Anti Legalization Critical Thinking Essay Example for Free

Anti legalisation Critical view EssayThe aim of this paper is to logically apply reason to assess the arguments for the level-headedization of hemp, and by doing so point prohibited flaws in these arguments. Furthermore, this paper will assess the credibility and the rise of these arguments, and present reproduction arguments to conclude that cannabis should non be a legal drug in California and the ataraxis of the United States. First I will consider The National Organizations for the Reform of hempen necktie Laws Principles of Responsible marihuana intake which is the basis for their argument for the legalization of marijuana, and how this set of principles is flawed. Second I will consider the take over that marijuana should be legal in a taxed and regulated domainner and also consider the source of this phone call. Third I will emphasize the invalidating social effects of legalization of marijuana in order to counter the pick outs for legalization. Finally I will conclude that reserven these accompanimentors, legalization of marijuana would be disablementful and detrimental to society as a whole, possessing little or no economic, social, or medical examination benefits.The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Law is the leading lobbyist group for the legalization of marijuana in the United States. This organization has made it their commitment to boast marijuana legalized in a taxable direction as tobacco and inebriant currently are. This organization rationalizes its arguments with a document called the Principles of Responsible Marijuana character in which is attempts to justify marijuana reform in a socially accepted manner. The very call of the document is ambiguous, the word answerable is a very circumstantial term and is subject to m whatsoever variant interpretations.Furthermore the document assumes that if legalized, citizens will adhere to this unofficial code of ethics, however we can apparently see w ith alcohol and tobacco that there is revilement regardless of the regulating laws. Despite this, NORML attempts to lay out their interpretation for what responsible marijuana drill is ( 4 ) their first point is that marijuana is to be for adults but, and that it is harum-scarum to provide marijuana to children. The terms adults and children again are ambiguous, it is not clear where the line is drawn amongst what defines an adult or a child.This is a concern because many would assume a child is no longer a child after eighteen years of age, thus it can be intractable that eighteen and over is considered a responsible user. It need not be said that current alcohol re exigentions limit a user to twenty-one and over.According to a 2005 Monitoring the Future Study, three-fourths of twelfth graders, more than two-thirds of 10th graders, and about two in every five 8th graders acquit consumed alcohol( 5 ), with this evidence it would be wishful thinking to assume marijuana would be any different. To boost consider this point 6.8% of children ages 12 to 17 use marijuana on an occasional basis ( 5 ). It would be reasonable to conclude that if marijuana was legalized that number would subjoin drastically.Second the NORMLs Principles of Responsible Marijuana Use attempts to rationalize legal marijuana use by demanding that if legalized responsible users will refrain from driving ( 4 ). Although an illegal drug, it is not surprising that there are already statistics regarding marijuana impaired driving in many states. California who just recently had a marriage proposal for the legalization of marijuana has some of the close relevant statistics there are various counties in California that have a 16% or higher marijuana involved traffic fatalities ( 3 ). This number would only increase with the legalization, and that is not to intromit the the amount of non fatal accidents that would occur annually. A recent study by Alfred Crancer and Alan Crancer projec ted that traffic fatalities would increase by as much as 300% with legalization ( 3 ).Third NORML claims that The responsible cannabis user will carefully consider his/her set and setting, regulating use accordingly. In this claim there is much room for a line-drawing fallacy, in which it is difficult and conveniently vague and up to the respective(prenominal) to determine what set and setting is actually appropriate for usage. It could be assumed under this principle that its beneficial to use marijuana while caring for children, elderly, while driving, and also very relevantly while working. forwards NORML claims that a responsible marijuana user will resist abuse. They define abuse by Abuse means harm. Some cannabis use is harmful most is not. That which is harmful should be discouraged that which is not need not be.A clever statement however invalid and illogical. Drug abuse is defined as an uncontrollable urge for constant seeking of intoxicants ( 2 ). Many users would be unaware of their abuse, until the point in which it has destroyed their livelihood, relationships, economic security, and health. Legalization would only increase the numbers of active addicts, and tally marijuana readily available for them, and being legal, consequently restraining family, friends, and the courts from restricting an addicts use before to much harm is done.The final claim made by NORML is a Respect for Rights of Others in which they attempt to justify the occurrence that if marijuana was legal, non users will have to deal with it. Again it is wishful thinking to see that users will have respect for the others who are not users, however while illegal we can see that many close up cultivate marijuana, drive under the influence of it, and use it as socially as possible. A strict layout of parameters that must be followed with public and private use of the drug would be acceptable, however advocates for the cause privilege the vagueness, in which there are no absolu te lines that can be drawn between legal and illegal use (ie. Driving, social events, age, etc.). The entire document is a rationalization and does not seem to give a valid or true pretense to satisfy desires.The most relevant claim argued against in this paper is the claim that marijuana should be legal in a taxed and regulated manner. This claim by itself has the vagueness and ambiguity of a typical bill or legislation. It is this vagueness and ambiguity that encroach on the freedoms of citizens everyday. The fact is that marijuana is a drug, it was made illegal by the Federal Controlled Substance flirt of 1970 to stop the strength and abuse that was common practice. We have seen in other countries failed attempts to regulate and tax drugs, like the Netherlands, and we have seen the distress drugs can have on society as a hole, like the dangerous drug cartels that direct Mexico. In evaluating this claim it is also important to consider the sources, one of the biggest supporter s of marijuana legalization is Robert Lee.Lee is hot seat of Oaksterdam University a school that teaches students how to cultivate, grow, process, and cure marijuana ( 3 ). It would seem highly logical to acknowledge that this man is not interested in the social repercussions of legalization. His motive is clearly for the profit that can come from legalization. Legalization would drastically increase the amount of growers and interested parties in his school.Another strong voice in pro-legalization is the companionship S.K. Seymour LLC which is a Medical Cannabis Provider ( 3 ), who again would see a dramatic increase in profit and sales due to the fact that they can open up their business to the public, and not just medical marijuana patients. It seems that neither of the sources, from the research done, are interested in the negative and unfortunate affects of legalization and only interested in the lucrative value of legalization.It is also important to analyze the negative so cial effects of marijuana on society, most notably the economic affects and the medical effects. Recent proposition 19 in California stated that No person shall be punished, fined, discriminated against, or be denied any right or privilege for lawfully engaging in any conduct permitted by this Act or authorized pursuant to Section 11301 of this Act. Provided however, that the existing right of an employer to address consumption that actually impairs occupancy performance by an employee shall not be change. Basically stating that employers can no longer regulate marijuana use while working unless it can show that performance is being impaired by use ( 3 ).Proposition 19 also is in conflict with the Federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970 which prohibits the use of marijuana for recreational use. This would be a mistake by California due to the fact that the state would easy billions of federal dollars in the form of grants and aid called for by the Federal Workplace Act of 1988. Not only would government loose money but also schools and medical centers can potentially be affected ( 3 ). The health risks for marijuana usage are as noteworthy as the social repercussions.Marijuana is known to cause A- motivatingal syndrome, which is a depressed state of the brain in which reaction times and motivation is affected by long term use ( 3 ). Furthermore the gateway theory blames marijuana as the compromise that leads an individual to try harder more harmful drugs. Lastly marijuana has been placed on the California Proposition 65 list of carcinogenic materials, as proven materials that cause cancer ( 3 ).In this paper I argued that the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws definitions and reasoning for a responsible legal user is flawed. Many of their arguments are invalid and lack sound reasoning to a conclusion. That the claim that marijuana should be legal and taxed is not a fully developed claim and that the sources of the claims motives are no t sound in reasoning for legalization. Finally I argued that if marijuana is legalized it would be detrimental to society specifically regarding medical and economic problems. The arguments for legalization are not convincing and present many fallacies, Legalization supporters have the wrong idea of controlled use.