Legalization of Marijuana: Arguments

The aim of this paper is to logically apply reason to assess the arguments for the legalization of marijuana, and by doing so point out flaws in these arguments. Furthermore, this paper will assess the credibility and the source of these arguments, and present counter arguments to conclude that marijuana should not be a legal drug in California and the rest of the United States. First I will consider The National Organizations for the Reform of Marijuana Law's “Principles of Responsible Marijuana Use” which is the basis for their argument for the legalization of marijuana, and how this set of principles is flawed. Second I will consider the claim “that marijuana should be legal in a taxed and regulated manner” and also consider the source of this claim. Third I will emphasize the negative social effects of legalization of marijuana in order to counter the claims for legalization. Finally I will conclude that given these factors, legalization of marijuana would be harmful and detrimental to society as a whole, possessing little or no economic, social, or medical benefits. The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Law is the leading lobbyist group for the legalization of marijuana in the United States. This organization has made it their commitment to have marijuana legalized in a taxable way as tobacco and alcohol currently are. This organization rationalizes it's arguments with a document called the “Principles of Responsible Marijuana Use” in which is attempts to justify marijuana reform in a socially accepted manner. The very title of the document is ambiguous, the word “responsible” is a very circumstantial term and is subject to many different interpretations. Furthermore the document assumes that if legalized, citizens will adhere to this unofficial “code of ethics”, however we can evidently see with alcohol and tobacco that there is abuse regardless of the regulating laws. Despite this, NORML attempts to lay out their interpretation for what