Anti Legalization Critical Thinking Essay

The aim of this paper is to logically pass reason to assess the financial statements for the legalization of marihuana, and by doing so menses out flaws in these arguments. Furthermore, this paper allow assess the believability and the source of these arguments, and play counter arguments to close that hemp should non be a legal drug in calcium and the rest of the United States. First I lead pass on The master field Organizations for the amend of ganja legal philosophys Principles of trusty Marijuana Use which is the basis for their argument for the legalization of hemp, and how this set of principles is flawed.Second I entrust exact the involve that ganja should be legal in a taxed and defined manner and also consider the source of this pick out. Third I will emphasize the ban companionable personal effects of legalization of commodenabis in secern to counter the claims for legalization. Finally I will conclude that given these factors, legalization of ganja would be harmful and detrimental to association as a whole, possessing little or no economic, fond, or medical benefits.The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Law is the leading lobbyist group for the legalization of hemp in the United States. This formation has make it their commitment to bedevil marijuana legalized in a taxable way as tobacco and inebriant currently argon. This organization sheers its arguments with a register called the Principles of obligated Marijuana Use in which is attempts to warrant marijuana reform in a socially accepted manner. The very rubric of the document is ambiguous, the word prudent is a very circumstantial term and is subject to more different interpretations.Furthermore the document assumes that if legalized, citizens will adhere to this unofficial jurisprudence of ethics, however we stern plain see with inebriant and tobacco that in that respect is ab phthisis regardless of the regulating laws. patro nage this, NORML attempts to lay out their interpretation for what responsible marijuana routine is ( 4 ) their origin point is that marijuana is to be for adults only, and that it is unreliable to provide marijuana to children. The terms adults and children anyplace again be ambiguous, it is non clear where the sop up is drawn among what defines an adult or a child.This is a concern beca utilise many would assume a child is no longer a child aft(prenominal) eighteen years of age, thus it send packing be determined that eighteen and over is considered a responsible lend oneselfr. It need not be said that current alcohol restrictions limit a exampler to jack oak and over.According to a 2005 Monitoring the in store(predicate) Study, three-fourths of 12th graders, more than two-thirds of tenth graders, and about two in every five 8th graders founder consumed alcohol( 5 ), with this evidence it would be thirsty(predicate) thinking to assume marijuana would be any diff erent. To further consider this point 6.8% of children ages 12 to 17 physical exertion marijuana on an occasional basis ( 5 ). It would be reasonable to conclude that if marijuana was legalized that number would enlarge drastically.Second the NORMLs Principles of Responsible Marijuana Use attempts to rationalize legal marijuana use by claiming that if legalized responsible users will refrain from effort ( 4 ). Although an illegal drug, it is not affect that there are already statistics regarding marijuana impaired driving in many states. calcium who good recently had a proposition for the legalization of marijuana has nigh of the approximately relevant statistics there are various counties in atomic number 20 that have a 16% or higher(prenominal) marijuana involved traffic fatalities ( 3 ). This number would only increase with the legalization, and that is not to include the the beat of non fatal accidents that would pass on annually. A recent study by Alfred Crancer and A lan Crancer projected that traffic fatalities would increase by as ofttimes as ccc% with legalization ( 3 ).Third NORML claims that The responsible cannabis user will carefully consider his/her set and scenery, regulating use accordingly. In this claim there is much room for a line-drawing fallacy, in which it is difficult and conveniently vague and up to the undivided to determine what set and setting is actually appropriate for usage. It could be simulated under this principle that its safe to use marijuana plot of ground caring for children, elderly, objet dart driving, and also very relevantly while working. Forth NORML claims that a responsible marijuana user will resist villainy. They define deprave by evil means harm. Some cannabis use is harmful most is not. That which is harmful should be discouraged that which is not need not be.A clever statement however invalid and illogical. Drug abuse is delineate as an uncontrollable urge for ageless seeking of intoxicant s ( 2 ). many a(prenominal) users would be unaware of their abuse, until the point in which it has done for(p) their livelihood, relationships, economic security, and health. Legalization would only increase the numbers of active addicts, and make marijuana readily available for them, and existence legal, hence restraining family, friends, and the courts from restricting an addicts use before to much harm is done.The final claim do by NORML is a Respect for Rights of Others in which they attempt to justify the fact that if marijuana was legal, non users will have to deal with it. again it is wishful thinking to see that users will have respect for the some others who are not users, however while illegal we can see that many still influence marijuana, drive under the influence of it, and use it as socially as possible. A strict layout of parameters that must be followed with popular and private use of the drug would be acceptable, however advocates for the cause prefer the v agueness, in which there are no sheer(a) lines that can be drawn between legal and illegal use (ie. Driving, social events, age, etc.). The entire document is a rationalisation and does not seem to give a valid or true stalking-horse to satisfy desires.The most relevant claim argued against in this paper is the claim that marijuana should be legal in a taxed and regulated manner. This claim by itself has the vagueness and ambiguity of a typical identity card or legislation. It is this vagueness and ambiguity that encroach on the freedoms of citizens everyday. The fact is that marijuana is a drug, it was do illegal by the Federal Controlled middle Act of 1970 to stop the violence and abuse that was common practice. We have seen in other countries failed attempts to regulate and tax drugs, the like the Netherlands, and we have seen the damage drugs can have on orderliness as a hole, like the dangerous drug cartels that rule Mexico. In evaluating this claim it is also important to consider the sources, one of the biggest supporters of marijuana legalization is Robert downwind.Lee is president of Oaksterdam University a school that teaches students how to cultivate, grow, process, and cure marijuana ( 3 ). It would seem exceedingly logical to acknowledge that this man is not fire in the social repercussions of legalization. His occasion is clearly for the profit that can descend from legalization. Legalization would drastically increase the amount of growers and interested parties in his school.Another hygienic voice in pro-legalization is the company S.K. Seymour LLC which is a Medical Cannabis Provider ( 3 ), who again would see a hammy increase in profit and sales delinquent to the fact that they can informal up their business to the public, and not just medical marijuana patients. It seems that neither of the sources, from the seek done, are interested in the negative and adverse affects of legalization and only interested in the lucrative value of legalization.It is also important to analyze the negative social effects of marijuana on society, most notably the economic affects and the medical effects. youthful proposition 19 in California stated that No person shall be punished, fined, discriminated against, or be denied any counterbalance or privilege for lawfully amiable in any conduct permitted by this Act or authorized consistent to Section 11301 of this Act. Provided however, that the existing right of an employer to holler consumption that actually impairs job murder by an employee shall not be abnormal. essentially stating that employers can no longer regulate marijuana use while working unless it can show that performance is being impaired by use ( 3 ).Proposition 19 also is in conflict with the Federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970 which prohibits the use of marijuana for recreational use. This would be a mistake by California due to the fact that the state would loose billions of federal officia l dollars in the form of grants and aid called for by the Federal Workplace Act of 1988. not only would government loose gold but also schools and medical centers can potentially be affected ( 3 ). The health risks for marijuana usage are as noteworthy as the social repercussions.Marijuana is known to cause A-motivational syndrome, which is a depressed state of the brain in which reaction times and motivation is affected by long term use ( 3 ). Furthermore the gateway theory blames marijuana as the compromise that leads an individual to try harder more harmful drugs. at last marijuana has been placed on the California Proposition 65 list of carcinogenic materials, as proven materials that cause malignant neoplastic disease ( 3 ).In this paper I argued that the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws definitions and reasoning for a responsible legal user is flawed. Many of their arguments are invalid and lack go reasoning to a conclusion. That the claim that mariju ana should be legal and taxed is not a fully developed claim and that the sources of the claims motives are not operose in reasoning for legalization. Finally I argued that if marijuana is legalized it would be detrimental to society specifically regarding medical and economic problems. The arguments for legalization are not convincing and present many fallacies, Legalization supporters have the prostitute idea of controlled use.