Legalization of Marijuana for Recreational Use

This paper argues for the legalization of marijuana for recreational as well as medical and research purposes. It takes into account the fact that Marijuana has been used for its medicinal properties by mankind for at least as long as recorded in history with large scale restrictions coming into the picture only in the last century or two due to those who may abuse it.

Running head: LEGALIZATION OF MARIJUANA FOR RECREATIONAL USE
Legalization of Marijuana for Recreational Use
Name of Student
Name of University
Author Note

1LEGALIZATION OF MARIJUANA FOR RECREATIONAL USE
Marijuana or hemp is a plant that is believed to be one of the earliest plants to be
cultivated. Recorded history reports its use for various purposes, ranging from its medicinal
usage to use for making fabrics and ropes to recreational and spiritual uses among many cultures.
The plant however began to be banned gradually and from 19th century onwards governments
began to ban the plant owing to its recreational narcotic usage which hampered the functioning
of its users. Marijuana and its use has been a point of contention in the modern medical world for
a long time with a polarized view on the topic. Restrictions on research about Marijuana has
deterred the progression of the debate. Nonetheless, Marijuana today is considered one of the
safer drugs with a promising potential for medicinal use. However there still exists a debate on
the matter in the scholarly sphere. Following much debate, the decriminalization of the drug was
first initiated by the Dutch government which officially categorized it as a safer drug. California
decriminalized Marijuana in 2001 and then Canada relaxed its regulatory law on Marijuana to
legalize its use for medical purposes. Uruguay however became the first country to completely
legalize Marijuana in 2013 and now Canada is seen to be gearing up to officially, completely
legalize the drug as well as opposed to decriminalization. This had sparked controversy and
debate in the public, political and medical spheres with majority voting for the move. The
statement of thesis states that complete legalization of Marijuana is the correct move. This paper
thus argues for the legalization of marijuana for recreational as well as medical and research
purposes.
The first point for the assertion takes into account the fact that Marijuana has been used
for its medicinal properties by mankind for at least as long as recorded in history with large scale
restrictions coming into the picture only in the last century or two due to those who may abuse it.
Even so, harmful effects of Marijuana abuse pales in comparison some of the effects to even

2LEGALIZATION OF MARIJUANA FOR RECREATIONAL USE
some prescribed drugs that exist in the market today such as Oxycodone. The death rate per
100,000 owing to legally available opioid poisoning was found to be 7.9 in 2016 in Canada, as
per the Public Health Agency of Canada, as compared to cannabis which has no records of
overdose in history whatsoever (Public Health Canada, 2018). Cannabis, in fact, has been stated
to be useful for pain relief both by the ancient Chinese as well as in some contemporary
medical reports (Brand & Zhao, 2017). Regarding the prevalence of its abuse, Philippe Lucas,
conducted a survey in 2013 and found that out of all the anonymous respondents, 41% use
cannabis as a substitute for alcohol, 36.1% substitute it for other illicit substances and 67.8%
substitute is for prescription drugs. It was found by the Lucas that the three main reasons
behind such preference of cannabis over these other substances of potential abuse were that
withdrawal is less for cannabis, it has fewer side effects and it is easier for them to manage the
symptoms. Therefore it was suggested that cannabis is a better alternative to these other
substances health-wise.75.5% of the respondents had cited cannabis as a substitute for at least
one substance of abuse (Lucas, 2013). Therefore recreational and medicinal use of cannabis
would pose much less risks health wise than some of the already substances that are legally
available as well as could decrease the markets of the more potentially harmful substances.
Additionally, in comparison to other recreational substances such as tobacco and alcohol
which are freely and legally available in the market, which young people who are deemed a
vulnerable group to cannabis, use much more than they use marijuana, marijuana proves to
be much less physically damaging, mentally debilitating or lethal as per scientific studies.
They argued that when such prohibitions are not placed on those substances then doing so for
cannabis does not make sense (Crépault, Rehm & Fischer, 2016).

3LEGALIZATION OF MARIJUANA FOR RECREATIONAL USE
Spithoff, Emerson & Spithoff (2015), in their peer reviewed article raised a very
interesting point highlighting how the UN Drug Report in 2011,reported that countries such as
the Netherland and Uruguay where Cannabis is completely legalized reported lower cannabis
abuse than Canada, US and Spain which reported higher figures regarding use of marijuana
among the general populace. They emphasized how setting up a legal framework with focus on
public health promotion and protection which comes with legalization aided governments to
better control use and abuse of the recreational drug, pointing out that among the 180.6 million
marijuana users, most of them resided in countries where the drug is illegal. Having said that,
UNICEF in 2013 reported Canada as being the country with highest adolescents who use
cannabis with 28% of the population falling into that category being a user. They pointed out
that pre-existing regulations on Tobacco and Alcohol could prove to be valuable in the
framing of such policies (Spithoff, Emerson & Spithoff, 2015). Drawing on the fact that such a
significant figure of users exist in these countries where the drug is actually illegal, it is well
understood that such demand allows the black market to thrive and this has in fact been
pointed out as one of the major reasoning to support the legalization process of cannabis is
Canada by the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) in their proposed Cannabis
Policy Framework(CPF) as the nation has been gearing up to push the legislation to legalize
the plant for recreational use in addition to medicinal use as it had done back in 2001
(Crépault, Rehm & Fischer, 2016). Taking into account the little impact that prohibition has
had on marijuana use as well as the limitations that would still restrict proper policy framing
and enforcement in case of decriminalization, which has been referred to as a “half measure”,
it stated that instead of regarding the matter as a criminal issue, viewing it as a public health
one by facilitating target based interventions and promotion of awareness could counteract the

4LEGALIZATION OF MARIJUANA FOR RECREATIONAL USE
users who are at high risk and control consumption as it is done in case of tobacco and
alcohol. This would not be possible in case of just decriminalization (Crépault, Rehm &
Fischer, 2016).
Cr´epault, Rehm & Fischer (2015) emphasized through their arguments that owing to
prohibition, the harms caused by cannabis abuse actually expounds social and individual harm on
top of the health risks it poses. Drawing upon the fact that despite prohibition of the substance,
such a large user base has been detected in the country, with 14% of adults and 23% of
high school students having had used cannabis in 2013 alone as per population surveys in
Ontario, it is argued that the current laws have failed to curb the problem and instead has failed
to counter the black market, increasing influence of anti-social and criminal elements. Dealing
with the cost of implementing prohibition and other related law enforcement procedures
has been seen to be very costly with estimated cost including police intervention, judicial
cost and correction being reported to be as high as $1.2 billion in 2002 alone (Centre for
Addiction and Mental Health, 2014). Therefore, a possible remedy in the form of
decriminalization that is prohibition with civil penalties instead of criminal ones, however might
fail to regulate cannabis, rendering users unaware of potency or quality and deters healthcare and
education personnel to effectively intervene and engage in prevention and treatment. Most
importantly decriminalization, would naturally lead to commercialization but restrict the
government from additional regulatory authority and defeating the purpose of the
rationale to the approach altogether. Additionally, it has been inferred from the
jurisdictions that have legislation decriminalizing recreational cannabis possession that
corruption among law enforcement who take undue advantage of the law by convicting and
arresting people in an unjustified manner, giving rise to the phenomenon of “net

5LEGALIZATION OF MARIJUANA FOR RECREATIONAL USE
widening”. Moreover penalties in the form of heavy fines of $1000 that comes with being
convicted of possession in Canada place burden on people who are from a low income
background disproportionately and this could contribute to cases of “secondary
criminalization” where by these people might be forced to commit other crimes to pay off
the fine that has been imposed upon them. Compared to decriminalization, legalization
would therefore eliminate more than $1 billion of expense on prohibition laws allowing the
fund to be directed to other spheres of public development and the regulated
commercialization could also work to increase the income of the country through taxation
(Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 2014).It should also be considered that such taxation
and price control measures could work to deter usage to some degree as well giving further
leverage to the authorities. It is expected that in a jurisdiction where production and distribution
is legal and aptly regulated, criminal involvement should decrease significantly.
Despite the non-lethal nature of cannabis, there however do exist certain health concerns
which could be categorized as chronic or acute that may affect the population with special
concern being associated with developing mental faculties of adolescents and pregnant women as
pointed out by many scholarly papers, Wayne Hall(2015) being notable among them. He has
extensively discussed about the research done on the adverse effects of marijuana abuse in the
last two decades. It is to be noted as per the author has pointed out that, cannabis based on
dosage could impair reaction-time, processing powers as well as motor coordination among
users and this has been found to increase risk of car crash while driving under influence to 2
to 3 times which is however much less than how alcohol affects people under influence. Even
so, it has contributed to around 2.5% behind cause of traffic deaths on France. This rate has
been found to increase when users also indulge in other substances along with cannabis as if

6LEGALIZATION OF MARIJUANA FOR RECREATIONAL USE
often the case. Another observation associated with cannabis abuse during pregnancy is the
reduction in birth weight of the foetus in instances of the mother being exposed to high levels
of the drug. Adolescents in particular have actually been found to be especially vulnerable to the
health implication of cannabis usage and therefore are strongly advised to keep away. It is
already established that adolescents who are regular users have an association with those who
have lower educational qualification that their peers who are not regular users. Dependence has
also been found to be an issue with 1 out of 10 users reporting to have developed dependence
syndrome and the odds seem to increase to 1 out of 6 among those who report to have begun
using during adolescence. Even Netherlands have been found to have consistently reported a
similar issue with dependence despite legislation of legalization and implementation
regulatory policy, indicating that this particular concern could remain a problem despite
CPF’s recommendations .Adolescents being a major target group in Canada as users and adding
to that the increased risks that is posed by cannabis use does in fact put into question the
prudence in removing prohibition. There has also found to be correlation between cannabis use
and other mental disorders such as anxiety and depression, with regular use during
adolescence doubling risk of being diagnosed with schizophrenia or other psychotic symptoms
during adulthood . Again, marijuana has been deemed as a gateway drug by some basing their
claims upon the observation that marijuana users often have been seen to be more likely to use
other more dangerous drugs. Additionally, acute users fall under risk of developing chronic
bronchitis and those who are middle aged fall under risk of myocardial infraction (Hall,
2015). Kalant (2016), in response to the CPF expressed a number of points as critique, asserting
that CPF’s take on the matter lacks sufficient evidence and ignores certain considerations to
arrive at the conclusions and recommendations that have been put forth. Kalant again points

7LEGALIZATION OF MARIJUANA FOR RECREATIONAL USE
out the increased risks that legalization would expose the vulnerable group of adolescents and
young adults and in addition points out that although legalization sounds promising, it is a
flawed approach and that the cost of its application could might as well trump the promised
potential benefits. Contrary to that, Kalant pointed out that certain surveys suggested that use
may increase among adolescents and although the increase might be minimised it still cannot
be definitively determined that others might not come under peer influence and the
expectations for restriction might fall short. Additionally he pointed out that the social cost of
prohibition is determined not by the law itself but by the manner of enforcement of the law
and highlighted that out of 17641 arrested for possession in Canada , 8045 were ultimately let
off without any charges whatsoever and only 890 were found to be charged. This he says
suggests that perhaps a lax system of law enforcement could be responsible for the perceived
failure on part of the law. He also pointed out states like Australia, Portugal and UK aside
from Canada where the frequency of cases of marijuana abuse being diverted to the health
care professionals have been increasing, suggesting that perhaps bringing in legalization is
unnecessary. Another point to be considered that he highlighted is that price regulation and
taxation brought about upon legalization may not be effective in deterring use by continuing
to pushing low income users who cannot afford the elevated prices to illicit sources. Finally,
countering Cr´epault, Rehm & Fischer (2015) on their position on decriminalization as being a
half measure as expounded by the Cannabis policy framework, he pointed out that states who
have just decriminalized as opposed to legalization of cannabis have not seen any increase in
usage and that states which have prohibited it to have depicted lower rates of abuse than other
available drugs, it is argued that legalization might not be able to make a significant dent in
usage after all. Furthermore, pointing out that legalization alone cannot address the health

8LEGALIZATION OF MARIJUANA FOR RECREATIONAL USE
harms of cannabis and thus requires additional regulatory laws, he said that perhaps a
decriminalization alternative with such additional laws could prove to be a safer bet. Adding to
that is the fact that there exists no guarantee that police bias in decriminalization would not
continue after legalization for illicit production and trafficking, perhaps the evidences stated
in the CPF lacks key considerations. Instead, Kalant suggested that perhaps a policy which
takes into account the morals and perceived hopes of society would be better suited to address
this issue in particular.
However, despite these concerns, as Fischer, Rehm & Cr´epault (2016), in response to
Kalant’s criticism, highlighted, that the argument that lack of complete evidence should deter
legislation ought to consider the move as an opportunity to collect the relevant data and gauge
the difference. The authors maintain that whatever leverage that legalization would offer far
outweigh what decriminalization could. Rehm, Crépault & Fischer (2017) in another paper had
drawn particular attention to the fact that the legal production and distribution of marijuana
could be viewed upon as being parallel with that of Tobacco and alcohol and hence suggested
that upon setting up similar regulatory policies influence of criminal market could certainly be
dissuaded. They emphasized how important these regulations are and based on their research
asserted that just as successful implementation could serve to be fruitful failure could lead to
yet another situation like the US states which legalized the drug where they have found to have
failed to generate positive results. The pros and cons are thus well established and a well-
informed legislation that is being geared up on basis of such scientific queries and evidences
could do well to set the premise for a most important social exercise that could set a new
standard of administrative control. Kalant’s position on relying on the perceived broader
ideals and hopes of society as a guideline to policy framing instead of that based on evidence

9LEGALIZATION OF MARIJUANA FOR RECREATIONAL USE
which is no doubt indirect but incremental however betrays inherent bias and favouring status
quo whereas opposing novel untested policy options. Risks are a natural part of scientific
research and breakthrough of any sort and the authors thus assert that such logic would have
prevented many landmark achievements in human society ranging from space travel and
normalization of LGBT and abortion rights (Rehm, Crépault & Fischer, 2016). Hence, agreeing
to all these points, this paper puts forth legalisation as a much needed policy change and the best
bet based on the available evidence.

10LEGALIZATION OF MARIJUANA FOR RECREATIONAL USE
References
Brand, E. J., & Zhao, Z. (2017). Cannabis in Chinese medicine: are some traditional indications
referenced in ancient literature related to cannabinoids?. Frontiers in pharmacology, 8,
108.
Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (2014). Cannabis policy framework. Retrieved
http://www.camh.ca/en/hospital/about_camh/influencing_public_policy/Documents/
CAMHCannabisPolicyFramework.pdf
Crépault, J. F., Rehm, J., & Fischer, B. (2015). The cannabis policy framework by the Centre for
Addiction and Mental Health: A proposal for a public health approach to cannabis policy
in Canada. International Journal of Drug Policy, 34, 1-4.
Fischer, B., Rehm, J., & Crépault, J. F. (2016). Realistically furthering the goals of public health
by cannabis legalization with strict regulation: Response to Kalant. International Journal
of Drug Policy, 34, 11-16.
Hall, W. (2015). What has research over the past two decades revealed about the adverse health
effects of recreational cannabis use?. Addiction, 110(1), 19-35.
Kalant, H. (2016). A critique of cannabis legalization proposals in Canada. International Journal
of Drug Policy, 34, 5-10.
Lucas, P., Reiman, A., Earleywine, M., McGowan, S. K., Oleson, M., Coward, M. P., &
Thomas, B. (2013). Cannabis as a substitute for alcohol and other drugs: A dispensary-
based survey of substitution effect in Canadian medical cannabis patients. Addiction
Research & Theory, 21(5), 435-442.

11LEGALIZATION OF MARIJUANA FOR RECREATIONAL USE
Public Health Canada. (2018). National report: Apparent opioid-related deaths in Canada
(December 2017) - Canada.ca. Canada.ca. Retrieved 30 March 2018, from
https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/publications/healthy-living/apparent-
opioid-related-deaths-report-2016-2017-december.html
Rehm, J., Crépault, J. F., & Fischer, B. (2017). The devil is in the details! On regulating cannabis
use in Canada based on public health criteria: comment on" legalizing and regulating
marijuana in Canada: Review of potential economic, social, and health
impacts". International journal of health policy and management, 6(3), 173.
Spithoff, S., Emerson, B., & Spithoff, A. (2015). Cannabis legalization: adhering to public health
best practice. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 187(16), 1211-1216.