Use Of Marijuana example essay topic

Decriminalization of Marijuana Every year our government spends more than nineteen billion dollars to eradicate it's use in the United States. About seventeen thousand people were arrested last year because of it. We spend twenty thousand dollars a year per inmate to hold these jailbirds captive. Who are these dangerous criminals you ask?

Stoners. One argument against the decriminalization of marijuana is why would we want to introduce another intoxicant into our society when alcohol and cigarette smoking is already so damaging? Marijuana is far less harmful to the body than cigarettes. Not to mention while it may be potentially habit forming, it is not addictive.

When comparing marijuana to alcohol the differences are obvious. I would much rather be in an argument with guy that has been smoking joints all night than some dude who has spent all night pounding shots of tequila. Alcohol can alter a persons common sense. Despite this, our government trusts us with the burden of drinking responsibly. Over seventeen thousand arrests are made regarding cannabis a year. Almost ninety percent of these arrests are for simple possession, not trafficking or sale.

This is an inappropriate use of valuable law enforcement resources that should be focused on more serious and violent crimes. I don't know about you, but I would rather have a midnight to ker for a neighbor than a midnight stalker. The spending of government money needs to be reevaluated. Our government needs to take a step back and admit they were mistaken to think they could successfully discontinue the use of marijuana.

"You cannot have illegal what a significant segment of the population in any society is committed to doing. You simply cannot arrest, prosecute, and punish such a large number of people, particularly in a democracy" (Incardi 285). Ultimately it is not the role of the government to tell it's adult citizens what risks to take. Bicycles kill ten thousand people a year and yet no one is proposing to make them illegal. There are benefits of legalizing marijuana, both for the government and society. One of these is that the marijuana market could be government run.

The black market would be abolished, saving lives and redirecting the profits from the drug dealers' Escalade's new rims to the bettering of our society. A close examination shows that the total annual costs of the drug war will probably exceed fifty billion dollars. If decriminalized users could obtain their marijuana at government regulated prices (Incardi 285). Money that the government cultivated from the selling of marijuana, the money they saved from reducing the war on drugs to hurtful drugs like cocaine and heroin, and the money saved from not housing so many inmates every year is much needed. We know that our criminal justice system can coerce problem drug users into meaningful and productive sobriety, or, if necessary, can remove problem drug users from society for long periods of time if they are violent or destructive to others. So why do we persist with our failed drug policy, which imprisons weekend pot smokers?

If someone is using or abusing drugs, and is not a problem to anyone but themselves, we should educate them and provide treatment on demand. If those people do pose a threat to society they will find a way into the court system one way or another. This program has worked effectively with alcohol abuse and could work just as effectively with marijuana abuse (Gray 229). Sure, I can understand why the government might be a little hesitant to admit they have been throwing our tax money at this cause for decades. So far all I have mentioned are laws prohibiting the recreational use of marijuana, which is comparatively less beneficial than the medicinal uses that would be available. The governments's senseless fear of loosing any more control over the marijuana market unfairly deprives gravely sick people who could be greatly benefited by the use of marijuana.

The effects of this drug could potentially help chemotherapy patients by stimulating their appetite and relieving serious pain. Glaucoma is effectively treated with marijuana by reducing intraocular pressure, which stems the pain. In some cases pot has been found to stop the advance of glaucoma altogether. AIDS patients given marijuana show improved appetite and reduced vomiting. Pain can also be relieved in multiple sclerosis patients. Epilepsy can be treated by marijuana, use has been shown to reduce the severity of seizures.

Marijuana can also help insomniacs finally get some sleep. With all of this potential it seems illogical not to allow these people to benefit from the effects of this plant, yet our government is not willing to allow it (Marijuana). I have known too many patients who have lived miserably or died painfully to have patience with the Bush administration's intrusive attempts to bar them from discussing medical marijuana with their doctors. I've seen one too many old men spend their final hours nauseated and vomiting while their distressed and helpless families watched. One too many women with cancer who linger, bone-thin and languid, as their loved ones beg for 'something' to make them feel better. And I, like so many doctors, have witnessed the therapeutic relief that many such patients experience after using marijuana.

Their illnesses become less miserable, their difficult deaths are made more tolerable. And those reasons explain precisely why the federal government's relentless attempts to bar patients from access to medical marijuana constitute both cruel and unusual crimes against us all. They are wrong-headed and politically driven obsessions, not compassionate advisement's intended to relieve human suffering. As a patient, when I'm feeling ill, I don't want John Ashcroft's opinion about the best medical treatment for my condition.

When someone I love visits a medical clinic because she is sick to death, I hope that she will be met by a doctor who will give her truthful advice born of experience and a focused dedication to her well being. I pray that she is not met by a federal agent with no clinical skills whose primary allegiance is to a political agenda (Scannel). Another fear that the government suffers from is that of hemp. Hemp is cannabis grown specifically for industrial use and contains very low levels of THC. The use of hemp dates back many thousands of years. Properly grown hemp has virtually no intoxicating effects when consumed.

With a short growth cycle of one hundred and twenty days, hemp is an efficient and economical crop for farmers to grow. Hemp grows well in a variety of climates and soil types. It is naturally resistant to most pests, precluding the need for pesticides. It grows tightly spaced, out-competing any weeds, so herbicides are not necessary. It also leaves a weed-free field for a following crop. Hemp is among one of the most productive and useful plants known.

Paper, textiles, building materials, food, medicine, paint, detergent, varnish, oil, ink, and fuel can all be produced from hemp. Hemp can be made into fine quality paper. The long fibers in hemp allow such paper to be recycled several times more than wood-based paper. Hemp can displace cotton which is usually grown with massive amounts of chemicals harmful to people and the environment. Fifty percent of all the world's pesticides are sprayed on cotton. Unlike many crops, hemp can be grown in most locations and climates with only moderate water and fertilizer requirements.

The cultivation of this product in the United States would benefit society in many ways but our government refuses to acknowledge the obvious benefits of this plant simply because it looks like marijuana. Since if smoked it would result in nothing more than a headache I would say their fear is unreasonable (Hemp). Canada has an interesting approach to hemp policies. "In 1998, Canada created Industrial Hemp Regulations under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. These regulations allow for the controlled production, sale, movement, processing, exporting and importing of industrial hemp and hemp products that conform to conditions imposed by the Regulations. under the Regulations, industrial hemp seeds must be of a variety listed in Health Canada's List of Approved Cultivars. Plants and plant parts may not contain more than 0.3% THC when sampled and tested in the approved manner.

Products made or derived from hemp must not contain more than 10 micrograms of THC per gram. Industrial hemp stalks, with leaves and flowers removed, and non-viable hemp seeds (grain), are exempt from the Act. Anyone found in possession of hemp plant parts - other than the stalk and non-viable grain, without the appropriate license - is in possession of a controlled substance and may be charged under the Act (Baxter). So all of this taken into account it is ludicrous for the laws not to be reevaluated to suit our current position in the United States. As a society we are willing and able to make our own decisions, we do not need the government to hold our hand through life. It is time our tax money is put toward things our society feels are important.

It is time we allow the many health benefits of marijuana to be utilized by those who need them. It is time we realize there are different cost effective, environment friendly and efficient ways of producing many of our most used products. All we can do is hope our government comes to its senses soon.

Bibliography

Page Baxter, J.W. Growing Industrial Hemp In Ontario. 27 November 2004.
web Gray, Judge James P. Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It. Philadelphia: Temple UP, 2001.
Hemp Nation. 27 November 2004.
web James A Handbook of Drug Control in the United States. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1990.
Marijuana: Fact and Fiction. 27 November 2004.
web National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. 27 November 2004.
web Scannel, Kate. Bush's Painful Obsession With Medicinal Pot. American Alliance for Medicinal Cannabis, The Oakland Tribune 27 November 2004.