Activity 7

I think the UF Law Review Panel did a great job of detailing some arguments both for and against the legalization of marijuana. Some of the most compelling arguments, in my opinion, were centered on the removal of marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug down to a Schedule 2 drug. Advocates of legalization stated that whether or not a drug has a potential for abuse should not dictate the legality of a drug, due to the fact that essentially most if not all drugs have a “potential” for abuse. From this, it was argued that some very serious drugs such as cocaine are Schedule 2, and these lower scheduled drugs have been involved in epidemics such as the OxyContin epidemic that we recently discussed in class. As a counter, a panelist stated that this was a weak argument. He questioned why we would repeat the problem seen with prescription drug abuse by making marijuana available to multiple people who don’t really need it. 

A panelist against the legalization of marijuana pointed out that as the perceived danger decreases, the use increases, and that taken chronically, a daily use of marijuana will result in addiction 50% of the time. This statistic seems significant, as it was also mentioned that marijuana use in high amounts will compromise significance in terms of learning, memory, sensory and time perception, and display signs of paranoia. These arguments are all relative to public health, although it was mentioned that it is difficult to project what the exact effects of marijuana on public health would be because there are many factors that need to be accounted for, such as will there be a tax on the product, what type of production will be permitted, and so on. 

 

A counter argument was that the perceived risk-degree of use argument could simply imply correlation, not that a lower risk necessarily caused more use. Additionally, panelists pro-legalization stated that science has severely exaggerated the harms of marijuana. Furthermore, an outdated study displayed that approximately 9% of marijuana users will exhibit dependence. However, these results can’t be generalized because the potency and frequency of consumption are unclear. 

In terms of policy, it is clear that the three levels of government all currently disagree about what the policy for legalization or prohibition should look like, however regardless of if you are for or against legalization, it was agreed that states are stuck with their “experimentation” until the federal government can react, because this must start and end at the federal level. 

The debate over marijuana legalization both for medicinal and recreational purposes is definitely a heated topic. There are great arguments on both sides, and as was stated, there is equal research for both. However, I think it become a matter of just uncovering what research is the best. The long term safety consequences are unsure. One of the panelists stated that there are two things you don’t do with medicine –smoke it and vote on it. It’s definitely something to think about. I really enjoyed this video.