Differences and Similarities in the Arguments for Legalizing Marijuana Essay

Variations and Commonalities in the Disputes for Legalizing Marijuana The legalization of marijuana has become a mainstream concern that the nation has become very concerned about lately. Lately more and more conservative opposers have commenced to change their minds, realizing the key benefits of marijuana. Debate followers get as far as saying that it is no longer a question of if cannabis will be legalized, but when.

The shift in viewpoints is a result of the increasing awareness of a few of the positive effects legalizing marijuana could have on the country. Pro-legalization supporters argue that the benefits of legalizing pot greatly exceed the benefits of keeping it illegitimate. There are several, very different arguments intended for the pro-pot stance promoters have taken.

They will claim legalization would be useful by leading to a significant decrease in crime (which would vacant prisons and save vast amounts in duty money), setting up a new industry that can be taxed and controlled, boosting the economy, and a brand new, effective, and low-dependency medicine. These rewards seem to be globally desired by pro-pot party and are typically mentioned in literature suggesting marijuana legalization. Another similarity in arguments usually involves the issue of medical marijuana. A few advocates demand marijuana to get completely legalized, including use for pastime purposes, yet this is compared in most cases.

Some advocates just want weed legalization in the event that there will be strict regulations and restrictions on who can utilize it. In the article Weed All About It, Gary Cartwright gives adequate evidence and quotations from experts that form his pro legalization argument: In 1988 the Drug Observance Administration’s main law evaluate declared that marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man’ (87). Cartwright goes into specific ways that legalization of weed could benefit the country, including the economical and social impacts, and medicinal work with.

He likewise addresses questions most supporters ten to shy away from due to lack of conviction in the solution (like, Would marijuana use increase whether it was legalized? ). 1 similarity of Cartwright’s stance and other content articles is the what he claims that barring the use of marijuana is unconstitutionally, and producing the government appear like the bad person. In Medical Marijuana 2010: It’s A chance to Fix the Regulatory Vacuum pressure, Philip Cohen statements that restricting doctors coming from recommending marijuana to alleviate symptoms is a violation of free talk and that science, not ideology, should be dispositive (3).

Cohen continues to create the government since the bad guy by conveying two seemingly non-coincidental events in which fullyfunded teams of qualified researchers were denied gain access to o cannabis by the DEA, while simultaneously being supported by a long list of exploration organizations An argument in the document, Obama, the Fourteenth Amendment and the Medicine War, by Matn D. Carcie uses the Constitution as the backbone in justifying its position. According to Carcie, marijuana forbidance directly violates our Fourteenth Amendment, under the 14th Amendment, actual autonomy my spouse and i. e., the control over the borders and contents of one’s human body burdened by laws just like marijuana prohibitionis a fundamental right (308).

Cartwright does not clearly mention the Constitution in the article, nevertheless makes the same claim that Cohen and Carcie make; Some people will use drugs no matter what the consequences, butthe user mainly harms himself. When he causes harm to others, we all do something about it, just as we criminal arrest those who beverage and drive (Cartwright 88). Cartwright also builds the federal government up to be the bad guy, claiming that, Over time, law enforcement officials possess repeatedly misinformed the public plus the media regarding the so=called scourge of drugs (Cartwright 88). Both authors accomplish this to give the visitor the ability to go through the article which has a blank standing.

They understand their target audience is anti-legalization, so they want to make sure that your readers know, before they choose a stance, they’ve been lied to. This kind of makes the authors seem like more trustworthy and rational choice. By using the Metabolism to back up their very own arguments, there is absolutely no real approach to justify anti-legalization. Assumptions will be manufactured that you’re anti-Constitution, and in turn, anti-American. An additional similarity among Cartwright’s position and other arguments for marijuana legalization is the huge emphasis on the effects it provides on the economic climate.

In the content Up In Smoke, Kelley Beaucar Vlahos details the economic benefits of legalization, while giving actual number estimates of how much revenue could be brought in or saved. The lady writes, Proponents of Brace 19 stated taxes in legalized cannabis could take upwards of $1. 4 billion into beleaguered state coffers (Vlahos 18).

Cartwright performs this in his content as well, declaring that In America, all of us spend nearly $8 billion trying to put in force the regulations prohibiting the employment and possesson of marijuana (Cartwright 86). Cartwright even more supports this kind of argument by providing more proof of the waste materials of taxpayers’ dollars, stating that in Texas, 97 percent of marijuana arrests are intended for simple possessionan ounce or perhaps lessat a cost to people of $480 million a year (86). Cartwright chooses to provide you with these statistics pertaining to deliberate reasons: it provides a surprise factor that he utilizes to sway the reader’s opinions.

Vlahos also uses this same strategy by which include several statistics. This is a lot more effective than giving eclectic amounts, like a whole lot or millions because presenting an exact approximate shows that there is a significant quantity of analysis about the economic advantages of marijuana, producing the reader more likely to trust the numbers. Utilizing the phrase simple possession, Cartwright builds up the really worth of the investment property by making that seem like ownership is benign, forcing someone to experience indignant.

The authors also choose to talk about the economy since it is the highest area of issue the counrty right now, plus they present pot as an immediate solution. The argument for the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes in Cohen’s article is usually consisten with Cartwright’s content as well. Cohen’s article is primarily about the advantages of marijuana as a medicine.

Inside the article, he disproves the government’s declare that marijuana is without therapeutic value and details specific symptoms marijuana may help with, Several studies publishedhave demonstrated that the drug is definitely sage and effective in controlling nausea and also other adverse effects of chemotherapy, relieving multiple sclerosis-induced spasticity, reducing certain types of soreness, and ameliorating weight loss associating AIDS (Cohen 657). Cartwright does the same task using really an emotional technique simply by describing someone in wheelchairs that use pot for relief from pain. Both articles advocate intended for medical cannabis, but the way they go regarding making their arguments differ.

Cohen methods the topic of medical marijuana more scientifically than Cartwright will, using several studies and scientific facts as his argument’s support. Cohen is likewise much more particular in the particular ways cannabis can be used, and provides suggestions in order to regulate the drug. The reader automatically seems sympathy for the people in wheelchairs and they become patients in the reader’s mind. Cartwright also gives a second example of a quadriplegic man that was placed into prison for control without regard for his medical requirements, further creating a feeling of accord from his audience. Cohen uses such an ample amount of evidence it’s extremely hard not to trust him.

As a result, Cohen gets to out to his specific audience, the American Medical Relationship, in a considerably more effective method. The topic of marijuana legalization is extremely complex. The multiple parts of views, although sharing a similar goal, change regarding how to do well at achieving those desired goals and for what purpose.

Throughout the different means that each of these writers use to express their message, they all, ultimately, support their very own individual fights effectively.