Differences and Similarities in the Arguments for Legalizing Marijuana Essay

Differences and Similarities in the Arguments for Legalizing Marijuana The legalisation of bearnabis has reverse a mainstream issue that the nation has become highly concerned slightly in recent years. Lately lots and much conservative opposers cook way begun to win over their minds, receivedizing the benefits of marihuana. Debate followers go as far as saying that it is no longer a question of if ganja will be legalized, hardly when. The f righteousness in viewpoints is due to the increasing ken of some of the positive effect legalizing marihuana could have on the country. Pro-legalisation pep ups argue that the benefits of legalizing cannabis greatly placenumber the benefits of keeping it illegal. at that place are some(prenominal), precise different crinkles for the professional-pot locating advocates have taken. They shoot legalization would be beneficial by ca exploitation a significant reduction in offensive activity (which would empty prisons and sa ve millions of dollars in levy money), creating a new industry that can be taxed and regulated, boosting the prudence, and a new, effectual, and low-dependency medicine. These benefits seem to be univers anyy desired by the pro-pot party and are often mentioned in publications advocating marijuana legalization. Another similitude in contrasts usually revolves around the issue of aesculapian marijuana. whatever advocates call for marijuana to be completely legalized, including social function for recreational purposes, but this is opposed in to the highest degree cases. Some advocates only want marijuana legalization if in that location will be grim regulations and restrictions on who can drop it.In the bind Weed All to the highest degree It, Gary Cartwright gives ample evidence and quotations from experts that form his pro legalization argument In 1988 the do drugs Enforcement Administrations chief law judge declared that marijuana, in its life handle form, is one of the safesttherapeutically active substances cognize to man (87). Cartwright goes into specific ways that legalization of marijuana could benefit the country,including the economical and social impacts, and medicinal uptake. He as well addresses questions most advocates ten to shy away from beca social function of the deficiency of certainty in the answer (like, Would marijuana use increase if it was legalized?).One similarity of Cartwrights stance and other articles is the the rubric that prohibiting the use of marijuana is unconstitutionally, and make the disposal seem like the bad guy. In Medical Marijuana 2010 Its snip to Fix the Regulatory Vacuum, Peter Cohen claims that close doctors from recommending marijuana to alleviate symptoms is a impingement of free speech and that science, not ideology, should be dispositive (3). Cohen continues to set up the government as the villain by describing two seemingly non-coincidental events in which fullyfunded teams of quali fied scientists weredenied access o marijuana by the DEA, while at the aforementioned(prenominal) time being supported by a long list of research organizationsAn argument in the article, Obama, the Fourteenth Amendment and the Drug War, by Martin D. Carcie uses the Constitution as the backbone in explaining its position. According to Carcie, marijuana banishment instanter violates our Fourteenth Amendment, under the Fourteenth Amendment, corporeal autonomy i.e., the control over the borders and circumscribe of ones body weight by laws like marijuana prohibitionis a fundamental right (308). Cartwright does not explicitly mention the Constitution in his article, but causes the same claim that Cohen and Carcie afford Some people will use drugs no matter what the consequences, butthe drug user primarily harms himself. When he harms others, we do something close to it, just aswe arrest those who fox and drive (Cartwright 88). Cartwright in any case builds the government up t o be the villain, claiming that, Over time, law follow upment officials have repeatedly misled the public and the media almost the so=called scourge of drugs (Cartwright 88).Both authors do this to give the reader the ability to look at the article with a blank slate. They see their audience is anti-legalization, so they want to make sure that the readers know, before they choose a stance, theyve been lied to. This makesthe authors seem like much giveworthy and rational choice. By using the Constitution to back up their arguments, there is no real way to justify anti-legalization. Assumptions will be made that youre anti-Constitution, and in turn, anti-American. Another similarity between Cartwrights stance and other arguments for marijuana legalization is the huge emphasis on the effects it will have on the economy. In the article Up In Smoke, Kelley Beaucar Vlahos describes the economic benefits of legalization, while gravid real number adjudicates of how much revenue coul d be brought in or saved. She writes, Proponents of Prop 19 claimed taxes on legalized cannabis could bring up of $1.4 billion into beleaguered state coffers (Vlahos 18).Cartwright does this in his article as well, stating that In America, we spend most $8 billion trying to enforce the laws prohibiting the use and possesson of marijuana (Cartwright 86). Cartwright further supports this argument by providing more proof of the barbaric of taxpayers dollars, stating that in Texas, 97 percent of all marijuana arrests are for sincere self-disciplinean ounce or lessat a cost to taxpayers of $480 million a year (86). Cartwright chooses to provide the reader with these statistics for deal reasons it provides a shock factor that he utilizes to sway the readers opinions. Vlahos excessively uses this same technique by including several statistics. This is much more effective than giving ambiguous measurings, like a ken or millions because giving an exact estimate shows that there has b een a significant kernel of research about the economic benefits of marijuana, making thereader more likely to trust the numbers. By using the phrase simple will power, Cartwright builds up the worth of the money worn out(p) by making it seem like possession is harmless, forcing the reader to feel indignant. The authors also choose to talk about the economy because it is the highest concern of the counrty right now, and they present marijuana as an instant solution. The argument for the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes in Cohens article is consisten with Cartwrights article as well.Cohens article is mainly about the benefits of marijuana as a medicine. In the article, he disproves the governments claim that marijuana has no therapeutic apprise and describes specific symptoms marijuana could help with, some(prenominal) studies publishedhave demonstrated that the drug is sage andeffective in dogmatic nausea and other adverse effects of chemotherapy, relieving multiple scl erosis-induced spasticity, easing certain types of pain, and change weight loss accompanying aid (Cohen 657). Cartwright does the same thing using more of an emotional technique by describing a group of people in wheelchairs that use marijuana for relief from pain. Both articles advocate for medical marijuana, but the way they go about making their arguments differ.Cohen approaches the topic of medical marijuana more scientifically than Cartwright does, using several studies and scientific evidence as his arguments support. Cohen is also much more specific in the token ways marijuana can be used, and provides suggestions on how to regulate the drug. The reader mechanically feels sympathy for the people in wheelchairs and they become victims in the readers mind. Cartwright also gives a second example of a quadriplegic man that was thrown into jail for possession without regard for his medical needs, further establishing a feeling of empathy from his audience. Cohen uses such an am ple amount of hard evidence its hopeless not to trust him. By doing this, Cohen reaches out to his specific audience, the American Medical Association, in a much more effective way.The topic of marijuana legalization is very complex. The multiple points of views, though sharing the same goal, differ regarding how to succeed at accomplishing those goals and for what purpose. through and through the different means that each of these authors use to convey their message, they all, in the end, support their one-on-one arguments effectively.