drug legalisation essay

Drug Legalization?: Time for a real debate

Subscribe to governance weekly, paul stares ps paul stares.

March 1, 1996

• 11 min read

Whether Bill Clinton “inhaled” when trying marijuana as a college student was about the closest the last presidential campaign came to addressing the drug issue. The present one, however, could be very different. For the fourth straight year, a federally supported nationwide survey of American secondary school students by the University of Michigan has indicated increased drug use. After a decade or more in which drug use had been falling, the Republicans will assuredly blame the bad news on President Clinton and assail him for failing to carry on the Bush and Reagan administrations’ high-profile stand against drugs. How big this issue becomes is less certain, but if the worrisome trend in drug use among teens continues, public debate about how best to respond to the drug problem will clearly not end with the election. Indeed, concern is already mounting that the large wave of teenagers—the group most at risk of taking drugs—that will crest around the turn of the century will be accompanied by a new surge in drug use.

As in the past, some observers will doubtless see the solution in much tougher penalties to deter both suppliers and consumers of illicit psychoactive substances. Others will argue that the answer lies not in more law enforcement and stiffer sanctions, but in less. Specifically, they will maintain that the edifice of domestic laws and international conventions that collectively prohibit the production, sale, and consumption of a large array of drugs for anything other than medical or scientific purposes has proven physically harmful, socially divisive, prohibitively expensive, and ultimately counterproductive in generating the very incentives that perpetuate a violent black market for illicit drugs. They will conclude, moreover, that the only logical step for the United States to take is to “legalize” drugs—in essence repeal and disband the current drug laws and enforcement mechanisms in much the same way America abandoned its brief experiment with alcohol prohibition in the 1920s.

Although the legalization alternative typically surfaces when the public’s anxiety about drugs and despair over existing policies are at their highest, it never seems to slip off the media radar screen for long. Periodic incidents—such as the heroin-induced death of a young, affluent New York City couple in 1995 or the 1993 remark by then Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders that legalization might be beneficial and should be studied—ensure this. The prominence of many of those who have at various times made the case for legalization—such as William F. Buckley, Jr., Milton Friedman, and George Shultz—also helps. But each time the issue of legalization arises, the same arguments for and against are dusted off and trotted out, leaving us with no clearer understanding of what it might entail and what the effect might be.

As will become clear, drug legalization is not a public policy option that lends itself to simplistic or superficial debate. It requires dissection and scrutiny of an order that has been remarkably absent despite the attention it perennially receives. Beyond discussion of some very generally defined proposals, there has been no detailed assessment of the operational meaning of legalization. There is not even a commonly accepted lexicon of terms to allow an intellectually rigorous exchange to take place. Legalization, as a consequence, has come to mean different things to different people. Some, for example, use legalization interchangeably with “decriminalization,” which usually refers to removing criminal sanctions for possessing small quantities of drugs for personal use. Others equate legalization, at least implicitly, with complete deregulation, failing in the process to acknowledge the extent to which currently legally available drugs are subject to stringent controls.

Unfortunately, the U.S. government—including the Clinton administration—has done little to improve the debate. Although it has consistently rejected any retreat from prohibition, its stance has evidently not been based on in- depth investigation of the potential costs and benefits. The belief that legalization would lead to an instant and dramatic increase in drug use is considered to be so self-evident as to warrant no further study. But if this is indeed the likely conclusion of any study, what is there to fear aside from criticism that relatively small amounts of taxpayer money had been wasted in demonstrating what everyone had believed at the outset? Wouldn’t such an outcome in any case help justify the continuation of existing policies and convincingly silence those—admittedly never more than a small minority—calling for legalization?

A real debate that acknowledges the unavoidable complexities and uncertainties surrounding the notion of drug legalization is long overdue. Not only would it dissuade people from making the kinds of casual if not flippant assertions—both for and against—that have permeated previous debates about legalization, but it could also stimulate a larger and equally critical assessment of current U.S. drug control programs and priorities.

First Ask the Right Questions

Many arguments appear to make legalization a compelling alternative to today’s prohibitionist policies. Besides undermining the black-market incentives to produce and sell drugs, legalization could remove or at least significantly reduce the very problems that cause the greatest public concern: the crime, corruption, and violence that attend the operation of illicit drug markets. It would presumably also diminish the damage caused by the absence of quality controls on illicit drugs and slow the spread of infectious diseases due to needle sharing and other unhygienic practices. Furthermore, governments could abandon the costly and largely futile effort to suppress the supply of illicit drugs and jail drug offenders, spending the money thus saved to educate people not to take drugs and treat those who become addicted.

However, what is typically portrayed as a fairly straightforward process of lifting prohibitionist controls to reap these putative benefits would in reality entail addressing an extremely complex set of regulatory issues. As with most if not all privately and publicly provided goods, the key regulatory questions concern the nature of the legally available drugs, the terms of their supply, and the terms of their consumption (see page 21).

What becomes immediately apparent from even a casual review of these questions—and the list presented here is by no means exhaustive—is that there is an enormous range of regulatory permutations for each drug. Until all the principal alternatives are clearly laid out in reasonable detail, however, the potential costs and benefits of each cannot begin to be responsibly assessed. This fundamental point can be illustrated with respect to the two central questions most likely to sway public opinion. What would happen to drug consumption under more permissive regulatory regimes? And what would happen to crime?

Relaxing the availability of psychoactive substances not already commercially available, opponents typically argue, would lead to an immediate and substantial rise in consumption. To support their claim, they point to the prevalence of opium, heroin, and cocaine addiction in various countries before international controls took effect, the rise in alcohol consumption after the Volstead Act was repealed in the United States, and studies showing higher rates of abuse among medical professionals with greater access to prescription drugs. Without explaining the basis of their calculations, some have predicted dramatic increases in the number of people taking drugs and becoming addicted. These increases would translate into considerable direct and indirect costs to society, including higher public health spending as a result of drug overdoses, fetal deformities, and other drug-related misadventures such as auto accidents; loss of productivity due to worker absenteeism and on-the-job accidents; and more drug-induced violence, child abuse, and other crimes, to say nothing about educational impairment.

Advocates of legalization concede that consumption would probably rise, but counter that it is not axiomatic that the increase would be very large or last very long, especially if legalization were paired with appropriate public education programs. They too cite historical evidence to bolster their claims, noting that consumption of opium, heroin, and cocaine had already begun falling before prohibition took effect, that alcohol consumption did not rise suddenly after prohibition was lifted, and that decriminalization of cannabis use in 11 U.S. states in the 1970s did not precipitate a dramatic rise in its consumption. Some also point to the legal sale of cannabis products through regulated outlets in the Netherlands, which also does not seem to have significantly boosted use by Dutch nationals. Public opinion polls showing that most Americans would not rush off to try hitherto forbidden drugs that suddenly became available are likewise used to buttress the pro-legalization case.

Neither side’s arguments are particularly reassuring. The historical evidence is ambiguous at best, even assuming that the experience of one era is relevant to another. Extrapolating the results of policy steps in one country to another with different sociocultural values runs into the same problem. Similarly, within the United States the effect of decriminalization at the state level must be viewed within the general context of continued federal prohibition. And opinion polls are known to be unreliable.

More to the point, until the nature of the putative regulatory regime is specified, such discussions are futile. It would be surprising, for example, if consumption of the legalized drugs did not increase if they were to become commercially available the way that alcohol and tobacco products are today, complete with sophisticated packaging, marketing, and advertising. But more restrictive regimes might see quite different outcomes. In any case, the risk of higher drug consumption might be acceptable if legalization could reduce dramatically if not remove entirely the crime associated with the black market for illicit drugs while also making some forms of drug use safer. Here again, there are disputed claims.

Opponents of more permissive regimes doubt that black market activity and its associated problems would disappear or even fall very much. But, as before, addressing this question requires knowing the specifics of the regulatory regime, especially the terms of supply. If drugs are sold openly on a commercial basis and prices are close to production and distribution costs, opportunities for illicit undercutting would appear to be rather small. Under a more restrictive regime, such as government-controlled outlets or medical prescription schemes, illicit sources of supply would be more likely to remain or evolve to satisfy the legally unfulfilled demand. In short, the desire to control access to stem consumption has to be balanced against the black market opportunities that would arise. Schemes that risk a continuing black market require more questions—about the new black markets operation over time, whether it is likely to be more benign than existing ones, and more broadly whether the trade-off with other benefits still makes the effort worthwhile.

The most obvious case is regulating access to drugs by adolescents and young adults. Under any regime, it is hard to imagine that drugs that are now prohibited would become more readily available than alcohol and tobacco are today. Would a black market in drugs for teenagers emerge, or would the regulatory regime be as leaky as the present one for alcohol and tobacco? A “yes” answer to either question would lessen the attractiveness of legalization.

What about the International Repercussions?

Not surprisingly, the wider international ramifications of drug legalization have also gone largely unremarked. Here too a long set of questions remains to be addressed. Given the longstanding U.S. role as the principal sponsor of international drug control measures, how would a decision to move toward legalizing drugs affect other countries? What would become of the extensive regime of multilateral conventions and bilateral agreements? Would every nation have to conform to a new set of rules? If not, what would happen? Would more permissive countries be suddenly swamped by drugs and drug consumers, or would traffickers focus on the countries where tighter restrictions kept profits higher? This is not an abstract question. The Netherlands’ liberal drug policy has attracted an influx of “drug tourists” from neighboring countries, as did the city of Zurich’s following the now abandoned experiment allowing an open drug market to operate in what became known as “Needle Park.” And while it is conceivable that affluent countries could soften the worst consequences of drug legalization through extensive public prevention and drug treatment programs, what about poorer countries?

Finally, what would happen to the principal suppliers of illicit drugs if restrictions on the commercial sale of these drugs were lifted in some or all of the main markets? Would the trafficking organizations adapt and become legal businesses or turn to other illicit enterprises? What would happen to the source countries? Would they benefit or would new producers and manufacturers suddenly spring up elsewhere? Such questions have not even been posed in a systematic way, let alone seriously studied.

Irreducible Uncertainties

Although greater precision in defining more permissive regulatory regimes is critical to evaluating their potential costs and benefits, it will not resolve the uncertainties that exist. Only implementation will do that. Because small-scale experimentation (assuming a particular locality’s consent to be a guinea pig) would inevitably invite complaints that the results were biased or inconclusive, implementation would presumably have to be widespread, even global, in nature.

Yet jettisoning nearly a century of prohibition when the putative benefits remain so uncertain and the potential costs are so high would require a herculean leap of faith. Only an extremely severe and widespread deterioration of the current drug situation, nationally and internationally—is likely to produce the consensus—again, nationally and internationally that could impel such a leap. Even then the legislative challenge would be stupendous. The debate over how to set the conditions for controlling access to each of a dozen popular drugs could consume the legislatures of the major industrial countries for years.

None of this should deter further analysis of drug legalization. In particular, a rigorous assessment of a range of hypothetical regulatory regimes according to a common set of variables would clarify their potential costs, benefits, and trade- offs. Besides instilling much-needed rigor into any further discussion of the legalization alternative, such analysis could encourage the same level of scrutiny of current drug control programs and policies. With the situation apparently deteriorating in the United States as well as abroad, there is no better time for a fundamental reassessment of whether our existing responses to this problem are sufficient to meet the likely challenges ahead.

Governance Studies

Online Only

10:00 am - 11:30 am EDT

Richard Lempert

April 24, 2024

Russell Wheeler

April 18, 2024

• Search Menu
• Case Discussions
• Special Symposiums
• Advance articles
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Why Publish with Public Health Ethics?
• About Public Health Ethics
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Terms and Conditions
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

• < Previous

Drug Legalization, Democracy and Public Health: Canadian Stakeholders’ Opinions and Values with Respect to the Legalization of Cannabis

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Marianne Rochette, Matthew Valiquette, Claudia Barned, Eric Racine, Drug Legalization, Democracy and Public Health: Canadian Stakeholders’ Opinions and Values with Respect to the Legalization of Cannabis, Public Health Ethics , Volume 16, Issue 2, July 2023, Pages 175–190, https://doi.org/10.1093/phe/phad016

• Permissions Icon Permissions

The legalization of cannabis in Canada instantiates principles of harm-reduction and safe supply. However, in-depth understanding of values at stake and attitudes toward legalization were not part of extensive democratic deliberation. Through a qualitative exploratory study, we undertook 48 semi-structured interviews with three Canadian stakeholder groups to explore opinions and values with respect to the legalization of cannabis: (1) members of the general public, (2) people with lived experience of addiction and (3) clinicians with experience treating patients with addiction. Across all groups, participants tended to be in favor of legalization, but particular opinions rested on their viewpoint as stakeholders. Clinicians considered the way legalization would affect an individual’s health and its potential for increasing rates of addiction on a larger scale. People with lived experience of addiction cited personal autonomy more than other groups and stressed the need to have access to quality information to make truly informed decisions. Alternatively, members of the public considered legalization positive or negative in light of whether one’s addiction affected others. We elaborate on and discuss how scientific evidence about drug use impact values relates and how can different arguments play in democratic debates about legalization.

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1754-9981
• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

• Write for us
• LSE Comment
• Economy and Society
• Post-Brexit Policy
• Artificial Intelligence

Albert Ward

March 14th, 2023, has the time come for reform of the uk’s drug policy.

0 comments | 26 shares

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

Unlike in many other countries, the UK’s drug policy has seen little development in recent years. Are concerns that liberalisation would not have public support well-founded? Albert Ward finds public support for significant reform is promising but capricious, and easily influenced by how questions are asked.

What is the future for drug reform in the UK? While other countries have already legalised recreational use marijuana or gone further, decriminalising hard drugs like cocaine and heroin, the UK drugs regime has not changed much in the last few decades. Many more countries have implemented minor policies, such as supervised consumption or the medical use of hard drugs.

Much hesitance from policymakers and the media comes from the impression that the public would be opposed to any attempt at liberalisation. How true is this? Evidence from a range of polling sources reveals that people in the UK have subtle preferences for liberalisation of drug laws, which can vary greatly depending on which options are presented to them and how questions are asked.

No blanket support for legalisation

Much of the current debate centres on legalisation. When it comes to marijuana legalisation – the most-used illegal drug in the UK and the most obvious candidate for liberalisation – the public is split. A poll by Redfield and Winton in 2022 found 38 per cent opposed to 35 per cent in favour, with 20 per cent neither supporting nor opposing and 7 per cent stating they “don’t know”.

Question wording and presentation is key, though. Remove that “neither” option, as a 2019 Yougov poll did, and give people who do not support either side outright the option to “tend to support/oppose”, and 53 per cent support such legalisation, against 31 per cent opposed, with 15 per cent “don’t knows”. Note also, however, that most polls ignore the subtle difference between decriminalisation (removing criminal sanctions, and potentially replacing them with civil penalties, while drugs still remain illegal) and legalisation (removing all penalties for possession and personal use).

When it comes to legalisation of hard drugs, public opposition is far higher and more stable. A 2022 Yougov survey found 86 per cent in support of keeping such drugs illegal (the survey offered only the choice between legal, illegal but not criminal, and illegal and criminal). Other surveys demonstrate similar levels of support. Similarly, people tend to be far less forgiving of distributors and sellers of drugs: 71 per cent in that same Yougov poll thought that selling soft drugs should be illegal, while 89 per cent believed the same for hard drugs.

A nuanced picture on punitive measures

Still, this general opposition to legalisation does not necessarily translate into support for strict penalties. While large numbers of Britons are supportive of harsh sentences for relatively minor crimes, 61 per cent support handing those caught personally using drugs – technically in danger of long jail time – community service sentences or less. If you ask people directly to choose what punishments should be meted out for personal use possession, the top two results – beating prison by 30 per cent – are education or treatment (54 per cent of people chose) and a fine (49 per cent).

Again, however, question wording muddies the picture. If you ask Brits whether, in general, they think drug laws in the UK are too strict or too lenient, 40 per cent agree with the latter, while only 19 per cent with the former (24 per cent think they are about right). People even think stricter laws would be effective, at least in some areas. A majority – 53 per cent – believe that harsher punishments would deter distribution and sale of illegal drugs, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Part of this confusion may come down to a lack of awareness of what penalties are applied to different drug offences, or to large differences between the penalties people think should apply to soft and hard drugs, which have not been captured by pollsters, at least in recent surveys. It may also be that, while people have a generalised sense that the current drugs regime is failing and should be stricter, when presented with specific options, they soften their stance.

Evidence of a shift away from a criminalising approach?

There is some evidence for this with minor liberalisation measures, where public support is far higher than the inconsistent evidence for legalisation. Clear majorities of people in the UK support overdose prevention centres, drug safety checking services, or the ready availability of anti-overdose drugs. This reflects a general support for a refocusing of drug policy towards health and addiction treatment rather than as a principally criminal issue. It might also be that the middling enthusiasm for decriminalisation or legalisation is a lower bound of the true level of support, which people may be unwilling to divulge to pollsters.

Clear majorities of people in the UK support overdose prevention centres, drug safety checking services, or the ready availability of anti-overdose drugs.

The survey which found the highest outright support for marijuana legalisation, not counting a “tend to” option: a 2022 Redfield and Winton poll , prefaced the question with a short explanation of what such a policy would look like. It found 48 per cent in favour, with 27 per cent opposed (18 per cent expressed neither, and 6 per cent “don’t know”). This suggests that public preferences for at least some aspects of drug policy are malleable, and sensitive to explanation of the issues at hand. Information scarcity may play a role. 58 per cent of people in the UK are not at all or only slightly aware of current drug policy (note that the wording implies alcohol and tobacco are considered drugs in this survey).

The War on Drugs is, in terms of efficacy, a strong candidate for the worst public policy decision of the last fifty years, almost wherever you are in the world. For something which the vast majority of Britons believe is not working – nearly two-thirds think criminalising drugs is an ineffective way of preventing their use – there is clearly desire for reform.

Support for change is capricious, however; it varies greatly depending on what options people are presented with, and how questions are worded. If there is to be policy change, politicians must therefore take great care to consider public opinion. This does not mean that they should reject radical solutions. Legalisation and decriminalisation can be effective at reducing drug harm , if not use ; we should thus not discount them. Such policies can be hard to sell to voters, though. If they are to be considered in the UK, they should be part of a programme of reform, which includes efforts to reduce drug-related crime and lessen addiction. Their effect and their implementation must be explained, accompanied by a real effort to inform people. Most importantly perhaps, they must appear part of a logical progression of policies, and not seem like they are an unwarranted change forced upon people.

All articles posted on this blog give the views of the author(s), and not the position of LSE British Politics and Policy, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science.

Image credit: Photo by Jeff W via unsplash .

About the author

Albert Ward is a PhD Candidate at the University of Oxford

The cost-of-living crisis is a public health issue February 3rd, 2023

Related posts.

Trial by artificial intelligence? How technology is reshaping our legal system

September 8th, 2023.

Sarah Everard: The tipping point to take violence against women and girls seriously?

October 6th, 2021.

How to counter the risks of medical tourism

November 27th, 2023.

Should the UK politicise the selection of its judges?

August 29th, 2023.

Decriminalisation or legalisation: injecting evidence in the drug law reform debate

Professor & Specialist in Drug Policy, UNSW Sydney

Disclosure statement

Alison Ritter receives funding from the NHMRC, the ARC and The Colonial Foundation Trust. She was a participant in the Australia 21 Roundtable held in January, 2012.

UNSW Sydney provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

We should all be concerned about our laws on illegal drugs because they affect all of us – people who use drugs; who have family members using drugs; health professionals seeing people for drug-related problems; ambulance and police officers in the front line of drug harms; and all of us who pay high insurance premiums because drug-related crime is extensive.

Drug-related offences also take up the lion’s share of the work of police, courts and prisons. But what can we do? Some people feel that we should legalise drugs – treat them like alcohol and tobacco, as regulated products. And legalisation doesn’t necessarily need to apply for every illegal drug.

Why legalise?

One of the arguments for legalisation is that it would eliminate (or at least significantly reduce) the illegal black market and criminal networks associated with the drug trade. Other arguments include moving the problem away from police and the criminal justice system and concentrating responses within health.

Governments could accrue taxation revenue from illegal drugs as they currently do from gambling, alcohol and tobacco. A regulated government monopoly could secure direct income; our research suggests this may be as high as $600 million a year for a regulated cannabis market in New South Wales.

The strongest argument against legalisation is that it would result in significant increases in drug use. We know that currently legal drugs, such as alcohol and tobacco, are widely consumed and associated with an extensive economic burden to society – including hospital admissions, alcoholism treatment programs and public nuisance. So why create an environment where this may also come to pass for currently illegal drugs?

The moral argument against legalisation suggests the use of illegal drugs is amoral, anti-social and otherwise not acceptable in today’s society. The concern is that legalisation would “send the wrong message”.

Unfortunately, there’s no direct research evidence on legalisation because no country has legalised drugs yet. But suppositions can be made about the extent of cost-savings to society.

Indeed, some of our research on a regulated legal cannabis market suggests that there may not be the significant savings under a legalisation regime that some commentators have argued. But these are hypothetical exercises.

• Decriminalisation

An alternative to legalisation is decriminalisation. Experts don’t agree on the terminology and there’s much confusion. But, in essence, decriminalisation refers to a reduction of legal penalties. This can be done either by changing them to civil penalties, such as fines, or by diverting drug use offenders away from a criminal conviction and into education or treatment options (also known as “diversion”).

Decriminalisation largely applies to drug use and possession offences, not to the sale or supply of drugs. Arguments in favour of decriminalisation include its focus on drug users rather than drug suppliers. The idea is to provide users with a more humane and sensible response to their drug use.

Decriminalisation has the potential to reduce the burden on police and the criminal justice system. It also removes the negative consequences (including stigma) associated with criminal convictions for drug use.

One argument against decriminalisation is that it doesn’t address the black market and criminal networks of drug selling. There are also concerns that it may lead to increased drug use but this assumes that current criminal penalties operate as a deterrent for some people.

The moral arguments noted above also apply to decriminalisation – lesser penalties may suggest that society approves of drug use.

Many countries, including Australia, have decriminalised cannabis use: measures include providing diversion programs (all Australian states and territories), and moving from criminal penalties to civil penalties (such as fines in South Australia, Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory).

Our team’s research on Portugal suggests that drug use rates don’t rise under decriminalisation, and there are measurable savings to the criminal justice system.

In Australia also, there hasn’t been a rise in cannabis use rates despite states and territories introducing civil penalties for users. And research on diverting drug use offenders away from a criminal conviction and into treatment has shown that these individuals are just as likely to succeed in treatment as those who attend voluntarily.

At the same time, research has also noted a negative side effect to the way in which decriminalisation currently operates in Australia – “net widening” - whereby more people are swept up into the criminal justice system than would have occurred otherwise under full prohibition because discretion by police is less likely and/or they do not fulfil their obligations.

Despite the largely supportive evidence base, politicians appear reluctant to proceed along the decriminalisation path. Some commentators have speculated that this is because of public opinion – decriminalisation is regarded as an unpopular policy choice .

But public opinion is largely in support of decriminalisation, where it concerns cannabis (though not decriminalisation for other illegal drugs). In the last national survey , more than 80% of Australians supported decriminalisation options for cannabis. The other reason for equivocal policy support, I believe, is a lack of clarity about the issues.

There’s poor understanding about the different models of decriminalisation and some basic confusion exists. Many people equate decriminalisation with legalisation, but as detailed above, they are very different in policy, intent and action.

Decriminalisation is also sometimes incorrectly confused with harm reduction services, such as injecting centres or prescribed heroin programs.

The Australia21 Report released last week to stimulate informed public debate is an important step foward. In order for the debate to progress, we need clarity of terms, and dispassionate presentation of what evidence we have. Every policy has both risks and benefits and we need to talk about these.

• War on Drugs
• Drug reform
• Drug legalisation

Scheduling Analyst

Assistant Editor - 1 year cadetship

Executive Dean, Faculty of Health

Lecturer/Senior Lecturer, Earth System Science (School of Science)

Sydney Horizon Educators (Identified)

2018 Theses Doctoral

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

More About This Work

• DOI Copy DOI to clipboard

• Mon 14 Feb 2022

Five benefits of legalising drugs that may change your perspective 

• By Ariana Yekrangi

Legalising drugs would make drug use safer, but the bigger impact of moving to a regulated drug market is that it would defy racism, reduce chaos and violence and make us wealthier. 

What does decriminalisation of drugs mean VS what does it mean to legalise drugs

When we talk about decriminalising all drugs, within a legal framework, we don’t necessarily refer to them being legalised. In other words, drug ownership and personal use would itself still be legally prohibited, but violations of those prohibitions are deemed to be exclusively administrative violations and are removed completely from the criminal realm. Ideally, we want the legalisation of all drugs, however, decriminalising them could also be an attractive short-term solution. Here are five arguments for legalising drugs.

1. Reducing drug violence and regulating its consumption

Will legalising drugs reduce drug trafficking.

The global market for goods, including drugs, is based on the simple principle of supply and demand. When a government reduces the supply of any particular drug without reducing its demand for it, its price goes up. However, unlike many other goods, the consumption of drugs is not particularly price-sensitive. 

As the notorious United States’ ban of alcohol during the 1920s demonstrated, public demand for the drug remained high, which in turn fueled an increase in bootleg booze and speakeasies. But that wasn’t all. It aided the emergence of various mafia gangs and other crime syndicates.

This is often known as the balloon effect, referring to the fact that when squeezing an inflated balloon, it just moves the air around, instead of completely getting rid of it. 

Legalising drugs gives us a unique opportunity to address this issue and remove much of the crime and violence associated with it. In 2018, the number of drug-related homicides in Mexico was a whopping 33,341. Imagine saving this amount of lives, just in Mexico! 

Moreover, legalising drugs further allows us to regulate its consumption. Currently, most children are easily able to buy various drugs from their friendly neighbourhood dealers, since selling drugs to children isn’t a moral code most drug cartels swear by. 

The solution is simple: let us run the drug market, not gangsters!

2. A unique chance to defy racism 

Across many nations, drug laws are not only unnecessarily strict, but also fuel systemic racism. This is not breaking news and can easily be observed if one takes the time to look at the relevant data.

In September, Simon Woolley, an ex-No 10 adviser warned Borris Johnson’s government about this very issue: “For decades, politicians from all sides have either turned a blind eye to drug policy failures or weaponised the debate to score cheap political points,” he said. “This has led to half a century of stagnation, which has landed with force on our black communities, driving up needless criminalisation and undermining relationships with the police.”

However, this is not a unique case in the UK. Across the Atlantic, in the United States, black people are several times more likely than white people to be arrested for marijuana possession; even though both groups smoke weed at similar rates. Just in 2020, people of colour made up 94% of marijuana arrests by the NYPD .

But it is not only the legal system that suffers from systematic racism; the name of a drug like Marijuana, for example, has a clear racist background.

The use of the word Marijuana increased dramatically in the US during William Randolph Hearst’s desperate campaign to create hysteria around the impact of cannabis. In fact, he decided to use a foreign-sounding name (Marijuana) to scare off Americans about an invasion of marijuana-smoking Mexican men assaulting their white women. Scary heh? 

True, legalising drugs will not, by itself, solve racism. However, numerous studies have already proven that as the general number of arrests decline, so do the racial disparities that come with them. 

3. Stopping systematic drug-related human rights abuses around the world

Capital punishment for drug trafficking is a serious offence across human right’s violating countries such as China, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore and Vietnam. According to Harm Reduction International, as of 2020, thirty-five countries still retain the death penalty for drug offences.

These thirty-five nations continue to undermine the human rights and well-being of persons who use drugs and that of their families and communities. The practice is not only a blatant breach of drug user’s/traffickers human rights, but also one which is in clear violation of international law. 

In 2020, Amnesty International recorded at least 30 executions for drug-related offences carried out in only three countries (China, Iran and Saudi Arabia), a decrease of 75% from 2019. Do keep in mind though that the 75% reduction in executions is during a period when most countries are hit by the Covid pandemic and were likely to have strict quarantine and lockdown measures in place. The figure was drastically higher in the anteceding years. In 2019, 122 drug-related executions were confirmed, whereas in 2015 the number of executions was a whopping 755.

Legalising drugs will have an immense impact on the lives of hundreds who are killed as well as thousands of others across the globe who are on death row for various drug offences.

The United Nations’ 2019 report “ What we have learned over the last ten years ” is a comprehensive resource on the organisation’s commitments on drug-related matters. One only needs to hope that the UN approaches its solutions with adamant hands.

4. Actually helping addicts

Would legalising drugs increase addiction.

Pretty much everything we have been taught about addiction is a fab. Most don’t get addicted because it is fun, most don’t enjoy being junkies.

During the 1970s, Bruce Alexander, a Canadian psychologist, published a number of studies known as the “rat park experiments”. The experiment essentially studied two groups of rats, both of which were pre-addicted to morphine. The first group was placed in separate cages, while the other group was added to a rat colony, with regular social access to other rats where they could play and have plenty of sex. 

Already becoming jealous? No? Just me? Moving on… 

During this period, both groups were offered a choice between water and a morphine solution. The shocking result was that the rats living together in the colony drank significantly less morphine than those living alone in isolation.

A similar conclusion resulted from a study conducted on US servicemen returning from the Vietnam war. During various military urine tests in 1971, it became clear that drug use amongst soldiers in Vietnam had reached epidemic proportions. In September 1971, a random sample of 470 soldiers, as well as another sample of 495 soldiers who had previously been tested positive for opioids, were selected and interviewed by sociologist Lee N. Robins.

All the men had been serving in Vietnam for exactly one year, so their exposure to the country’s heroin and opium resources was the same. After a closer inspection, it became known that almost half of all army men enlisted in Vietnam had tried heroin or opium and that 20% of them had developed an addiction to them. 

It may seem common knowledge that the availability of a certain drug directly correlates with its consumption. However, what surprised the research team in this particular study was that eight to 12 months after the soldiers had returned home, heroin use was uncommon, even amongst those who had previously become addicted to the drug in Vietnam. In fact, during the first year back home, only 5% of men had relapsed to addiction.

Although both experiments have their limitations when it comes to the repeatability and applications to society, they both teach us a valuable lesson: environmental factors matter and must be an undeniable aspect in prevention programmes and policies impacting drugs and crime. 

Our penal system must be rehabilitative, not vindictive. Let’s not forget that a criminal conviction relating to drugs can have devastating effects upon someone’s life. It can cause personal relationships to fall apart and limit future work opportunities and further alienate those who are in desperate need of our help. This doesn’t need to be the case. Instead of stopping drug users, let’s support them instead.

5. More tax money

Legal drugs present the possibility of tremendous benefits to economies especially as a means to recover from the pandemic induced economic downturn. 

Looking at this again, over the past few years, the sale of a drug like marijuana in states like Colorado and Washington have resulted in buoyant tax revenues. According to a report from Arcview Market Research and BDS Analytics, cannabis sales in the country were $12.2 billion in 2019 and projected to increase to $31.1 billion by 2024.

But that’s not all, we will also be able to save vast sums of money as fewer law enforcement officers would be required and fewer court cases involving drug substances would go to trial. Legalising drugs can also create more jobs and investment opportunities. 

Reform! The drug legalisation debate can be a complex one, however what is clear is that the war on drugs was an ill-advised policy that we have been pursuing for the last 80 years.

It is time we listen to experts. It is time that we understand that nations don’t live in a vacuum and global challenges require global solutions. 

Drugs can bring us joy; drugs can harm us. Legalise them and give them to doctors, pharmacists and regulated retailers, not criminals. 

Please contact us if you have any comments or would like us to write about potential arguments against legalising drugs.

Empower us to do more!

‘Embracing genocide’: How Iranian monarchists are championing Israel’s deadly onslaught on Palestine

Looking away from Gaza will not assuage our conscience; only action will

The end of a charade: Israel’s collapse under global condemnation

Revitalising Global Engagement: The Case for a United Nations Peace Corps

‘No place for the politicisation of aid’: Why the West’s UNRWA fund cuts are nakedly political

How Michelangelo’s “Fruit Basket” captures the fleeting essence of life

To be or not to be European alone: Horizons of EU expansion

Julia Hartley-Brewer’s racism is a common reality for brown man – I know, having experienced it firsthand

Frail and Ambiguous Words: How Diplomacy Hinders Peace in Gaza

António Guterres Named as the UN-aligned Person of the Year

Nation-Building and Indigenous Struggles: Histories, Rights and Representation

To be or not to be European alone — The Gordian Magazine

Welcome to the February issue of The Gordian Magazine. In this edition, we venture into the depths of a question that has, for centuries, puzzled and provoked: “To be or not to be European alone”. As we stand at the crossroads of history, the fabric of our collective identity is being stretched and tested by the forces of nationalism and globalisation, each tugging in its direction.

Read The Gordian for free

The Gordian Magazine is a community-supported magazine that shares YOUR revolutionary ideas in regards to human rights, animal welfare and environmental protection. Every issue contains global news, opinions and long reads accompanied by striking photography and insightful companion pieces.

We promise not to spam your inbox. Find how we use your information.

Or become a free member .

• The Gordian →
• Get involved →
• Contact us →
• The UN-aligned manifesto
• As an Alternative UN
• The international political party
• On Facebook
• On Instagram

UN-aligned uses cookies to make this website better.

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

Should drugs be legalized? Essay

Incensed by the steadily growing number of deaths, crime and corruption created by illicit drug trade and use in the recent years, a number of persons drawn from both the government and the private sector have been calling for the legalization of drugs to curb the problems associated with the abuse and trade in drugs such as cocaine, heroin, and marijuana.

They argue that such a move would do more than any single act or policy in removing the biggest of society’s social and political problems. However, these calls are unfortunate and could throw an already grave problem completely out of hand. If examined carefully, it becomes clear that legalization of drugs would not bring a solution to any of the problems associated with drug abuse.

Proponents of the move to legalize argue that drug use should be an individual’s choice and the government should not control it in any way. This argument has two key shortcomings. First, we cannot just do anything we want with our bodies, just the same way a person cannot walk down the street naked, or say anything we want anywhere. The government has to step in at some point. Drug use is obviously more harmful than these two inconceivable acts.

Secondly, when people opt to do “whatever they want” with their bodies, such as drug use, it not only affects them, but also those around them (DEA, 2003). To put it practically, a driver who is ‘high’ on drugs puts the life of others on the road in danger. Such a person cannot operate machinery or even tend for their children and families as required of them. Therefore, the argument that every one has a right to do whatever they want with their bodies is simply misplaced.

Proponents of the debate to legalize drugs argue that this move will discourage drug use, citing a report by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction that the Dutch are the lowest users of cannabis. They attribute this to Netherlands’ soft stance on drugs which permits cannabis sale at coffee shops and the possession of not more than 5 grams of cannabis. However, this is a shallow argument.

The Dutch government’s soft policy on marijuana use has created a much bigger problem: the differentiation of markets between hard drug users and dealers (heroin, cocaine and amphetamines) and soft drug users (marijuana) (NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2001).

Consequently, the number of marijuana users has fallen as most people have resorted to hard drugs, making the country a criminal center for illegal artificial drug manufacture, especially ecstasy, in addition to becoming a home for the production and export of marijuana breeds that have been reported to be ten times higher than normal (DEA, 2003). Besides, a 2001 study in Australia that found that prohibition deters drug abuse (NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2001).

Drug laws are very important in keeping these harmful substances out of reach of children. As long as drugs laws are put in place, the prices will continue to be higher, beyond the reach of most underage persons and even youths. The link between pricing and rate of drug use among young adults is evident in alcohol and drug use.

Studies show that high prices of alcohol and cigarettes result into decline in use of the substances (DEA, 2003). In addition, legalization of drugs would encourage sellers to recruit children sellers who can easily convince their peers to use the substances, hence increasing drug penetration into society. As long as drugs are not legalized, such a move is very unlikely, or can occur only in small scales.

DEA (U.S. Department of Justice: Drug Enforcement Administration). (2003 ). Speaking out against Drug Legalization . Web.

NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. (2001). Does prohibition deter cannabis use? Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, May 17). Should drugs be legalized? https://ivypanda.com/essays/should-drugs-be-legalized/

"Should drugs be legalized?" IvyPanda , 17 May 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/should-drugs-be-legalized/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Should drugs be legalized'. 17 May.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Should drugs be legalized?" May 17, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/should-drugs-be-legalized/.

1. IvyPanda . "Should drugs be legalized?" May 17, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/should-drugs-be-legalized/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Should drugs be legalized?" May 17, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/should-drugs-be-legalized/.

• Marijuana and Its Economic Value in the USA
• How New York Would Benefit From Legalized Medical Marijuana
• Medical Marijuana Policy in the United States
• Problems with Bureaucracy
• Contemporary Examples of Fascist Thoughts
• Revolution's Positive Effects
• Crime Prevention Programs in the State of California
• Fundamental Right to Live: Abolish the Death Penalty

Marijuana Legalization - Free Essay Examples And Topic Ideas

Marijuana legalization is a contentious issue with implications for health, economy, and society. Essays might explore the arguments for and against legalization, the experiences of regions where marijuana has been legalized, and the legal, economic, and social ramifications of legalization. Additionally, discussions might extend to the medical uses of marijuana, its impact on the criminal justice system, and its societal perceptions. We have collected a large number of free essay examples about Marijuana Legalization you can find in Papersowl database. You can use our samples for inspiration to write your own essay, research paper, or just to explore a new topic for yourself.

Marijuana Legalization and Regulation

Medications/Drugs are a part of everyday life. We take medications for various ailments, to return ourselves to good health. Yet, as time and healthcare technology have moved along, we have discovered that some medications or drugs are inherently good (i.e.: antibiotics, cancer medications, and insulin) and some are inherently bad or, at least, can be used for bad purposes (i.e.: mind altering substances such as LSD, and cocaine). The "bad" drugs can be deadly. They have effects that can addict […]

Medical Marijuana and Marijuana Legalization

Thursday, June 09, 2011 Much debate has been conducted regarding the legalization of marijuana, with an unusual amount of contradicting research. There are many perspectives to take into account, and they always seem to come down to the personal motives of the debater. Whether it's being argued from a medical, political, or economical perspective; it continually comes down to whether Federal Government should be our dictators or we should be responsible for our actions. The Canadian medical Association Journal reports […]

Marijuana should be Legalized?

We are living in an era where noxious things like alcohol, rum and cigarettes -that lead us to nothing but a dreadful death- are legal, and a plant which has no obnoxious effects on our body and mind is illegal. For years and years, marijuana has been used as a mean to achieve elation. The criterion to impose a ban on something, or to term it illegal, is that its cons should overshadow its pros; and that it will have […]

We will write an essay sample crafted to your needs.

Medical Marijuana Legalization the Good Bad and Ugly

The legalization of medical marijuana has been discussed amongst the country's states for decades. Medical marijuana legalization has taken a positive shift throughout these years and is now legal in 20 states and the District of Columbia. The initial drug, marijuana, was band for the dangerous effects it brought to people. Throughout the year's people have turned to marijuana to ease anxiety, pain, and stress. Legalizing marijuana has brought multiple perspectives on the topic. Differences such as medical marijuana legalization, […]

Medical Marijuana Legalization

Marijuana legalization has become a topic of relevance in the United States as recent changes in various state legislations fuel the controversial issue relating to its effects on society. With more than thirty states legalizing marijuana for medicinal or recreational uses, the once taboo topic has reemerged into the spotlight for policymakers to consider the benefits and adverse effects of cannabis for state legislation. Although the legal status is changing nationwide, the uncertainties surrounding marijuana today stem from the political […]

Pros and Cons of Legalizing Marijuana

When we first picked our topic for our presentations I had an idea of what we were going to do. Ideas from school shootings to you and human trafficking were some I was thinking of. The drug epidemic was what first came to thought but I felt that was to broad of of a topic. With state after state legalizing Medical or Recreational Marijuana it is becoming more likely within the near future will become federally legal. Today there are […]

Against Marijuana Legalization

In my high school years I met a lot of people, I’ve meet hundreds of people who ruined their lives by just “trying” a drug. One of those friends is named Carmen, my dear friend Carmen smokes marijuana recreationally everyday, she’s tried everything under the rainbow; pot brownies, gummi bears, cookies, anything that you can think of is probably an edible. She’s even forced me to try marijuana when we were in high school once. It was the worst experience […]

Marijuana Legalization in Texas: an In-Depth Examination of the Ongoing Debate

The contentious issue of marijuana legalization has engendered fervent discourse across the United States, resulting in a patchwork of divergent legislation among different states. The state of Texas, renowned for its traditionally conservative ideology, is now grappling with a pivotal juncture as it engages in more prevalent deliberations around the legalization of marijuana. The primary objective of this essay is to critically analyze the complex and intricate discourse pertaining to the subject matter in the state of Texas. This analysis […]

Legalization of Marijuana: Good or Bad

The legalization of marijuana is a hot topic these days. Marijuana has been legalized in many different states. Colorado legalized marijuana for recreational use in 2012. Since then, Texas has been talking of legalizing it as well. Although the legalization of marijuana has brought quite a bit of controversy over the nation, I believe the good outweigh the bad. Marijuana is used for different medical reasons, ranging from anxiety all the way to helping some side effects of cancer. Many […]

Legalization of Recreational Marijuana

Marijuana, also known as pot, weed, kush, or dank, is a debated topic nationwide. Surveys have shown that " more than half of American adults have tried marijuana at least once in their lives ...nearly 55 million of them, or twenty two percent, currently use it"(Ingraham). Many people believe that there are only few negative effects affiliated with smoking weed, but there are many poor and preventable outcomes that are not always taken into consideration. The effects of marijuana on […]

A Legalized Drug in the United States

In the United States, marijuana is one of the most commonly used drugs that should have been legalized a long time ago along with alcohol. Although, 15 states in the United States have already legalized the use of marijuana, many others still lag behind at the thought of even legalizing Cannabis. In addition, many people think that marijuana is a bad drug, while on the other hand, people like myself believe for many reasons that it should be legalized. Marijuana […]

Pro-Legalization of Marijuana

Marijuana has always been a much-discussed subject that has sparked heated discussions among experts and officials, in addition to a perpetual dialogue among family and associates. This is primarily due to the fact that people are still divided on whether cannabis should be legalized or not. While many people are aware of the dangers of cannabis for recreational purposes, many states are pushing for the legalization of medical cannabis. Several studies of cannabinoid elements have revealed its medicinal qualities, which […]

Proposal One: Impact on Warren, MI’s Future

Proposal One is the allowing of individuals age 21 and older to purchase, possess and use marijuana and marijuana-infused edibles, and grow up to 12 marijuana plants for personal consumption. Impose a 10-ounce limit for marijuana kept at residences and require that amounts over 2.5 ounces be secured in locked containers. Creating a state licensing system for marijuana businesses including growers, processors, and transporters. Ryan Mainer (Libertarian party) supports proposal one. How do we know this is true? He has […]

The Legalization of Marijuana Today

Over the last decade, there has been plenty of speculation revolving around the whether the legalization of marijuana is even ethical, well it is here, and it is legal. For the time being it happens to be in only a select number of states. Despite some people not agreeing with various laws that have decriminalized marijuana because they still believe it is a harmful "drug" for humans. Well when the facts reveal the real benefits from marijuana and how it […]

Legalization of Marijuana: the Current Situation

Scholars are increasingly exhibiting interest in matters concerning marijuana legalization especially considering laws related to healthcare. The increments in interest emanate from concerns that legalization of this drug is not in alignment with existing health-related laws according to the federal government (Kilmer et al., 2010). According to Hopfer (2014), the government has failed to fully support legalization because few studies have been conducted to prove its medicinal worth. Nonetheless, medical legalization of this particular drug is increasingly gaining support. A […]

Marijuana Decriminalization in all States

The government should legalize marijuana on the federal use due to the multifaceted health, economic, and criminal benefits now outweigh the outdated downsides of use. Many researchers have come to the conclusion of outdated research not being correct. "One function of government is to protect citizens from harm, whether it is from foreign enemies or from internal causes such as poisonous food or contaminated water." Researchers believe that legalizing marijuana will not help the people only harm them and the […]

The Cost and Benefit of Legalization of Marijuana

In recent years, marijuana has become a controversial topic, and the United States government has been struggling to find a solution for the legalization of marijuana. Some argue that the government should legalize marijuana because it is less harmful than alcohol and tobacco. They also believe legalizing marijuana will decrease crime rates, especially drug trafficking. It is because marijuana is illegal in most states, and its penalties are often quite harsh, which can deter people from committing related crimes. Others […]

Legalization of Marijuana Throughout States

Legalization of marijuana use is spreading throughout states in the nation. There are many people who want to make recreational marijuana legal in the state of Texas. Some opponents of keeping marijuana criminalized argue that it would decreased alcohol and tobacco consumption, makes people passive and peaceful and that it aids those who are in pain. However after researching the effects that long-term marijuana use has on people, one will find that those are not realistically always the case and […]

The Impacts of Legalizing Marijuana

The impacts of legalizing marijuana have been far reaching. Legal or not, there are health issues to consider when it comes to medicinal purposes or recreational purposes. Studies show that non-medical marijuana users are at an increased risk for physical ailments involving the respiratory system and pulmonary functions. Psychological problems are also a concern, involving depression, insomnia, anxiety, and drug addiction. Other things associated with marijuana use are criminal justice involvement and lower academic achievement and functioning (Lankenau, et al., […]

Legalization of Marijuana and Economic Growth

These would make occupations as well as set the ball moving for financial action in the pot business in these regions. On account of states like California and Nevada where such foundation as of now exists, the financial effect has turned out to be more quantifiable as the part has developed. A RCG Economics and Marijuana Policy Group consider on Nevada says that legitimizing recreational marijuana in the state could bolster more than 41,000 employments till 2024 and produce over […]

Marijuana as a Psychoactive Drug

Marijuana is a psychoactive drug from the Cannabis plant used for medical or recreational purposes. It is sold in the form of dried leaves which can be smoked. Recreational marijuana was introduced in the U.S in the early 20th century by immigrants from Mexico. Marijuana is a controversial topic in the United States because many people think it shouldn't be legalized . Some will agree on making it legal throughout the United States, and some would think otherwise. Many debates […]

Persuasive Speeches on Legalizing Weed: Exploring the Benefits and Concerns

Introduction Legalizing marijuana is a controversial topic for many states. If marijuana is legalized, it would save prisons and jails funds because they could release people who have been convicted of felonies with the dealing of this incidental drug. This means that the government would have more money to use towards education on the safe use of the product and the prosecution of dealers who control the use of extremely dangerous hard drugs. However, people against legalizing marijuana argue that […]

Related topic

Additional example essays.

• Substance Abuse and Mental Illnesses
• Drunk Driving
• Homelessness Problem In LA
• War On Drugs and Mass Incarceration
• Is Social Media Making Us More Narcissistic?
• Why Smoking Is Illegal For Pregnant Women
• The Mental Health Stigma
• Logical Fallacies in Letter From Birmingham Jail
• Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner
• Oedipus is a Tragic Hero
• Nursing Shortage: solutions of the problem
• Homelessness in America

How To Write an Essay About Marijuana Legalization

Introduction to marijuana legalization.

When embarking on an essay about marijuana legalization, it's crucial to begin with a comprehensive overview of the topic. Marijuana legalization is a multifaceted issue that encompasses legal, medical, social, and economic dimensions. Your introduction should briefly touch upon the history of marijuana use and its legal status over time, setting the stage for a deeper exploration of the arguments for and against legalization. Establish your thesis statement, outlining the specific aspect of marijuana legalization you will focus on, whether it's the potential medical benefits, the social implications, or the economic impact of legalizing marijuana.

Examining the Arguments for Legalization

In this section, delve into the arguments commonly made in favor of legalizing marijuana. These arguments often include the potential medical benefits of marijuana, such as its use in pain management and treatment of certain medical conditions. Discuss the viewpoint that legalization could lead to better regulation and quality control of the substance, as well as potentially reduce crime rates related to illegal drug trade. It's also important to consider the economic aspect, such as the revenue generated from taxing legal marijuana sales. Provide well-researched evidence and examples to support these arguments, ensuring that your essay presents a balanced and informed perspective.

Exploring the Counterarguments

Next, address the arguments against marijuana legalization. These may include concerns about the health risks associated with marijuana use, such as potential impacts on mental health and cognitive function, especially among young people. Discuss the fears that legalization might lead to increased usage rates, particularly in adolescents, and the potential for marijuana to act as a gateway drug. There's also the argument regarding the challenges of enforcing regulations and controlling the quality and distribution of legal marijuana. Like the previous section, ensure that you present these counterarguments with supporting evidence and a fair analysis, demonstrating an understanding of the complexities of the issue.

Concluding the Essay

Conclude your essay by summarizing the main points from both sides of the argument. This is your opportunity to reinforce your thesis and provide a final analysis of the issue based on the evidence presented. Reflect on the potential future of marijuana legalization, considering the current trends and policy changes. A well-crafted conclusion should provide closure to your essay and encourage the reader to continue contemplating the nuanced aspects of marijuana legalization. Your concluding remarks might also suggest areas for further research or consideration, underscoring the ongoing nature of the debate surrounding marijuana legalization.

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

University of Notre Dame

Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews

• Home ›
• Reviews ›
• The Legalization of Drugs: For & Against

The Legalization of Drugs: For & Against

Douglas Husak and Peter de Marneffe, The Legalization of Drugs: For & Against , Cambridge University Press, 2005, 204pp., $18.99 (pbk), ISBN 0521546869.

Reviewed by William Hawk, James Madison University

In the United States the production, distribution and use of marijuana, heroin, and cocaine are crimes subjecting the offender to imprisonment. The Legalization of Drugs , appearing in the series "For and Against" edited by R. G. Frey for Cambridge University Press, raises the seldom-asked philosophical question of the justification, if any, of imprisoning persons for drug offenses.

Douglas Husak questions the justification for punishing persons who use drugs such as marijuana, heroin, and cocaine. He develops a convincing argument that imprisonment is never morally justified for drug use. Put simply, incarceration is such a harsh penalty that drug use, generally harmless to others and less harmful to the user than commonly supposed, fails to justify it. Any legal scheme that punishes drug users to achieve another worthy goal, such as creating a disincentive to future drug users, violates principles of justice.

Peter de Marneffe contends that under some circumstances society is morally justified in punishing persons who produce and distribute heroin. He argues a theoretical point that anticipated rises in drug abuse and consequent effects on young people may justify keeping heroin production and distribution illegal. According to de Marneffe's analysis, however, harsh prison penalties currently imposed on drug offenders are unjustified.

The points of discord between Husak's and de Marneffe's positions are serious but not as telling as is their implicit agreement. Current legal practices and policies which lead to lengthy incarceration of those who produce, distribute and use drugs such as marijuana, heroin, and cocaine are not, and cannot be, morally justified. Both arguments, against imprisoning drug users and for keeping heroin production illegal, merit a broad and careful reading.

The United States has erected an enormous legal structure involving prosecution and incarceration designed to prohibit a highly pleasurable, sometimes medically indicated and personally satisfying activity, namely using marijuana, heroin, and cocaine. At the same time, other pleasure-producing drugs, such as tobacco, alcohol, and caffeine, though legally regulated for the purposes of consumer safety and under-age consumption, can be purchased over the counter. As a result, while the health and safety risks of cigarettes may be greater than those proven to accompany marijuana, one can buy cigarettes from a vending machine and but go to prison for smoking marijuana. A rational legal system, according to Husak, demands a convincing, but as yet not forthcoming, explanation of why one pleasurable drug subjects users to the risk of imprisonment while the other is accommodated in restaurants.

Drug prohibitionists must face the problem that any "health risk" argument used to distinguish illicit drugs and subject offenders to prison sentences runs up against the known, yet tolerated, health risks of tobacco, as well as the additional health risks associated with incarceration. "Social costs" arguments targeting heroin or cocaine runs up against the known, yet tolerated, social costs of alcohol, as well as the additional social costs of incarceration. Even if one were to accept that illicit drugs were more harmful or exacted greater social costs than tobacco and alcohol (and the empirical studies referred to in the text do not generally support this thesis), that difference proves insufficient to justify imprisoning producers, distributors or especially users of illicit drugs.

Decriminalizing Drug Use. Douglas Husak presents a very carefully argued case for decriminalizing drug use. He begins his philosophical argument by clarifying the concepts and issues involved. To advocate the legalization of drugs calls for a legal system in which the production and sale of drugs are not criminal offenses. (p. 3) Criminalization of drugs makes the use of certain drugs a criminal offense, i.e. one deserving punishment. To argue for drug decriminalization, as Husak does, is not necessarily to argue for legalization of drugs . Husak entertains, but cautiously rejects the notion of a system where production and sale of drugs is illegal while use is not a crime. De Marneffe advocates such a system.

Punishing persons by incarceration demands justification. Since the state's use of punishment is a severe tool and incarceration is by its nature "degrading, demoralizing and dangerous" (p. 29) we must be able to provide "a compelling reason … to justify the infliction of punishment… ." (p. 34) Husak finds no compelling reason for imprisoning drug users. After considering four standard justifications for punishing drug users Husak concludes that "the arguments for criminalization are not sufficiently persuasive to justify the infliction of punishment."

Reasons to Criminalize Drug Use . 1) Drug users, it is claimed, should be punished in order to protect the health and well being of citizens . No doubt states are justified in protecting the health and well being of citizens. But does putting drug users in prison contribute to this worthy goal? Certainly not for those imprisoned. For those who might be deterred from using drugs the question is whether the drugs from which they are deterred by the threat of imprisonment actually pose a health risk. For one, Husak quotes research showing that currently illicit drugs do not obviously pose a greater health threat than alcohol or tobacco. For another, he quotes a statistic showing that approximately four times as many persons die annually from using prescribed medicines than die from using illegal drugs. In addition, one-fourth of all pack-a-day smokers lose ten to fifteen years of their lives but no one would entertain the idea of incarcerating smokers to further their health interests or in order to prevent non-smokers from beginning. In sum, Husak accepts that drug use poses health risks but contends that the risks are not greater than others that are socially accepted. Even if they were greater, imprisonment does not reduce, but compounds the health risks for prisoners.

2) Punishing drug users protects children . Husak here responds to de Marneffe's essay which focuses on potential drug abuse and promotes the welfare of children as a justification for keeping drug production and sale illegal. Husak finds punishing adolescent users a peculiar way to protect them. To punish one drug-using adolescent in order to prevent a non-using adolescent from using drugs is ineffective and also violates justice. Punishing adult users so that youth do not begin using drugs and do not suffer from neglect -- which is de Marneffe's position -- is not likely to prevent adolescents from becoming drug users, and even if it did, one would have to show that the harm prevented to the youth justifies imprisoning adults. Husak contends that punishing adults or youth, far from protecting youth, puts them at greater risk.

3) Some, e.g. former New York City mayor Guiliani, argue that punishing drug use prevents crime . Husak, conceding a connection between drug use and crime, turns the argument upside-down, showing how punishment increases rather than decreases crime. For one, criminalization of drugs forces the drug industry to settle disputes extra-legally. Secondly, drug decriminalization would likely lower drug costs thereby reducing economic crimes. Thirdly, to those who contend that illicit drugs may increase violence and aggression Husak responds that: a) empirical evidence does not support marijuana or heroin as causes of violence and b) empirical evidence does support alcohol, which is decriminalized, as leading to violence. Husak concludes "if we propose to ban those drugs that are implicated in criminal behavior, no drug would be a better candidate for criminalization than alcohol." (p. 70) Finally, punishing drug users likely increases crime rates since those imprisoned for drug use are released with greater tendencies and skills for future criminal activity.

4) Drug use ought to be punished because using drugs is immoral . In addition to standard philosophical objections to legal moralism, Husak contends that there is no good reason to think that recreational drug use is immoral. Drug use violates no rights. Other recreationally used drugs such as alcohol, tobacco or caffeine are not immoral. The only accounts according to which drug use is immoral are religiously based and generally not shared in the citizenry. Husak argues that legal moralism fails, and with it the attempts to justify imprisoning drug users because of health and well-being, protecting children, or reducing crime. Husak concludes, "If I am correct, prohibitionists are more clearly guilty of immorality than their opponents. The wrongfulness of recreational drug use, if it exists at all, pales against the immorality of punishing drug users." (p. 82)

Reasons to Decriminalize Drug Use. Husak's positive case for decriminalizing drug use begins with acknowledgement that drug use is or may be highly pleasurable. In addition, some drugs aid relaxation, others increase energy and some promote spiritual enlightenment or literary and artistic creativity. The simple fun and euphoria attendant to drug use should count for permitting it.

The fact that criminalization of drug use proves to be counter-productive provides Husak a set of final substantial reasons for decriminalizing use. Criminalizing drugs proves counter-productive along several different lines: 1) criminalization is aimed and selectively enforced against minorities, 2) public health risks increase because drugs are dealt on the street, 3) foreign policy is negatively affected by corrupt governments being supported solely because they support anti-drug policies, 4) a frank and open discussion about drug policy is impossible in the United States, 5) civil liberties are eroded by drug enforcement, 6) some government corruption stems from drug payoffs and 7) criminalization costs tens of billions of dollars per year.

Douglas Husak provides the conceptual clarity needed to work one's way through the various debates surrounding drug use and the law. He establishes a high threshold that must be met in order to justify the state's incarcerating someone. Having laid this groundwork Husak demonstrates that purported justifications for drug criminalization fail and that good reasons for decriminalizing drug use prevail. For persons who worry about what drug decriminalization means for children, Husak counsels that there is more to fear from prosecution and conviction of youth for using drugs than there is to fear from the drugs themselves.

Against Legalizing Drug Production and Distribution. Peter de Marneffe offers an argument against drug legalization . The argument itself is simple. If drugs are legalized, there will be more drug abuse. If there is more drug abuse that is bad. Drug abuse is sufficiently bad to justify making drug production and distribution illegal. Therefore, drugs should not be legalized. The weight of this argument is carried by the claim that the badness of drug abuse is sufficient to justify making drug production and sale illegal.

De Marneffe centers his argument on heroin. Heroin, he contends, is highly pleasurable but sharply depresses motivation to achieve worthwhile goals and meet responsibilities. Accordingly, children in an environment where heroin is legal will be subjected to neglect by heroin using parents and, if they themselves use heroin, they will be harmed by diminished motivation for achievement for the remainder of their lives. It is this later harm to the ambition and motivation of young people that, according to de Marneffe, justifies criminalizing heroin production and sale. As he puts it:

… the risk of lost opportunities that some individuals would bear as the result of heroin legalization justifies the risks of criminal liability and other burdens that heroin prohibition imposes on other individuals. The legalization of heroin would create a social environment -- call it the legalization environment -- in which some children would be at a substantially higher risk of irresponsible heroin abuse by their parents and in which some adolescents would be at a substantially higher risk of self-destructive heroin abuse. (p. 124)

Are the liberties of individual adult drug producers, distributors and users sacrificed? Yes, but this may be justified by de Marneffe's "burdens principle." According to the burdens principle, "the government violates a person's moral rights in adopting a policy that limits her liberty if and only if in adopting this policy the government imposes a burden on her that is substantially worse than the worst burden anyone would bear in the absence of this policy." (p. 159) According to this, de Marneffe claims that burdens on drug vendors or users may be justified by the prevention of harms to a particular individual or individuals. As he puts it:

What I claim in favor of heroin prohibition is that the reasons of at least one person to prefer her situation in a prohibition environment outweigh everyone else's reasons to prefer his or her situation in a legalization environment, assuming that the penalties are gradual and proportionate and other relevant conditions are met. (p. 161)

According to this view, the objective interest of a single adolescent in not losing ambition, motivation and drive justifies the imposition of burdens on other youth and adults who would prefer using drugs. Although Johnny might choose heroin use, his objective interest is for future motivation and ambition that is not harmed by heroin use.

De Marneffe's "burdens principle" seems to hold the whole society hostage to the objective liberty interests of one individual. Were this principle applied to drug producers or distributors who faced imprisonment it seems that imprisonment could not be justified. I suspect a concern for consistency here gives de Marneffe reason to make drug production and distribution illegal but without attaching harsh prison sentences for offenders. He advocates an environment where drugs are not legal, in order to protect youth against both abuse and their own choices that may cause them to become unmotivated, but recognizes that prison sentences are unjustified as a way to support such a system.

In The Legalization of Drugs the reader gets two interesting arguments. Douglas Husak makes a compelling case against punishing drug users. His position amounts to drug decriminalization with skepticism toward making drug production and sale illegal. On the other side, Peter de Marneffe justifies making drug production and sale illegal based upon the diminishment of future interests of young people. De Marneffe introduces a "burdens principle" which is likely much too strong a commitment to individual interests than could ever be realized in a civil society. In both instances, the reader is treated to arguments that effectively undermine current drug policy. The book provides philosophical argumentation that should stimulate a societal conversation about the justifiability of current drug laws.

Advertisement

Supported by

Senate Democrats Reintroduce Legislation to Legalize Marijuana

The bill, which reflects growing support for legalization, would end the federal prohibition on cannabis. But it is unlikely to pass in an election year and a divided government.

• Share full article

By Kayla Guo

Reporting from the Capitol

Senate Democrats reintroduced broad legislation on Wednesday to legalize cannabis on the federal level, a major policy shift with wide public support, but it is unlikely to be enacted this year ahead of November’s elections and in a divided government.

The bill, which amounts to a Democratic wish list for federal cannabis policy, would end the federal prohibition on marijuana by removing it from a controlled substances list. The government currently classifies the drug as among the most dangerous and addictive substances.

The legislation would create a new framework regulating cannabis and taxing the burgeoning cannabis industry, expunge certain federal marijuana-related offenses from criminal records, expand research into marijuana’s health impacts and devote federal money to helping communities and individuals affected by the war on drugs.

The measure, which was first introduced in 2022, was led by Senators Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader; Ron Wyden of Oregon, the chairman of the Finance Committee, and Cory Booker of New Jersey. Fifteen other Senate Democrats have signed on as co-sponsors.

“Over the decades, millions of Americans, most often Americans of color, have had their lives derailed and destroyed by our country’s failed war on drugs,” Mr. Schumer, the first majority leader to call for federal legalization, said on the Senate floor on Wednesday. “In place of the war on drugs, our bill would lay the foundation for something very different: a just and responsible and common-sense approach to cannabis regulation.”

He reintroduced the measure one day after the Justice Department recommended easing restrictions on cannabis and downgrading it to a lower classification on the controlled substances list. That move did not go as far as some advocates and many Democrats have urged, but it was a significant shift reflecting the Biden administration’s efforts to liberalize marijuana policy.

“Reclassifying cannabis is a necessary and long-overdue step, but it is not at all the end of the story,” Mr. Schumer said. “It’s time for Congress to wake up to the times and do its part by passing the cannabis reform that most Americans have long called for. It’s past time for Congress to catch up with public opinion and to catch up with the science.”

But despite support from top Democrats, the legislation is highly unlikely to move in Congress during this election year. Republicans, many of whom have opposed federal cannabis legalization, control the House, and none have signed on to the bill. Congress has also labored to perform even the most basic duties of governance amid deep divisions within the Republican majority in the House. And few must-pass bills remain, leaving proponents without many opportunities to slip it into a bigger legislative package.

Kevin Sabet, who served as a drug policy adviser during the Obama, Bush and Clinton administrations, warned about the dangers of legalization and argued that such a bill would “commercialize” the marijuana industry and create “Big Tobacco 2.0.”

“Let’s not commercialize marijuana in the name of social justice,” said Mr. Sabet, now the president of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, an anti-legalization advocacy group. While he supported certain elements of the bill, such as expunging criminal records and removing criminal penalties for marijuana use, he said legalization was ultimately about “supersizing a commercial industry.”

“And we really have to think long and hard after our horrible experience with Big Tobacco in our country,” he said, “whether that’s going to be good for us or not.”

Still, the legislation reflects growing support among Democrats and across the country in both Republican- and Democratic-leaning states for legalizing access to marijuana, in addition to the issue’s potential political value ahead of an expected election rematch between President Biden and former President Donald J. Trump.

Legalization, in some form, is broadly popular across the country, with 88 percent of Americans saying marijuana should be legal for medical or recreational use, according to a January survey by the Pew Research Center . Twenty-four states have legalized small amounts of marijuana for adult recreational use, and 38 states have approved it for medicinal purposes. And where marijuana legalization has appeared on state ballots , it has won easily , often outperforming candidates in either party.

Advocates of legalization have emphasized the issue’s political potency in trying to convince elected officials.

“If anybody was looking at the political tea leaves, they would have to realize that obstructing cannabis policy reform — it is a losing proposition as a politician,” said Morgan Fox, the political director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, an advocacy group. “This is really a rallying point for people that care about cannabis policy reform.”

At least one Democrat, Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, a leading cannabis advocate in Congress, has urged the Biden administration to embrace full legalization and make it a more prominent part of Mr. Biden’s re-election campaign. He has argued that the issue could help the president engage young people, whose support for him has faltered , but who could be crucial to victory in November.

The Biden administration’s move to downgrade cannabis on the controlled substances list also reflects the president’s evolution on the issue. Mr. Biden has pardoned thousands of people convicted of nonviolent drug offenses in an effort to remedy racial disparities in the justice system. And Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, has emphasized that Mr. Biden had been “very, very clear he doesn’t believe that anyone should be in jail or be prosecuted just for using or possessing marijuana.”

Mr. Trump’s record on legalization is more mixed. In 2018, his administration freed prosecutors to aggressively enforce federal marijuana restrictions in states that had eased prohibitions on the drug. Mr. Trump later appeared to break with his administration, saying he was likely to support a legislative proposal to leave legalization to states, and he pardoned several nonviolent drug offenders .

“This has not been an issue that is really coming up in conversation, at rallies or in media appearances and whatnot,” Mr. Fox said. “It’s kind of an unknown, how a future Trump administration would deal with cannabis.”

Congress is considering more incremental bills that would ease restrictions on marijuana — such as by allowing legal cannabis businesses to access financial services — several of which have bipartisan support. But most are not expected to move during this Congress, given Republican opposition.

Kayla Guo covers Congress for The New York Times as the 2023-24 reporting fellow based in Washington. More about Kayla Guo

Our Coverage of the 2024 Election

Presidential Race

Young voters are far more likely than other Americans to support Palestinians, but few cite the war in Gaza as a top source of their discontent with President Biden, according to recent polls .

After a rough start to the rollout of her memoir , Gov. Kristi Noem of South Dakota, a contender to be Donald Trump’s running mate, has continued to defend shooting her dog .

Geoff Duncan, a Republican who was Georgia’s lieutenant governor when Trump tried to overturn the 2020 election results there, has endorsed Biden .

A Foot Soldier for Trump:  Republicans have spent years drawing Latino evangelicals into their fold. One pastor’s conversion shows how Trump is reaping the benefits .

Talk of Escape:  At Washington dinner parties, dark jokes abound  about where to go into exile if Trump reclaims the White House.

Insulin Takes Center Stage:  Biden says lowering the cost of insulin for seniors is among his proudest domestic policy achievements. He now faces the challenge of selling it to Americans of all ages .

Politics Without Trump?:  Democrats call Trump dangerous, while Republicans see him as revolutionary. For young Trump voters, he is just normal .

Consulter le journal

• International

Le gouvernement américain sur le point de classer le cannabis comme une drogue moins dangereuse

Alors que près des trois quarts des Américains vivent dans un Etat où cette drogue est légale, cette nouvelle classification fédérale pourrait avoir d’importantes répercussions économiques.

Le Monde avec AFP

Temps de Lecture 2 min.

• Ajouter à vos sélections Ajouter à vos sélections
• Partager sur Twitter
• Partager sur Messenger
• Partager sur Facebook
• Envoyer par e-mail
• Partager sur Linkedin
• Copier le lien

Aux Etats-Unis, le cannabis est en passe de voir son statut assoupli au niveau fédéral. Selon l’Agence France-Presse (AFP), s’appuyant sur une source proche des autorités américaines qui a requis l’anonymat, le ministère de la justice a recommandé, mardi 30 avril, à l’office du budget de la Maison Blanche de faire passer le cannabis de la catégorie 1, celle des substances considérées comme très addictives et sans intérêt médical, telles que l’héroïne, à la catégorie 3, dans laquelle se trouvent par exemple certains médicaments à la codéine.

Le ministre de la justice a bien « diffusé une proposition de reclasser le cannabis » de la catégorie 1 à la catégorie 3, a déclaré dans un communiqué un porte-parole du ministère. Il s’agit d’une étape dans le processus de reclassification, qui devrait encore durer un certain temps. La Maison Blanche a décliné tout commentaire sur cette information d’abord révélée par l’agence américaine Associated Press.

Alors que près des trois quarts des Américains vivent dans un Etat où cette drogue est légale, cette nouvelle classification fédérale pourrait avoir d’importantes répercussions économiques. Elle encouragerait la recherche médicale sur le cannabis et allégerait un certain nombre de contraintes réglementaires et fiscales.

Le chef de la majorité démocrate au Sénat, Chuck Schumer, s’est félicité dans un communiqué d’une décision « reconnaissant la nécessité d’un changement des lois restrictives et draconiennes sur le cannabis pour s’adapter à ce que la science et une majorité d’Américains disent clairement » . « Le Congrès doit faire tout ce qui est en [son] pouvoir pour mettre fin à la prohibition fédérale du cannabis et traiter les maux causés de longue date par la “Guerre contre la drogue” » des années 1970.

Le président Joe Biden avait annoncé en octobre 2022 une série de mesures pour effacer les condamnations fédérales de personnes sanctionnées pour simple possession de cannabis, levant ainsi des obstacles qu’elles pouvaient rencontrer en termes d’accès à l’emploi ou au logement. Il avait par ailleurs appelé les autorités sanitaires et judiciaires à repenser les peines associées à la marijuana.

Opposition du Sénat par le passé

En 2020 et 2022, la Chambre des représentants alors dominée par les démocrates avait adopté une proposition de loi visant à rayer le cannabis de la liste fédérale des drogues dangereuses, mais s’était heurtée à l’opposition du Sénat.

A la suite de la légalisation du cannabis au Canada en 2018, des agents de la police américaine des frontières avaient commencé à infliger des interdictions à vie d’entrée aux Etats-Unis aux Canadiens répondant positivement, lors de contrôles, à la question de savoir s’ils en avaient déjà consommé.

Mais vingt-quatre Etats américains, plus le district de Columbia où se trouve la capitale Washington, ont d’ores et déjà légalisé le cannabis, et quatorze autres autorisent un usage purement médical.

Selon une enquête publiée par l’institut de recherche Pew Research en mars, 88 % des Américains pensent que la marijuana devrait être légale, pour un usage médical, pour un usage récréatif ou les deux à la fois. Cet institut avait calculé en février que 74 % des Américains vivaient désormais dans un Etat où la substance est légalisée soit pour usage récréatif, soit pour usage médical.

Services Le Monde

Cours en ligne, cours du soir, ateliers : développez vos compétences

Testez votre culture générale avec la rédaction du Monde

Mots croisés, sudoku, mots trouvés… Jouez avec nous

Gagnez du temps avec notre sélection des meilleurs produits

Retrouvez nos derniers hors-séries, livres et Unes du Monde

Lecture du Monde en cours sur un autre appareil.

Vous pouvez lire Le Monde sur un seul appareil à la fois

Ce message s’affichera sur l’autre appareil.

Parce qu’une autre personne (ou vous) est en train de lire Le Monde avec ce compte sur un autre appareil.

Vous ne pouvez lire Le Monde que sur un seul appareil à la fois (ordinateur, téléphone ou tablette).

Comment ne plus voir ce message ?

En cliquant sur «  Continuer à lire ici  » et en vous assurant que vous êtes la seule personne à consulter Le Monde avec ce compte.

Que se passera-t-il si vous continuez à lire ici ?

Ce message s’affichera sur l’autre appareil. Ce dernier restera connecté avec ce compte.

Y a-t-il d’autres limites ?

Non. Vous pouvez vous connecter avec votre compte sur autant d’appareils que vous le souhaitez, mais en les utilisant à des moments différents.

Vous ignorez qui est l’autre personne ?

Nous vous conseillons de modifier votre mot de passe .

Lecture restreinte

Votre abonnement n’autorise pas la lecture de cet article

Pour plus d’informations, merci de contacter notre service commercial.