Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
of the two drugs. The impaired driver not only endangers himself or herself but also every other
driver on the road. The prohibition advocates claim that the problem goes beyond just driving,
referring to workplace intoxication, and the unreliable on-the-spot tests for marijuana use
(Hickox, 2012). Given the emphasis placed in many blue collar and even white collar workplaces
on occupational health and safety, an inability to accurately test for marijuana use among
employees can create serious risks to all those who might be affected by the actions or inactions
of intoxicated persons.
Many marijuana prohibition supporters claim that marijuana is a gateway drug; i.e., that
users often proceed to using more serious and more socially harmful drugs. Prohibitionists claim
that given the negative safety and security consequences of marijuana use on society and the
huge costs in terms of monitoring, policing, and institutionally addressing the risks, marijuana
should remain illegal.
Finally, prohibitionists often claim that marijuana legalization would entail negative
moral consequences for society as a whole. One such moral consequence would be in lowering
the state to a position of profiteering (through taxation) from the poor decisions and potentially
destructive behaviors of vulnerable segments of society. Another negative moral consequence
might be the implicit endorsement by the government of the idea that drug use is acceptable, or
at least, a weak-willed admission that the government is powerless to stop it. In short,
prohibitionists argue that legalization would make the government and the Canadian society
complicit in the self-abasing actions of drug addicts.
The Argument for Legalization
At this point, I will counter the prohibitionists arguments according to the same three
categories: (1) health consequences, borne by users; (2) safety and security consequences, borne
by society; and (3) moral consequences, borne by society. The U. S. Center for Disease Control
(2014) reported that excessive alcohol use causes about 88,000 deaths per year and tobacco use
is the leading preventable cause of death. Given the extensive mortality statistics flowing from
alcohol and tobacco use, singling out marijuana from the three drugs for prohibition does not
make sense, especially when studies like the Brown University Digest of Addiction Theory &
Application (1997) have shown that marijuana use is not strongly correlated with increased risk
of death among its users. As for the risk of car crashes due to marijuana use, the literature
suggest that while marijuana and alcohol use significantly increases the chance of a crash, the
effect of marijuana alone is unclear. One study even found that drivers with small amounts of
marijuana in their system have a decreased chance of crashing, compared to the average sober
driver (Longo, Hunter, Lokan, White, & White, 2000). In short, marijuana becomes considerably
more dangerous when combined with other drugs just as over-the-counter cold medications
become significantly more dangerous when combined with alcohol. In fact, the legalization and
regulation of marijuana could lead to a greater awareness (e.g., through appropriately labeled
packaging) of the negative effects of marijuana on driving and other tasks requiring careful
motor function.
The prohibition of marijuana also creates additional health risks for users. For example,
marijuanas effect as a gateway drug could be related to the fact that users must communicate
with dealers to buy the drug and dealers, in turn, often possess and push more than just
marijuana. Prohibition also means that buyers do not know with any certainty the exact content
of the marijuana they are smoking. In some cases, users may have purchased marijuana laced
with harder substances. Finally, prohibition entails that no controls are exerted over who buys the
marijuana or how much they might buy (e.g., it could be sold to vulnerable teenagers in Canada).
As a result, in the case of marijuana prohibition, the negative health consequences to drug users
would exceed those in a legalized and regulated scenario.
Similarly, the negative consequences to non-users, in terms of security and safety, would
exceed those in a legalized scenario. In particular, the prohibition of marijuana has created a
huge black market with nefarious effects for users and the community. The vast amounts of
money that are involved in the business of marijuana can attract criminals and gangs who
compete with one another for a share of the market. The competition among gangs often results
in violence that can harm innocent citizens who might be caught in the crossfire. For more safety
and security, legalized and regulated sale of marijuana would disarm the out of control marijuana
black market in Canada. While marijuana, like any other drug, entails risks for society when it is
abused, Canadian policy makers need to keep in mind that the risks can actually be diminished
with the legalized and regulated drug.
Finally, negative moral consequences of marijuana prohibition exceed the negative moral
consequences that would be caused by its legalization. While legalized marijuana might
implicate the state and society in endorsing the drug habits of some, a similar situation already
exists with alcohol, which has far more egregious effects in terms of domestic violence, car
accidents, criminality, depression, and addiction. According to Kennedy (2014), we accept
alcohol, in part, because we recognize that the vast majority of Canadians support its legality. In
recent years, polls have shown that the vast majority of Canadians now support softening the
marijuana laws. We also need to keep in mind the negative consequences that occur when laws
against marijuana use are widely disregarded by the more than three million Canadians who
report using the drug. The widespread flouting of a law can create a culture of disrespect towards
the law and state. Most modern states try to modify their laws to keep up with the times, instead
Second, political leaders in Canada must show leadership and courage to put the issue to a
national referendum so that Canadians can have an open and honest debate about the costs of
prohibition and the benefits that legalization would bring to users and society.
References
Anna, K., Paolo, F.-P., & Zerrin, A. (2012). Cannabis abuse and vulnerability to psychosis:
Targeting preventive services. Current Pharmaceutical Design, 18(4), 542-549.
CBC. (2012). B.C. marijuana tax could net billions if pot legalized. Retrieved from
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-marijuana-tax-could-netbillions-if-pot-Legalized-1.1127751
Center for Disease Control. (2014). Smoking & tobacco use. Retrieved
from .http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/
Earltwine. (2002). Understanding marijuana. Oxford University Press, NY.
Hickox, S. A. (2012). Drug testing of medical marijuana users in the workplace: An inaccurate
test of impairment. Hofstra Labor & Employment Law Journal, 29(2), 273-341.
Kennedy, M. (2014). More than two-thirds of Canadians want marijuana laws softened, though a
majority are still against legalization: Poll. Retrieved from
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/07/30/more-than-two-thirds-of-canadians-wantMarijuana-laws-softened-though-a-majority-still-against-legalization-poll/
Longo, M. C., Hunter, C. E., Lokan, R. J., White, J. M., & White, M. A. (2000). The prevalence
of alcohol, cannabinoids, benzodiazepines and stimulants amongst injured drivers and
their role in driver culpability: Part II: The relationship between drug prevalence and drug
concentration, and driver culpability. Accident; Analysis and Prevention, 32(5), 623-32.
Monroe, J. (1997). How marijuana affects driving. Current Health 2, 23(9), 22.
Montigny, E.-A. (2014). The real dope: Social, legal and historical perspectives on the
regulations of drugs in Canada. Retrieved from
http://www.impactethics.ca/2014/10/20/is-medicinal-marijuana-bad-medicine/