How do the proponents of marijuana know that its legalization has positive side effects only? The debate over medical and recreational marijuana and its legalization is something that has been a topic of heated controversy over the past decade. As of right now, 28 states as well as Washington D.C. have legalized marijuana; all of them legalizing medicinal, only 8 legalizing recreational. The proponents for legalizing the drug argue that its health benefits far outweigh the negative side effects, if any. They also say that marijuana should no longer be considered a Schedule I drug. The opponents, however, argue the exact opposite, as well as the fact that there is not enough research on the drug for it to be considered healthy. They also argue that something that is considered a Schedule I drug should not be widely available to the public. Both sides make good points, but pro-legalization has so much more believable and convincing research behind it. Marijuana should be legalized nationally because studies have revealed that the drug has little to no risk when using it and it has numerous health benefits. For this to happen, more people need to understand these benefits, and there needs to be a strong push towards national legalization.

The proponents for legalizing marijuana make a strong case as to why they are for it. For example, one argument is that its legalization could have a positive impact on public health, meaning it could have a positive impact on communities as a whole. In her essay, “Is Marijuana Good for Public Health,” Ruth Graham makes this exact argument. One example of this is when she says: “A growing body of research suggests that marijuana may replace alcohol or hard drugs in many people’s lives.” This statement suggests that, in the case of legalization, there is great potential for many people to live healthier lifestyles. Some could easily argue that an increase in pot smoking would negatively affect the public health as well. Graham counters that argument when she says “by one measurement, if legalization affects alcohol consumption by just 10 percent, it would negate the negative public-health effects of increased marijuana usage.” Along with that, a study published in the Journal of Law and Economics found a drop in traffic fatalities by 8-11 percent within the first full year of implementation of marijuana laws in 19 states. Alcohol consumption, however, is not the only thing that could potentially be impacted by the legalization of marijuana. “Yu-Wei Luke Chu, a lecturer at Victoria University of Wellington School of Economics in New Zealand, suggested that medical marijuana laws also lead to a decrease in heroin use… Chu found a 20-percent decrease in heroin treatments after medical marijuana laws went into effect” (Graham). Another potential public health benefit, a decrease in crime rates, has been tied to states with medical marijuana laws, David Trilling suggests, in his essay, “Marijuana Legalization: Research Review on Crime and Impaired Driving.” In his writing, Trilling states

Showing a “clear connection between medicinal use and reductions in non-drug crime,” Arthur Huber III, Rebecca Newman and Daniel LaFave of Colby College link medical marijuana to a 4 percent to 12 percent reduction in property crimes such as theft and burglaries. Crime has fallen across the United States in recent years, but in states with MML [(Medical Marijuana Laws)] it has fallen approximately 5 percent more.

These findings suggest that legalizing marijuana could lead to a safer environment for citizens to live in. A decrease in alcohol consumption, alcohol related traffic accidents, a decrease in hard drug use, and a drop in crime rates are just some of the many potential public health benefits that legalizing marijuana has.

Researchers have also found that marijuana, both recreational and medicinal, has numerous health benefits. Many studies have found that marijuana can be used a treatment for many things such as PTSD, epilepsy, seizures, Alzheimer’s, pain relief, etc. In his TED Talk, “The Surprising Story of Medical Marijuana and Pediatric Epilepsy,” Josh Stanley gives the recount of a young girl named Charlotte Figi, who suffers from a rare form of epilepsy. He talks about how he and his brothers created a strain of marijuana a with high levels of CBD, and low levels of THC. Using this strain of the drug, Charlotte went from having nearly 400 seizures per week to 0-1 per week. In her article, “Could Medical Marijuana Treat Alzheimer’s,” Susan Scutti presents research that marijuana has the potential as an Alzheimer’s treatment. This research suggests that the psychoactive ingredient in cannabis, THC, can stimulate the removal of plaque in the brain, which is a common symptom of Alzheimer’s patients. While this is something that is still being researched, the potential treatment of a disease that was once considered incurable is still there. 

Medical marijuana is already being prescribed to patients in states where it is legal. Doctors give these patients prescriptions for multiple different things, including multiple sclerosis, chronic pain, neuropathic pain, and other severe illnesses. “Medical Marijuana for Treatment of Chronic Pain and Other Medical and Psychiatric Problems,” a clinical review done by Kevin P. Hill, analyzed the impact that medical marijuana has on these illnesses. He looked at 24 different trials for treatment using medical marijuana. Six of the trials looked at chronic pain, with 325 patients total. Six of the trials looked at neuropathic pain, with 396 patients total. The other twelve trials looked at multiple sclerosis, with 1600 patients total. Several of these studies resulted in positive results for treatments, indicating that medicinal marijuana or cannabinoids can be effective for people with these types of problems. Not everyone, however, should have easy access to medical marijuana, Hill says. 

“An appropriate medical marijuana candidate should have… a debilitating medical condition that data from randomized clinical trials suggest would respond to medical marijuana… multiple failed trials of first- and second-line pharmacotherapies for these conditions… a failed trial of an US Food and Drug Administration-approved cannabinoid… no active substance abuse disorder… [and] residence in a state with medical marijuana laws” (Hill).

Although these ‘guidelines’ to who should be legally allowed to have medical marijuana seem specific, the applications for them could be monumental. According to the American Academy of Pain Medicine (AAPM), 100 million Americans suffer from chronic pain. While all of these people might not meet Kevin P. Hill’s guidelines for medical marijuana users, its legalization would have a positive impact on many of these people’s lives, and that is just talking about chronic pain. The applications for medical marijuana are still being researched and finding new developments every day.

The opponents of marijuana and its legalization have made a case for their side as well. Many argue that the drug itself is not a healthy habit nor is it safe for people to do. In her article, “5 Reasons Marijuana is not Medicine,” Bertha Madras states that “data from 2015 indicate that 30 percent of current cannabis users harbor a use disorder — more Americans are dependent on cannabis than on any other illicit drug.” This statement indicates that consistent marijuana use does have a negative effect on some people. She also argues that, for a drug to approved by the FDA, it has to go through “a rigorous FDA scientific process proving safety and efficacy,” which no form of ‘dispensary marijuana’ has gone through. This process requires five criteria to be fulfilled. The first of which is that the drug’s chemistry must be known and reproducible. Madras argues that the chemistry of dispensary marijuana, unlike other FDA approved drugs, is inconsistent and not standardized; levels of THC in marijuana are inconsistent; they can vary from 1 to 80 percent. The statement about the standardization in dispensaries is just simply not true. Something that is government regulated is going to have regulations, especially if it is selling something like marijuana to the public. The second of the five criteria is that there must be adequate safety studies. With this, Madras argues that “‘Dispensary marijuana’ cannot be studied under medical supervision if the substance is not standardized… Without a standardized product and long-term studies, the safety of indefinite use of marijuana remains unknown” Here, she is saying that it is difficult to do adequate research on something that is as inconsistent as marijuana. The problem with this is that there is, in fact, a more than adequate amount of research regarding the safety of marijuana. It is perfectly safe, and it is difficult to look past the fact that there are no documented deaths from marijuana overdose (Bellware). The third of the five criteria is that there must be adequate and well-controlled studies proving efficacy. Here, Madras says that “there are no studies of raw marijuana that include high-quality, unbiased, blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled, or long-duration trials.” The problem with her statement here is that there are plenty of trials and studies that do just that. Kevin P. Hill’s study on medical marijuana and its potential as a treatment for different psychiatric problems is just one example. The fourth of the five criteria is that the drug must be accepted by well-qualified experts. For this, Madras brings up a few different organizations that have spoken out against marijuana and its legalization, which shows that not all experts agree on what exactly marijuana does to people. These organizations, however, talk about marijuana being a public health concern and that it is in no way a treatment for any psychiatric disorder. Ruth Graham’s Is Marijuana Good for Public Health and Kevin P. Hill’s study show that these organizations are wrong in their claims. The fifth and final of the criteria is that scientific evidence must be widely available. Here, Madras simply states that evidence for approval of medical conditions in state ballot were not widely available nor was it subject to objective clinical trials. Madras’ issue here is that she is just not doing her research. There is plenty of scientific evidence that points to the fact that marijuana can and should be allowed to be used as a medicine. With all of her arguments here, Bertha Madras concludes by saying that, as of right now, Marijuana belongs as a Schedule I drug, and therefore should not be legalized.

There are some studies out there that make a strong case towards the idea that marijuana should not be legalized. One argument that can stem from this research is that ease-of-access marijuana can lead to accidental pediatric exposures. A study done in 2013 showed that, between the years of 2005 and 2011, the American Association of Poison Control Centers Poison Data System reported 985 unintentional marijuana exposures in children aged 9 years or younger (Wang, George, et al.). This statistic shows that legalizing marijuana has the potential to put some of America’s youth in danger. The problem with this study, however, is that it does not give any evidence that, from 2005-2011, the rate of pediatric exposures actually increased. It also does not give any statistics from before 2005 to compare to. It just gives a number that seems bad but does not give any reason for a correlation with the legalization of marijuana. Another argument that can be made from some studies like this one is that the availability of edibles for purchase at dispensaries can cause more harm than good. In their essay, “Medical Marijuana’s Public Health Lessons – Implications for Retail Marijuana in Colorado,” the authors stated that

Marijuana's peak psychoactive effects can be delayed by up to 4 hours after ingestion [of an edible], as compared with seconds or minutes after inhalation of marijuana smoke or vapor. Furthermore, there is great individual variability in the effects of ingested marijuana. These factors can make it hard for users to know how much product to use. The effects from ingestion can last more than 8 hours, extending the duration of impaired judgment and coordination that can lead to unsafe driving and accidental injuries (Ghosh, Van Dyke, Maffey, Whitley, Erpelding, Wolk).

This shows that, even in states where it is legal, marijuana is a hard thing to standardize. There is a lot of inconsistency in the plant itself as well as the effects it might have on each individual user. This fact alone is something that people use to argue against marijuana and its national legalization.

The legalization of marijuana will take time, and not everyone will agree with it in the end. The medical benefits alone are hard to overlook, especially when considering the legalization of just medicinal marijuana. Through numerous studies, medical marijuana has been found to help with things like chronic pain, neuropathic pain, multiple sclerosis, PTSD, etc. Along with that, public health could also be positively impacted by national legalization, both recreational and medicinal. The first step in the legalization process, however, should be to legalize medical marijuana nationally. Currently, it is already legalized in over half the country (28 states), and some people who live in non-legalized states could truly benefit from medical marijuana’s health applications. The national legalization of medicinal marijuana will help pave the way for recreational legalization. Even so, national legalization of recreational marijuana would be a completely different process. It would be difficult for everyone to get on board with its legalization because a lot of people cannot see the benefits of its legalization, which is understandable. They think that people just want it legalized for fun, with no other motives in mind. As the research shows above, the public health in Colorado was strongly impacted by recreation legalization. There were less alcohol-related traffic incidents, people were using weed as a substitute for alcohol, crime rates were reported to go down, etc. One more people understand this, and the research develops further, recreational legalization nationally will happen. This whole process, however, would be hard and take a long time to achieve, because it affects everyone, even those that do not use the drug. A survey conducted by the Pew Research Center from August 23, 2016 to September 2, 2016, found that 57% of people support marijuana legalization, 37% of people are against it, and 6% of people are undecided (Geiger). While this survey is just a small sample size, it is clear that more work needs to be done for people need to be on board with national legalization.

Marijuana, both recreational and medicinal, should be legalized nationally. Before this happens, however, a larger portion of the population needs to understand its public health and medical benefits. The opponents of legalization argue that marijuana use, over time, can lead to drug dependency. Also, they argue that marijuana should stay as a Schedule I drug. While it is hard to look past all of this negative research surrounding marijuana, the pros of legalization far outweigh the cons. Personally, I do not smoke marijuana, and I have never touched the stuff. With that in mind, I do understand that there are several people out there who could benefit from its legalization besides me. This includes soldiers coming home with PTSD, the 100 million Americans who suffer from chronic pain, children who suffer from seizures, etc., and that is just speaking medically. Both recreational and medical legalization would serve to benefit the public health in multiple different ways. Crime rates will be brought down, there would be less alcohol abuse, and the number of DUI incidents will decrease. Overall, the legalization of marijuana has many potential positive outcomes with hardly any negatives. I strongly believe that, with steps in the right direction, national legalization of marijuana is a possibility that would mean great things for the future of this country, The United States of America. 
