AP Photo/Richard Vogel

The federal prohibition on marijuana has been a disaster. For decades, millions of Americans have been locked up and billions of dollars have been wasted. It's also deepened racial and economic inequality.

We must end this nonsensical prohibition.

The facts are staggering. In 2017, more Americans were arrested for marijuana possession than for murder, rape, aggravated assault and robbery combined. That’s one marijuana arrest every minute.

The costs associated with enforcing this ban—including arrests, court costs, and incarceration— reach nearly $14 billion a year .

Prohibition also hurts the economy in terms of lost wages. And Americans with criminal records have a harder time finding a job and getting the education they need.

On the other hand, legalizing, taxing, and regulating is good for the economy and creates jobs.

By simply levying a tax on marijuana like we do cigarettes and alcohol, state and local governments could raise more than $6 billion a year . This doesn’t even include additional revenue from taxes on the marijuana industry.

States like Colorado and Washington that tax and regulate marijuana have already generated millions of dollars for health care, education, and other public investments.

But this is more than an economic issue. It's also a matter of racial justice and equality.

The federal prohibition on marijuana dates back to anti-Mexican sentiment in the 1930s. In large part, it was nothing more than another way to criminalize communities of color.

Today, black and brown Americans are still much more likely to be arrested for marijuana than white Americans , despite using marijuana at similar rates.

Given the racist legacy of these laws, it's particularly important that the economic gains of legalization extend to communities that have been most harmed by the war on drugs.

Support for marijuana legalization has surged in recent years, with two-thirds of Americans now in favor of it. Even a majority of Republicans are in support , and more states are taking action to reform their laws and move toward legalization.

Yet Donald Trump and his administration are trying to turn back the clock. They've even formed a task force to weaken public support for legalization and help spread misinformation about so-called “marijuana threats.”

Just as with the prohibition on alcohol in the 1920s, the federal prohibition of marijuana has been unnecessarily cruel—wasting billions of dollars, unjustly harming millions of lives, and furthering racist policies.

It's time to legalize marijuana.

You can count on the Prospect , can we count on you?

There's no paywall here. Your donations power our newsroom as we report on ideas, politics and power — and what’s really at stake as we navigate another presidential election year. Please, become a member , or make a one-time donation , today. Thank you!

About the Prospect / Contact Info

Browse Archive / Back Issues

Subscription Services

Privacy Policy

DONATE TO THE PROSPECT

Copyright 2023 | The American Prospect, Inc. | All Rights Reserved

• Take Action: Urge your state legislators to support a compassionate medical cannabis program!
• Connecticut
• District of Columbia
• Massachusetts
• Mississippi
• New Hampshire
• North Carolina
• North Dakota
• Pennsylvania
• Rhode Island
• South Carolina
• South Dakota
• West Virginia
• Effective Arguments for Regulating and Taxing Marijuana
• Cannabis Legalization

Introduction

The key to being a successful advocate of ending cannabis prohibition is effective communication. Specifically, advocates must be able to: 1) convey the most important arguments in support of legalizing, regulating, and taxing cannabis, and 2) respond to arguments made in opposition to legalization. Whether you are engaging in personal discussions, participating in public debates, conducting media interviews, or corresponding with government officials, it is critical that you are prepared. This document will provide you with the most persuasive talking points and strongest rebuttals to employ when communicating about the benefits of replacing cannabis prohibition with a system of regulating and taxing cannabis for adults. We recommend you keep it handy when conducting interviews or engaging in public debates. You are welcome to convey the information verbatim or simply use it as a general guide when carrying out advocacy activities. NOTE: New statistics and studies are constantly emerging. If you would like to confirm whether a given piece of information is current, or if you would like to suggest additions or revisions to this document, please contact the Marijuana Policy Project communications department at [email protected] . Some information was adapted from Marijuana Is Safer: So why are we driving people to drink? (Chelsea Green, July 2013) by Steve Fox, Paul Armentano, and Mason Tvert.  

Cannabis and Alcohol (Not Cannabis vs. Alcohol)  

You will notice this document includes many comparisons drawn between cannabis and alcohol, most of which pertain to the relative safety of the former compared to the latter. This information should not be used to express the notion that alcohol should be illegal or that laws governing it should be more restrictive. Alcohol prohibition was a failed policy that produced many of the same problems that are associated with cannabis prohibition. Rather, the information comparing cannabis and alcohol should be used to highlight the intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy of laws that allow adults to use alcohol and punish them for using a less harmful substance. It can also be used to highlight the inherent harm associated with such disparate, co-existing policies. Just as it would be bad public policy to prohibit people from choosing to consume chicken instead of beef — or beer instead of liquor — it is bad public policy to prohibit adults from consuming cannabis instead of alcohol, if that is what they would prefer.

Proactive Arguments

These are the key points we want to make when given the opportunity to make our case.

• Cannabis prohibition has been just as ineffective, inefficient, and problematic as alcohol prohibition. Polls show a strong and growing majority of Americans agree it is time to end cannabis prohibition. Nationwide, an October 2019 Gallup poll found that 66% support making cannabis use legal for adults, up from 48% in 2008 and 36% in 2005. [1] An October 2019 Pew Research Center poll found two-thirds (67%) of Americans support legalization up from 53% in 2015 and 32% in 2006. [2]
• Cannabis is objectively less harmful than alcohol to the consumer and to society. It is less toxic, less harmful to the body, less addictive, and less likely to contribute to violent or reckless behavior. Adults should not be punished for making the safer choice to use cannabis instead of alcohol, if that is what they prefer.
• Regulating cannabis like alcohol will replace the uncontrolled illicit market with a tightly regulated system. By legalizing and regulating cannabis, authorities actually know who is selling it, where it is being sold, when, and to whom. In jurisdictions where cannabis is legal, it is produced and sold by legitimate, taxpaying businesses instead of drug cartels and criminals. These businesses will be required to test their products and adhere to strict labeling and packaging requirements that ensure cannabis is identifiable and consumers know what they are getting.
• Government resources should not be wasted arresting and prosecuting cannabis consumers. Hundreds of thousands of Americans are arrested each year for cannabis-related offenses, the vast majority of which are for simple possession. Government resources could be better spent on things like testing untested rape kits or investing in human needs, such as mental health counseling, substance abuse treatment, and activities for at-risk teens.
• Enforcement of cannabis prohibition laws disproportionately impacts communities of color. Despite using cannabis at roughly the same rates as whites, Blacks in the U.S. are nearly four times more likely to be arrested for cannabis possession. In some states, the disparity is even greater. [3]

Reactive Arguments               

These are responses to arguments we frequently hear from our opponents.                                                      

Too Dangerous/Unhealthy for Consumers

• Every objective study on cannabis has concluded that it is less harmful than alcohol to the consumer and to society. Following an “exhaustive and comprehensive” two-year study of cannabis performed by the Canadian government, the chair of the Special Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs reported, “Scientific evidence overwhelmingly indicates that cannabis is substantially less harmful than alcohol.” [4] Most Americans recognize that alcohol prohibition was a failure and agree adults should have the right to consume alcohol responsibly. [5] It is illogical to punish adults for consuming a less harmful substance, and it is irrational to steer them toward drinking if they would prefer to make the safer choice to use cannabis instead.
• The health effects of alcohol consumption are a primary factor in countless deaths. The health effects of cannabis consumption are not a primary factor in any deaths. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), there were more than 35,000 alcohol-induced deaths in the U.S. in 2017 (i.e. deaths caused directly by long-term use and accidental overdose; this does not include deaths caused by unintentional injuries, homicides, and other causes indirectly related to alcohol use). The CDC did not report any cannabis-induced deaths. [6] A study published in Scientific Reports  in January 2015 found that the mortality risk associated with cannabis was approximately 114 times less than that of alcohol. [7] In January 2017, the National Academies of Sciences released an exhaustive review of cannabis-related research that found no link between cannabis use and mortality. [8]
• Many people die from alcohol overdoses. There has never been a confirmed cannabis overdose death. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine concluded in 2017 that no link has been established between cannabis and fatal overdoses. [9] Meanwhile, the CDC reports an average of more than 2,200 alcohol poisoning deaths per year. [10] The official publication of the Scientific Research Society reported that alcohol is one of the most toxic drugs and that death can result from consuming just 10 times the effective dose (the amount a person would use to experience the desired effect). Cannabis, on the other hand, is one of the least toxic drugs, requiring thousands of times the effective dose to lead to death. [11] In 1988, after hearing two years of testimony, the chief administrative law judge for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) determined “it is physically impossible to eat enough cannabis to induce death” and concluded, “Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man.” [12]
• There are far more health-related problems associated with alcohol use than with cannabis use, and the health-related costs associated with alcohol far exceed those associated with cannabis.  In 2005, a University of Oxford meta-analysis on cannabis concluded that even long-term cannabis use does not cause “any lasting physical or mental harm. … Overall, by comparison with other drugs used mainly for ‘recreational’ purposes, cannabis could be rated to be a relatively safe drug.” [13] In the mid-1990s, the World Health Organization commissioned a study on the health and societal consequences of cannabis compared to alcohol and other drugs, which concluded the overall risks associated with cannabis are “small to moderate in size” and “unlikely to produce public health problems comparable in scale to those currently produced by alcohol and tobacco.” [14] Health-related costs for alcohol consumers are eight times greater than those for cannabis consumers, according to an assessment performed by researchers at the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse and the Centre for Addictions Research of British Columbia. [15] More specifically, the annual cost of alcohol consumption is $165 per user, compared to just $20 per user for cannabis.

Cancer and the Impact of Smoking or Vaporizing Cannabis on the Lungs

• Extensive research has failed to find a link between cannabis and cancer. In January 2017, the National Academies of Sciences released a review of more than 10,000 scientific abstracts that concluded there is no link between smoking cannabis and the development of lung, head, or neck cancers. [16] It also did not find a link between cannabis use and asthma or other respiratory diseases, and the respiratory problems it did link to smoking cannabis, such as bronchitis, appeared to improve after consumers stopped using it. Similarly, in 1999, the National Academies’ Institute of Medicine reported, “There is no conclusive evidence that marijuana causes cancer in humans, including cancers usually related to tobacco use.” [17] According to research published in the journal Cancer, Causes, and Control , cannabis inhalation — unlike tobacco smoking — has not been positively associated with increased incidences of cancers of the lung, mouth, pharynx, larynx, esophagus, breast, colon, skin, or prostate. [18] It was also reaffirmed in 2006 by the largest case-controlled study ever conducted to investigate the respiratory effects of cannabis smoking and cigarette smoking. The study, led by Dr. Donald Tashkin at the University of California at Los Angeles, found “no association at all” between cannabis smoking and an increased risk of developing lung cancer, even among subjects who reported smoking more than 22,000 joints over their lifetimes. [19] , [20] Surprisingly, the UCLA researchers found that people who smoked cannabis actually had  lower incidences of cancer compared to non-users, leading them to the conclusion that cannabis might have a protective effect against lung cancer. Other studies have shown that cannabis can kill cancer cells and inhibit tumor growth. [21] , [22]
• The effects of smoking cannabis pale in comparison to those associated with smoking tobacco. Opponents of cannabis policy reform often talk about the presence of carcinogens in cannabis smoke, oftentimes arguing that there are more cancer-causing chemicals in cannabis than in tobacco. Yet, there has never been a single documented case of a cannabis-only smoker developing lung cancer as a result of his or her cannabis use. Meanwhile, tobacco is responsible for 30% of all cancer deaths in the U.S. and 87% of lung cancer deaths. [23] According to research published in 2013 in the journal Annals of the American Thoracic Society , “[H]abitual use of marijuana alone does not appear to lead to significant abnormalities in lung function.” It concluded, “In summary, the accumulated weight of evidence implies far lower risks for pulmonary complications of even regular heavy use of marijuana compared with the grave pulmonary consequences of tobacco.” [24] Inhaling any kind of smoke is unhealthy, but the effects of smoking cannabis are relatively mild and short-term in nature. Typically, they take the form of coughing, wheezing, and bronchitis that dissipate after the cessation of use. A 2012 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that moderate lifetime cannabis smoking — defined as at least one joint per day for seven years or one joint per week for 49 years — is not associated with adverse effects on pulmonary function. [25]
• Exposure to secondhand cannabis smoke — unlike tobacco smoke — has little to no effect. There is no evidence that exposure to secondhand cannabis smoke has any significant long-term health implications, whereas studies have shown secondhand tobacco smoke can cause health issues. [26] In 1986, the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) conducted a study in which they placed people in an unventilated 8x7-foot room and burned a series of cannabis cigarettes. After being exposed to the smoke of four joints for one continuous hour for six consecutive days, most participants had no trace of cannabis in their systems. Those who did only had THC metabolites detectable in their urine (meaning they were never actually “high”). It took researchers burning 16 joints for one continuous hour each day for six consecutive days to produce the effect of consuming one joint. Obviously, it is pretty rare that anyone would ever find themselves in a small room where 16 joints are smoked continuously for one hour per day for six consecutive days.
• Only legalization allows for the regulation of vaporization devices and cartridges, enabling regulators to keep dangerous additives and pesticides out of cannabis products . Most or all of the cannabis vaporization-related lung illnesses and deaths were tied to the illicit market. A California laboratory tested illegal and regulated cannabis vaporization cartridges and found that 13 out of 15 of the illegal products included vitamin E acetate, the compound the CDC identified as the likely cause of the illnesses. [27] None of the legal products it tested had these additives, nor did they have the illicit pesticides or heavy metals that were present in most of the illicit cartridges.
• There are many ways to consume cannabis other than smoking or vaporizing, including edible products, tinctures, capsules, and topicals. Creating a legal, regulated market for a variety of products makes it easier for consumers to choose non-smoked options.  

Addiction and Treatment

• Cannabis is significantly less addictive than alcohol and tobacco. According to a 1998 report by Drs. Jack E. Henningfield of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and Neal L. Benowitz of the University of California at San Francisco, cannabis’s addiction potential is no greater than that of caffeine. [28] A comprehensive federal study conducted by the National Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Medicine arrived at a similar conclusion: “Millions of Americans have tried marijuana, but most are not regular users [and] few marijuana users become dependent on it … [A]lthough [some] marijuana users develop dependence, they appear to be less likely to do so than users of other drugs (including alcohol and nicotine), and marijuana dependence appears to be less severe than dependence on other drugs.” According to the IOM report, only 9% of cannabis users ever meet the clinical criteria for a diagnosis of cannabis “dependence” based on the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd edition, revised), compared to 15% of alcohol users and 32% of tobacco users. [29] Some experts believe significantly fewer than 9% of cannabis users are actually dependent because the DSM is clearly biased against cannabis use, whereas it is accepting of alcohol use. [30] It considers moderate, non-problematic cannabis use a “mental disorder,” but goes out of its way to make the case that the moderate use of alcohol — a more addictive and potentially harmful substance — is not a disorder. It even notes, “[S]ocial drinking frequently causes loquacity, euphoria, and slurred speech; but this should not be considered Intoxication unless maladaptive behavior, such as fighting, impaired judgment, or impaired social or occupational functioning, results.” In other words, drinking to the point of experiencing euphoria and slurred speech is not considered “intoxication,” whereas using any amount of cannabis should be considered “intoxication.” The DSM survey is also conducted under the assumption that using cannabis on six occasions could constitute dependence, whereas using alcohol on any number of occasions might not. Specifically, the DSM considers someone dependent if they report that at least three of seven statements about their cannabis use apply to them. For example, it asks if “a great deal of time was spent in activities necessary to get the substance.” Because cannabis is illegal in most of the country, it is quite likely that the individual had to spend more time trying to get it, but that does not suggest they are addicted. It also asks if “important social, occupational, or recreational activities [were] given up or reduced because of use.” Yet, some people might lose their jobs if they get arrested or fail a workplace drug test, or they might feel they have fewer opportunities because they are worried prospective employers will require drug tests. Again, this does not make someone “addicted” to cannabis. A third criterion is whether the individual's use increases as they become tolerant of the substance. If someone experiences increased tolerance of the substance and uses more to get the desired effect, yet experiences no problems as a result, they should not be considered “addicted” to the substance. A couple other DSM criteria for dependence are similarly suspect. It is worth noting that some research has concluded that allowing people to use cannabis could produce a reduction in their consumption of more addictive substances. For example, a study performed by a researcher at the University of California, Berkeley found that “medical marijuana patients have been engaging in substitution by using cannabis as an alternative to alcohol, prescription and illicit drugs.” It also recommended further research to determine whether “substitution might be a viable alternative to abstinence for those who are not able, or do not wish to stop using psychoactive substances completely.” [31] This hypothesis will surely be explored as states continue to remove legal barriers to adult cannabis consumption.
• Most people in treatment for cannabis were ordered there by the criminal justice system. In other words, they didn’t actually seek or need treatment, but were arrested and offered treatment as an alternative to jail time or other serious penalties. According to data released in 2017 by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), more than half of the people in drug treatment primarily for cannabis were referred by the criminal justice system, and fewer than one in five checked themselves in voluntarily or were referred by another individual. [32] Essentially, the government arrests people for using cannabis and forces them into treatment, and then it and other opponents of cannabis policy reform use those treatment admissions as “proof” that cannabis is addictive. The real scandal here is that countless needed treatment slots are being wasted on responsible cannabis users whose only problem with the drug was that they got caught with it.

Mental Health

• The evidence shows no causal relationship between cannabis use and the onset of mental health conditions. Many opponents misrepresent a 2017 report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, which found an  association  between cannabis use and schizophrenia, not that cannabis use  causes In fact, the report itself noted, “In certain societies, the incidence of schizophrenia has remained stable over the past 50 years despite the introduction of cannabis into those settings.” Surely if marijuana use caused schizophrenia, that would not be the case. Further, one of the committee members of the study, Ziva Cooper, rebutted the claim that cannabis use causes schizophrenia in a series of Tweets. Cooper wrote, “Since the report, we now know that genetic risk for schizophrenia predicts cannabis use, shedding some light on the potential direction of the association between cannabis use and schizophrenia.” Similarly, if cannabis causes psychosis, rates of psychosis should rise if cannabis use goes up, but that has not happened. According to a report published by the prestigious British medical journal The Lancet , cannabis use skyrocketed in the 1960s and 1970s, but there was no significant increase in rates of psychosis. [33] In 2009, researchers at the Keele University Medical School in Britain arrived at a similar conclusion: “[I]ncreases in population cannabis use have not been followed by increases in psychotic incidence.” [34] In late 2005, the British government’s scientific advisors on drug policy reviewed the evidence surrounding cannabis and mental illness and determined that the data do not demonstrate that cannabis causes depression, anxiety, or bipolar disorder. [35] Specifically, the British Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs concluded, “The evidence for the existence of an association between frequency of cannabis use and the development of psychosis is, on the available evidence, weak.” A study published in the journal Addictive Behaviors in 2006 found lower rates of depression in cannabis users than in non-users. [36] There have been a handful of studies that have identified a minor association between chronic cannabis use and increased symptoms of mental health conditions, but other studies have failed to find such a link. [37] , [38] Confounding factors such as poly-drug use, family history, and poverty make it difficult to study cannabis’s potential impact on mental health.
• Cannabis affects different people differently — like many substances, it can be problematic for some people and beneficial for others. The relationship between cannabis and schizophrenia is a lot like sugar and diabetes. Both illnesses are primarily genetic in origin. Sugar can set off a diabetic attack in vulnerable individuals, and cannabis can set off or worsen a psychotic reaction in schizophrenics or in people with a genetic predisposition to schizophrenia. That’s not the same thing as causing the illness in the first place. There are some people who shouldn’t use cannabis, just like there are some people who should avoid sugar. It is worth noting that survey data and anecdotal reports of individuals finding therapeutic relief from depression and other mental conditions are not uncommon. Clinical testing on the use of cannabinoids to treat certain symptoms of mental illness has been recommended. [39]

Brain Damage

• There is no conclusive evidence that cannabis kills brain cells or causes brain damage, even in long-term heavy consumers. According to research published in the Journal of Neuroscience in January 2015, even daily cannabis use is not associated with changes in brain volume in adults or adolescents, noting it “lack[s] even a modest effect.” [40] They also found significant inconsistencies among scientific papers that claimed cannabis causes parts of the brain to shrink.

Decline in IQ

• There is no conclusive evidence that cannabis use results in lowered IQ. In 2014, researchers at University College London reported to the annual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology that they found “no relationship between cannabis use and IQ,” even among the heaviest users. They also reported that alcohol use is strongly associated with a decline in IQ. [41] Supporters of maintaining cannabis prohibition often cite a 2012 Duke study (based on data from New Zealand) that was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) , which linked minors’ chronic cannabis use to a long-term reduction in IQ. But they typically fail to mention that the same journal published an analysis later that year that criticized the study for having flawed methodology. [42] In summary, it failed to account for the low socioeconomic status of many of the study's participants, and research has found that adolescents of low socioeconomic status tend to experience declines in IQ regardless of cannabis use. A study published by the Canadian Medical Association Journal that included only middle-class participants found that IQ only decreased among current cannabis consumers, and even in heavy users, it rebounded after they stopped using it. [43] It is also worth noting that one of the researchers who performed the New Zealand study told news sources “[she] is fairly confident that cannabis is safe for over-18 brains.” [44]

Motivation and School/Job Performance

• The claim that cannabis makes people “amotivated” is a myth that has been repeatedly debunked by experts. In its comprehensive 1999 report on cannabis, the National Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Medicine concluded, “no convincing data demonstrate a causal relationship between cannabis smoking and these behavioral characteristics.” [45] Similarly, an Australian government review produced by several of the world’s leading experts concluded, “There is no compelling evidence for an amotivational syndrome among chronic cannabis users.” [46] An analysis released by the World Health Organization in 1995 arrived at a similar conclusion. [47] Some studies of college students have found that cannabis consumers actually earn higher grades than non-users. [48]
• Any substance or behavior can potentially interfere with an individual’s ability to perform well at work or in school. Whether it’s cannabis, alcohol, food, or video games, too much of it can be problematic for some people. The vast majority of cannabis users do not encounter such problems.

Gateway Theory

• The so-called “Gateway Theory” has been debunked repeatedly. Most recently, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine reported in February 2017 that there is no substantial link between cannabis use and the use of other illegal drugs. [49] A 1999 study by the National Academies’ Institute of Medicine found that cannabis “does not appear to be a gateway drug to the extent that it is the cause or even that it is the most significant predictor of serious drug abuse; that is, care must be taken not to attribute cause to association.” [50] In June 2015, the American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse published research that concluded cannabis use itself was not a risk factor for use of other substances. [51]
• If there is a “gateway drug,” it is alcohol, which almost always precedes the use of cannabis. [52] But just as alcohol use does not cause people to use cannabis, using cannabis does not cause people to use other illicit drugs. In other words, there is correlation but not causation. Given the wide-scale availability and popularity of alcohol and cannabis, it comes as little surprise that people who use other illicit drugs previously tried alcohol and cannabis.
• The vast majority of people who have used cannabis never try any other drugs. About half of all Americans have used cannabis at some point in their lives. [53] Yet, only 3.4% have ever tried crack, only 1.9% have ever tried heroin, and fewer than 15% of Americans have ever tried cocaine, the second most popular illegal drug after cannabis. [54] If using cannabis caused people to use other drugs, there would be far more users of other drugs.
• By forcing cannabis consumers into the underground market, we are dramatically increasing the possibility that they will be exposed to other more dangerous drugs.  According to a 1997 report published by the Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction: “There is no physically determined tendency toward switching from marijuana to harder substances. Social factors, however, do appear to play a role. The more users become integrated in an environment (‘subculture’) where, apart from cannabis, hard drugs can also be obtained, the greater the chance that they may switch to hard drugs. Separation of the drug markets is therefore essential.” [55]

Cannabis Is Not Harmless

• No drug is entirely harmless, including cannabis, and we’ve never said it is. But it’s also true that independent scientific and government reviews have concluded that the health risks of cannabis are much lower than those of alcohol and tobacco, and that those risks don’t justify arresting and jailing responsible, adult cannabis users. (See other sections regarding relative harms of cannabis compared to other substances.)
• We need to be honest about the actual harms of all substances, and it would be irresponsible not to discuss the fact that cannabis is objectively less harmful than alcohol. Do you think people should be aware of the fact that cannabis poses less potential harm to the consumer than heroin or methamphetamine? Why wouldn't we want people to be aware of the fact that cannabis is less harmful than alcohol, too?

Potency and Concentrates (Oils, Hashes, Waxes, Kief, “Dabs”)

• Even the most potent cannabis is far less harmful than alcohol. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) attributes about 35,000 deaths per year in the U.S. to alcohol use alone, including hundreds from overdoses. It attributes zero to cannabis, and there has never been a fatal cannabis overdose in history. [56] “You can die binge-drinking minutes after you've been exposed to alcohol. That isn't going to happen with marijuana,” according to Ruben Baler, a health scientist at the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). [57]
• Like alcohol, there are more potent and less potent types of cannabis, and regulating cannabis will ensure consumers know what they are getting. Some people prefer to have a cocktail instead of a beer, and as a result, they know to drink less of it. By regulating cannabis like alcohol, we can ensure it is packaged and labeled properly. It would be unthinkable to sell beer and tequila side-by-side without having them labeled so people know one is far stronger than the other.
• If cannabis concentrates are banned, they will end up being produced and sold in the same underground market we are trying to eliminate. We should ensure these products are being produced safely and responsibly by licensed businesses in appropriate locations.
• A majority of Americans support making cannabis legal, and they care just as much about protecting young people as those who wish to keep cannabis illegal. They simply believe regulation would be a more effective way of doing it.
• Cannabis prohibition has failed miserably at keeping cannabis out of the hands of teens. From 1975-2012, 80-90% of 12th graders consistently reported that cannabis was “fairly easy” or “very easy” to obtain. For the first time since the survey began 40 years ago, high school seniors’ perception of cannabis’s availability has dipped below 80% — after states began to legalize cannabis. [58] If a key goal of prohibition is to keep cannabis out of the hands of young people, yet more than 80% could get it easily, that is a sign that the policy failed. It's time for a more thoughtful approach.
• By forcing cannabis into an underground market, we are guaranteeing that sales will be entirely uncontrolled. Illegal cannabis dealers do not ask for ID, they sell a product that is unregulated and possibly impure, and they might expose consumers to other more harmful drugs. In a regulated market, businesses would be required to ask customers for proof of age, and they would face severe penalties for selling cannabis to minors.
• Strictly regulating alcohol and tobacco products and restricting sales to minors have produced significant decreases in use and availability among teens. The rate of teen cannabis use has generally remained steady over the past several years, whereas levels of alcohol and cigarette use have decreased. [59] Over the past several years, cigarette use and availability among teens, which had been sharply increasing in the early 1990s, began steadily declining shortly after the 1995 implementation of the “We Card” program, a renewed commitment to strictly restricting the sale of tobacco to young people, along with a focused effort on public education. Ultimately, we were able to dramatically reduce teen tobacco use without arresting any adults for using tobacco.
• Research has shown that reforming cannabis laws does not increase teen cannabis use. A study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry in 2016 found that the number of teens using cannabis — and the number with problematic use — is falling as more states legalize or decriminalize cannabis. The findings were based on a survey of more than 200,000 youth in all 50 states. Government surveys of students in states with medical cannabis and legalization laws have consistently shown humane cannabis policies do not result in increases in teen cannabis use. [60] According to the most comprehensive surveys, no state has seen an overall increase outside of the confidence interval since passage. Data has long shown that medical cannabis protections do not cause teen cannabis use rates to increase. A 2015 national study covering 24 years of data published in The Lancet found that medical cannabis laws do not lead to an increase in teen cannabis use. According to the lead researcher, the findings “provide the strongest evidence to date that marijuana use by teenagers does not increase after a state legalizes medical marijuana.” [61] Similarly, as the American Academy of Pediatrics noted in its statement supporting decriminalization, “Decriminalization of recreational use of marijuana by adults has also not led to an increase in youth use rates of recreational marijuana.”
• Available data suggests that legalizing and regulating cannabis for adult use has not led to increases in teen use. In February 2017, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment reported the rate of cannabis use among adolescents “has not changed since legalization either in terms of the number of people using or the frequency of use among users. …Based on the most comprehensive data available, past-month marijuana use among Colorado adolescents is nearly identical to the national average.” [62] It based this conclusion on the results of its biannual Healthy Kids Colorado Survey (HKCS), which found 21.2% of high school students in Colorado reported using cannabis within the past 30 days in 2015 (compared to 21.7% nationwide). This was a slight drop from 22% in 2011, the year before the state approved a legalization initiative. HKCS’s 2017 study shows the favorable trend has continued: 19.4% of high school students in Colorado reported using cannabis within the past 30 days in 2017.
• Washington has had a similar experience since voters legalized cannabis in 2012. The Washington State Healthy Youth Survey, a state-run survey of 37,000 middle and high school students, found that the rate of cannabis use remained basically unchanged from 2012-2018. Similarly, Oregon’s Health Teens Survey found no increase from 2013- 2017. The CDC’s Youth Risk Behavior Survey conducts large-scale surveys in five legalization states — Alaska, California, Massachusetts, Maine, and Nevada. Its before-and-after data shows no statistically significant increases in high schoolers’ past-30-day cannabis use. (Four of the states’ data indicated decreases within the confidence interval, while Alaska’s data indicated an increase within the confidence interval.) [63] The head of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), Nora Volkow, has acknowledged that cannabis usage rates have not risen in recent years despite changes in policy and public attitudes. “All of those factors have led many to predict that there would be an increase in the pattern of use of marijuana among teenagers and we are not seeing it,” she said in an interview in December 2015. [64] She echoed the same point a year later: “We had predicted based on the changes in legalization, culture in the U.S. as well as decreasing perceptions among teenagers that marijuana was harmful [and] that [accessibility and use] would go up. But it hasn’t gone up.” [65]

Sending the Wrong Message to Teens

• Cannabis is already widely available and widely used — regulating it simply sends the messages that cannabis is for adults and should be handled responsibly. Cannabis prohibition laws, which allow adults to use alcohol but punish them for using a less harmful substance, are intellectually dishonest. Once young people realize that cannabis is not as dangerous as they have been led to believe, they are less likely to trust authorities’ warnings about other more dangerous drugs.
• Cannabis prohibition laws send the inaccurate and potentially dangerous message that cannabis is more harmful than alcohol. By allowing adults to use alcohol and making it a crime for them to use cannabis, our laws are steering people toward using the substance that is much more likely to cause harm to them or those around them. Our laws should reflect the facts, and it is a fact that cannabis is less harmful than alcohol.

Continuing Racial Disparities in Enforcement

• Advocates of reform do not claim decriminalization or legalization will make racial disparity in enforcement disappear. Pointing out that racial disparities exist and that ending cannabis prohibition can decrease the impacts of those disparities is not the same as saying racial disparities will end. Changing policies merely takes away some the mechanisms most commonly used for racially unequal policing.
• Decreases in arrests, searches, and convictions are a net benefit. While disparities continue to be found in arrest rates for things like underage consumption and public use after legalization, the overall decrease in arrests results in fewer people of color being arrested or fined. Following legalization, both the number of searches during traffic stops and the disparities in those searches plummeted in both Washington and Colorado. [66] Unnecessary searches can be intrusive, traumatic, dangerous, and destroy trust between law enforcement and communities.

Legal Age (18 vs. 21 vs. other ages)

• Like with alcohol, it will be up to lawmakers and/or voters to decide the appropriate legal age for using cannabis. Some people believe the legal age should be 18 because the individual is legally an adult and cannabis is far less harmful than alcohol and tobacco. Others think it should be 19 or older because 18-year-olds are still in high school and might be tempted to purchase it for their underage friends. Many people think the age limit should be 21 because, like alcohol, cannabis is intoxicating. It could be different from state to state as it used to be for alcohol, or a national legal age could be set at some point. So far, every legalization state in the U.S. has set the age at 21. In Canada, the legal age for cannabis has mirrored the legal drinking age, which is 18 or 19, depending on the province.                                  

Crime and Violence

• Research generally shows that cannabis — unlike alcohol — is not linked to violent or aggressive behavior. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine performed an analysis of more than 10,000 scientific abstracts about cannabis and did not appear to find a link between cannabis use and violent behavior. In fact, research often shows cannabis use reduces the likelihood of that an individual will act violently. According to research published in the journal, Addictive Behaviors , “Alcohol is clearly the drug with the most evidence to support a direct intoxication-violence relationship,” whereas, “Cannabis reduces the likelihood of violence during intoxication.” [67] The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services estimates that 25% to 30% of violent crimes and 3% to 4% of property crimes in the U.S. are linked to the use of alcohol. [68] According to a report from the U.S. Department of Justice, that translates to nearly 5,000,000 alcohol-related violent crimes per year. [69] By contrast, the government does not even track violent acts specifically related to cannabis use, as the use of cannabis has not been associated with violence. If we truly want to reduce the likelihood of violence in our communities, we should be allowing adults to use cannabis instead of alcohol, if that is what they prefer. Some opponents of cannabis policy reform claim cannabis users commit crimes to support their use of cannabis. Yet, cannabis is no more addictive than coffee, which is why neither cannabis users nor coffee drinkers commit crimes to support their use.
• Alcohol is a particularly significant factor in the prevalence of domestic violence and sexual assault, whereas cannabis is not. This is not to say that alcohol causes these problems; rather, its use makes it more likely that an individual prone to such behavior will act on it. For example, investigators at the Research Institute on Addictions reported, “The use of alcohol… was associated with significant increases in the daily likelihood of male-to-female physical aggression,” whereas the use of marijuana was “not significantly associated with an increased likelihood of male partner violence.” [70] Specifically, the odds of abuse were eight times higher on days when men were drinking; the odds of severe abuse were 11 times higher. The Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network’ (RAINN) webpage dedicated to educating the public about “Drug Facilitated Sexual Assault” highlights alcohol as the “most commonly used chemical in crimes of sexual assault” and provides information on an array of other drugs that have been linked to sexual violence. [71] The words “marijuana” and “cannabis” do not appear anywhere on the page.
• Legalization has not corresponded with increased crime rates. Government-published data, academic research, and the experiences of many law enforcement officials indicate that cannabis policy reform does not increase crime rates. Relying on statistics from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports, peer-reviewed studies have analyzed changes after passage of both adult-use legalization and medical cannabis laws. Contrary to assertions made by some opponents of legalization, there is no compelling basis for claims that legalizing cannabis and establishing regulated markets undermines public safety.
• Cannabis prohibition leads to violence. Virtually all the crime associated with cannabis is a direct result of its prohibition. Cannabis prohibition has relegated the sale of cannabis to criminal enterprises. In doing so, it is exposing many consumers to more harmful people and products. And since cannabis is illegal, these individuals are unable to rely on law enforcement officials to step in when business-related disputes and incidents occur. Violence is often employed to expand turf, which results in violence that affects not just cannabis dealers and consumers, but the broader communities of which they’re a part. A peer-reviewed paper in The Economic Journal supports the argument that legalizing cannabis reduces crime by displacing illicit markets traditionally controlled by drug cartels and illicit distributors. [72] Meanwhile, legalizing cannabis also frees up police time for crimes with victims. In a 2018 analysis, experts at Washington State University found that police solved significantly more violent and property crimes after passage of legalization laws in Colorado and Washington. [73]
• States’ experiences with medical cannabis dispensaries and retailers have demonstrated that there is no link between regulated cannabis businesses and crime — in fact, they might reduce it. A study published in 2013, which was conducted at the University of California at Los Angeles and funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), concluded: “[The] results suggest that the density of [medical marijuana dispensaries] may not be associated with increased crime rates or that measures dispensaries take to reduce crime (i.e., doormen, video cameras) may increase guardianship, such that it deters possible motivated offenders.” [74] A 2017 study funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) found that the closure of dispensaries around Los Angeles was associated with an increase in crime in surrounding areas. [75] The following year, researchers from RAND reported a “negative and significant relationship between dispensary allowances and property crime rates.” [76]

Driving Under the Influence

• It is currently illegal to drive while impaired by cannabis, and it will remain illegal after cannabis is regulated and legal for adults. Since law enforcement officials will no longer need to spend time arresting and prosecuting adults for possessing cannabis, they will have more time to spend enforcing laws against driving under the influence of alcohol, cannabis, and other substances.
• Statistics connecting cannabis use to traffic accidents are generally unreliable. For example, cannabis can remain detectable in a user’s system for several days or even several weeks after he or she consumes cannabis, and the data on traffic accidents usually does not differentiate between whether a driver was actually under the influence at the time of the accident. Oftentimes, the data also does not differentiate between which driver was at fault, meaning drivers who tested positive for cannabis may not have actually caused the accident. It is also worth noting that many fatal accidents don’t involve testing for the prevalence of drugs, and in some states it is involved in fewer than half. [77] , [78] In addition, some increases in cannabis detection in accidents can be attributed to increased rates of testing after cannabis became legal.
• Data and research studies cast doubt on the link between legalization and increased traffic safety problems. Though some research has found a modest increase in traffic fatalities in Colorado and Washington post-legalization, other studies have reached different conclusions, and there are good reasons to doubt claims that legalization causes an increase in fatal crashes. A paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research analyzed the rates of drivers found with THC (cannabis’s primary psychoactive ingredient) in their systems after fatal car crashes from 2013 to 2016. The researchers then compared the patterns of THC-positive drivers in Colorado and Washington during that time period to those in other states. In a summary of their results, the authors wrote, “We find the synthetic control groups saw similar changes in marijuana-related, alcohol-related and overall traffic fatality rates despite not legalizing recreational marijuana.” Furthermore, according to data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System, four of the eight states that legalized cannabis from 2012 through 2016 saw decreased rates of fatal car crashes following passage of legalization laws. These reduced crash rates were greater than the reduction seen on the national level over the same time period. Data from the Colorado Department of Transportation do not support the assertion that cannabis-impaired driving is becoming a more significant problem in the state. In 2016 (when the state initiated uniform reporting procedures for cannabis impaired driving cases), there were 51 “cannabis-involved fatalities.” In 2017 and 2018, the state reported 35 and 31, respectively. [79]
• Drivers can be tested for cannabis, and it is currently being done throughout the country. Typically, blood tests and urinalysis are used to determine whether a driver has consumed cannabis. Urinalysis can detect the presence of cannabis even if it was consumed days or weeks earlier, so it is not a good indicator of whether a driver is actually under the influence. Blood tests are far more demonstrative of whether an individual is actually “under the influence,” and states have adopted laws that establish a “legal limit” for cannabis. For example, Washington has established a “per se” limit of five ng/ml of THC in the blood, meaning any person found at or above that level is automatically deemed impaired (just as a person with a 0.08 blood alcohol concentration is automatically deemed impaired). There is evidence that some cannabis consumers maintain levels of five ng/ml of THC or more for several hours or even days after they have consumed, which has led to criticism that such “per se” standards can result in unimpaired drivers being charged for driving while impaired. In light of that evidence, Colorado has established a limit of five ng/ml with “rebuttable presumption,” meaning an individual is not automatically deemed impaired and can challenge the charge in court. Clearly, there is still a need to determine whether a driver is impaired by cannabis, but states already have Drug Recognition Expert training for just that purpose. Police use this training to detect drivers impaired by an array of prescription, over-the-counter, and illicit drugs. Any standards and penalties that are adopted should reflect existing science and must be based on demonstrating actual driving impairment.

Employment Issues and Drug Testing

• State voters or lawmakers can adopt laws that allow employers to maintain or create employment policies that prohibit the use of cannabis by employees on and off the job. Most of the legalization laws require employers to change their employment or drug testing policies. In one state, Nevada, a law does not allow a person to be denied employment based on a pre-employment drug screen, unless the employee has a safety-sensitive position, including a job that “in the determination of the employer, could adversely affect the safety of others.”
• There are laws in place that ensure employers have the ability to prohibit the use of cannabis by employees in “high-risk” or “safety-sensitive” positions. Don’t be fooled by opponents who claim making cannabis legal for adults will result in surgeons, pilots, truck drivers, and electrical line workers performing their jobs under the influence of cannabis.
• Adults should not be punished for using cannabis outside of the workplace unless there is some sort of extenuating circumstance, just as they should not be punished for consuming alcohol outside of the workplace. It’s worth noting that alcohol can produce a hangover, which can negatively affect an employee’s performance the day after he or she consumes it, whereas cannabis does not produce hangovers. Because of how the body metabolizes cannabis, urinalysis can detect it in the body for up to several weeks. The effects of cannabis, however, only last for up to several hours. Any employee drug-testing program should take this into account to ensure employees are not being punished for consuming cannabis outside of the workplace. Since cannabis is detectable for much longer than other substances, testing employees for it could steer them toward drinking or using other less detectable drugs. Employees should not perform potentially dangerous work when impaired by anything , be it sleep deprivation, prescription drugs, over-the-counter medication, or alcohol. The best way to keep workplaces safe is to ensure employees are fit to perform their duties. Cognitive awareness impairment alertness testing is likely a better solution than periodically testing employees’ urine for specific substances.
• Adopting a law that regulates cannabis like alcohol would not be a violation of the Federal Drug Free Workplace Act. The FDFW Act simply requires employers to have a drug policy and to have penalties for violations of that policy.

Industry Concerns (“Big Tobacco,” Advertising, Etc.)

• Why would we want cannabis to be sold by illegally instead of licensed businesses? Cannabis is widely available, widely used, and objectively less harmful than alcohol. There is no reason why we should be leaving it in the underground market where its cultivation and sale are entirely uncontrolled.  
• This is a new industry, and we have the opportunity to create responsible regulations right off the bat. State and local governments are able to create broad rules covering advertising, labeling, testing, serving sizes, additives, permissible financial interests, production caps, licensing classes, etc. Cannabis businesses and business groups are pushing for strong and sensible regulations since they are needed in order to establish and maintain a legitimate cannabis industry. For example, Colorado’s largest cannabis industry organization was a vocal supporter of a successful 2012 effort to ban outdoor advertising by cannabis businesses in Denver. [80] Ultimately, nobody wants to ensure these businesses are following all of the regulations more than the businesses themselves.
• The tobacco industry was initially poorly regulated, and there was not nearly as much public knowledge about the health effects of tobacco as we currently have for cannabis. For example, tobacco companies are now notorious for having used additives to make their products more addictive. Such practices are banned in legalization states. The biggest problem with the tobacco industry is that it sells an exceptionally dangerous product. Its use alone kills hundreds of thousands of Americans per year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), whereas zero deaths are attributed to cannabis use. Overall, the health-related costs for tobacco consumers are 40 times greater than those for cannabis consumers. More specifically, the annual health-related costs of tobacco consumption are $800 per user compared to just $20 per user for cannabis. [81]

Controlling the Illicit Market

• While it will not happen overnight, within a few years of implementation of a state cannabis regulation law, intrastate demand should be fully satisfied by the regulated market, if enough supply and outlets are allowed . The Colorado Marijuana Enforcement Division’s Market Size Demand for Marijuana in Colorado Market 2017 Update reported that, “Colorado’s preexisting illicit marijuana market for residents and visitors has been fully absorbed into the regulated market.” However, as long as dozens of U.S. states maintain prohibition, their demand will be served by illegal production somewhere. Colorado, Oregon, and California have long been sources of cannabis exported to other states, and there is no reason to expect that to stop until other states have their own legal supplies.

Slippery Slope Toward Legalizing All/Other Drugs

• Every substance should be treated based on its relative harms and the facts surrounding it — cannabis is far less harmful than alcohol and should be treated that way. We can have different policies for cannabis, cocaine, and heroin, just as we now have different policies for alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis. Drugs are not all the same, and our laws should reflect that. Cannabis policy reform is being debated because cannabis is widely recognized as a substance that should be made legal and regulated. We are not proposing changes to any laws other than cannabis laws.

Cannabis Use is Wrong/Immoral

• Americans differ about the morality of many things, but our public policies should be focused on minimizing harm to individuals and to the community. Some people consider alcohol use immoral, but most recognize that alcohol prohibition was a disaster. Cannabis prohibition has been just as big a failure, and it has caused far more harm than cannabis itself.

Cannabis Possession Laws Are Not Enforced / Nobody Actually Gets Arrested / Nobody Faces Serious Consequences

• Roughly 663,300 Americans were arrested or cited for cannabis-related offenses in 2018, and almost 92% were for possession alone. [82] That's one possession arrest every 48 seconds, and it’s more arrests than for all violent crimes combined. It's true that most people arrested for possession do not go to prison, but they all do face potentially life-altering consequences. They will have a drug-related offense on their record. Many people lose their jobs or find it difficult to gain employment. Parents can lose custody of their children. College students can lose their federal financial aid. Non-citizens can be forced to leave the country. People lose their public housing benefits. And those who are on parole or probation, or who have past offenses, could very well find themselves in jail or prison. According to leading cannabis policy researchers, “About 40,000 state and federal prison inmates have a current conviction involving marijuana; perhaps half of them are in prison for offenses related to marijuana alone.” [83]

“Legalization” vs. “Decriminalization” vs. “Regulation”

• The term “legalization” without mentioning “regulation” often leaves far too much to the imagination. Would it be available to people of all ages or only to those 18 and older or 21 and older? Would it be legal like tomatoes? Would it be sold only in state-licensed businesses? Referring to “legalizing and regulating cannabis” or “treating cannabis similarly to alcohol” makes it more apparent that cannabis would be legal only for adults. Only in a legal, regulated market can consumers and the environment benefit from rules to prevent the use of dangerous pesticides, testing and potency laws, and environmental protections.
• The word “decriminalization” can be a source of confusion. It generally refers to a system of reduced penalties for possession of a small amount of cannabis (usually a fine but not jail, oftentimes without formal arrest and booking), with more severe penalties retained for cultivation, sales, and possession of larger amounts. Decriminalization is not the best solution because it leaves cannabis production and distribution in the criminal market and continues to punish adults for responsible cannabis use.
• Regulation is the most realistic and effective alternative to prohibition. Under such a system: there would be a strictly enforced legal age limit for purchasing and using cannabis; cannabis and cannabis-infused products would be produced, distributed, and tested by state-licensed businesses; adults of legal age would be permitted to grow limited amounts of cannabis for personal use (similar to home-brewing); and cannabis would be subject to local and state sales taxes, as well as reasonable excise taxes established by voters or their elected representatives.

Legalization and Prohibition are Both Too Extreme (Project SAM's “third way”)

• The proper balance between incarceration and unrestrained legalization is regulation. We need a cannabis policy that reflects the realities of cannabis and minimizes the harm surrounding it. Cannabis is relatively safe for responsible adult use, it is widely available and commonly used, and it's not going anywhere anytime soon. As such, its production and distribution should be regulated and controlled, not left to the underground market. Any policy that keeps cannabis illegal for adults is not a “third way,” it’s the same way we’ve been treating cannabis for decades. Coercive treatment programs that give arrestees the choice to go to treatment are not viable alternatives because they can still result in criminal sanctions and can cause space shortages in treatment facilities that could be devoted to voluntary admissions.

Federal Law

• The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) made it exceptionally clear that states can regulate the cultivation and sale of cannabis for adult use. In an August 2013 memo, then-Deputy Attorney General James Cole said the DOJ would refrain from interfering as long as states are establishing and enforcing regulations that adequately address specific federal interests, such as restricting cannabis sales to minors and preventing inter trafficking. In fact, the DOJ memo acknowledged that regulating cannabis might be more effective than prohibition when it comes to addressing those interests. In particular, it notes that the establishment of large for-profit cannabis businesses could be beneficial. [84] While former Attorney General Jeff Sessions rescinded the Cole memo, in practice his Justice Department did not appear to target any businesses in compliance with it. Moreover, Attorney General nominee William Barr has said in writing he plans to follow the Cole memo.
• Thirty-six states and the District of Columbia have legalized medical cannabis, and many of them — including our nation's capital — are regulating the cultivation and sale of medical cannabis.
• Fifteen states have legalized cannabis for adults’ use, without facing any significant federal interference. Colorado, Washington, Alaska, Oregon, California, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, Michigan, Arizona, Montana, New Jersey, and South Dakota all passed voter-enacted initiatives to legalize, tax, and regulate cannabis, with the first laws passing back in 2012. In 2019, Illinois became the 11th state to legalize cannabis for adult use — and the first state in the country to adopt a regulatory system for cannabis cultivation, testing, and sales through a state legislature. Meanwhile, Vermont’s legislature and governor legalized personal possession in 2018 and enacted a regulatory system for sales in 2020. Regulated sales have begun in all of the states except Arizona, Montana, New Jersey, South Dakota, and Vermont (all of these laws passed in 2020 and are awaiting implementation).

International Drug Control Treaties

• International drug treaties allow considerable flexibility. In the U.S., 36 states, four U.S. territories, and Washington, D.C., have comprehensive medical cannabis laws, while another 13 states have more limited medical cannabis laws. Both Canada and Uruguay allow adult-use cannabis sales nationwide. The U.S. has traditionally been the driving force behind these prohibitionist treaties, and we can renegotiate them anytime if it becomes necessary. It does not appear it will be.

[1] Jeffrey Jones, "U.S. Support for Legal Marijuana Steady in Past Year," Gallup , October 23, 2019. https://news.gallup.com/poll/267698/support-legal-marijuana-steady-past-year.aspx

[2] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/11/14/americans-support-marijuana-legalization/

[3] American Civil Liberties Union. “A Tale of Two Countries: Racially Targeted Arrests in the Era of Marijuana Reform,” April 2020. .

[4] Special Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs. Final Report: Cannabis: Our Position for a Canadian Public Policy. (2002).

[5] Wagenaar AC, Harwood EM, Toomey TL, Denk CE, Zander KM. “Public opinion on alcohol policies in the United States: Results from a national survey.” Journal of Public Health Policy 21 (2003): 303–27.

[6] Kochanek KD, Murphy SL, Xu JQ, Arias E, “Deaths: Final data for 2017,” National Vital Statistics Reports Vol. 68 No. 9 (2019): 13. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr68/nvsr68_09-508.pdf

[7] Lachenmeier DW, Rehm J. “Comparative risk assessment of alcohol, tobacco, cannabis and other illicit drugs using the margin of exposure approach.”  Scientific Reports 5 (2015): 8126.

[8] National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. “The health effects of cannabis and cannabinoids: The current state of evidence and recommendations for research.” (2017).

[10] Centers for Disease Control. “Vital Signs: Alcohol Poisoning Deaths — United States, 2010–2012.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Vol. 63 No. 53 (2015): 1238-1242.

[11] Gable, Robert. “The Toxicity of Recreational Drugs: Alcohol is more lethal than many other commonly abused substances,” American Scientist Vol. 94 No. 3 (2006): 206-208.

[12] Young, Francis L. “In the Matter of Marijuana Rescheduling Petition.” DEA Docket No. 86–22 , September 6, 1988.

[13] Iverson, Leslie, “Long-term Effects of Exposure to Cannabis,” Current Opinions in Pharmcacology 5 (2005): 69–72.

[14] Hall, Wayne. “A Comparative Appraisal of the Health and Psychological Consequences of Alcohol, Cannabis, Nicotine, and Opiate Use.” (1995). National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre.

[15] Thomas G, Davis C. “Cannabis, Tobacco and Alcohol Use in Canada: Comparing risks of harm and costs to society.” Visions Journal Vol. 5 No. 4 (2009): 11.

[16] National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. “The health effects of cannabis and cannabinoids: The current state of evidence and recommendations for research.” (2017).

[17] Institute of Medicine, Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1999).

[18] Sidney, et al., “MarijuanaUse and Cancer Incidence,” Cancer, Causes, and Control 8 (1997): 722–28.

[19] Hashibe, et al., “Cannabis Use and the Risk of Lung Cancer and Upper Aerodigestive Tract Cancer: Results of a Population-based Case-control Study,” Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention 15 (2006): 1829–34.

[20] Mark Kaufman, “Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection,” Washington Post , May 26, 2006.

[21] Sarfaraz, et al., “Cannabinoids for Cancer Treatment: Progress and Promise,” Cancer Research 68 (2008): 339–42.

[22] Manuel Guzman, “Cannabinoids: Potential Anticancer Agents,” Nature Reviews Cancer 3 (2003): 745–755.

[23] American Cancer Society, Cancer Facts & Figures 2013 , Atlanta: American Cancer Society (2013).

[24] Tashkin, Donald, “Effects of Marijuana Smoking on the Lung,” Annals of the American Thoracic Society Vol. 10, No. 3 (2013): 239-247.

[25] Pletcher, et al., “Association Between Marijuana Exposure and Pulmonary Function Over 20 Years,” Journal of the American Medical Association 37 (2012).

[26] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General — Executive Summary , 2006.

[27] Conor Ferguson, et al., “Tests show bootleg marijuana vapes tainted with hydrogen cyanide,” NBC News , September 27, 2019.

[28] Hilts, Phillip, “Is Nicotine Addictive? It Depends Whose Criteria You Use,” New York Times , August 2, 1994.

[29] U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine, Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base (Washington, D.C: National Academy Press, 1999).

[30] Aggarwal, Sunil, “'9 Percent of Those Who Use Cannabis Become Dependent' Is Based on Drug War Diagnostics and Bad Science,” The Huffington Post , January 29, 2014.

[31] Amanda Reiman, “Cannabis as a substitute for alcohol and other drugs,” Harm Reduction Journal 6 (2009).

[32] Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality. Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS): 2005-2015. National Admissions to Substance Abuse Treatment Services . (2017).

[33] W. Hall, “Is Cannabis Use Psychotogenic?,” Lancet 367 (2006): 193–5.

[34] Frisher, et al., “Assessing the Impact of Cannabis Use on Trends in Diagnosed Schizophrenia in the United Kingdom from 1996 to 2005,” Schizophrenia Research 113 (2009): 123–8.

[35] Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, “Further Considerations on the Classification of Cannabis Under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971,” December 2005.

[36] T.R. Denson and M. Earleywine, “Decreased Depression in Marijuana Users,” Addictive Behaviors , April 2006.

[37] Moore, et al., “Cannabis Use and Risk of Psychotic or Affective Mental Health Outcomes: A Systemic Review,” Lancet 370 (2007): 319–28.

[38] Ferdinand, et al., “Cannabis Use Predicts Future Psychotic Symptoms, and Vice Versa,” Addiction 100 (2005): 612–18.

[39] C.H. Aston, et al., “Cannabinoids in Bipolar Affective Disorder: A Review and Discussion of Their Therapeutic Potential,” Journal of Psychopharmacology , Vol. 19, No. 3, 2005.

[40] Dobuzinskis, Alex, “Daily pot use not associated with brain shrinkage: Colorado study,” Reuters , February 5, 2015.

[41] Mokrysc C., et al. “No relationship between moderate adolescent cannabis use, exam results or IQ, large study shows.” Annual Congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) . 2014.

[42] Stromberg, Joseph, “Long-Term Marijuana Use Could Have Zero Effect on IQ,” SmithsonianMag.com, January 14, 2013.

[43] Fried, et al., “Current and former marijuana use: preliminary findings of a longitudinal study of effects on IQ in young adults,” Canadian Medical Association Journal 166 (2002): 887–91.

[44 ] Hughes, Dominic, “Young cannabis smokers run risk of lower IQ, report claims,” BBC News, August 28, 2012.

[45] U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine, Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base (Washington, D.C: National Academy Press, 1999).

[46] W. Hall, L. Degenhardt, and M. Lynskey, “The Health and Psychological Effects of Cannabis Use,” Commonwealth of Australia, National Drug Strategy, Monograph Series No. 25, 2001.

[47] W. Hall, R. Room, and S. Bondy, WHO Project on Health Implications of Cannabis Use: A Comparative Appraisal of the Health and Psychological Consequences of Alcohol, Cannabis, Nicotine and Opiate Use, Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, August 28, 1995.

[48] M. Earleywine, Understanding Marijuana , Oxford University Press, 2002.

[49] National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. “The health effects of cannabis and cannabinoids: The current state of evidence and recommendations for research.” (2017).

[50] U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine, Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base (Washington, D.C: National Academy Press, 1999).

[51] Thompson, Dennis, “Marijuana Study Counters ‘Gateway’ Theory,” HealthDay , July 10, 2015.

[52] Kirby, T. and Barry, A. E. (2012), “Alcohol as a Gateway Drug: A Study of U.S. 12th Graders,” Journal of School Health , 82: 371–379. doi: 10.1111/j.1746-1561.2012.00712.x

[53] Gallup Poll, July 19, 2017.

[54] U.S. Office of Applied Studies, 2015 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Detailed Tables . Accessed online August 28, 2017.

[55] Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction, Cannabis Policy: An Update (Utrecht: Trimbos Institute, 1997).

[56] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Alcohol Related Disease Impact (ARDI) application, 2013. Available at http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/DACH_ARDI/Default.aspx

[57] Brownstein, Joseph. “Marijuana vs. Alcohol: Which Is Really Worse for Your Health?” livescience , January 21, 2014.

[58] University of Michigan/National Institute on Drug Abuse, Monitoring the Future National Survey Results on Drug Use, 1975 – 2019 . (Fewer than 80% of 12th graders reported marijuana was “fairly easy” or “very easy” to obtain in each 2015, 2017, 2018, and 2019. The lowest figure since the survey began was reported in the most recent year, 2019: 78.4%.)

[60] For data and sources, see https://www.mpp.org/issues/legalization/teen-marijuana-use-does-not-increase/ .

[61] Hasin, Deborah S., et al. “Medical marijuana laws and adolescent marijuana use in the USA from 1991 to 2014: results from annual, repeated cross-sectional surveys,” The Lancet Psychiatry , Vol. 2, Issue 7, 601-608.

[62] Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. “Monitoring Health Concerns Related to Marijuana in Colorado: 2016. Changes in Marijuana Use Patterns, Systematic Literature Review, and Possible Marijuana-Related Health Effects.” (2017).

[63] For data and sources, see https://www.mpp.org/issues/legalization/teen-marijuana-use-does-not-increase/ .

[64] Sifferlin, Alexandra. “High School Seniors Now Prefer Marijuana to Cigarettes.” Time , December 15, 2015.

[65] Nelson, Steven. “Marijuana Is Harder Than Ever for Younger Teens to Find.” U.S. News and World Report , December 13, 2016.

[66] Sam Petulla and Jon Schuppe, “Police Searches Drop Dramatically in States that Legalized Marijuana,” NBC News , June 23, 2017.

[67] Hoaken, P. & Stewart, S. (2003). Drugs of abuse and the elicitation of human aggressive behavior. Addictive Behaviors 28 , 1533-1554.

[68] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 10th Special Report to the U.S. Congress on Alcohol and Health , June 2000.

[69] U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics, Alcohol and Crime: Data from 2002 to 2008 . Available at http://www.bjs.gov/content/acf/apt1_crimes_by_type.cfm

[70] Fals-Stewart, F., Golden, J., & Schumacher, J. (2003). Intimate partner violence and substance use: A longitudinal day-to-day examination. Addictive Behaviors 28 , 1555-1574.

[71] Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network. Drug Facilitated Sexual Violence . Retrieved August 21, 2014, from https://rainn.org/get-information/types-of-sexual-assault/drug-facilitated-assault

[72] Gavrilova, E., et al. (2017). Is Legal Pot Crippling Mexican Drug Trafficking Organisations? The Effect of Medical Marijuana Laws on US Crime. The Economic Journal . Accessed from https://doi.org/10.1111/ecoj.12521

[73] Makin, D.A., et al. (2018). Marijuana Legalization and Crime Clearance Rates: Testing Proponent Assertions in Colorado and Washington State. Police Quarterly . Accessed from https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611118786255

[74] Freisthler, B., Kepple, N.J., Sims, R., & Martin, S.E., “Evaluating medical marijuana dispensary policies: Spatial methods for the study of environmentally-based interventions,” American Journal of Community Psychology 51 (2013): 278–288.

[75] Chang, T., Jacobson, M., “Going to Pot?: The Impact of Dispensary Closures on Crime,” March 2017.

[76] Hunt, P., et al. (2018). High on Crime? Exploring the Effects of Marijuana Dispensary Laws on Crime in California Counties. Institute of Labor Economics. Accessed from http://ftp.iza.org/dp11567.pdf

[77] “Drug Involvement of Fatally Injured Drivers,” NHTSA, Traffic Safety Facts, November 2010, DOT HS 811 415, 1.

[78] Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, The Legalization of Marijuana in Colorado: The Impact (August 2013), 5.

[79] Accessed from https://www.codot.gov/safety/alcohol-and-impaired-driving/druggeddriving/drugged-driving#collapse11

[80] Ingold, John, “Denver medical marijuana advertising ban passes key vote,” Denver Post , August 13, 2012.

[81] G. Thomas and C. Davis, “Cannabis, Tobacco, and Alcohol Use in Canada: Comparing Risks of Harm and Costs to Society,” Visions: British Columbia's Mental Health and Addictions Journal 5 (2009).

[82] U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States, 2018 https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/topic-pages/persons-arrested

[83] Jonathan P. Caulkins, Angela Hawken, Beau Kilmer, and Mark A.R. Kleiman, Marijuana Legalization: What Everyone Needs to Know , Oxford University Press: 2012.

[84] U.S. Department of Justice, Memorandum for All United States Attorneys: Guidance Regarding Marijuana Enforcement , August 29, 2013. Available at http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/August/13-opa-974.html

Download PDF

Reason Why Marijuana Should Be Legal

Introduction.

• Why Marijuana should be Legalized
• Arguments Against Legalization

Why Marijuanas Should Be Legal: Essay Conclusion

Works cited.

Of all the illegal drugs in existence, Cannabis Sativa (most popularly known as marijuana) is the most commonly used substance (Iftikhar et al. 7699). The World Health Organization documents that 2.5% of the world’s population indulge in the usage of this drug, therefore making it the most popular psychoactive substance.

Despite this apparent popularity of the drug, it remains illegal in many countries, including the USA. Recent scientific research has revealed that the effect of marijuana on a person’s health may not be as potent as previously thought. With this revelation and the increased use of the drug among the population, there have been calls for the government to consider legalizing this popular recreational drug.

Calls for legalizing marijuana have been countered by vocal opposition from people advocating for the drug to be kept illegal since it has many adverse effects. This “Why Marijuanas Should Be Legal” essay will set out to argue that marijuana should be legal since the harmful effects of this substance are not as dire, and legalization would result in many benefits for society. The argumentative paper will rely on research to reinforce this claim.

Why Marijuana Should Be Legalized

Marijuana is a favored recreational drug, which means that its commercial significance is high due to the high demand for the product. Under the current situation where the drug is deemed illicit, the government cannot benefit monetarily from commerce with this drug. This is an essential consideration since data on the prevalence of Marijuana indicates that the US is still the world’s largest single market for the medication (Hammond et al. 221).

The government could gain much revenue if the drug were legal and taxes imposed. As it currently stands, the sale of the drug only benefits players in the black market who produce and sell the product. These players are primarily criminals who have become very powerful from the money obtained from commerce in marijuana.

Houston, who is an outspoken advocate for the legalization of Marijuana, confirms that marijuana is the cash cow that has made the Mexican drug cartels such a formidable force. By making the drug legal, the government would benefit from revenues obtained from its sale as well as remove the monopoly held by the criminal gangs, thus making the country safer.

The government uses significant amounts of resources in enforcing its laws against marijuana. Maintaining the status quo of marijuana as an illegal substance is an expensive operation, and the taxpayer bears the financial burden.

Green documents that the US government spends billions of dollars annually to enforce prohibition efforts on marijuana (6). This money that would otherwise have been spent on more socially constructive purposes is currently being used to fund operations ranging from the carrying out of drug raids, arrests, and prosecution of drug offenders.

The expenses do not end there, as more money is needed to maintain the convicted offenders in the country’s already overstrained penitentiaries. Making marijuana legal would mean that the government would save all the money that it currently spends on enforcing the law against marijuana. This would be a prudent step since, as it is, the efforts by the government, while prohibitively high, do not appear to have significantly reduced marijuana consumption in the country.

An obvious merit of the legal industry is that it is bound by government control, which ensures that the products sold are safe for the consumer. The government can also monitor the production process and issue guidelines to ensure the consumer is not exposed to unnecessary risks.

Since marijuana is illegal, its production and distribution are unregulated, which means that the quality of the product is unguaranteed. Part of the contamination also comes from the pesticides used on the plant. Legal crops have strict government controls on pesticides, which minimize the risks to the individual. Montoya et al. reveal that since marijuana is an illegal drug, there are no guidelines or controls for its cultivation, and it is not known whether the pesticides used are safe for humans (4).

In addition to this, the illegal status of marijuana means that most of it is grown indoors to reduce the risk of discovery by law enforcement. Indoor-grown marijuana is perceived to be more contaminated than marijuana grown naturally since indoor cultivation involves the use of additives to maximize yield (Montoya et al. 4).

Legalization of marijuana would give the government greater control over the product, which would make it safer for the user. Currently, the market is unregulated, and dealers are constantly increasing the potency of the drug to attract more customers. The potency of marijuana is changed by altering the primary active chemical in marijuana, THC, which is the component that causes the mind-altering effects of marijuana intoxication.

Montoya et al. attribute the increased potency to the popularity of indoor cultivation, which involves the practice of cloning from a variety of cannabis with high THC content (2). The more potent marijuana is, the higher the increase of cannabis-related harms such as psychotic and anxiety effects. Legalizing the drug would make it possible for the government to monitor the content of the drug just as the alcohol content in beverages is monitored. This would reduce the health risks that result from highly potent marijuana.

Marijuana has scientifically proven medical benefits for its consumers. Marijuana has been documented to improve symptoms associated with multiple sclerosis. The efficacy of marijuana in this area has been so significant that pharmaceutical companies have begun using Sativex, a derivative of cannabis, in the care of people with multiple sclerosis (Baratta et al. 3).

Clinical trial research on the therapeutic role of marijuana in pain management has shown that the drug demonstrated significant pain relief and induced relaxation, hence relieving anxiety and depression (Baratta et al. 2). These findings are corroborated by reports by the WHO, which indicate that cannabinoids alleviate symptoms such as nausea and vomiting in chronically ill patients. Making marijuana legal would ensure that it is more readily available for the sick, who would exploit it for its curative properties.

Arguments against Legalization

Despite all the advantages that can be gained from legalizing marijuana, there are critical adverse effects that opponents of legalization point to. The most significant of these claims is that marijuana results in adverse physical and mental effects on the user. Hammond et al. state that heavy marijuana use impairs a person’s ability to form memories, and users who have taken high doses of the drug may experience acute psychosis (9).

Montoya et al. proceed to state that contaminated marijuana has the potential to cause lung disease and respiratory problems (4). Considering these adverse effects, proponents of legalization assert that it would be reckless for the government even to consider making marijuana legal. While it is true that marijuana can have adverse effects, these extreme effects are mostly restricted to heavy users and those users who consume contaminated or high-potency marijuana.

A primary concern of the public is the link between drug use and involvement in crime. Opponents of legalization state that marijuana would result in citizens, especially the youth, engaging in criminal activities as a result of drug use. This stereotypical view is unfounded, as research indicates that marijuana use does not play an essential role in fostering a general involvement in crime.

A study conducted by Lu et al. on the association between cannabis use and subsequent criminal charges on an individual suggested that marijuana was associated with subsequent criminal activity (565).

However, the authors noted that the bulk of this involvement was in various types of drug-specific crime, such as possession and distribution of the drug. Marijuana does not, therefore, result in general crime involvement, and a considerable proportion of its users only get into the penal system because of the use or possession of drugs.

A common argument raised by proponents of legalizing marijuana is that its legalization would result in a phenomenal increase in the number of users. This reasoning is based on the assumption that, at present, many people who would be users of marijuana are deterred because of the legal action, such as jail time that they would suffer if they consumed the product.

Houston suggests that this argument is not based on facts since the rate of marijuana use in the Netherlands (a country reputed for its relaxed laws on marijuana, which permit the purchase and consumption of regulated portions of the drug) is significantly lower than in the US where prohibitive laws against the drug are in place.

Marijuana consumption is pervasive in the US, and this drug has become the favorite recreational drug despite measures by the government to curb its supply and discourage its usage. This has resulted in the issue of whether to legitimize marijuana or not being heavily debated in the country.

From the arguments given in this paper, it is clear that many benefits will be reaped from the legalization of marijuana. These advantages include increased access to the drug for people who require it for medical purposes, a regulated market that would make the product safer, and the financial gains that the government would achieve through taxation and savings from the money that is currently used to enforce the law against marijuana.

While proponents of legalization point to the adverse effects of the drug, this paper has shown that many research findings available today indicate that the adverse effects of marijuana are mild and that the drug has functional medicinal properties.

This paper set out to argue that the government should legalize marijuana. To this end, the paper has engaged in discussions about the merits and demerits of such a move. Overall, evidence suggests that making marijuana legal would benefit society more than having it classified as an illegal substance.

Citizens who are keen on bringing about development should, therefore, petition the government to legalize the drug so that society can enjoy the benefits stated at the same time avoiding the enormous costs incurred by efforts to keep the drug illegal.

Baratta, Francesca, et al. “ Cannabis for Medical Use: Analysis of Recent Clinical Trials in View of Current Legislation. ” Frontiers in Pharmacology , vol. 13, May 2022.

Green, Jesse. “ Federalism, Limited Government, and Conservative Outcomes: The Republican Case for Marijuana Legalization .” Social Science Research Network , Jan. 2023.

Hammond, Chris, et al. “ Cannabis Use Among U.S. Adolescents in the Era of Marijuana Legalization: A Review of Changing Use Patterns, Comorbidity, and Health Correlates. ” International Review of Psychiatry , vol. 32, no. 3, Feb. 2020, pp. 221–34.

Iftikhar, Amna, et al. “ Applications of Cannabis Sativa L. in Food and Its Therapeutic Potential: From a Prohibited Drug to a Nutritional Supplement. ” Molecules , vol. 26, no. 24, Dec. 2021, p. 7699.

Lu, Ruibin, et al. “ The Cannabis Effect on Crime: Time-Series Analysis of Crime in Colorado and Washington State. ” Justice Quarterly , vol. 38, no. 4, Oct. 2019, pp. 565–95.

Montoya, Zackary T., et al. “ Cannabis Contaminants Limit Pharmacological Use of Cannabidiol. ” Frontiers in Pharmacology , vol. 11, Sept. 2020.

World Health Organization (WHO). Management of substance abuse: Cannabis . Jan. 2010. Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, February 3). Reason Why Marijuana Should Be Legal. https://ivypanda.com/essays/marijuana-should-be-legal/

"Reason Why Marijuana Should Be Legal." IvyPanda , 3 Feb. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/marijuana-should-be-legal/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'Reason Why Marijuana Should Be Legal'. 3 February.

IvyPanda . 2024. "Reason Why Marijuana Should Be Legal." February 3, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/marijuana-should-be-legal/.

1. IvyPanda . "Reason Why Marijuana Should Be Legal." February 3, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/marijuana-should-be-legal/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Reason Why Marijuana Should Be Legal." February 3, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/marijuana-should-be-legal/.

• Literary Analysis
• Does Legalizing Marijuana Help or Harm the United States?
• A Case for Legalizing Marijuana
• Argument About Legalizing Marijuana in America
• Legalizing Marijuana: Pros and Cons
• History and Effects of Legalization of Marijuana
• Should Marijuana Be Legal?
• Marijuana Legalization in California
• Legalization of Cannabis in the State of New Jersey
• Legalization of Marijuana: Arguments For and Against
• South African Non-Violent Protests Against Apartheid
• Invasion of Personal Privacy During Air Travel
• Executive Branch of Russian Government
• A Dose of Realism: The Syrian Situation
• American Jobs Act Proposed By President Obama

Advertisement

Supported by

Senate Democrats Reintroduce Legislation to Legalize Marijuana

The bill, which reflects growing support for legalization, would end the federal prohibition on cannabis. But it is unlikely to pass in an election year and a divided government.

• Share full article

By Kayla Guo

Reporting from the Capitol

Senate Democrats reintroduced broad legislation on Wednesday to legalize cannabis on the federal level, a major policy shift with wide public support, but it is unlikely to be enacted this year ahead of November’s elections and in a divided government.

The bill, which amounts to a Democratic wish list for federal cannabis policy, would end the federal prohibition on marijuana by removing it from a controlled substances list. The government currently classifies the drug as among the most dangerous and addictive substances.

The legislation would create a new framework regulating cannabis and taxing the burgeoning cannabis industry, expunge certain federal marijuana-related offenses from criminal records, expand research into marijuana’s health impacts and devote federal money to helping communities and individuals affected by the war on drugs.

The measure, which was first introduced in 2022, was led by Senators Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader; Ron Wyden of Oregon, the chairman of the Finance Committee, and Cory Booker of New Jersey. Fifteen other Senate Democrats have signed on as co-sponsors.

“Over the decades, millions of Americans, most often Americans of color, have had their lives derailed and destroyed by our country’s failed war on drugs,” Mr. Schumer, the first majority leader to call for federal legalization, said on the Senate floor on Wednesday. “In place of the war on drugs, our bill would lay the foundation for something very different: a just and responsible and common-sense approach to cannabis regulation.”

He reintroduced the measure one day after the Justice Department recommended easing restrictions on cannabis and downgrading it to a lower classification on the controlled substances list. That move did not go as far as some advocates and many Democrats have urged, but it was a significant shift reflecting the Biden administration’s efforts to liberalize marijuana policy.

“Reclassifying cannabis is a necessary and long-overdue step, but it is not at all the end of the story,” Mr. Schumer said. “It’s time for Congress to wake up to the times and do its part by passing the cannabis reform that most Americans have long called for. It’s past time for Congress to catch up with public opinion and to catch up with the science.”

But despite support from top Democrats, the legislation is highly unlikely to move in Congress during this election year. Republicans, many of whom have opposed federal cannabis legalization, control the House, and none have signed on to the bill. Congress has also labored to perform even the most basic duties of governance amid deep divisions within the Republican majority in the House. And few must-pass bills remain, leaving proponents without many opportunities to slip it into a bigger legislative package.

Kevin Sabet, who served as a drug policy adviser during the Obama, Bush and Clinton administrations, warned about the dangers of legalization and argued that such a bill would “commercialize” the marijuana industry and create “Big Tobacco 2.0.”

“Let’s not commercialize marijuana in the name of social justice,” said Mr. Sabet, now the president of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, an anti-legalization advocacy group. While he supported certain elements of the bill, such as expunging criminal records and removing criminal penalties for marijuana use, he said legalization was ultimately about “supersizing a commercial industry.”

“And we really have to think long and hard after our horrible experience with Big Tobacco in our country,” he said, “whether that’s going to be good for us or not.”

Still, the legislation reflects growing support among Democrats and across the country in both Republican- and Democratic-leaning states for legalizing access to marijuana, in addition to the issue’s potential political value ahead of an expected election rematch between President Biden and former President Donald J. Trump.

Legalization, in some form, is broadly popular across the country, with 88 percent of Americans saying marijuana should be legal for medical or recreational use, according to a January survey by the Pew Research Center . Twenty-four states have legalized small amounts of marijuana for adult recreational use, and 38 states have approved it for medicinal purposes. And where marijuana legalization has appeared on state ballots , it has won easily , often outperforming candidates in either party.

Advocates of legalization have emphasized the issue’s political potency in trying to convince elected officials.

“If anybody was looking at the political tea leaves, they would have to realize that obstructing cannabis policy reform — it is a losing proposition as a politician,” said Morgan Fox, the political director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, an advocacy group. “This is really a rallying point for people that care about cannabis policy reform.”

At least one Democrat, Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, a leading cannabis advocate in Congress, has urged the Biden administration to embrace full legalization and make it a more prominent part of Mr. Biden’s re-election campaign. He has argued that the issue could help the president engage young people, whose support for him has faltered , but who could be crucial to victory in November.

The Biden administration’s move to downgrade cannabis on the controlled substances list also reflects the president’s evolution on the issue. Mr. Biden has pardoned thousands of people convicted of nonviolent drug offenses in an effort to remedy racial disparities in the justice system. And Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, has emphasized that Mr. Biden had been “very, very clear he doesn’t believe that anyone should be in jail or be prosecuted just for using or possessing marijuana.”

Mr. Trump’s record on legalization is more mixed. In 2018, his administration freed prosecutors to aggressively enforce federal marijuana restrictions in states that had eased prohibitions on the drug. Mr. Trump later appeared to break with his administration, saying he was likely to support a legislative proposal to leave legalization to states, and he pardoned several nonviolent drug offenders .

“This has not been an issue that is really coming up in conversation, at rallies or in media appearances and whatnot,” Mr. Fox said. “It’s kind of an unknown, how a future Trump administration would deal with cannabis.”

Congress is considering more incremental bills that would ease restrictions on marijuana — such as by allowing legal cannabis businesses to access financial services — several of which have bipartisan support. But most are not expected to move during this Congress, given Republican opposition.

Kayla Guo covers Congress for The New York Times as the 2023-24 reporting fellow based in Washington. More about Kayla Guo

Our Coverage of the 2024 Election

Presidential Race

As Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an independent candidate, tries to get on the ballot in all 50 states, he’s confronting fierce resistance .

​​Donald Trump told donors at a Republican National Committee retreat that the Biden administration was like the Gestapo .

Gov. Kristi Noem of South Dakota, defending her tale of shooting and killing her family’s dog, suggested that President Biden’s German shepherd had merited a similar fate .

A Foot Soldier for Trump:  Republicans have spent years drawing Latino evangelicals into their fold. One pastor’s conversion shows how Trump is reaping the benefits .

Talk of Escape:  At Washington dinner parties, dark jokes abound  about where to go into exile if Trump reclaims the White House.

Insulin Takes Center Stage:  Biden says lowering the cost of insulin for seniors is among his proudest domestic policy achievements. He now faces the challenge of selling it to Americans of all ages .

Politics Without Trump?:  Democrats call Trump dangerous, while Republicans see him as revolutionary. For young Trump voters, he is just normal .

Sample Persuasive Speech: Marijuana should/should not be legalized

The war on drugs has been lost. Marijuana users are aware of all health hazards their addiction to marijuana may led them to; but no authority of law is capable of preventing them from smoking marijuana as one of their favorites. Legalization of marijuana would lead to a better control of its consumption. Besides, marijuana, legal as tobacco, would turn people from illegal drugs, which are more expensive and much more dangerous. Marijuana is considered a gateway drug that causes problems at home and at work, reduces concentration, learning, and memory powers, releases dopamine that gives a feeling of euphoria, and contains cancer-causing agents. Illegal status of marijuana solves no problems of drug abuse. In 2006, American marijuana farmers grew 22.3 million pounds of marijuana. The top outdoor producers are California, Tennessee, Kentucky, Hawaii, and North Carolina. Great material sources are spent on eradicating marijuana crops, but, like with a wave of a magic hand, they grow in more and more unpredictable locations. Why not to legalize marijuana? The war against marijuana was unleashed 76 years ago when Congress passed the Marijuana Tax Act on the basis of a poorly tested testimony that it could cause insanity, criminality, and death. The 1951 Boggs Act and the 1956 Daniel Act increased penalties, promoting the gateway theory (Gettman, 2006). The war is still on, although it has been proved that marijuana is not more dangerous than tobacco or alcohol. Marijuana has been used for centuries for medicinal purposes. It has healing properties. Unlike tobacco and alcohol, marijuana may serve people in a couple of ways. First, marijuana improves appetite. Second, it prevents AIDS patients from weight loss. Third, it helps glaucoma patients lessen eye pressure. Fourth, it reduces nausea caused by radiation and chemotherapeutic treatments. Fifth, it is an effective painkiller. Thus, marijuana helps these patients improve their condition. Nine states, among them Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington, have passed legislation that permits marijuana use for medical purposes. Current research has proved that marijuana is not physically addicting. What is more, it has been proved that no physical withdrawal symptoms occur when marijuana use is stopped. Marijuana’s status must be reconsidered legislatively. Marijuana must be excluded from the war on drugs content because it is less abusive than alcohol. Legalization implies better control. When better controlled, marijuana would serve people who need its healing properties. People should be free to decide whether they like marijuana as a recreational drug or not. When tempted, we often desire something that is hard to reach. The younger people, the more tempted they are to break rules. Welcoming marijuana, we would think of drug addiction in a new paradigm than before.

Post navigation

Previous post.