legalize weed argument essay

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.

Essays on Cannabis Legalization

Thomas, Danna Kang

Though the drug remains illegal at the federal level, in recent years states and localities have increasingly liberalized their marijuana laws in order to generate tax revenue and save resources on marijuana law enforcement. Many states have adopted some form of medical marijuana and/or marijuana decriminalization laws, and as of 2017, Washington, Colorado, Maine, California, Oregon, Massachusetts, Nevada, Alaska, and the District of Columbia have all legalized marijuana for recreational use. In 2016 recreational marijuana generated over $1.8 billion in sales. Hence, studying marijuana reforms and the policies and outcomes of early recreational marijuana adopters is an important area of research. However, perhaps due to the fact that legalized recreational cannabis is a recent phenomenon, a scarcity of research exists on the impacts of recreational cannabis legalization and the efficacy and efficiency of cannabis regulation. This dissertation aims to fill this gap, using the Washington recreational marijuana market as the primary setting to study cannabis legalization in the United States. Of first order importance in the regulation of sin goods such as cannabis is quantifying the value of the marginal damages of negative externalities. Hence, Chapter 1 (co-authored with Lin Tian) explores the impact of marijuana dispensary location on neighborhood property values, exploiting plausibly exogenous variation in marijuana retailer location. Policymakers and advocates have long expressed concerns that the positive effects of the legalization--e.g., increases in tax revenue--are well spread spatially, but the negative effects are highly localized through channels such as crime. Hence, we use changes in property values to measure individuals' willingness to pay to avoid localized externalities caused by the arrival of marijuana dispensaries. Our key identification strategy is to compare changes in housing sales around winners and losers in a lottery for recreational marijuana retail licenses. (Due to location restrictions, license applicants were required to provide an address of where they would like to locate.) Hence, we have the locations of both actual entrants and potential entrants, which provides a natural difference-in-differences set-up. Using data from King County, Washington, we find an almost 2.4% decrease in the value of properties within a 0.5 mile radius of an entrant, a $9,400 decline in median property values. The aforementioned retail license lottery was used to distribute licenses due to a license quota. Retail license quotas are often used by states to regulate entry into sin goods markets as quotas can restrict consumption by decreasing access and by reducing competition (and, therefore, increasing markups). However, license quotas also create allocative inefficiency. For example, license quotas are often based on the population of a city or county. Hence, licenses are not necessarily allocated to the areas where they offer the highest marginal benefit. Moreover, as seen in the case of the Washington recreational marijuana market, licenses are often distributed via lottery, meaning that in the absence of an efficiency secondary market for licenses, the license recipients are not necessarily the most efficient potential entrants. This allocative inefficiency is generated by heterogeneity in firms and consumers. Therefore, in Chapter 2, I develop a model of demand and firm pricing in order to investigate firm-level heterogeneity and inefficiency. Demand is differentiated by geography and incorporates consumer demographics. I estimate this demand model using data on firm sales from Washington. Utilizing the estimates and firm pricing model, I back out a non-parametric distribution of firm variable costs. These variable costs differ by product and firm and provide a measure of firm inefficiency. I find that variable costs have lower inventory turnover; hence, randomly choosing entrants in a lottery could be a large contributor to allocative inefficiency. Chapter 3 explores the sources of allocative inefficiency in license distribution in the Washington recreational marijuana market. A difficulty in studying the welfare effects of license quotas is finding credible counterfactuals of unrestricted entry. Therefore, I take a structural approach: I first develop a three stage model that endogenizes firm entry and incorporates the spatial demand and pricing model discussed in Chapter 2. Using the estimates of the demand and pricing model, I estimate firms' fixed costs and use data on locations of those potential entrants that did not win Washington's retail license lottery to simulate counterfactual entry patterns. I find that allowing firms to enter freely at Washington's current marijuana tax rate increases total surplus by 21.5% relative to a baseline simulation of Washington's license quota regime. Geographic misallocation and random allocation of licenses account for 6.6\% and 65.9\% of this difference, respectively. Moreover, as the primary objective of these quotas is to mitigate the negative externalities of marijuana consumption, I study alternative state tax policies that directly control for the marginal damages of marijuana consumption. Free entry with tax rates that keep the quantity of marijuana or THC consumed equal to baseline consumption increases welfare by 6.9% and 11.7%, respectively. I also explore the possibility of heterogeneous marginal damages of consumption across geography, backing out the non-uniform sales tax across geography that is consistent with Washington's license quota policy. Free entry with a non-uniform sales tax increases efficiency by over 7% relative to the baseline simulation of license quotas due to improvements in license allocation.

Cannabis--Law and legislation
Marijuana industry
Drug legalization
Drugs--Economic aspects

thumnail for Thomas_columbia_0054D_14597.pdf

More About This Work

DOI Copy DOI to clipboard

THREE ESSAYS ON THE EFFECT OF LEGALIZING MARIJUANA ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND SOCIAL SECURITY

The legalization of marijuana has emerged as a critical public policy issue, with far-reaching implications for health, education, and government programs at both the state and federal levels. The three essays of this dissertation show that medical marijuana legalization (MML) has a negative effect in each of these areas. The first essay shows, that the enactment of MMLs can exacerbate the crisis of overdose deaths in the United States. The study analyzes three key areas: the rate of overdose deaths caused by both legal and illegal drugs, the impact of MML on social norms regarding the perceived harm of marijuana, and an investigation into the gateway theory by examining the use of other addictive drugs. I find that MMLs increase deaths attributed to overdose by 21.5% population. MMLs s also indicate increase the number of deaths due to prescribed opioids by 44.6%, and deaths from all opioids (heroin and cocaine in addition to prescribed opioids) by 37.2 % Results suggest an overall increase in the use of marijuana, primarily due to lower perceived risk among adolescents. Additionally, results show an increase in hospital admissions due to substance abuse. The analysis suggests that legalizing medical marijuana may exaggerate the current problem of drug overdose in the United States. The second essay examines the impact of improved access to medical marijuana, measured by the proximity of schools to the nearest dispensary, on the academic performance of high school students in California. Students in schools farther from a marijuana dispensary have higher academic performance as measured through AP, ACT, SAT scores, and average GPA, and lower number of suspensions due to violence and illicit drug use. To show this, I construct the first geocoded dataset on marijuana dispensary and high school locations, use newly developed difference-in-differences estimators that rule out any bias due to heterogeneous treatment effects over time, and explore dynamic responses. This essay reveals the importance of ensuring a largest possible distance between schools and dispensaries to protect adolescents from the potential harm caused by medical marijuana. Finally, the third essay shows that in the long term, MMLs increase the number of disabled workers who receive Social Security Disability Income (SSDI) because of mental health issues. SSDI is a major social insurance program that provides benefits to workers who become disabled, and understanding how policy changes in other areas may impact this program is important. In this study, there were important differences between the results of a two-way fixed effects model and a new model by Callaway and Santa’Anna. MMLs, in theory, could either increase or decrease the number of SSDI recipients, and traditional fixed effects models suggest both could be at play; however, only the negative effect is robust to correction for heterogeneous effects. This highlights the need for future research to understand the true impact of medical marijuana legalization

Contributors

Degree grantor, degree level, submission id, usage metrics.

Health economics
Welfare economics
Epidemiology
Health policy
Public policy
Medical and health law

Read our research on: Gun Policy | International Conflict | Election 2024

Regions & Countries

Americans overwhelmingly say marijuana should be legal for medical or recreational use.

An out-of-state customer purchases marijuana at a store in New York on March 31, 2021, when the state legalized recreational use of the drug.

With a growing number of states authorizing the use of marijuana, the public continues to broadly favor legalization of the drug for medical and recreational purposes.

A pie chart showing that just one-in-ten U.S. adults say marijuana should not be legal at all

An overwhelming share of U.S. adults (88%) say either that marijuana should be legal for medical and recreational use by adults (59%) or that it should be legal for medical use only (30%). Just one-in-ten (10%) say marijuana use should not be legal, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted Oct. 10-16, 2022. These views are virtually unchanged since April 2021.

The new survey follows President Joe Biden’s decision to pardon people convicted of marijuana possession at the federal level and direct his administration to review how marijuana is classified under federal law. It was fielded before the Nov. 8 midterm elections, when two states legalized the use of marijuana for recreational purposes – joining 19 states and the District of Columbia , which had already done so.

Pew Research Center asked this question to track public views about the legal status of marijuana. For this analysis, we surveyed 5,098 adults from Oct. 10-16, 2022. Everyone who took part in this survey is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATP’s methodology .

Here are the questions used for this report, along with responses, and its methodology .

Over the long term, there has been a steep rise in public support for marijuana legalization, as measured by a separate Gallup survey question that asks whether the use of marijuana should be made legal – without specifying whether it would be legalized for recreational or medical use. This year, 68% of adults say marijuana should be legal , matching the record-high support for legalization Gallup found in 2021.

There continue to be sizable age and partisan differences in Americans’ views about marijuana. While very small shares of adults of any age are completely opposed to the legalization of the drug, older adults are far less likely than younger ones to favor legalizing it for recreational purposes.

This is particularly the case among those ages 75 and older, just three-in-ten of whom say marijuana should be legal for both medical and recreational use. Larger shares in every other age group – including 53% of those ages 65 to 74 – say the drug should be legal for both medical and recreational use.

A bar chart showing that Americans 75 and older are the least likely to say marijuana should be legal for recreational use

Republicans are more wary than Democrats about legalizing marijuana for recreational use: 45% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents favor legalizing marijuana for both medical and recreational use, while an additional 39% say it should only be legal for medical use. By comparison, 73% of Democrats and Democratic leaners say marijuana should be legal for both medical and recreational use; an additional 21% say it should be legal for medical use only.

Ideological differences are evident within each party. About four-in-ten conservative Republicans (37%) say marijuana should be legal for medical and recreational use, compared with a 60% majority of moderate and liberal Republicans.

Nearly two-thirds of conservative and moderate Democrats (63%) say marijuana should be legal for medical and recreational use. An overwhelming majority of liberal Democrats (84%) say the same.

There also are racial and ethnic differences in views of legalizing marijuana. Roughly two-thirds of Black adults (68%) and six-in-ten White adults say marijuana should be legal for medical and recreational use, compared with smaller shares of Hispanic (49%) and Asian adults (48%).

Related: Clear majorities of Black Americans favor marijuana legalization, easing of criminal penalties

In both parties, views of marijuana legalization vary by age

While Republicans and Democrats differ greatly on whether marijuana should be legal for medial and recreational use, there are also age divides within each party.

A chart showing that there are wide age differences in both parties in views of legalizing marijuana for medical and recreational use

A 62% majority of Republicans ages 18 to 29 favor making marijuana legal for medical and recreational use, compared with 52% of those ages 30 to 49. Roughly four-in-ten Republicans ages 50 to 64 (41%) and 65 to 74 (38%) say marijuana should be legal for both purposes, as do 18% of those 75 and older.

Still, wide majorities of Republicans in all age groups favor legalizing marijuana for medical use. Even among Republicans 65 and older, just 17% say marijuana use should not be legal even for medical purposes.

While majorities of Democrats across all age groups support legalizing marijuana for medical and recreational use, older Democrats are less likely to say this. About half of Democrats ages 75 and older (51%) say marijuana should be legal for medical or recreational purposes; larger shares of younger Democrats say the same. Still, only 8% of Democrats 75 and older think marijuana should not be legalized even for medical use – similar to the share of all other Democrats who say this.

Note: Here are the questions used for this report, along with responses, and its methodology .

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivered Saturday mornings

Clear majorities of Black Americans favor marijuana legalization, easing of criminal penalties

Concern about drug addiction has declined in u.s., even in areas where fatal overdoses have risen the most, religious americans are less likely to endorse legal marijuana for recreational use, 6 facts about americans and marijuana, four-in-ten u.s. drug arrests in 2018 were for marijuana offenses – mostly possession, most popular.

About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Home — Essay Samples — Law, Crime & Punishment — Marijuana Legalization — Why Marijuana Should Be Legalized and Its Benefits

Why Marijuana Should Be Legalized and Its Benefits

Categories: Marijuana Legalization

About this sample

Words: 1013 |

Published: Jan 30, 2024

Words: 1013 | Pages: 2 | 6 min read

Introduction

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). (n.d.). The War on Marijuana in Black and White. Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/report/report-war-marijuana-black-and-white
Drug Policy Alliance. (n.d.). Marijuana Arrests by the Numbers. Retrieved from https://www.drugpolicy.org/resource/marijuana-arrests-numbers
Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). (2014). Medical Cannabis Laws and Opioid Analgesic Overdose Mortality in the United States, 1999-2010. Retrieved from https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/1897424
Leafly. (2020). Cannabis Jobs Report 2020. Retrieved from https://d3atagt0rnqk7k.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/07123735/Leafly-Jobs-Report-2020.pdf
National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). (2021). Marijuana Research Report. Retrieved from https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana
Tax Foundation. (2016). The Budgetary Effects of Ending Drug Prohibition. Retrieved from https://taxfoundation.org/budgetary-effects-ending-drug-prohibition

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Karlyna PhD

Verified writer

Expert in: Law, Crime & Punishment

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 977 words

2 pages / 925 words

3 pages / 1303 words

3 pages / 1255 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Marijuana Legalization

The debate over the legalization of weed is a contentious and multifaceted issue, with implications for medicine, economics, ethics, and society. In this essay on whether weed should be legalized, we will explore the potential [...]

The debate surrounding the legalization of medical marijuana has been a contentious and evolving issue in many countries around the world. While it remains illegal in some places, an increasing number of regions are recognizing [...]

Legalizing marijuana has been a topic of debate for many years, with strong arguments on both sides of the issue. However, as scientific research and public opinion continue to evolve, it is becoming increasingly clear that the [...]

Marijuana, also known as cannabis, has been used for various medical purposes for centuries. However, its legality and acceptance as a medical treatment have been a subject of debate for many years. This essay will argue that [...]

Cannabis is a medication that is continually being discussed everywhere throughout the media. There is steady discussion on whether it ought to be legitimized or not. Likewise, banter on if it somehow happened to be authorized, [...]

“There are two sides to every story, and the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle.” – Jean Gati There is the “War on Drugs” on one side and Marijuana Legalization as a response to the failures of this war. The binge of [...]

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

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

How Dangerous is Dengue?

photo of young adults on bikes taking a selfie

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

Alumni Spotlight: Junrui Di, PhD '19

Sahil, a 7-month-old child suffering from diarrhea, lies in a bed at the district hospital on May 21, 2022 in Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, India.

Child Diarrhea Has a Cheap and Easy Fix—Why Isn’t It Reaching Patients?

People hold up signs in Union Square during a demonstration against the Supreme Court on July 4, 2022 in New York City. The Supreme Court's June 24th decision in the Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health case overturned the landmark 50-year-old Roe v Wade case, removing a federal right to an abortion.

How Abortion Trigger Laws Impact Mental Health

Argumentative Essay On Marijuana Legalization

Published by gudwriter on May 27, 2018 May 27, 2018

Most students have serious problems writing a quality essay as they lack the necessary experience. If you need help writing an essay on legalization of marijuana, the perfect solution is to buy thesis proposal from experts online.

Elevate Your Writing with Our Free Writing Tools!

Did you know that we provide a free essay and speech generator, plagiarism checker, summarizer, paraphraser, and other writing tools for free?

Why Marijuana Should be Legalized Argumentative Essay Outline

Introduction.

Thesis: Marijuana should be legalized as it is more beneficial that it may be detrimental to society.

Paragraph 1:

Marijuana has not caused turmoil in some of the countries where it has been legalized.

Marijuana does not increase violent, and property crimes as many suggest.
Studies reveal that in Colorado, violent crimes have declined following the legalization of marijuana.

Paragraph 2:

Prohibiting use of marijuana does not limit its consumption.

In spite of the many laws prohibiting the use of marijuana, it is one of the most highly abused drugs.
58% of young people from all over the world use marijuana.
It has not been attributed to any health complications.

Paragraph 3:

Legalization of marijuana would help state governments save taxpayers money.

Governments spend lots of funds on law enforcement agencies that uphold laws restricting the use of marijuana.
They also spend vast sums of money on sustaining arrested dealers and consumers in prison.
Legalizing marijuana would result in saving vast sums of money.

Paragraph 4:

Marijuana is less noxious than other legal substances.

Marijuana has less health side effects than other legal substances such as alcohol and tobacco.
Alcohol is 114 times more destructive than marijuana.

Paragraph 5:

Marijuana has been proven to have medical benefits.

Marijuana helps stop seizures in epileptic patients.
It helps stop nausea in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy .

Paragraph 6:

Marijuana has been proven to be a stress reliever.

Marijuana relieves stress and depression in their users by causing excitement.
Its use reduces violence and deaths related to stress and depression.

Conclusion.

There are many misconceptions about marijuana existent in the modern world. People have continued to ignore health benefits linked to this substance citing their unproven beliefs. Owing to its ability to stop seizures, nausea, and stress in individuals governments should highly consider marijuana legalization. Its legalization will also help state governments reduce expenses that result from maintaining suspects convicted of marijuana possession and consumption.

Why Marijuana Should be Legalized Argumentative Essay

The argument that marijuana use should be made legal has gained momentum both in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world in recent years. This has seen the drug being legalized in some states in the U.S. such that by 2013, twenty states had legalized medical marijuana. As of the same year, Colorado and Washington had legalized recreational marijuana. The arguments behind the push for legalization majorly revolve around the idea that the drug has medicinal effects. However, there are also arguments that there are serious health effects associated with the drug and this has only further fueled the already raging debate. This paper argues that marijuana should be legalized as it is more beneficial that it may be detrimental to society.

Marijuana has not caused any notable negative effects in countries where it has been legalized. There is a general belief that marijuana consumers are violent. However, no authentic research can prove these assertions. As already seen, some states in the United States have legalized both medicinal and recreational marijuana. In spite of this, no cases of marijuana-related violence have been recorded so far in such states (Markol, 2018). Reports reveal that the rate of violence and property crimes have decreased in Colorado following the legalization of the drug. If marijuana does not increase violent crimes, there is no reason as to why it should not be legalized.

It is also noteworthy that prohibiting marijuana use does not limit its consumption. Less than 10% of countries in the world prevent the use of marijuana, but according to research, 58% of young people in most of these countries are marijuana users (Head, 2016). General reports reveal that marijuana is one of most commonly abused drug in the world. It is also readily available in most states as it is a naturally growing plant (Head, 2016). In spite of its continued use, there are few cases, if any, of marijuana-related health complications that have been reported in any of these countries (Head, 2016). Therefore, if the illegality of marijuana does not limit its consumption, then state governments should consider its legalization.

Legalization of marijuana would further help state governments save taxpayers’ money. It is widely known that in countries where marijuana is illegal, authorities are stringent and will arrest any individual found in possession of the drug (Sanger, 2017). However, as earlier mentioned, laws prohibiting the use of the drug do not prevent its consumption, and this means that many people are arrested and prosecuted for possessing it (Sanger, 2017). State governments therefore use a lot of funds to support law enforcement agencies that seek to uphold laws prohibiting the use of marijuana (Sanger, 2017). Many people have been arrested and incarcerated for either possessing or consuming the drug, and the government has to use taxpayers’ money to sustain such people in prison. Since these actions do not limit consumption of marijuana, state governments should legalize the drug so as to save taxpayers money.

Another advantage of marijuana is that it is less noxious than other legal substances. According to research, marijuana is the least harmful drug among the many legal drugs existent in the world today (Owen, 2014). There are millions of campaigns every year cautioning people against smoking cigarettes, but there has been none seeking to warn people about marijuana consumption (Owen, 2014). Lobby groups have even been making efforts to push for legalization of marijuana. If marijuana had severe health effects as many purport, state governments would be investing heavily in campaigns aimed at discouraging its consumption (Owen, 2014). According to studies, alcohol, which is legal in many countries, is 114 times more harmful than marijuana (Owen, 2014). Therefore, if such harmful substances can be legalized, then there are no justifications as to why marijuana should not be legalized.

Further, marijuana has been proven to have medicinal benefits. Several countries, particularly in Europe, and the United States have legalized both medicinal and recreational marijuana. Their move to legalize marijuana was based on medical reports that showed a variety of health benefits linked to the drug (Noonan, 2017). Research shows that marijuana can reduce seizures in epileptic persons. Several studies have also proven that the drug indeed has a variety of health benefits. For instance, Charlotte Figi, who is now aged 10, used to have more than 100 seizures every month at age three, but since Colorado legalized medicinal and recreational marijuana, her parents started treating her with the substance, and today her seizures have significantly reduced (Noonan, 2017). Marijuana has as well been proven to reduce nausea in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. Owing to this medicinal value, state governments should consider legalizing the drug.

Additionally, marijuana has been proven to be a stress reliever. Consumption of the drug causes excitement among its users enabling them to forget about troubling situations. Unlike alcohol which is likely to aggravate stress and depression, marijuana works wonders in alleviating anxiety and depression (Sanger, 2017). There are many health and social effects associated with stress, including mental disorders and violence against others (Sanger, 2017). To avoid cases of stress-related violence and mental disorders, state governments should make marijuana consumption legal.

There are many misconceptions about marijuana in the world today. People have continued to ignore the health benefits linked with this substance and have instead focused on citing yet-to-be proven misconceptions. Owing to the ability of the drug to stop seizures, nausea, and stress in individuals, governments should seriously consider its legalization. The legalization will also help state governments reduce expenses that result from sustaining suspects convicted of marijuana possession and consumption. So far, there is more than enough evidence proving that marijuana has lots of benefits to individuals, the society, and the government, and therefore should be legalized.

Head, T. (2016). “8 reasons why marijuana should be legalized”. ThoughtCo . Retrieved June 27, 2020 from https://www.thoughtco.com/reasons-why-marijuana-should-be-legalized-721154

Markol, T. (2018). “5 reasons why marijuana should be legalized”. Marijuana Reform . Retrieved June 27, 2020 from http://marijuanareform.org/5-reasons-marijuana-legalized/

Noonan, D. (2017). “Marijuana treatment reduces severe epileptic seizures”. Scientific American . Retrieved June 27, 2020 from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/marijuana-treatment-reduces-severe-epileptic-seizures/

Owen, P. (2014). “6 powerful reasons to legalize marijuana”. New York Times . Retrieved June 27, 2020 from https://www.alternet.org/drugs/6-powerful-reasons-new-york-times-says-end-marijuana-prohibition

Sanger, B. (2017). “10 legit reasons why weed should be legalized right now”. Herb . Retrieved June 27, 2020 from https://herb.co/marijuana/news/reasons-weed-legalized

Why Marijuana Should be Legal Essay Outline

Thesis: Marijuana has health benefits and should thus be legal.

Benefits of Marijuana

Marijuana slows and stops the spread of cancer cells.

Cannabidiol can turn off a gene called Id-1 and can therefore stop cancer.
In an experiment, researchers were able to treat breast cancer cells with Cannabidiol.

Marijuana helps with pain and nausea reduction for people going through chemotherapy.

Cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy suffer from severe pains and nausea.
This can further complicate their health.
Marijuana can stir up their appetite, decrease nausea, and reduce pain.

Paragraph 3:

Marijuana can control epileptic seizure.

Marijuana extract stopped seizures in epileptic rats in ten hours.
The seizures were controlled by the THC.

Disadvantages of Marijuana

Marijuana is addictive.

One in ten marijuana users become addicted over time.
If one stops using the drug abruptly, they may suffer from such withdrawal symptoms.

Marijuana use decreases mental health.

Users suffer from memory loss and restricted blood flow to the brain.
Users have higher chances of developing depression and schizophrenia.

Marijuana use damages the lungs more than cigarette smoking .

Marijuana smokers inhale the smoke more deeply into their lungs and let it stay there for longer.
The likelihood of lung cancer can be increased by this deeper, longer exposure to carcinogens.

Why Marijuana Should Be Legal

Paragraph 7:

Improved quality and safety control.

Legalization would lead to the creation of a set of standards for safety and quality control.
Users would know what they exactly get in exchange for the money they offer.
There would be no risks of users taking in unknown substances mixed in marijuana.

Paragraph 8:

Marijuana has a medicinal value.

Medical marijuana treats a wide assortment of “untreatable” diseases and conditions.
Public health would be improved and the healthcare system would experience less of a drain.

Paragraph 9:

Among the major arguments against marijuana legalization is often that legalization would yield an increase in drug-impaired driving.

This argument holds that even now when the drug is yet to be fully legalized in the country, it is a major causal factor in highway deaths, injuries, and crushes.
It however beats logic why marijuana is illegalized on the ground that it would increase drug-impaired driving while alcohol is legal but also significantly contributes to the same problem.

Legalization of marijuana would have many benefits. The drug is associated with the treatment of many serious illnesses including the dreaded cancer. Legalization would also save users from consuming unsafe marijuana sold by unscrupulous people.

Why Marijuana Should Be Legal Essay

There is an ongoing tension between the belief that marijuana effectively treats a wide range of ailments and the argument that it has far-reaching negative health effects. There has nevertheless been a drive towards legalization of the drug in the United States with twenty nine states and the District of Columbia having legalized it for medical and recreational purposes. It was also found by a study that there is a sharp increase in the use of marijuana across the country (Kerr, Lui & Ye, 2017). Major public health concerns are being prompted by this rise. This should however not be the case because marijuana has health benefits and should thus be legal.

Marijuana slows and stops the spread of cancer cells. A study found that Cannabidiol can turn off a gene called Id-1 and can therefore stop cancer. A 2007 report by researchers at California Pacific Medical Center in San Francisco also indicated that the spread of cancer may be prevented by Cannabidiol. In their lab experiment, the researchers were able to treat breast cancer cells with this component (Nawaz, 2017). The positive outcome of the experiment showed that Id-1 expression had been significantly decreased.

Marijuana also helps with pain and nausea reduction for people going through chemotherapy. Cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy suffer from severe pains, appetite loss, vomiting, and painful nausea. This can further complicate their already deteriorating health. Marijuana can be of help here by stirring up the appetite, decreasing nausea, and reducing pain (Nawaz, 2017). There are also other cannabinoid drugs used for the same purposes as approved by the FDA.

It was additionally shown by a 2003 study that the use of marijuana can control epileptic seizure. Synthetic marijuana and marijuana extracts were given to epileptic rats by Virginia Commonwealth University’s Robert J. DeLorenzo. In about ten hours, the seizures had been stopped by the drugs (Nawaz, 2017). It was found that the seizures were controlled by the THC which bound the brain cells responsible for regulating relaxation and controlling excitability.

Some scientists claim that marijuana is addictive. According to them, one in ten marijuana users become addicted over time. They argue that if one stops using the drug abruptly, they may suffer from such withdrawal symptoms as anxiety and irritability (Barcott, 2015). However, the same argument could be applied to cigarette smoking, which is notably legal. There is need for more studies to be conducted into this claim being spread by opponents of marijuana legalization.

It is also argued that marijuana use decreases mental health. Those opposed to the legalization of recreational marijuana like to cite studies that show that users of the drug suffer from memory loss and restricted blood flow to the brain. They also argue that users have higher chances of developing depression and schizophrenia. However, these assertions have not yet been completely ascertained by science (Barcott, 2015). The claim about depression and schizophrenia is particularly not clear because researchers are not sure whether the drug triggers the conditions or it is used by smokers to alleviate the symptoms.

It is further claimed that marijuana use damages the lungs more than cigarette smoking. It is presumed that marijuana smokers inhale the smoke more deeply into their lungs and let it stay there for longer. The likelihood of lung cancer, according to this argument, can be increased by this deeper, longer exposure to carcinogens. However, the argument touches not on the frequency of use between marijuana and cigarette smokers (Barcott, 2015). It neither takes into account such alternative administration methods as edibles, tinctures, and vaporizing.

Legalization of marijuana would lead to improved quality and safety control. Purchasing the drug off the street provides end users with no means of knowing what they are exactly getting. On the other hand, legalizing it would immediately lead to the creation of a set of standards for safety and quality control (Caulkins, Kilmer & Kleiman, 2016). This would certainly work in the marijuana industry just as it is working in the tobacco and alcohol industries. Users would be able to know what they exactly get in exchange for the money they offer. Additionally, there would be no risks of users taking in unknown substances mixed in marijuana sold on the streets.

Marijuana should also be legal because it has a medicinal value. It has been proven that medical marijuana treats a wide assortment of “untreatable” diseases and conditions. These include problems due to chemotherapy, cancer, post-traumatic stress disorder, migraines, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, and Crohn’s disease (Caulkins, Kilmer & Kleiman, 2016). Public health would be improved and the healthcare system would experience less of a drain if medical cannabis products were made available to those suffering from the mentioned conditions. Consequently, more public funds would be available for such other public service initiatives as schools and roads.

Among the major arguments against marijuana legalization is often that legalization would yield an increase in drug-impaired driving. This argument holds that even now when the drug is yet to be fully legalized in the country, it has already been cited to be a major causal factor in highway deaths, injuries, and crushes. Among the surveys those arguing along this line might cite is one that was conducted back in 2010, revealing that of the participating weekend night-time drivers, “8.6 percent tested positive for marijuana or its metabolites” (“Why We Should Not Legalize Marijuana,” 2010). It was found in yet another study that 26.9% of drivers who were being attended to at a trauma center after sustaining serious injuries tested positive for the drug (“Why We Should Not Legalize Marijuana,” 2010). It however beats logic why marijuana is illegalized on the ground that it would increase drug-impaired driving while alcohol is legal but also significantly contributes to the same problem.

As the discussion reveals, legalization of marijuana would have many benefits. The drug is associated with the treatment of many serious illnesses including the dreaded cancer. Legalization would also save users from consuming unsafe marijuana sold by unscrupulous people. There are also other health conditions that can be controlled through the drug. Arguments against its legalization based on its effects on human health also lack sufficient scientific support. It is thus only safe that the drug is legalized in all states.

Barcott, B. (2015). Weed the people: the future of legal marijuana in America . New York, NY: Time Home Entertainment.

Caulkins, J. P., Kilmer, B., & Kleiman, M. (2016). Marijuana legalization: what everyone needs to know . New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Kerr, W., Lui, C., & Ye, Y. (2017). Trends and age, period and cohort effects for marijuana use prevalence in the 1984-2015 US National Alcohol Surveys. Addiction , 113 (3), 473-481.

Nawaz, H. (2017). The debate between legalizing marijuana and its benefits for medical purposes: a pros and cons analysis . Munich, Germany: GRIN Verlag.

Why We Should Not Legalize Marijuana. (2010). In CNBC . Retrieved June 25, 2020 from https://www.cnbc.com/id/36267223 .

More examples of Argumentative Essays written by our team of quality writers

Same Sex Marriage Argumentative Essay, with Outline
American Patriotism Argumentative Essay
Euthanasia Argumentative Essay Sample
Artificial Intelligence Argumentative Essay
Argumentative Essay on Abortion – Sample Essay
Gun Control Argumentative Essay – Sample Essay
Can Money Buy Happiness Argumentative Essay
Illegal Immigration Argumentative Essay

There are typical mistakes most students make when writing their argumentative papers . When writing your argumentative essay you ought to understand that it calls for the ability to present facts, provide supportive evidence, and use logical reasoning to illustrate points. This will help you write a quality paper.

You can relieve yourself all the tussle by buying an argumentative essay from a trustworthy argumentative essay help service. Hire Gudwriter now and you will never regret it.

Special offer! Get 20% discount on your first order. Promo code: SAVE20

Free essays and research papers, artificial intelligence argumentative essay – with outline.

Artificial Intelligence Argumentative Essay Outline In recent years, Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become one of the rapidly developing fields and as its capabilities continue to expand, its potential impact on society has become a topic Read more…

Synthesis Essay Example – With Outline

The goal of a synthesis paper is to show that you can handle in-depth research, dissect complex ideas, and present the arguments. Most college or university students have a hard time writing a synthesis essay, Read more…

Examples of Spatial Order – With Outline

A spatial order is an organizational style that helps in the presentation of ideas or things as is in their locations. Most students struggle to understand the meaning of spatial order in writing and have Read more…

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

We're Hiring!
Help Center

Argumentative essay marijuana legalization

Related Papers

Addiction (Abingdon, England)

To examine briefly the (i) rationales for two policy proposals in the United States to make it mandatory for cigarettes to contain very low levels of nicotine and to legalize cannabis for recreational use by adults; and (ii) possible lessons that participants in each policy debate may learn from each other. We briefly describe the diverging policies towards cannabis and tobacco in the United States, explain and critically analyse their rationales and discuss possible policy lessons. Advocates of cannabis legalization have argued that prohibition has been an ineffective and expensive policy that penalizes ethnic minority users unjustly of a drug that is far less harmful than alcohol. The prohibition of traditional tobacco cigarettes has been advocated as a way to eliminate cigarette smoking. These proposals embody very different attitudes towards the harms of recreational adult drug use. Advocates of nicotine prohibition demand that alternative methods of nicotine delivery must be sh...

If caffeine and other such banalised psychoactive substances are left out of consideration, almost everywhere in Europe today cannabis is one of the 'big three'of psychoactive substances, along with alcohol and tobacco. Although the international drug control system applies continuing pressure against it, cannabis has taken on a semi-legal status in many parts of Europe, at least at the level of the user.

Anna Shahrour

Chloe Mutch

BMJ (Clinical research ed.)

John Strang

The Medical Journal of Australia

David Penington

World Medical & Health Policy

James A Swartz

Frontiers in psychiatry / Frontiers Research Foundation

Sunil Aggarwal

Healthcare Policy | Politiques de Santé

Tom Noseworthy

Rachel A Barry

Summary Points • The US states that have legalized retail marijuana are using US alcohol policies as a model for regulating retail marijuana, which prioritizes business interests over public health. • The history of major multinational corporations using aggressive marketing strategies to increase and sustain tobacco and alcohol use illustrates the risks of corporate domination of a legalized marijuana market. • To protect public health, marijuana should be treated like tobacco, not as the US treats alcohol: legal but subject to a robust demand reduction program modeled on successful evidence-based tobacco control programs. • Because marijuana is illegal in most places, jurisdictions worldwide (including other US states) considering legalization can learn from the US experience to shape regulations that prioritize public health over profits.

Argumentative Essay on Cannabis

Cannabis is commonly the most used illicit substance in many countries around the world, including the United States. It comes from the cannabis plant, which evolved about 28 million years ago on the eastern Tibetan Plateau, according to a pollen study published in May of 2019. Its use, the study suggests, has been found to date as far back as 2500 years. Studies have strongly suggested marijuana’s a wide range of benefits, from medical to recreational. Today cannabis, also known as hemp or marijuana, is legal in 15 states while criminalized in the remaining 35. There are various opinions on whether cannabis should be legalized or not. The present paper discusses the existing views and defends the idea that it should be federally legalized because of its medical and recreational benefits and a dramatic reduction in law enforcement costs.

The primary argument against the legalization of cannabis is that it is “the most commonly used addictive drug after tobacco and alcohol” (National Institute on Drug Abuse 4). More than 22 million Americans use marihuana at least once a month, and every 10th adult and every 6th adolescent become addicted to this drug (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention para. 1, 2). Except for addiction and the decreased ability to control own life, the regulars use of marijuana reduces cognitive function in middle age (Auer et al. 352).

More precisely, there is a strong correlation between addiction to cannabis and poor verbal memory and executive function, and slow processing speed of the brain (Auer et al. 352). From this, it could be inferred that the legalization of marijuana will be a fatal strike for the well-being of the entire nation. In other words, the legalization of this drug will increase the number of people who are addicted to it and, therefore, will increase the number of middle-aged and older adults who suffer from cognitive impairments.

At the same time, it might be argued that tobacco and alcohol are also legalized, but many people anyway do not smoke tobacco and do not drink alcohol. Besides, some people smoke or drink alcohol from time to time to celebrate holidays or cope with stress and do not get addicted. Interestingly enough, the survey conducted by the Pew Research Center in April 2021 illustrates that 91 percent of American adults support the legalization of marijuana for medical and recreational purposes (Schaeffer para. 2).

Furthermore, the results of the survey conducted by Keyhani et al. show that more than 80 percent of adults believe that the use of marijuana is beneficial since it helps manage pain, treat epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, depression, and stress (282). Most importantly, people are aware not only of the benefits of cannabis but also of its risks. Respondents admit that they are afraid of legal problems because of the use of cannabis, addiction, and memory problems (Keyhani et al. 282). This way, it is apparent that most American citizens are conscious enough of the issue of cannabis and are ready to be responsible for their actions after the legalization of this drug.

Another argument against the legalization of cannabis is that it is widely perceived as a gateway drug. This means that after some time, the effect of marijuana will stop to satisfy its user and, subsequently, such a person will shift to the use of “harder” drugs such as, for example, heroin or cocaine. The marijuana gateway hypothesis appeared in the 1970-s, and since these times, debate on whether cannabis is a gateway drug does not stop.

In spite of the fact that in the academic community, there is no common opinion on the marijuana gateway hypothesis, several studies prove that the use of this drug does not cause a consequential addiction to other drugs. For instance, the US Department of Justice researched this topic and discovered no “scientific support for cannabis use leading to harder illicit drug use” (Nöel and Wang 11). Therefore, the legalization of cannabis is not expected to lead to an increase in the number of adults and adolescents addicted to hard drugs.

Nonetheless, it is impossible to deny that marijuana is addictive. Without a doubt, legalization will lead to the rise of people addicted to this drug because some people in the states where marijuana is prohibited are willing to try it but are afraid of breaking the law. This, in turn, means more traffic accidents, more addicted teenagers who steal hemp from their parents or forge an identity card. Besides, legalization means increased pressure on hospitals caused by the sharply raised number of emergency room visits and demand for addiction treatment. From this perspective, it is clear that people who do not use cannabis will suffer significant losses, and their lives are put in danger as well.

Still, the legalization of cannabis will save the lives of people who are used to buying it on the street and, thus, have no way to check the quality of the purchase. Legalization will decrease the illegal trade with cannabis, and, therefore, people who use this drug could at least be sure that its quality is satisfactory. What is more, legalization is a way to force sellers to certify the quality of cannabis through tests in specialized laboratories. The government will be able to control the entire production chain, from marijuana fields to laboratories where the final product is tested. Finally, through the legalization, the federal government could impose age restrictions and this way, prevent immature Americans from abuse of this substance.

As it has been already noted in the introduction, the legalization of cannabis will reduce law enforcement costs. In 2018, “663,000 arrests for marijuana-related offenses” were made in the US (Gramlich para. 2). These arrests cost approximately $4 million to the federal government annually. The legalization of marihuana will enable police officers to spend their time, efforts, and budget on solving more acute and dangerous problems than catching people who store, purchase, or use cannabis.

To conclude, it is common knowledge that fruit often tastes sweeter when it is forbidden. People who want to smoke marijuana will find a way to buy it. Those who are in good health and prefer other stress-relieving practices such as yoga, meditation, or jogging, will not use cannabis under any circumstances. Simultaneously, the legalization of marijuana will significantly relieve life for people who suffer from severe pains and various medical conditions. Finally, legalization will help to economize a substantial amount of money and utilize it more efficiently. The use of cannabis unquestionably has numerous adverse effects. Nonetheless, individuals should be free to decide independently what to do with their lives and whether the game with cannabis is worth the candle.

Works Cited

Auer, Reto, et al. “ Association between lifetime marijuana use and cognitive function in middle age: the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) study. ” JAMA Internal Medicine , vol. 176, no. 3, 2016, pp. 352-361.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Marijuana Fast Facts and Fact Sheets , 2017. Web.

Gramlich, John. “ Four-in-ten U.S. drug arrests in 2018 were for marijuana offenses – mostly possession. ” Pew Research Center . 2020.

Keyhani, Salomeh, et al. “ Risks and benefits of marijuana use: a national survey of US adults. ” Annals of Internal Medicine , vol. 169, no.5, 2018, pp. 282-290.

National Institute on Drug Abuse. Marijuana Research Report . 2020.

Nöel, Wm. & Wang, Judy. “ Is Cannabis a Gateway Drug? Key Findings and Literature Review. ” U.S. Department of Justice. 2018.

Schaeffer, Katherine. “ 6 facts about Americans and marijuana. ” Pew Research Center . 2021.

Cite this paper

Chicago (N-B)
Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2022, August 26). Argumentative Essay on Cannabis. https://studycorgi.com/argumentative-essay-on-cannabis/

"Argumentative Essay on Cannabis." StudyCorgi , 26 Aug. 2022, studycorgi.com/argumentative-essay-on-cannabis/.

StudyCorgi . (2022) 'Argumentative Essay on Cannabis'. 26 August.

1. StudyCorgi . "Argumentative Essay on Cannabis." August 26, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/argumentative-essay-on-cannabis/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "Argumentative Essay on Cannabis." August 26, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/argumentative-essay-on-cannabis/.

StudyCorgi . 2022. "Argumentative Essay on Cannabis." August 26, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/argumentative-essay-on-cannabis/.

This paper, “Argumentative Essay on Cannabis”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: November 22, 2023 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

Knowledge Base
Popular Essay Topics

Legalizing Medical Marijuana Argumentative Essay

Author Kimberly Ball
Category Popular Essay Topics

Disclaimer: This paper has been submitted by a student. This is not a sample of the work written by professional academic writers.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this work are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of StudySaurus.

Marijuana (Cannabis Sativa) gets its name from the Spanish word marihuana. The first time for marijuana to be used was in 1894, it came from hemp, an Asian herb. The leaves of the plant can be smoked to cause intoxication to the patient. Many people have fought against the legalization of marijuana for medical use since the use of the drug began to spread among the people. A lot of research shows that marijuana has a positive effect on the society in America. The great number of people who say that marijuana should not be legalized do so because they assume that it cannot have any good effects on the society. The fact is that they do this without having considered both sides of the debate. Although it is true that legalizing marijuana can be the cause of many crimes and injuries, the benefits that could come from it if it is authorized for use as medicine would outweigh those disadvantages. Marijuana can be used in curing deadly diseases and boost the country’s economy. This essay aims at persuading law makers in the United Sates to make the use of marijuana for both medical purposes legal.

Marijuana has been with us for many years. In the past, the plant’s leaves and flowering parts were used to treat physiological as well as psychological disorders- the seeds were used as food. Many people support the proposition that marijuana should be made legal for medicinal purposes. There are many reasons why these people do this. One such a reason is that marijuana has shown a high efficacy in the management of medical conditions. In the United States, 20 states have legalized the medical use of marijuana (Ferner 2012). The first retail stores for Marijuana in Colorado were opened for the sale of Marijuana to people who have attained the age of 21 years or higher. There are still other countries where the use of medical marijuana has been legalized. Canada is one such a country. Since its legalization, the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) has reported a number of testimonies showing the success of use of marijuana as medication. One testimony is that of Pariseau, a 30-yaer-old AIDS patient. Before starting using medical marijuana, Pariseau could keep neither food nor medication in his system. After he began using marijuana for medication, a report from his doctor stated “He is doing remarkably well because he can now digest his medication. The HIV has been suppressed because of his improved immune function, he has put on weight and he has learned to walk again -with a cane” (Gray, 1998).

Use of marijuana as medicine can help alleviate pain alongside other health benefits. In addition, there are no proven disadvantages that are associated with the use of marijuana as medicine (Barnes, 2017). Unlike some other drugs, marijuana used for medical purposes is not addictive. No research has ever shown that marijuana is an addictive drug- people simply use it to please themselves. Marijuana is a herbal drug that can be obtained naturally. It is considered to be very safe in managing the symptoms of various diseases and health conditions like HIV/AIDS, glaucoma, Arthritis, hepatitis C, Alzheimer’s disease and migraines as well as some psychological conditions. For a fact, doctors from both within and outside the United States have recommended the use of marijuana as medicine (Friese & Grube, 2013). Marijuana has not shown any long term effects on the cognitive processes of the individual. The only effects occur only for a short time after intoxication, but the brain is not damaged by this in any way.

The people who protest the use of marijuana for medication think of economic relief. They have brought the topic of economic relief from the legalization of marijuana many times. If we take a look at the current problems that the economy of the United Sates is facing, we realize that legalizing medical marijuana has the potential to help boost our economy. Since many Americans will now be free to use the herb, it is likely to funnel money into our economy. The history of the United States has seen similar incidences before. In the prohibition, the bootleggers issue resembles the one on marijuana. At that time, when the government lifted the ban on alcohol, more money came back into the economy. Although the use of marijuana should be legalized, it goes without saying that the use of marijuana needs to be regulated. Just like on cigarettes and alcohol, laws should be made to regulate the use of marijuana once it is made legal for medical use. (smokers should not operate machines). Also, smoking at the place of work should call for firing just like drinking would. Though the feelings of people on this subject are mixed, quite a large number of people believe that marijuana is harmless. The legislators should look at the fact that marijuana makes one to be relaxed and less motivated. This would somehow link to the effect that it would have on the workforce and businesses in general. Lawmakers have to make laws that will govern how businesses that plan to sell only marijuana should operate- they have to determine its use and how much the business owner is going to be taxed for selling marijuana.

The natural herb could generate a lot of money for the economy if the right infrastructure were laid down showing how the drug should be used. Therefore, lawmakers should regulate the use and the sales of the drug. Legalizing marijuana at the federal level would give a large new stream of revenue. Although it may not be possible to know the size of the market for marijuana now and what may happen to the demand and the price for the drug under different legalization levels, we know that the legalization can cause a positive effect on the revenue income and the tax from sales (Ferner, 2012).

The economic benefits of marijuana legalization are not only from taxes- both the local and state governments would save a lot of money that is being spend currently on the regulation of the use of marijuana. Colorado and Washington states (which have made it legal to use marijuana for medical purposes) will serve as the testers for the other states when it comes to the possible positive effect on the economy of the whole country if all the states make it legal to use marijuana in treatment of diseases. It is estimated that Washington will generate up to $1.9 billion in a period of five years because it made marijuana legal. Marijuana legalization, nonetheless, should be made for use as medication and also be allowed for sale in retail shops so that if one person needs to use this medication but cannot get it from the hospital because it is so expensive there that they cannot afford it, they can obtain cheaper options from the dealers and stores to manage their conditions.

Although there are states that have legalized the use of marijuana as medication and have allowed people who possess the permit to sell it to the public, the laws that allow for this in such states have been ruled out by the federal government as being unconstitutional and therefore illegal. Majority of the people in America favor the use of marijuana for medical purposes and have expresses their support by voting. However, the Drug Enforcement Administration still can arrest and impose charges on any people who are aught trading in this substance in accordance with the act that deals with controlled substances (CSA). The laws that are in place in the United States are not in support of the demands of the people. This shows that more people are involved in the use of marijuana than the records show. The problem therefore comes in that while the substance is being sold and used all over the country, nothing comes from it in terms of income tax to help in boosting the economy of the country.

Just like all controversial topics, there are opponents. The first point presented by the opponents is that when smoked, marijuana causes a number of side effects- stunted growth and cancer. However, smoking is not the only way in which marijuana can be taken, one can take it orally or intravenously. These methods of administration will get rid of the problems associated with smoking the drug. Another claim they make is that despite being natural, hemp has harmful chemicals that can damage the user. They claim that THC that is contained in marijuana is harmful to the body. They favor the use of Marinol which also contains THC. In addition, technology can be used to separate the compounds present in the plant, it can also be used to remove he chemicals that are toxic and breed plants that do not have the chemical.

The opponents also claim that the use of marijuana also results in abstinent effects. Although Renard, Krebs, Le Pen & Jayin their 2014 study that there are some short-term effects on adolescents that are associated with marijuana, other later studies contradict this. These studies claim that no clearly defined relationship has been found between the use of marijuana and rates of addiction. According to drugabuse.gov, the use of marijuana does not cause the individual to use other drugs and there are very few withdrawal symptoms associated with marijuana. It is therefore evident that the claims of the opponents are not based on facts and therefore they are not valid.

It does not seem reasonable that an herb that has been used by people since time immemorial because of its medicinal value has been made legal in the past few years just because of the people who have used it as a narcotic to harm their bodies. It is true to say that marijuana is not abused as much as other opium-derived drugs that are legal like ketamine and oxycodone. It is therefore unfair that marijuana, which is more valuable as medicine, is illegal while these other drugs are legal and are sold all over the country freely.

In conclusion, Marijuana is a very efficacious drug for medical use and therefore it needs to be legalized. We should stop grouping marijuana, a useful drug, with narcotics such as heroin and cocaine, it should instead be grouped together with other drugs that are used for the management of serious health conditions such as Adderall. Legalizing marijuana will boost the economy of our country by creating jobs to thousands of people in the United Sates who would otherwise be economically unproductive. My research shows that the positive effects of legalizing marijuana by far outweigh the negative impacts that could arise. Besides boosting the economy and keeping it strong, it can be used to manage health conditions that have previously been difficult to manage. Whether it is made legal or it remains illegal, people will still use it. Research has shown that the illegal drug whose use is commonest is marijuana. All the fifty states in the United States of America should legalize marijuana to help out people who are struggling with medical conditions that can seriously damage their health if not treated and which can be managed effectively by the use of marijuana. Marijuana can replace many things that are harmful to the environment and thus help to save the environment. There would be a tremendous decrease in violence and crime. Although a lot of people think that marijuana is harmful, I believe it can really help our society in this time of need.

Was this material helpful?

Related essays, about studysaurus, community. knowledge. success..

StudySaurus is run by two uni-students that still get a kick out of learning new things. We hope to share these experiences with you.

Ideas , concepts , tutorials, essay papers – everything we would’ve liked to have known, seen or heard during our high-school & UNI years, we want to bring to YOU.

Privacy & Cookies Policy Terms and Conditions DMCA Request

Debates Around Legalization of Medical Marijuana Argumentative Essay

The emergence of scientific evidence on the effects of the main chemical components in marijuana has initiated a metamorphosis of the perception of marijuana as a drug that warrants legalization due to its medical and socioeconomic benefits.

The supporters and opponents of the legalization of marijuana have opted to focus on either the positive or the negative aspects of the effects of the drug to support their views on policies to legalize or criminalize the drug. The US Congress passed laws that placed marijuana in the Schedule 1 of the controlled substances in 1972.

A significant number of states in the US, 21 out of 50, have adopted laws to legalize the medical use of marijuana. The essay analyzes the rationale for the support of the legalization of marijuana for medical use and the rationale for the counter argument.

The ability of marijuana components to alleviate symptoms associated with medical conditions such as cancer, AIDS, pain, epilepsy and glaucoma has prompted increased support for laws that allow the use of medical marijuana.

Reports and studies from renowned medical personnel and organizations highlight the significance of harnessing marijuana’s main components, THC and CBD, to treat various medical conditions. Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) helps to relieve pain by mimicking compounds such as dopamine and anandamide, which occur naturally in the human brain.

Clinical trials have shown the effectiveness of THC in the treatment of spasticity due to sclerosis and spinal cord injury (Brashear & Elovic, 2011). The compound has had satisfactory levels of success in reducing pain, tremor and ataxia in patients (Columbus, 2005).

THC helps in the treatment of glaucoma by reducing intraocular pressure by about 30 percent (ElSohly, 2007). Cannabidiol (CBD) relieves convulsions in epileptic patients, acts as an anti-inflammatory agent and reduces nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing chemotherapy (Russo, 2001).

CBD inhibits the growth of cancerous cells by coordinating cross talk between apoptosis and autophagy (Shrivastava et al., 2011). Marijuana is useful in treating psychiatric problem such as schizophrenia due to the antipsychotic effects of CBD.

Opponents of the legalization of medical marijuana argue that the availability of FDA-approved drugs that can serve the supposed medical purposes of marijuana eliminates the need to legalize the drug. The existence of conflicting evidence on the medical benefits of marijuana in the long-term necessitates the continued prohibition of the drug.

For example, the treatment of nausea and vomiting requires the administration of high THC dosage, which increases the likelihood of addiction (Haerens, 2013). Studies show that mainstream drugs such as metoclopramide have higher efficiency in treating nausea and vomiting compared to marijuana. The use of marijuana in treating epilepsy can induce convulsions in patients (Kanner & Schachter, 2008).

Opponents of medical marijuana cite the numerous peer-reviewed reports, which indicate that marijuana has psychoactive components that impair normal human abilities such as driving and interferes with the functioning of the immune system, respiratory system and neural system (Iversen, 2000).

THC effects such as euphoria and altered space-time perception can have counter effects on the use of the drug in the treatment of psychiatric symptoms such as sleep disorders, anxiety disorders and schizophrenia (Joy et al., 1999).

The psychotic effects of THC can worsen the psychiatric symptoms of patients using medical marijuana. The use of drugs such as amisulpride has minimal side effects on the treatment of psychiatric problems compared to marijuana (Lambert, 2009).

Brashear, A., & Elovic, E. (2011). Spasticity diagnosis and management . New York: Demos Medical Pub..

Columbus, F. H. (2005). Treatment and management of multiple sclerosis . New York: Nova Science Publishers.

ElSohly, M. A. (2007). Marijuana and the cannabinoids . Totowa, N.J.: Humana Press.

Haerens, M. (2013). Medical marijuana . Detroit: Greenhaven Press.

Iversen, L. L. (2000). The science of marijuana . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Joy, J. E., Watson, S. J., & Benson, J. A. (1999). Marijuana and medicine assessing the science base . Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Kanner, A. M., & Schachter, S. C. (2008). Psychiatric controversies in epilepsy . Amsterdam: Elsevier/Academic Press.

Lambert, D. M. (2009). Cannabinoids in nature and medicine . Zürich: Verlag Helvetica Chimica Acta ;.

Russo, E. (2001). Cannabis therapeutics in HIV/AIDS . New York: Haworth Integrative Healing Press.

Shrivastava, A., Kuzontkoski, P. M., Groopman, J. E., & Prasad, A. (2011). Cannabidiol Induces Programmed Cell Death in Breast Cancer Cells by Coordinating the Cross-talk between Apoptosis and Autophagy. Molecular Cancer Therapeutics , 10 (7), 1161-1172.

Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, June 20). Debates Around Legalization of Medical Marijuana. https://ivypanda.com/essays/legalization-of-medical-marijuana/

"Debates Around Legalization of Medical Marijuana." IvyPanda , 20 June 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/legalization-of-medical-marijuana/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Debates Around Legalization of Medical Marijuana'. 20 June.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Debates Around Legalization of Medical Marijuana." June 20, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/legalization-of-medical-marijuana/.

1. IvyPanda . "Debates Around Legalization of Medical Marijuana." June 20, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/legalization-of-medical-marijuana/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Debates Around Legalization of Medical Marijuana." June 20, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/legalization-of-medical-marijuana/.

Glaucoma - Preventing and Treating
Glaucoma: Causes, Symptoms, and Treatment
Vision Loss From Glaucoma: Causes and Prevention
Automated Detection of Glaucoma Using Fundus Images
Benefits of the Legalization of THC
Cannabis in Therapeutic Applications
Unremitting Epilepsy and Its Possible Treatment
Hypertension, Asthma and Glaucoma
Ophthalmology: Detection and Treatment of Glaucoma
Marijuana Legalization: Chronic Seizure Treatment
Pharmaceutical Industry and Drugs
The Stages of Production of the H1N1 Influenza Vaccine
Pharmaceutical Industry Importance
Biomarkers Definition Working Group
Medical Marijuana use for Terminal Colon Cancer

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
v.110(6); Nov-Dec 2013

More Reasons States Should Not Legalize Marijuana: Medical and Recreational Marijuana: Commentary and Review of the Literature

Recent years have seen substantial shifts in cultural attitudes towards marijuana for medical and recreational use. Potential problems with the approval, production, dispensation, route of administration, and negative health effects of medical and recreational marijuana are reviewed. Medical marijuana should be subject to the same rigorous approval process as other medications prescribed by physicians. Legalizing recreational marijuana may have negative public health effects.

Introduction

Recent years have seen a cultural shift in attitudes towards marijuana. At the time of this writing, medical marijuana is legal in 20 states and the District of Columbia; recreational marijuana is now legal in Washington and Colorado. A substantial and growing literature documents legalized marijuana may have adverse effects on individual and public health.

Medical Use of Marijuana

The term ‘medical marijuana’ implies that marijuana is like any other medication prescribed by a physician. Yet the ways in which medical marijuana has been approved, prescribed, and made available to the public are very different from other commercially available prescription drugs. These differences pose problems unrecognized by the public and by many physicians.

Lack of Evidence for Therapeutic Benefit

In the United States, commercially available drugs are subject to rigorous clinical trials to evaluate safety and efficacy. Data appraising the effectiveness of marijuana in conditions such as HIV/AIDS, epilepsy, and chemotherapy-associated vomiting is limited and often only anecdotal. 1 , 2 To date, there has been only one randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of smoked marijuana for any of its potential indications, which showed that marijuana was superior to placebo but inferior to Ondansetron in treating nausea. 3 Recent reviews by the Cochrane Collaboration find insufficient evidence to support the use of smoked marijuana for a number of potential indications, including pain related to rheumatoid arthritis, 4 dementia, 5 ataxia or tremor in multiple sclerosis, 6 and cachexia and other symptoms in HIV/AIDS. 2 This does not mean, of course, that components of marijuana do not have potential therapeutic effects to alleviate onerous symptoms of these diseases; but, given the unfavorable side effect profile of marijuana, the evidence to justify use in these conditions is still lacking.

Contamination, Concentration & Route of Administration

Unlike any other prescription drug used for medical purposes, marijuana is not subject to central regulatory oversight. It is grown in dispensaries, which, depending on the state, have regulatory standards ranging from strict to almost non-existent. The crude marijuana plant and its products may be contaminated with fungus or mold. 7 This is especially problematic for immunocompromised patients, 8 including those with HIV/AIDS or cancer. 9 Furthermore, crude marijuana contains over 60 active cannabinoids, 10 few of which are well studied. Marijuana growers often breed their plants to alter the concentrations of different chemicals compounds. For instance, the concentration of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the principal psychoactive ingredient, is more than 20-fold more than in marijuana products used several decades ago. Without rigorous clinical trials, we have no way of knowing which combinations of cannabinoids may be therapeutic and which may be deleterious. As marijuana dispensaries experiment by breeding out different cannabinoids in order to increase the potency of THC, there may be unanticipated negative and lasting effects for individuals who smoke these strains.

Marijuana is the only ‘medication’ that is smoked, and, while still incompletely understood, there are legitimate concerns about long-term effects of marijuana smoke on the lungs. 11 , 12 Compared with cigarette smoke, marijuana smoke can result in three times the amount of inhaled tar and four times the amount of inhaled carbon-monoxide. 13 Further, smoking marijuana has been shown to be a risk factor for lung cancer in many 14 , 15 but not all 16 studies.

High Potential for Diversion

In some states, patients are permitted to grow their own marijuana. In addition to contributing to problems such as contamination and concentration as discussed above, this practice also invites drug diversion. Patients seeking to benefit financially may bypass local regulations of production and sell home-grown marijuana at prices lower than dispensaries. We do not allow patient to grow their own opium for treatment of chronic pain; the derivatives of opium, like marijuana, are highly addictive and thus stringently regulated.

Widespread “Off-label” Use

FDA-approved forms of THC (Dronabinol) and a THC-analog (Nabilone), both available orally, already exist. Indications for these drugs are HIV/AIDS cachexia and chemotherapy-associated nausea and vomiting. Unlike smoked, crude marijuana, these medications have been subject to randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trials. Yet despite these limited indications where marijuana compounds have a proven but modest effect in high-quality clinical trials, medical marijuana is used overwhelmingly for non-specific pain or muscle spasms. Recent data from Colorado show that 94% of patients with medical marijuana cards received them for treatment of “severe pain.” 17 Similar trends are evident in California. 18 Evidence for the benefit of marijuana in neuropathic pain is seen in many 19 - 21 but not all 22 clinical trials. There is no high-quality evidence, however, that the drug reduces non-neuropathic pain; this remains an indication for which data sufficient to justify the risks of medical marijuana is lacking. 4 , 23 – 25

If marijuana is to be ‘prescribed’ by physicians and used as a medication, it should be subject to the same rigorous approval process that other commercially available drugs undergo. Potentially therapeutic components of marijuana should be investigated, but they should only be made available to the public after adequately powered, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials have demonstrated efficacy and acceptable safety profiles. Furthermore, these compounds should be administered in a way that poses less risk than smoking and dispensed via standardized and FDA-regulated pharmacies to ensure purity and concentration. Bypassing the FDA and approving ‘medicine’ at the ballot box sets a dangerous precedent. Physicians should be discouraged from recommending medical marijuana. Alternatively, consideration can be given to prescribing FDA-approved medicines (Dronabinol or Cesamet) as the purity and concentration of these drugs are assured and their efficacy and side effect profiles have been well documented in rigorous clinical trials.

Recreational Marijuana

The question of recreational marijuana is a broader social policy consideration involving implications of the effects of legalization on international drug cartels, domestic criminal justice policy, and federal and state tax revenue in addition to public health. Yet physicians, with a responsibility for public health, are experts with a vested interest in this issue. Recent legislation, reflecting changes in the public’s attitudes towards marijuana, has permitted the recreational use of marijuana in Colorado and Washington. Unfortunately, the negative health consequences of the drug are not prominent in the debate over legalizing marijuana for recreational use. In many cases, these negative effects are more pronounced in adolescents. A compelling argument, based on these negative health effects in both adolescents and adults, can be made to abort the direction society is moving with regards to the legalization of recreational marijuana.

Myth: Marijuana is Not Addictive

A growing myth among the public is that marijuana is not an addictive substance. Data clearly show that about 10% of those who use cannabis become addicted; this number is higher among adolescents. 26 Users who seek treatment for marijuana addiction average 10 years of daily use. 27 A withdrawal syndrome has been described, consisting of anxiety, restlessness, insomnia, depression, and changes in appetite 28 and affects as many as 44% of frequent users, 29 contributing to the addictive potential of the drug. This addictive potential may be less than that of opiates; but the belief, especially among adolescents, that the drug is not addictive is misguided.

Schizophrenia and Other Psychotic Disorders

Marijuana has been consistently shown to be a risk factor for schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders. 30 – 32 The association between marijuana and schizophrenia fulfills many, but not all, of the standard criteria for the epidemiological establishment of causation, including experimental evidence, 33 , 34 temporal relationship, 35 – 38 biological gradient, 30 , 31 , 39 and biological plausibility. 40 Genetic variation may explain why marijuana use does not strongly fulfill remaining criteria, such as strength of association and specificity. 41 , 42 As these genetic variants are explored and further characterized, marijuana use may be shown to cause or precipitate schizophrenia in a genetically vulnerable population. The risk of psychotic disorder is more pronounced when marijuana is used at an earlier age. 32 , 43

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is ms110_p0524f1.jpg

Effects on Cognition

Early studies suggested cognitive declines associated with marijuana (especially early and heavy use); these declines persisted long after the period of acute cannabis intoxication. 44 – 46 Recently, Meier and colleagues analyzed data from a prospective study which followed subjects from birth to age 38; their findings yielded supportive evidence that cannabis use, when begun during adolescence, was associated with cognitive impairment in multiple areas, including executive functioning, processing speed, memory, perceptual reasoning, and verbal comprehension. 47 Rogeberg 48 criticized the study’s methodology, claiming that the results were confounded by differences in socioeconomic status; this claim, however, was based on sub-analyses that used very small numbers. Additional sub-analyses 49 of the original study cohort showed that marijuana was just as prevalent in populations of higher socioeconomic status, suggesting that socioeconomic status was not a confounding variable. Any epidemiological study is subject to confounding biases and future research will be needed to clarify and quantify the relationship between cognitive decline and adolescent marijuana use. However, the findings of the original study by Meier et al show there is indeed an independent relationship between loss of intelligence and adolescent marijuana use. This finding, moreover, is consistent with prior studies. 44

Other Negative Health Effects

Substantial evidence exists suggesting that marijuana is harmful to the respiratory system. It is associated with symptoms of obstructive and inflammatory lung disease, 11 , 50 an increased risk of lung cancer, 14 , 15 and it is suspected to be associated with reduced pulmonary function in heavy users. 51 Further, its use has been associated with harmful effects to other organ systems, including the reproductive, 52 gastrointestinal, 53 and immunologic 10 , 54 systems.

Social Safety Implications: Effects on Driving

Marijuana impairs the ability to judge time, distance, and speed; it slows reaction time and reduces ability to track moving objects. 55 , 56 In many studies of drug-related motor vehicle fatalities, marijuana is the most common drug detected except for alcohol. 57 , 58 Based on post-mortem studies, Couch et al determined that marijuana was likely an impairing factor in as many fatal accidents as alcohol. 59 One study showed that in motor vehicle accidents where the driver was killed, recent marijuana use was detected in 12% of cases. 57 Other research confirms a significantly increased risk of motor vehicle fatalities in association with acute cannabis intoxication. 60

Risk Perception and Use in Adolescents

Marijuana use among adolescents has been increasing. Data that has tracked risk perception and use of marijuana among adolescents over decades clearly shows an inverse relationship; as adolescent risk perception wanes, marijuana use increases. 61 As more states legalize medical and recreational marijuana, risk perception is expected to decrease, causing the prevalence of use among adolescent to continue to rise. This is among the most concerning of issues about the drug’s legalization because so many of the negative effects of marijuana—including cognitive impairment and risk for short- and long-term psychosis— are heightened when used during adolescence.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is ms110_p0524f2.jpg

There is some evidence that compounds naturally found in marijuana have therapeutic benefit for symptoms of diseases such as HIV/AIDS, multiple sclerosis, and cancer. If these compounds are to be used under the auspices of ‘medical marijuana,’ they should undergo the same rigorous approval process that other medications prescribed by physicians, including randomized, placebo- and active-controlled trials to evaluate safety and efficacy, not by popular vote or state legislature. Furthermore, these therapeutic compounds should be administered via a route that minimizes long-term health risk (i.e., via oral pill) and should be dispensed by centrally regulated pharmacies to ensure the purity and concentration of the drug and allow for the recall of contaminated batches.

Marijuana for recreational use will have many adverse health effects. The drug is addictive, with mounting evidence for the existence of a withdrawal syndrome. Furthermore, it has been shown to have adverse effects on mental health, intelligence (including irreversible declines in cognition), and the respiratory system. Driving while acutely intoxicated with marijuana greatly increases the risk of fatal motor vehicle collision. Legalization for recreational use may have theoretical (but still unproven) beneficial social effects regarding issues such as domestic criminal justice policy, but these effects will not come without substantial public health and social costs. Currently there is a lack of resources devoted to educating physicians about this most commonly used illicit substance. The potential benefits and significant risks associated with marijuana use should be taught in medical schools and residency programs throughout the country.

Samuel T. Wilkinson, MD, is in the Department of Psychiatry at the Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Ct.

Contact: [email protected]

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is ms110_p0524f3.jpg

None reported.

How Alvin Bragg Hitched His Fate to Trump’s

The Manhattan D.A. campaigned as the best candidate to go after the former president. Now he finds himself leading Trump’s first prosecution — and perhaps the only one before the November election.

Credit... Philip Montgomery for The New York Times

Supported by

Share full article

By Kim Barker , Jonah E. Bromwich and Michael Rothfeld

Kim Barker, Jonah E. Bromwich and Michael Rothfeld interviewed more than 70 of Alvin Bragg’s friends and colleagues and legal and political experts for this article. Rothfeld and Bromwich have written extensively about the case against Trump; Barker, an investigations reporter, examined Bragg’s legal record.

April 9, 2024

Reporters vied for seats in the briefing room, some even crouching on the floor. They all knew, on this Tuesday in early April 2023, that Alvin L. Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, was about to announce something momentous: the first criminal charges against a former American president.

Listen to this article, read by Emily Woo Zeller

Open this article in the New York Times Audio app on iOS.

Yet when Bragg walked quietly onto the stage, it took a second or two for the audience to realize he was there. In his dark blue suit and dark-rimmed glasses, he blended into the dark blue curtains behind the lectern. He took out his notes and thanked everyone for coming. He was flanked by poster boards with flow charts, but that was as far as the showmanship went.

The accusations he went on to level against Donald J. Trump were salacious, involving money paid to a porn star just before the 2016 presidential election so she would remain silent about her claim that they had sex a decade before. But Bragg studiously avoided mentioning sex or hush money during the 13-minute event, focusing instead on 34 counts of falsifying business records to cover up the payment. Bragg looked frequently at his notes while he spoke, mostly in a monotone. He seemed unprepared (or unwilling) to answer the most obvious questions: why he had abandoned a different case, about whether Trump had falsified the valuations of properties, or why he thought he could make these new charges stick.

Bragg displayed passion only once, in response to a question about why he brought a hush-money case after his predecessor and federal prosecutors had not.

“This is the business capital of the world,” Bragg said, his voice rising. “We regularly do cases involving false business statements. The bedrock — in fact, the basis for business integrity and a well-functioning business marketplace — is true and accurate record-keeping. That’s the charge that’s brought here, falsifying New York State business records.”

True and accurate record-keeping. It’s hardly the stuff of history books. But a year later, it is this paperwork case — not the three other indictments that have dominated the news, involving accusations of trying to overturn a presidential election and mishandling highly classified documents — that will in the coming days make history as Trump’s first criminal trial, and perhaps the only one before the election in November.

Hardly anyone figured that it would play out this way. Bragg himself had said that “broader justice may warrant another case going first.” Yet with those other cases mired in legal skirmishing and delay, it is Bragg, a Harvard-trained prosecutor who has often appeared to be a most uncomfortable, un-media-savvy public figure, who will now face off against the reality-television star turned Republican former president, master of spin, media-ready insult and creation of his own narrative.

Bragg’s legal argument is complicated, but it stems from a simple episode: In the days before the 2016 election, Trump’s personal attorney and fixer, Michael D. Cohen, paid $130,000 in hush money to the adult-film star Stormy Daniels. Prosecutors argue that Trump, who denies that he had sex with Daniels, then lied on 34 business records — 12 ledger entries, 11 invoices and 11 checks — to disguise his repayment of Cohen as legal fees.

On its own, falsifying those documents would be misdemeanors, relatively minor crimes. Bragg elevated each of the charges to felonies by arguing that they were committed to hide or further another crime — which, in an unusual move, he did not charge. He said he wasn’t required to specify that crime, but added that it might have been a violation of state or federal election law. What may further complicate the case is that it relies heavily on testimony from Cohen, a disbarred lawyer who served prison time after pleading guilty to violating campaign-finance laws, evading taxes, making false statements to a bank and lying to Congress.

After the indictment, a chorus of critics — some but not all on the right — questioned the legal reasoning, wisdom and winnability of the hush-money case. Today, many experts believe that Bragg’s legal strategy looks considerably stronger, validated by a federal judge who rebuffed Trump’s effort to delay or even kill the case by having it moved to federal court, and by the Manhattan judge presiding over the case, who in February officially greenlit Bragg’s premise by setting a trial date.

None of which means the case has ceased to be controversial. The furor lives on, primarily in the political space. Trump and his allies have branded the case a witch hunt, a selective prosecution brought by a Democratic district attorney in the pocket of George Soros, boogeyman of the right. Many Democrats, in turn, worry that Trump’s narrative of persecution is only fueling his presidential campaign, especially because this case of sexual peccadillo and faked paperwork might look frivolous next to his three other indictments, which cut closer to his presidency and the foundations of American democracy.

“We’re all kind of like, ‘I can’t believe Alvin is at the center of this,’” says Erin E. Murphy, a New York University law professor who is part of Bragg’s close-knit friend group from law school and was one of more than 70 friends, colleagues and legal and political experts interviewed for this article. She adds: “He’s just so not political. He’s like, not a hyperpartisan political person in any way, shape or form. So there’s just this dissonance.”

Certainly, Bragg, who is 50, has never seemed to concern himself much with appearances. His friends have long joked about his wearing rumpled suits or a Boy Scout outfit on a date. If he could have applied for this job instead of campaigning for it, they say, he would have. That’s what he did when he became a federal prosecutor and then a deputy New York attorney general, each move a step forward in a life devoted to a careful, verging on nerdy, practice of the law; to the commitment to service — a word he has often used — that his parents instilled in him when he was growing up on Strivers’ Row in Harlem.

Bragg himself has seemed almost sheepish about the Trump case, preferring to talk about tackling wage theft or creating a jail-diversion program. Just after he announced the indictment last spring, his office sent out its regular roundup of big cases. It listed the Trump indictment not first, not even second, but third — after the convictions of two killers. The office’s 2023 highlights list didn’t even mention Trump. Bragg declined to comment for this article, concerned about being accused of unethical behavior before the trial.

Yet if Bragg the district attorney has been largely quiet about the former president, a look back through his record shows that hasn’t always been the case. Bragg the candidate, in fact, was more than willing to talk up his legal bona fides in the matter of Trump. Bragg may lack the polish and presentation of a politician. His friends may insist that he’s not a politician. But for all his lawyerly reticence, inside his sometimes-ill-fitting suits is a man of unmistakable ambition who has hitched his aspirations to the pursuit of Donald J. Trump.

Bragg’s emergence as a public critic of Trump came at a time when he was relatively unknown outside New York legal and Harvard-alumni circles. And it came in an unusual venue: a video, posted in May 2019 by the progressive news outlet NowThis and hosted by the flamboyantly public Trump hater Robert De Niro. In the video, Bragg and 10 other former federal prosecutors said they believed that Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election had uncovered more than enough evidence to indict Trump. “This isn’t even a close case,” Bragg said.

Bragg was on a break from public service, teaching at New York Law School. But he was also just weeks from announcing his next move: his candidacy for Manhattan district attorney in an election still two years away.

The incumbent district attorney, Cyrus Vance Jr., had begun his own investigation of the president and his businesses. And even before Vance announced in March 2021 that he would not seek re-election, the race had become a referendum on who could best take on Trump. In a primary campaign of would-be Trump slayers, Bragg sold himself as the most experienced.

He talked about supervising the state investigation into the Trump Foundation as chief deputy attorney general in 2017 — a case that led to the charity’s closure. He said he knew how to prosecute fraud in the valuation of properties, one strand of Vance’s Trump investigation. Referring to Trump’s “criminal policies,” Bragg added, “He has embraced white nationalism, misconstrued data and engaged in cronyism, and the result has been a parade of horribles.” Bragg told The Wall Street Journal that he “certainly” had more experience with Trump “than most people in the world.” A rival Democrat’s spokeswoman complained that Bragg attacked Trump “for political advantage every chance he gets.”

Bragg also used Trump to contrast himself with Vance. The district attorney, he argued, had appeared soft on the rich and powerful, declining to prosecute two of Trump’s children several years earlier on accusations that they misled potential buyers in the struggling Trump SoHo condo-hotel. Vance had also met with one of Trump’s lawyers, Marc Kasowitz, and accepted his $32,000 campaign contribution just months after rejecting the Trump SoHo case. (Vance later returned the money.)

For Bragg, this was a break with lawyerly protocol — to be talking about a potential case before seeing all the facts, at the risk of appearing biased. Yet in this election cycle, and especially with Trump newly vulnerable after his 2020 loss, holding him to account seemed vital to being elected in Manhattan.

Bragg’s campaign was hardly all Trump. He also championed the sort of criminal-justice-reform issues — for example, ending long prison sentences for low-level street crimes — that had helped progressive prosecutors sweep into office nationwide. But he seemed to double down on Trump as the campaign went on, simplifying and exaggerating his record. “It is a fact that I have sued Trump over 100 times,” Bragg told The New York Times in April 2021, an often-repeated claim that would be published everywhere from CNN to the BBC. “I can’t change that fact, nor would I. That was important work.” Asked recently for documentation, a campaign spokesman, Richard Fife, sent links to more than 100 news releases. A review of these and court filings found 30 cases in which the New York attorney general’s office had sued Trump or his federal agencies during Bragg’s time there — nearly always alongside other states. (The office also joined 12 other ongoing lawsuits against the Trump administration, the analysis found.) As a top aide to the attorney general, Bragg could have supervised those cases, but taking personal credit seems a bit of a stretch.

The district attorney’s office referred questions about the lawsuits to Fife, who said Bragg’s comments were not written but made “in conversation.” (Bragg, in fact, did repeat the statement in a written candidate questionnaire.) “I will concede,” Fife said, “that our use of the word ‘suit’ isn’t as limited as your definition.”

In heavily Democratic Manhattan, primaries typically function as general elections. On Primary Day in June 2021, Bragg said on Twitter: “As Chief Deputy Attorney General of NY State, I oversaw a staff of 1200+ people delivering progressive change. I led the investigation into stop and frisk. I didn’t just sue Donald Trump and the Trump Foundation — I won.”

On Nov. 2, 2021, the night he trounced his Republican opponent, Bragg moved to the microphone at Harlem Tavern as supporters chanted: “Alvin! Alvin! Alvin!” His first public remarks were hardly memorable.

“Somewhere deep down inside, I think I always wanted a bar mitzvah,” said Bragg, who had long taught Sunday school at the nearby Abyssinian Baptist Church. “This is new for me, newly elected — I think I can say that now, right?” he asked the crowd, starting his speech. Then he paused, practically giddy, to interrupt himself: “Look, this is phenomenal.”

Bragg’s remarks made it clear that he saw his election as Manhattan’s first Black district attorney as the natural next chapter in the annals of his life. Walking to the tavern on Frederick Douglass Boulevard, Bragg told his supporters, his mind flipped back through a personal journey that began along this stretch of what neighborhood old-timers like himself still called Eighth Avenue: being dropped off at grade school by his parents; eventually taking the M10 bus there on his own; facing guns pointed at him by the police; graduating from high school. But that was not all. Bragg had one more memory to share.

“I had my first date with Jamila Ponton Bragg on 139th Street and Eighth Avenue,” he said. “And I was wearing a Boy Scout uniform, because I had just come from leading a troop at Abyssinian Baptist Church, and she still ate with me, and she married me!”

Bragg’s parents, Alvin Sr. and Sadie, raised him to move seamlessly between worlds. They attended church at Abyssinian, a stronghold of Black social-justice activism. But they also enrolled their only child as a kindergartner at the Trinity School, one of the city’s most exclusive private academies. Bragg, one of a handful of Black students, became the center of a tight-knit group of Trinity kids, friends who are still in his inner circle. “We always called him the mayor,” recalls John Scott, who met Bragg in middle school. “He was like the most gregarious and outgoing and charismatic guy, even back then.”

In a Trinity yearbook entry, Bragg quoted Aristotle, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the music producer Quincy Jones — and himself: “You and I are like two stalks of corn in a field of love … waiting for the harvest.” (It was apparently an inside joke.)

Asked by a journalist during the campaign if he was nerdy, Bragg said: “I think yes and no. I think nerdiness is a little bit context-based.” He paused and added: “I think in any broad sense, yes.” The Rev. Al Sharpton, who supported Bragg’s campaign and praised his indictment of Trump, described him this way: “He’s not the larger-than-life swagger figure of Harlem. He is the result of what those generations produced: a competent, efficient guy.”

Growing up, Bragg’s friends say, he didn’t make a big fuss about the three times he remembered the police pulling guns on him on the Harlem streets. Once, several police cars converged on a taxi carrying Bragg and four Black friends; the officers, guns drawn, ordered everyone out. They told them they “fit the description” of some boys who had just committed a crime nearby, then held them for a few minutes before letting them go, recalls Roald Richards, one of the friends. (During the campaign, whenever Bragg brought up his encounters with the police, he would also mention the three times criminals pulled guns on him or would praise the police for keeping the streets safe.)

Yet if Bragg swallowed those experiences as a teenager, he has also described them as fuel for his ambition. He was elected president of his high school senior class; his yearbook described an imaginary 20-year reunion in which Bragg was president of the United States. While he was at college, The Harvard Crimson highlighted his ability as president of the Black Students Association to defuse tension between warring student groups. The headline: “The Anointed One.” Bragg’s role: “Conciliator.” He became such good friends with Republicans that, years later, one would actually donate money to his campaign — despite the fact that said Republican, Harry Wilson, would later run for governor of New York. At Harvard Law School, Bragg joined the team that won the prestigious moot-court competition. Even that makes his path seem preordained: It was the Archibald Cox team, named for the Watergate prosecutor who investigated President Richard M. Nixon.

Bragg started out as a lawyer in private practice representing, among other clients, Native American tribal members who said they had been abused by the police. But he soon became a prosecutor at the state attorney general’s office, explaining later that he felt he could make more of a difference from the inside. After three years, he left to become a lawyer at the New York City Council. Three years after that, he joined the U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan. After four years there, he returned for a second tour at the attorney general’s office. It became a pattern: Bragg never stayed long enough to build a deep record. He seemed in a rush to get somewhere.

But in offices where head-down self-advancement was the norm, Bragg amassed friends and allies. It’s all but impossible to find anyone who worked with him who has a negative thing to say. He walked around, often slightly disheveled, messenger bag dangling and tie askew, smiled big and asked, “How are you?” Several colleagues recalled being struck by how deliberately he tested the strengths and weaknesses of evidence. “In every regard, he was one of the smartest people I’ve ever met, and meticulous,” says Joshua Gradinger, who worked under Bragg in the attorney general’s office. “I say that over and over again — meticulous.”

But as Bragg prepared to take office in 2022, a conflict was brewing: between his careful approach to the law and the promises he made during his political campaign.

Within days of becoming district attorney, Bragg announced his top policy priorities. From the recesses of his campaign website, he pulled a criminal-justice-reform manifesto outlining crimes that would no longer be prosecuted, including marijuana possession, trespassing and sex work. The Day 1 Memo, as it was called, also signaled that illegal gun possession would not mean jail time unless the gun was used in a violent crime.

The timing was less than ideal. During the pandemic, murders and shootings rose, and many New Yorkers seemed to believe that things were spiraling out of control. “Happy 2022, Criminals!” The New York Post blared, referring to Bragg as the “woke new Manhattan DA.”

Bragg’s ideas weren’t exactly radical. But his execution — announcing them as one of his first acts, in the biggest job of his life, without anticipating the backlash — made him look like a rookie, like someone who didn’t seem to fully grasp that he would be upsetting some of the very people he needed to do his job. The police commissioner rebuked him; police unions condemned him. Preet Bharara, a former U.S. attorney who had hired Bragg and then campaigned for him, was disappointed and frustrated by what he saw as an astonishingly clumsy rollout, according to people familiar with his thinking.

Bragg had another hangover from the campaign: the case of Tracy McCarter, a nurse accused of killing her husband. Vance had charged McCarter with second-degree murder in September 2020, even though she claimed self-defense and domestic abuse. Activists on social media had defended her. Bragg had weighed in. “I #StandWithTracy,” he tweeted on the day she was charged, using the hashtag pushed by McCarter’s backers. “Prosecuting a domestic violence survivor who acted in self-defense is unjust.”

Now, invested with the powers of the district attorney, Bragg had to decide whether he would indeed stand with McCarter. Pressing him to do so was a progressive group, Color of Change, whose political-action committee had endorsed him and pledged to spend more than $1 million supporting his campaign. It ultimately spent about $425,000, money that helped Bragg overcome his closest opponent’s last-minute rush of cash. (That financial link would become Republican ammunition: Within days of its Bragg endorsement, Color of Change received a $1 million donation from George Soros, the billionaire patron of liberal causes. After the Trump indictment, the former president and his allies pointed to it as evidence that Bragg was under Soros’s control.)

In November 2022, Bragg went into court himself — unusual for a sitting district attorney — to ask the judge to dismiss the McCarter case. “I understand the gravity of this decision,” he said, before lapsing into a jumble of legalese. Several days later, the judge, Diane Kiesel, dismissed the case but excoriated Bragg for what she called legal errors and potentially politically motivated decisions. The case, she wrote, “has reached the point where the public could perceive this dismissal as bought and paid for with campaign contributions and political capital.”

But in some ways, Bragg had started to get his footing, delivering on some of his campaign promises to take on the powerful and help the less fortunate. He prosecuted hate crimes against Asian Americans, exonerated a sixth defendant in the 1989 Central Park jogger case and pursued significantly fewer lower-level crimes than Vance had. He charged Stephen K. Bannon, Trump’s former political strategist, with money laundering and conspiracy for his role in a charity that skimmed from donations for a border wall, a case that has yet to go to trial. Bragg would also obtain indictments of two men with ties to a fellow Democrat, Mayor Eric Adams.

Still, Bragg seemed to be trying to thread the needle, looking for compromise as he had throughout his career. While he stopped demanding bail as often as Vance had, those decisions were often dictated by state bail reforms. His office also filed about 3,800 violent-felony cases in 2022, the most in 10 years, even as shootings and murders dropped, allowing Bragg to claim that his policies were working. But none of this would stop conservatives from grumbling that Bragg was a left-wing coddler of violent criminals, as a Republican prosecutor in Arizona would later do when she refused to extradite a murder suspect to New York.

By the end of his first year in office, Bragg had turned a corner. He had just won his biggest victory: convicting Trump’s company of tax fraud. Vance had filed the charges, but Bragg delivered on them. And finally, he was finding the way forward with Trump himself.

For more than two years, Cyrus Vance’s prosecutors had hunted for a winnable case against Trump. But while it wasn’t hard to find legally questionable behavior across Trump’s business empire, each possible case had a flaw.

The lawyers were intrigued by the hush-money case. Mark Pomerantz, a former federal prosecutor Vance had pulled out of retirement to pursue Trump, was among those who called it “the zombie case,” because it was alive, then dead, then alive again. Pomerantz thought the hush-money facts seemed incriminating, easy to explain to a jury. But he worried about persuading a judge that the misdemeanor charges of falsifying business records — for disguising the hush-money repayment as legal fees — could be elevated to felonies.

Pomerantz, who had led the criminal division in the U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan, was drawn to another option: Trump’s exaggerations of his net worth on financial statements submitted to banks. Trump wasn’t just boasting, Pomerantz argued. He was committing crimes.

Weeks before his term ended in December 2021, Vance brought together a group of experienced lawyers to evaluate the net-worth case. The group included two prosecutors who worked on the Mueller investigation, but it did not include the incoming district attorney; Bragg was not even told about the meeting. Regardless, Vance emerged with a plan. He would push ahead.

When Bragg took office that January, he needed to decide quickly whether to sign on to the case; prosecutors were already presenting evidence to a grand jury. But quickly wasn’t in Bragg’s nature. By month’s end, a frustrated Pomerantz sent Bragg an email that he would later write was “blunt, perhaps too blunt.” He told the new district attorney that he needed to “respect our judgment,” noted that it was “virtually impossible” to meet with him about the Trump case and scolded Bragg, who was two decades younger, for looking at his phone during one of their few meetings. Pomerantz later wrote that he had wondered if Bragg “was in over his head.”

But Bragg remained skeptical, according to people familiar with his thinking. He believed that there was no evidence tying Trump directly to a financial fraud; without it, he worried, he would not be able to prove Trump’s criminal intent. And prosecutors wanted a tour guide — a cooperating witness who knew the ins and outs of the crime. Michael Cohen was extremely willing, having broken with Trump, but he lacked intimate knowledge of the Trump Organization’s finances.

There were more meetings, more emails — but Bragg refused to bring the case on Pomerantz’s timeline. So in late February, Pomerantz and another lead prosecutor on the case quit — in spectacular fashion. Pomerantz’s resignation letter described Bragg’s decision as “a grave failure of justice.” He then wrote a book called “People vs. Donald Trump” that might as well have been called “Pomerantz vs. Bragg.” Pomerantz wrote that the investigation turned into “the legal equivalent of a plane crash” and accused Bragg of “pilot error.”

Bragg, for his part, said little — even when Pomerantz’s resignation letter became public, even when many of his liberal supporters complained that he had dropped the ball on Trump and even when critics lumped this decision together with the Day 1 Memo as some kind of proof that he wasn’t up to the job. For all of Bragg’s campaign rhetoric, those who know him insisted that he would never have indicted Trump without reviewing every piece of evidence. Plus, Bragg did not feel bound by Vance’s view of the case — he was the district attorney now.

“He doesn’t get the luxury of saying, ‘Well, Cy Vance said it’s OK,’” says Kim Foxx, a Bragg friend who is the state’s attorney in Chicago. “His name is on the door. His face is on the wall. He owes it to the case. He owes it to the potential defendant to do his due diligence.”

To the world, it might have looked as if the Trump case were dead. Bragg was no longer talking about Trump publicly. But he and three top aides had begun meeting regularly on the eighth floor of the district attorney’s office, going back through all the documents from the net-worth case. The Trump Organization’s chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg, had already been indicted in the tax-fraud case; now he might be persuaded to plead guilty and cooperate against Trump in this one. And he might, perhaps, become a witness about another matter: the hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels.

Bragg kept returning to that payment. This case had a far cleaner narrative than the net-worth case, with clear evidence of Trump’s involvement; he had personally signed nine checks repaying Cohen. And Cohen was the perfect tour guide: He had paid Daniels in the first place. By the summer of 2022, Bragg was confident that he could convince a court that these misdemeanors should be elevated to felonies. He added prosecutors to the Trump team. The “zombie case” was alive.

A payoff to a porn star might seem like a trivial matter on which to hinge a historic prosecution of a man who later tried to overturn an election. But in late February, the Supreme Court further delayed the federal prosecution of Trump on charges of plotting to do just that, agreeing to decide whether he has immunity for acts taken as president. Trial dates for the other two cases — the federal classified-documents case in Florida and the state election-interference case in Georgia — seem at best months away.

So the hush-money case it is. Some legal experts initially deemed it shaky, largely because Bragg failed to specify the underlying crime that Trump intended to commit. Though the crime of falsifying business records is nominally a misdemeanor, the Manhattan district attorney’s office almost always charges it as a felony. Still, the Trump case stands apart. The Times could identify only two other felony cases in Manhattan over the past decade in which defendants were indicted on charges of falsifying business records but no other crime.

In an opinion piece in The Times soon after the Trump indictment, Jed Shugerman, a law professor at Boston University, called the case a “disaster” and a “legal embarrassment.” Some lawyers predicted that it would be kicked up to federal court and buried in delays, largely because it was related to a federal-election campaign. Some wondered how internal records could prove intent to defraud.

But in the following months, Bragg beat back legal challenges. He detailed the crimes that Trump was trying to conceal — violations of state and federal election law and state tax law. When Trump’s lawyers tried to move the case to federal court, the judge there, Alvin K. Hellerstein, rebuffed them, saying that the fact that the alleged fraud happened in a federal election was “not a basis” to move the case. Then the New York judge overseeing the case, Juan M. Merchan, ruled that Bragg’s prosecutors had presented “legally sufficient evidence” for the grand jury to reasonably find that Trump intended to defraud voters and the government. Some initial skeptics have come around, even if they believe that the legal questions surrounding the case will probably re-emerge in appeals.

Accounting for the weight of the moment, Bragg has increasingly cast the case as an attempt to subvert the 2016 presidential election. “The case is not — the core of it’s not — money for sex,” Bragg said in a radio interview in December. “We would say it’s about conspiring to corrupt a presidential election and then lying in New York business records to cover it up.”

Trump heads into the trial after a series of setbacks, both legal and financial. Relying on some of the same evidence that was pursued by Pomerantz, the New York attorney general, Letitia James, recently won a $454 million civil judgment against Trump for fraudulently inflating his net worth. He also owes an $83 million defamation award to the writer E. Jean Carroll. And in his pretrial rulings, Merchan has slapped Trump with a gag order and strictly circumscribed the arguments his lawyers will be allowed to make. Defense lawyers have signaled that their case will most likely focus on attacking Michael Cohen as a serial liar who cannot be trusted and arguing that prosecutors have little evidence of Trump’s intent to commit a crime.

If Trump is convicted, he faces limited personal jeopardy, at least in the near term; any penalty — a maximum of four years in prison — would probably be deferred by his almost-certain appeal. The far-larger questions as the trial and the Trump-Biden rematch converge are about political jeopardy, or political advantage. Republican strategists believe, and some of their Democratic counterparts fret, that an acquittal or a hung jury will energize Trump, while he could more convincingly write off a conviction than with the other cases. “I can’t imagine anything easier to paint as a partisan witch hunt,” says Whit Ayres, a veteran Republican pollster.

Even so, some Democrats argue that wall-to-wall coverage of the trial will remind voters on the fence — like the moderate Republicans Trump needs to win — that he has been accused of having sex with a porn star while his wife cared for their infant son and then covering it up to win a presidential election. “The world’s going to stop for this,” says James Carville, the longtime Democratic strategist. “I mean, the first criminal trial ever of a president? I think if anything, the significance of this event is not yet fully appreciated.”

On the morning of Feb. 15, Bragg was back in the dingy courtroom where Trump was first arraigned. The district attorney, this time wearing a well-fitted gray suit, sat on a hard wooden bench in the second row, behind the team of prosecutors he had assembled. Walkie-talkies crackled, signaling the arrival of the former president. In a dirty hallway crammed with Secret Service agents, Trump spoke to television cameras. He said his lawyers would ask to delay the case — then he walked in, wearing a slightly rumpled navy suit and a screaming red tie.

In the courtroom, an unusually subdued Trump stared at the ceiling, arms at his sides. But once the trial date was set, Bragg didn’t seem to focus on Trump or on discussions about jury selection and trial exhibits. He bent over the judge’s decision declining to dismiss the case, reading it slowly, carefully. After the hearing, he released a brief statement, pronouncing himself “pleased.” Pleased . His spokeswoman confessed later that it was a struggle to get him to say even that.

Susan Beachy and Julie Tate contributed research.

Read by Emily Woo Zeller

Narration produced by Emma Kehlbeck and Krish Seenivasan

Engineered by David Mason

Kim Barker is a Times reporter writing in-depth stories about national issues. More about Kim Barker

Jonah E. Bromwich covers criminal justice in New York, with a focus on the Manhattan district attorney's office, state criminal courts in Manhattan and New York City's jails. More about Jonah E. Bromwich

Michael Rothfeld is an investigative reporter in New York, writing in-depth stories focused on the city’s government, business and personalities. More about Michael Rothfeld

Our Coverage of the Trump Hush-Money Case

The manhattan district attorney has filed charges against former president donald trump over a hush-money payment to a porn star on the eve of the 2016 election..

Taking the Case to Trial: Trump is all but certain to become the first former U.S. president to stand trial on criminal charges after a judge denied his effort to delay the proceeding and confirmed it will begin on April 15 .

Implications for Trump: As the case goes to trial, the former president’s inner circle sees a silver lining in the timing. But Trump wouldn’t be able to pardon himself should he become president again as he could if found guilty in the federal cases against him.

Michael Cohen: Trump’s former fixer was not an essential witness in the former president’s civil fraud trial in New York that concluded in January. But he will be when he takes the stand in the hush-money case .

Stormy Daniels: The chain of events flowing from a 2006 encounter that the adult film star said she had with Trump has led to the brink of a historic trial. Here's a look inside the hush-money payout .

IMAGES

How to write a legalize marijuana essay?
😝 Argumentative essay on legalizing weed. Marijuana legalization
The Arguments For And Against Marijuana Legalization In The U.S
Legalize Marijuana Essay
Legalize Marijuana
Legalize Marijuana Essay

VIDEO

Why legalize weed and alcohol?
Steven Crowder vs Joe Rogan
Legalize Weed Now by Pine Vinyl

COMMENTS

Five Reasons Why We Should Legalize 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.
The Arguments For And Against Marijuana Legalization In The U.S
When the roughly one-third of Americans opposing legalization were asked about the most important reasons for keeping legal marijuana out of circulation, driver safety was the chief reason. 79% ...
Marijuana Should be Legal
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. ... Why Marijuanas Should Be Legal: Essay Conclusion. Marijuana consumption is pervasive in the US, and ...
Essays on Cannabis Legalization
Essays on Cannabis Legalization. Thomas, Danna Kang. Though the drug remains illegal at the federal level, in recent years states and localities have increasingly liberalized their marijuana laws in order to generate tax revenue and save resources on marijuana law enforcement. Many states have adopted some form of medical marijuana and/or ...
Legalization of Marijuana: Arguments For and Against Essay
The fear of being caught and imprisoned has reduced the quantity of marijuana that is distributed in the community. Legalizing marijuana will increase its availability leading to increased number of users both legal and illegal. Given the side effects marijuana has, this will spell doom to the society as a whole.
Three Essays on The Effect of Legalizing Marijuana on Health, Education
The legalization of marijuana has emerged as a critical public policy issue, with far-reaching implications for health, education, and government programs at both the state and federal levels. The three essays of this dissertation show that medical marijuana legalization (MML) has a negative effect in each of these areas. The first essay shows, that the enactment of MMLs can exacerbate the ...
Overwhelming support for legal recreational or medical marijuana in U.S
Nearly two-thirds of conservative and moderate Democrats (63%) say marijuana should be legal for medical and recreational use. An overwhelming majority of liberal Democrats (84%) say the same. There also are racial and ethnic differences in views of legalizing marijuana. Roughly two-thirds of Black adults (68%) and six-in-ten White adults say ...
Minor and Major Arguments on Legalization of Marijuana Essay
Minor argument. Conlusion: Marijuana should not be legalised. Premises 1: If marijuana were to be legalized it would be impossible to regulate its' sell to, and use by the minors. It would set free, the bounds that exist on the transit of the drug, making it reach the intended and unintended places including possession by children.
Why Marijuana Should be Legalized, an argumentative essay
Request PDF | Why Marijuana Should be Legalized, an argumentative essay | Much debate has been conducted regarding the legalization of marijuana, with an unusual amount of contradicting research ...
Why Marijuana Should Be Legalized and Its Benefits
This essay will argue that marijuana should be legalized for several reasons, including its potential medical benefits, the reduction of criminal activity, and the economic advantages it offers. In the realm of medical marijuana, there is a wealth of evidence supporting its potential therapeutic properties.
Debating the legalisation of recreational cannabis
Cannabis is the most widely used illicit drug globally, particularly in North America and high-income countries in Europe and Oceania. Although the use of medicinal cannabis is legal in many countries, for example to treat chronic pain, poor appetite, or nausea due to chemotherapy, legalisation of non-medicinal or recreational cannabis is a topic of growing public discussion and debate ...
Risks and Benefits of Legalized Cannabis
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 ...
Argumentative Essay On Marijuana Legalization
Why Marijuana Should be Legalized Argumentative Essay Introduction. The argument that marijuana use should be made legal has gained momentum both in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world in recent years. This has seen the drug being legalized in some states in the U.S. such that by 2013, twenty states had legalized medical marijuana.
Legalization of Marijuana Essays: Example, Tips, and References
Marijuana, which is derived from Cannabis plants, is known by a variety of names. Marijuana has a variety of nicknames, ranging from cannabis to ganja to weed. Marijuana is made up of the leaves and flowers of the Cannabis plant. THC, or delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, is the primary active ingredient in marijuana.
Argument About Legalizing Marijuana in America Essay
Why Marijuana should be legalized in America. There are several reasons to support the legalization of marijuana in America, some of which include the following: In each country, the citizens of the country have the right to freedom. This is to mean that they should be left to choose on whether to use or not use marijuana, but not to be forced ...
Argumentative essay marijuana legalization
Randolph 1 Daniel Randolph J.D. Simpson English 1101 27 November 2017 Legalization of Cannabis in the United States Cannabis; marijuana, bud, devils lettuce, pot, etc. The uses for this plant go across the spectrum of medical reasons to recreational use. Many countries and cities have at least legalized cannabis for medical use, and some for ...
Argumentative Essay on Cannabis
Another argument against the legalization of cannabis is that it is widely perceived as a gateway drug. This means that after some time, the effect of marijuana will stop to satisfy its user and, subsequently, such a person will shift to the use of "harder" drugs such as, for example, heroin or cocaine. The marijuana gateway hypothesis ...
Marijuana Legalization: Argumentative Speech
Marijuana Legalization: Argumentative Speech. This essay sample was donated by a student to help the academic community. Papers provided by EduBirdie writers usually outdo students' samples. According to federal law, marijuana belongs to a category of substances that have a high potential for abuse.
Marijuana legalization argumentative essay
Many people oppose marijuana legalization. Marijuana may be used as a gateway drug to other illicit drugs, including cocaine or heroin, by drug users. The side effects of marijuana use (laziness, delayed reaction time) make it far too easy for people to put themselves in danger, especially when driving a motor vehicle.
Legalizing Medical Marijuana Essay (A+ Argumentative Essay)
In the United States, 20 states have legalized the medical use of marijuana (Ferner 2012). The first retail stores for Marijuana in Colorado were opened for the sale of Marijuana to people who have attained the age of 21 years or higher. There are still other countries where the use of medical marijuana has been legalized.
Legalization of Medical Marijuana
The supporters and opponents of the legalization of marijuana have opted to focus on either the positive or the negative aspects of the effects of the drug to support their views on policies to legalize or criminalize the drug. The US Congress passed laws that placed marijuana in the Schedule 1 of the controlled substances in 1972.
More Reasons States Should Not Legalize Marijuana:
At the time of this writing, medical marijuana is legal in 20 states and the District of Columbia; recreational marijuana is now legal in Washington and Colorado. ... A compelling argument, based on these negative health effects in both adolescents and adults, can be made to abort the direction society is moving with regards to the legalization ...
Legalizing Marijuana Is a Big Mistake
Legalizing Marijuana Is a Big Mistake. May 17, 2023. Evelyn Freja for The New York Times. Share full article. 2652. By Ross Douthat. Opinion Columnist. Of all the ways to win a culture war, the ...
The Inside Story of Alvin Bragg's Case Against Trump
Bragg's legal argument is complicated, but it stems from a simple episode: In the days before the 2016 election, Trump's personal attorney and fixer, Michael D. Cohen, paid $130,000 in hush ...

Five Reasons Why We Should Legalize Cannabis

1. Legalization for the Environment

2. Legalization for Justice

3. Legalization for Public Health

4. Legalization for the Economy

5. Legalization for Acceptance

Leave a comment Cancel reply

Essays on Cannabis Legalization

More About This Work

THREE ESSAYS ON THE EFFECT OF LEGALIZING MARIJUANA ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND SOCIAL SECURITY

Contributors

Regions & Countries

In both parties, views of marijuana legalization vary by age

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Clear majorities of Black Americans favor marijuana legalization, easing of criminal penalties

Why Marijuana Should Be Legalized and Its Benefits

Introduction

Cite this Essay

Related Essays

Still can’t find what you need?

Related Essays on Marijuana Legalization

Related Topics

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

The Evidence—and Lack Thereof—About Cannabis

Related Content

How Dangerous is Dengue?

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

Alumni Spotlight: Junrui Di, PhD '19

Child Diarrhea Has a Cheap and Easy Fix—Why Isn’t It Reaching Patients?

How Abortion Trigger Laws Impact Mental Health

Argumentative Essay On Marijuana Legalization

Elevate Your Writing with Our Free Writing Tools!

Why Marijuana Should be Legalized Argumentative Essay Outline

Conclusion.

Why Marijuana Should be Legalized Argumentative Essay

Why Marijuana Should be Legal Essay Outline

Benefits of Marijuana

Disadvantages of Marijuana

Why Marijuana Should Be Legal

Why Marijuana Should Be Legal Essay

Related Posts

Synthesis Essay Example – With Outline

Examples of Spatial Order – With Outline

Argumentative essay marijuana legalization

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

Argumentative Essay on Cannabis

Works Cited

Legalizing Medical Marijuana Argumentative Essay

Was this material helpful?

Debates Around Legalization of Medical Marijuana Argumentative Essay

More Reasons States Should Not Legalize Marijuana: Medical and Recreational Marijuana: Commentary and Review of the Literature

Introduction

Medical Use of Marijuana

Lack of Evidence for Therapeutic Benefit

Contamination, Concentration & Route of Administration

High Potential for Diversion

Widespread “Off-label” Use

Recreational Marijuana

Myth: Marijuana is Not Addictive

Schizophrenia and Other Psychotic Disorders

Effects on Cognition

Other Negative Health Effects

Social Safety Implications: Effects on Driving

Risk Perception and Use in Adolescents

How Alvin Bragg Hitched His Fate to Trump’s

Listen to this article, read by Emily Woo Zeller

Our Coverage of the Trump Hush-Money Case

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS