Legalization on Marijuana
Marijuana has been a very controversial issue. Many speculate that changes in the laws concerning the possession of marijuana (see Appendix A) are long overdue and our society can no longer postpone this decision. Three possible changes to the law (legalization for medical purposes, decriminalization for medical or general reasons, and full legalization) are being considered. According to an Angus Reid survey in October, public support for legalization is swelling in Canada. A slim majority of Canadians, 51%, now believe that smoking marijuana should not be a criminal offence, up from 39% in 1987. 83% agree that it should not be a criminal offence if used for medicinal purposes only. Nonetheless, marijuana remains illegal while other more dangerous drugs, both addictive and harmful, remain legal. Statistics Canada reports that 74.4% of Canadians over 15 drink alcohol, about 70% drink coffee, and some 25% smoke tobacco. Alcohol, caffeine, and tobacco are highly addictive and to some extent mind-altering, hence if these three are legal it only stands to reason that marijuana should likewise be legalized.The medicinal uses of marijuana are being seen as a legitimate claim for the legalization of marijuana.
There are strong signs that the dream of legalization may become reality. In May 1995, federal drug prosecutor Lindsay Smith sent a letter to Vancouver police, stating that minor marijuana possession charges would no longer be prosecuted because court and police resources were overtaxed. However, after the police and Vancouver Mayor Philip Owen protested, Justice Department officials backpedalled, claiming the memo had been misinterpreted. Also, in May 1996, the Senate legal and constitutional affairs committee studying Bill C-8, recommended decriminalization of marijuana and hashish possession. Again, a public outcry ensued and the Senate backed down, retaining criminal sanctions for personal drug use. They are not alone however, the Addiction Research Foundation, Canadian Bar Association, and Canadian Police Association also want to eliminate criminal penalties for marijuana. Basham, P. (1997). A public airing of respectable opinions on drug policy is overdue. Financial Post. v.10(50) p. 57 Prohibition seems to negatively effect only two groups, drug users and taxpayers. Drug users suffer under a regime that imposes unjustly harsh penalties on them and taxpayers have to pay for the incredibly expensive war on drugs that is very ineffective and counterproductive. It also generates innumerable infringements on human and civil rights that are not justifiable for our society. The consequences marijuana presents does not seem to rationalize the lengths that the government has gone to keep it illegal. Cunningham, D. (1997, December). Strictly medicinal? If Ottawa permits controlled marijuana use it could lead to full legalization. British Columbia Report. v.9(15) p. 18 Marijuana: Facts for Teens - text only. [Online] Available: An increasing number of influential organizations, such as the Lymphoma Foundation and the Physicians Association for AIDS Care, have been fighting the marijuana laws because its use does not cross a "sufficient threshold of harm" and they believe the state should not prohibit private behaviour that causes little harm to the user or society, and that the law interferes with legitimate medical uses of cannabis. Sheppard, after listening to expert advice for and against the medical use of marijuana, concluded: 'the consumption of marijuana is relatively harmless compared to the "hard" drugs, tobacco and alcohol; no hard evidence existed demonstrating irreversible organic or mental damage from the consumption of marijuana or it induces psychoses and is addictive; marijuana is not "criminogenic" and does not make users more aggressive or violent; the health-related costs of cannabis use are negligible when compared to the costs attributable to tobacco and alcohol; and regular moderate use of marijuana causes no physical or psychological harm to the vast majority of users'. He also accepted the fact that marijuana smoke is much more efficient than the legal pill form of marijuana (see Appendix B) and prohibition denies Parker his right to an effective medicine and Parker stands a daily risk of being deprived of his right to life, liberty, and security. Sheppard stressed several times in his address to the court that any person granted "medically approved use" of marijuana by a doctor would be exempt from laws that prohibit the possession or cultivation of marijuana. The judgement is not a resolution of the issue, but it is clearly a first step. It provides legitimacy to the claim of the medical necessity of marijuana consumption and can be used as precedence in court. Thus, the court has shown compassion where the government has been entirely unwilling to. http://www.paston.co.uk/users/webbooks/canmedmj.html
Some common words found in the essay are:
AIDS Care, Health Canada, Judge Sheppard, Neil Boyd, Health Organization, Al Capone, Policy Marijuana, Angus Reid, Statistics Canada, Online Available, online available, marijuana users, smoking marijuana, drug users, harm user society, research foundation, addiction research, marijuana harmful, little harm, tobacco alcohol, little harm user, addiction research foundation, people believe, fosters socially destructive, suppression fosters socially,
Approximate Word count = 2512
Approximate Pages = 10 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
