Sample Student Researched Argument Ess’ay

Research Paper Sample #1

English 10

William

Marijuana Controversy

            Throughout history humans have been curious enough to experiment with the mind altering effects of substances whether they are man-made our grown naturally from the Earth’s soil. The nature of drug usage may have started as more of a celebratory practice amongst native cultures. As time went on there has been a development of alternative practices including medicinal usage as well as for recreation. Commonly, there is a thin line separating the two styles of usage. Some people may feel that it is alright to partake in recreational drug use while others may feel that it is a social problem and harmful to both those that use and don’t use. On the other hand, medicinal usage causes less of a stir amongst the public. Marijuana is famous for such controversy especially within California. According to the California Department of Public Health, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 allows physicians to recommend as well as prescribe marijuana to patients for medical purposes. Later in 2003 there was a passage of Senate Bill 420 which required the California Department of Health Services to establish a system of identifying and servicing qualified patients (1). Marijuana usage has developed such a following within California that millions signed a petition to bring the legalization of it to the polls. Proposition 19 was created to allow adults twenty one or older to possess, cultivate, and transport marijuana for recreational usage within California in order to bring in tax revenues amongst other things. Since there is already a presence of marijuana usage, legal and illegal, I argue that it is with California’s best interest to benefit from the passage of Proposition 19.  

           Proposition 19 opponents base their claims on negative aspects for they want to influence voters to vote against it. Their overlying issue with Proposition 19 stems from concerns about safety, whether it is on a local neighborhood scale or a state wide and even national scale. The Public Safety First coalition, paid for by politicians such as Dianne Feinstein and Arnold Schwarzenegger, argues that California’s ability to manage marijuana will be hindered due to the fact that Prop. 19 would leave the regulation up to the individual counties (sec. 4). This would leave it up to a county to create specific laws for sale within its boundaries. According to this point of view there is lack of structure within the ability to regulate. Valley Voice writer Rick Elkins explains that certain issues include how to regulate sales, what individuals would have the right to cultivate, and where it can or cannot be used. There are too many loose ends for the counties to tie up. In other words, the work load is put entirely on the individual counties within California. On the other hand Downing, Gray, and Mcnamara, Yes on 19 advocates, believe that this enables local governments to tax marijuana in order to safeguard essential services such as parks and recreation as well as road repair. The local governments could decide where the funding or revenue from marijuana taxation is needed the most. They are given the power to decide for themselves instead of following a basic guideline provided by the state.

            Another major issue that comes to light is the presence of illegal marijuana dealers and any major drug cartels that are smuggling the drug into the state for a profit. The Public Safety First coalition claims it would not eliminate the need to buy marijuana from drug dealers for reasons that most of the current population using the drug are under the age of twenty one, therefore would still have to buy it illegally. What is meant by this is that the illegal dealers would still be adequately supported by all of those under twenty-one years old that wouldn’t be able to buy marijuana even if Proposition 19 passes. This thought process accounts only for those under the age of twenty-one without considering how many people over that age currently using marijuana would stop buying from illicit dealers. A recent study by Rand Corporation estimated that the legalization of marijuana would displace two to four percent of Mexican drug cartels (ctd. in Hoeffel). What is concluded by this is that legalizing marijuana would still hinder drug cartels but it may not be the amount suggested by proponents. Never the less there is still some hindrance which would be an improvement to the current situation which allows free reign of marijuana sales up to illegal operations that have no benefit to the state whatsoever.

            No on proposition 19 advocates make another argument supporting a claim that there would be a minimal amount of hindrance to illegal marijuana sales operations including drug cartels and street dealers.  Police chief of Hanford, Carlos Mestas, argues that the legalization of marijuana would not cut into the drug cartel’s profits due to the reason that overhead costs from legal marijuana dispensaries would raise the cost of marijuana higher than that of illegal dealers (ctd. in Elkins). What Mestas meant is that people would still go to illegal dealers because it would be cheaper than legal dispensaries. This claim is based on the unforeseeable event that people would not buy legal marijuana if able. There has been a large increase in the amount of legal marijuana dispensaries for the obvious reason that an increasing amount of people are buying it legally rather than from the streets. More people are getting their medical marijuana cards. Just imagine if there was no need to get one. The states control over marijuana would most likely increase. Tom Angell, incorporated with Yes on 19, argues that people should vote for proposition 19 in order to “deal a blow against the violent crime network” and to vote against it if they want to “advocate all controls of marijuana to criminals” (qtd. in Elkins). What Agnell meant by this is that California could either have some say in the regulation of the current marijuana market outside of medical purposes or leave it up to criminals.

            If control of marijuana was given to the state for recreational sales there would be certain long-term effects involved. One of the long term effects that opponents to the legalization bring up in their arguments is that there would be an increase in health problems amongst the population. The National Institute on Drug Abuse, source for information on drug use harm, claims that marijuana has seventy percent more carcinogens than tobacco and can raise the user’s heart rate (ctd. in Fagan). Here marijuana is compared to tobacco which has already been proven to cause health problems such as lung cancer. People reading this would automatically assume that smoking weed would be more harmful than cigarettes because of the statement claiming that it has more carcinogens. This is a major argument that would make the mind of many voters going to the polls. Proponents for Proposition 19 have sturdy response to such accusations. Kevin Fagan, writing about the debate, claims that there are numerous findings provided by Kaiser Permanente studies and others that conclude marijuana is safer than tobacco because it is less addictive, may cure anxiety and depression, and has high hopes for curing certain types of cancer (1). This rebuttal negates the claims made by opponents that marijuana is in fact bad for you. Studies by a medical institution such as Kaiser provide an ample amount of liability when showing no relation between marijuana and cancer other than a possible cure. Susan Weiss, policy chief of The Drug Abuse Institute, claims that there aren’t enough studies to determine whether marijuana causes cancer but breathing in smoke causes coughing and increases asthma problems (ctd. in Fagan). She admits that there is no factual evidence that cancer is connected to the intake of cannabis. To further cut down claims of health issues involved with smoking, marijuana does not have to be smoked in order to receive the desired beneficial relief of pain. Marijuana can be converted into butter which can be used in baked goods that are ingested. The marijuana plant itself can be vaporized which only utilizes the crystallized part of

 the plant containing THC (tetrahydrocannabinol), the chemical that provides relief, with the use of a special device that basically steams it. There are not enough studies done on the health effects of cannabis usage that would support the negative claims provided by the opponents of the proposition.    

            There is no doubt in the minds of both proponents and opponents that marijuana has certain mind-altering effects. THC can affect the user’s cognitive skills such as perception of depth and speed as well as reaction times. Many of the opponents fear that there would be a huge increase in those under the influence in public settings. The most common concern is that many recreational marijuana users would drive under the influence causing a higher amount of accidents. Dianne Feinstein stated that “if passed, the legalization of marijuana could allow stoned drivers behind the wheels of large trucks and even school buses.” (ctd. in Elkins). Feinstein is suggesting that if made legal people will be allowed to carelessly put themselves and others in danger by getting behind the wheel inhibited and there would be no measures against this from happening. Rick Elkins explains that the proposition is worded in such a way that it would not impede or change any previous statutes that forbid impairment while driving or partaking in other equally dangerous activities (1). What is meant by this is that driving under the influence of marijuana will still be illegal as it currently is.

            Driving under the influence of marijuana is illegal just as alcohol even though some studies suggest that it is not as bad as the influence of alcohol. Doctors Poling, Sewell, and Sofuoglu collectively reported that experimental studies show only an acute amount of increased risk while driving under the influence of marijuana alone although when mixed with alcohol the risk is greater than either drug alone (sec. 4). In other words, marijuana itself creates a lower risk while driving than alcohol but when combined the risk is much greater than one or the other. It is not to be said that driving while under the influence of marijuana is safe or permissible but that when opponents accuse marijuana for being as bad as or even worse than alcohol is an exaggeration.

            Finally, proposition 19 opponents claim that marijuana usage may make the workplace unsafe and there would be nothing that employers could do about it if made legal. The Public Safety First coalition claims that passage of the proposition would prohibit employers from taking action against employees under the influence of marijuana until after an accident occurs. The coalition also argues that employers such as private businesses and schools would be in danger of breaking laws requiring a drug free workplace which may possibly result in losing federal funds (sec. 4). As previously discussed, proposition 19 does not alter or change any current laws prohibiting the influence of drugs in the workplace. What is suggested by the coalition is that if marijuana is made legal than you would be able to go to work under the influence. Alcohol is legal for those of ages twenty-one plus and yet you are not able to go to work while being intoxicated. Marijuana use would most likely be taken care of in the same manner as alcohol use in the work place.

            The opposing campaign for Proposition 19 is based on plenty of one sided and completely negative view points that for the most part are opinionative and unproven. Some would say it is propaganda dished out by politicians wanting their way. Proponents make claims that are a little less exaggerated and seem to be much more plausible. They realize that the illegal marijuana market in California is everywhere and there is a need for something to be done about it. If it can’t be completely diminished then we must find a way to make a positive out of a negative. Legalizing marijuana for personal recreational use has the potential to generate much needed state funding which seems to be at an all time low with the current economic crisis.

The state would gain much more control over the distribution of marijuana as well as its regulation which would possibly result in a shrinkage of the black market. As of now the state is using up resources with what seems to be an exacerbation of the problem at hand. Entire task forces are employed for the sole purpose of hunting down illegal drug distributors at a great cost to the state. If there is an opportunity to relieve some of the costs with the passage of Proposition 19 we should jump at the chance to do so. Marijuana is already being used in huge numbers illegally. California should capitalize on the chance to benefit from it.    

Works Cited

Downing, Stephen, James Gray, and Joseph Mcnamara. “Yes on Proposition 19 Ballot Argument” Yes on 19. Web. 20 Oct. 2010. http://yeson19.com/node/109

Elkins, Rick. “City Attorney: Passage of Prop 19 Would Create ‘Significant Issues’” Valley

Voice Newspaper. Web. 18 Oct. 2010.   http://www.valleyvoicenewspaper.com/vv/stories/2010/vv_prop19_0710.htm

Fagan, Kevin. “Proposition 19: Legalize marijuana?” San Francisco Chronicle. 18 July 2010.  Web. 18 Oct. 2010. http://www.sfgate.com/prop19-marijuana/

Hoeffel, John. “Legalizing pot in California would hardly dent cartels’ revenue, report says” Los  Angeles Times. 13 Oct. 2010. Web. 18 Oct. 2010. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la- me-1013-pot-mexico-20101013,0,3986067.story

Poling, James, Andrew Sewell, and Mehmet Sofuoglu. “The Effect of Cannabis Compared with

 Alcohol on Driving” 18 (2009) n. pag. PubMed. Web. 18 Oct. 2010.

  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2722956/

Public Safety First. “Impact on Public Safety” No on Prop. 19. Web. 20 Oct. 2010.   http://www.noonproposition19.com/learn/impact-on-public-safety