However, scientific study of the chemicals in marijuana, called cannabinoids, has led to two FDA-approved medications that contain cannabinoid chemicals in pill form.
It refers to governmental programs intended to suppress the consumption of certain recreational drugs. The War on Drugs utilizes several techniques to achieve its goal of eliminating recreational drug use: Drugs deemed socially, religiously, medically or politically unfit for recreational use are frequently banned.
From a blanket prohibition suppressing all use, to permitting certain amounts for personal use, the legalization of marijuana fights different fights in different countries. It required sellers to obtain a license.
Blanket prohibition was not the intention. The law passed quickly and with Position argument on medical marijuana debate.
There was some legal wrangling over the issue after it was passed. The people who were allowed to issue the licenses did not do so, effectively banning the drugs. The judicial system did not accept, at first, that being arrested in possession of drugs was a tax violation because it must have come from an unlicensed source because there were no licensesthereby avoiding taxes.
Thus, the federal government did have the right to regulate the ingestion of drugs. Prohibition must be weighed against the loss of personal freedom. Countries have a responsibility to respect individual free will and the right of self-determination.
The immorality of marijuana use can only be based on one set of moral beliefs. For example, it is discriminatory to claim that Judeo-Christian abstinence from intoxication is the correct set of moral beliefs. The War on Drugs serves the immediate interests of politicians. Legal prohibition does not stop consumers from consuming drugs, it does not stop trafficants from producing and selling it.
The price of the final product increases to abnormally high values because of the black market status, which together with the powerful effects of drug addiction causes users to commit crimes in order to fund their addiction. Critics of the War on Drugs advocate the partial or complete decriminalization of illegal drugs, combined with a system of regulation, as happens with alcohol and prescription drugs.
By providing legal supplies of currently illegal drugs the price will fall, leading to a collapse in the illegal drug industry, and a reduction in crimes committed by both drug suppliers and users. They also argue that the reduction in the price will lead to little, if any, growth in drug addiction, due to the inelasticity of demand.
Some even state that in a strictly regulated market, drug use may fall overall, by removing the marketing activities of the illegal drug industry. It is not worthwhile for a law to forbid people from willingly exposing their own bodies to harm by using drugs, any more than by overeating or bungee-jumping.
Obesity is a national epidemic, killing millions every year, but the government has no right to regulate how much citizens eat.
Drug users exercise free will when they chose to use drugs; a person has the right to give up his or her own freedom.
A Government does not have the right to dictate them. No drug eliminates free will. It is possible to quit using any drug. Many banned drugs are significantly less deleterious to free will than legal alcohol or tobacco.
Severe physiological addiction has been demonstrated for tobacco stronger than cocainebut no strong physiological addiction has been shown for marijuana. Legalize marijuana and reduce health care costs by reducing the probability of overdoses and accidental ingestion of an unintended drug through standardization of drug purity by state-sponsored production and sale.
There is no clear and obvious third party harm. Such examples are caused by related activities that can be illegal without blanket prohibition. For example, driving while intoxicated is illegal, while drinking alcohol without driving is not.
If drugs were legalized, the companies that manufacture and market them would be sued, such as cigarette companies have been exposed to lawsuits.The American Medical Association's policy-making body voted Tuesday to reaffirm its opposition to marijuana legalization, but also called the current federal approach to reducing the drug's use.
Position Argument on Medical Marijuana There seems to be a constant need to provide conflict in our society. Everywhere you turn you will find articles fighting against the legalization of medical marijuana, which in this state, is already legal. The term medical marijuana refers to using the whole, unprocessed marijuana plant or its basic extracts to treat symptoms of illness and other conditions.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not recognized or approved the marijuana plant as medicine.
Medical Marijuana Arguing a Position Jon Doe May 7, English Jane Doe The cannabis plant (marijuana) has been used medicinally by a variety of cultures around the world. It was used as medicine in the United States until when a new tax fee led to its discontinued use. Arguing For Medical Marijuana Legalization The argument for medical marijuana legalization has been one of the controversial debates that have raised heated discussions in many conferences worldwide.
Therefore, this essay will provide a consistent and comprehensive argument to support the position that medical marijuana should be legalized. Medical Marijuana Arguing a Position Jon Doe May 7, English Jane Doe Though the argument for legalizing medical marijuana is a strong and valid argument, the dangers of usage highly outweigh the benefits.
Agencies such as the FDA (Food and Drug Administration).