The federal legalization of marijuana is a pressing discussion recently since some states have decided to legalize it in their state. Over recent years the answers have proven to show that over half the people who vote don't mind if it is legalized and that it should be legalized. The percentage of people that are pro legalization is getting higher and higher, the acceptance of marijuana is at an all-time high. This could be because the use of marijuana has grown and is being seen not as bad as it was in prior times. There's also another factor and that is research of marijuana and other drugs. The current U.S. studies of marijuana hasn't been totally fair seeing that only 6% of the studies are to see the benefits and the other 94% are to see the harmfulness of marijuana(Gupta). So the studies haven't been divided up evenly and even with that the results show more pros than cons. 

This paper isn't answering if marijuana should be legalized but more towards why should marijuana be legalized federally. The major reason I see is marijuana vs. tobacco/alcohol. The facts go to show that marijuana actually has benefits to the use other than tobacco and alcohol which are both more detrimental to your health than marijuana. Tobacco has many facts that shows it is much worse for a person than marijuana is and it is federally legal for 18 year olds and above to buy a pack of cigarettes for five dollars even after knowing all the harm it can cause. The correlation of tobacco and having a higher risk of cancer is pretty persistent.

Nicotine the active chemical in tobacco is very addictive (US Surgeon General). Nicotine is more addictive than marijuana but people who oppose marijuana bring up how it is addictive but tobacco which is federally legal is more addictive, this just shuts down that reason to keep it illegal. The next problem with tobacco is that it is the second major cause of death in the world and that number is 5 million deaths per year worldwide (World Health Organization). Marijuana has 0 smoking overdoses but some overdoses off edibles but that is under 1,000 deaths worldwide for overdose from edibles. Cigarette smoking is the most preventable pre mature death in the United States. That shows that cigarette smoking is the number one cause of pre mature death in the United States yet it is legal and only five dollars for cigarettes and 3 dollars for chewing tobacco which causes gum cancer.  More than 400,000 Americans die from cigarette smoking every year (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). That is almost half a million people dying per year from something that is legal to anyone over 18. 

Now, Marijuana vs. Alcohol, there is considerable evidence to show the connection between drinking alcohol and increasing your risk of cancer pretty high (National Institutes of Health). Alcohol also may cause gastritis, pancreatitis, ulcers, liver cancer, cirrhosis, and other liver diseases. It is also linked to increasing breast cancer risk (cbsnews). Alcohol abuse causes over 100,000 American deaths per year (Harvard School of Public Health). Which is better than tobacco but still a pretty high number, you also have to tie in the drunk driving which would calculate to many more deaths. Yes, they say that driving while under the influence of marijuana is illegal that is fine but making it totally illegal while alcohol which is worse for a person's health is legal for people 21 years and older. I am not calling for making drinking alcohol illegal I'm just stating that it is worse for the consumer than marijuana. 

Another thing with alcohol is the failed prohibition of it. There are many reasons why it didn't work and you can now see that in the prohibition of marijuana today. They say that putting something on prohibition leads to the forbidden fruit affect which is if you can't have something it makes you want it even more. There is something about it since you are not allowed to have it which makes it much more desirable for you to acquire it. The prohibition of marijuana just doesn't come off logically since it is nowhere near as harmful as tobacco or alcohol but is still illegal. It has benefits to the use unlike tobacco or alcohol and it is economically smart to legalize it federally. If the government legalized marijuana federally they can tax it and make money off of it which could help us put it to other programs or it could help start the process of getting out of debt. To conclude it all is saying that the pros and cons of marijuana are greater in pros and less in cons than both tobacco and alcohol. 

I am interested in this topic because it just seems to me that marijuana isn't as harmful drugs that are legal today. I can also see the pros of marijuana like keeping a schizophrenic from having/reducing seizures, help someone with an eating disorder to eat more, and to help people with glaucoma and cancer. This research question affects my values because I am pro legalization and I value the use of marijuana. I feel like it is also a right to do it, some religions instruct their followers to use it and I am for freedom of religion and if someone's religion uses marijuana they should be able to use it legally. Even if it isn't your religious belief it also has many beneficial factors to it. I guess my personal experience with this would be since my junior year when I started researching marijuana and looking/feeling the pros and cons and I feel like my research of marijuana has proven to show more pros than cons. I've read many articles about it and this is why my personal experience gives me some rights to speak more about it. It gives me the qualification to write about this topic and also my resources I use which are factual and inform the reader in many different forms.

The first resource I have is an article/debate titled "Should Marijuana Be Legalized in the United States?" It was written by Alicja Spaulding and Stephanie Fernandez under the direction of O.C. Ferrell and Linda Ferrell. Danielle Jolley and Jennifer Sawayda provided major updates. They all are in the Daniels Fund Ethic Initiative at The University of New Mexico. This article is more informative than persuading. So there really isn't much of a central claim of the article because it is more to give information for both sides of the argument.  The major points of this article are that legalization could bring in a revenue of $60 million before 2017 and that the government but the con is 9% of cannabis users become addicted to marijuana. This source seems pretty credible having seen the sources they cited. I also don't see the source to be bias since the article list both pros and cons and doesn't really state its opinion of the issue.  

My second source is an article written by Dr. Gupta and he takes the stance that marijuana should be legalized. Dr. Gupta used to be against the legalization of marijuana but with recent studies he has changed his mind and said there are many benefits. His main thing is that marijuana has a 9% addiction rate and tobacco has a 30% addiction rate and most of those who are addicted die from the use of tobacco. Dr. Gupta is credible since he is a doctor and his studies have to do with health. Dr. Gupta is a multiple Emmy award winning chief medical correspondent for CNN and was also considered to be a favorite to become surgeon general before he opted out. He is not biased because he used to be against the legalization of marijuana but now he is for it since he has done and seen many experiments that show major benefits. 

My third source is an article "Why Marijuana should be Legal." The biggest points of the   article is that people should have the freedom to use marijuana and that the cost of keeping marijuana illegal is too costly. The major values that the article talks about is that religious beliefs, some religions instruct their followers to use marijuana so it goes against the freedom of religion and religious practices. The stakes for this organization is pretty high because they want it to be legalized, that's everything to the organization since that's what they are fighting for. The source is biased to the legalization of marijuana since the name is Marijuana Legalization Organization. I feel like even though they are biased they have good points and a lot of them are pathos, they go for the emotional impact of the readers. It has good points about how high the cost is keeping it illegalized.

The research question is arguable because it states why marijuana should be legalized it gives me a lot of room to explain why it should be legalized and to talk about some cons and explain what I suggest for those cons. Some agreements about marijuana include it is good for tax revenue. Disagreements are it isn't as harmful as cigarettes even though the facts state it isn't and numbers don't lie. The different perspectives of the article doesn't really change my perspectives because I still feel like the pros outweigh the cons. I might need to change my research question a little bit but don't really know where to start to change it. 

