Marijuana Legalization

Introduction

The debate about legalizing marijuana is generating much discussion. There are lobbyists trying to decriminalize the possession and the use of the substance. Yet not many people understand the advantages that these initiatives promise to bring with it. For people, it is nothing more than a weed that affects the functions of the brain and gets people high. This perception comes from years of coverage of its negative effects and a lack of research about the possible health and economic benefits. The debate over the legalization of marijuana and decision of Federal Government is of an unbalanced nature because of the fact that the sides favoring and opposing the legalization of marijuana are not able to address the debate over the same issues. As each side presents an argument, the debate continues to evolve without converging towards a conclusion (Roleff, 129).

Discussion

Even if, the purpose was to delay the age of onset of marijuana use and subsequent drug use, the effect has been counterproductive, as it has pushed them to less regulated areas. It seems that there is still no definite answer whether it is advantageous to decriminalize marijuana. What if there is no doubt that should be maintained the prohibition of marijuana production, because otherwise it would initiate a market factor that would push the consumption.

Economic benefits for legalizing marijuana

The arguments presented by the supporters' challenges the Parliament in passing laws criminalizing cannabis. According to them, the risks posed by marijuana on the individual and society are so minimal that the state is not entitled, by way of the Criminal Code to prohibit the use, production and distribution. The prospect of bailing a criminal record, and a prison sentence for smoking pot is a punishment disproportionate to the "crime" and it is incompatible with the right to life, safety and the personal liberty guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Alan, 45).

The heart of the issue is the definition and scope of the harm principle. According to this principle, the state must have a reasonable fear of harm before adopting laws restricting the rights of Americans. The principle has been subject to conflicting interpretations in the lower courts. The dissenting judges believe that, the injury must be "serious", "significant" or "substantial." The decision of the Supreme Court should clarify for future debate on the legalization of marijuana. The legalization of marijuana will reduce levels of crime caused by drug trafficking is not so farfetched. People consider it as important to promote awareness among the citizens of the opinion that it is better, which implies setting rules, regulate, standardize, and not merely liberalize. The amount of resources that driven into the illegal drug market is high enough to sustain the war against the state. In a country with this inequality, the reserve army of drug traffickers is large enough to maintain the operation against corrupt state officials, even with better technical level and more weapons. There is also a much more rational way of handling the problem of addiction ...