amendments

The public opinion has undergone a dramatic long-term shift concerning the issue of legalizing marijuana.According to Christensen & Wilson (2014), a survey that was conducted indicate that 53% of individuals in the US are for the legalization of the use of marijuana while 44% are opposed to it. These figures are a demonstration of the shift since a survey conducted in 2006 revealed that those that were in favor for the legalization were 33% while more than 60% opposed it. In fact, the age brackets between 18 and 34 have been at the forefront in calling for changes that allow individuals to use the substance. Moreover, the support has increased across all the other age groups except the silent generation who are between 70 and 87. Besides the generational gap in favor of legalization, there appears to be a continuous partisan and demographic difference. For an instant, majorities of whites and blacks are or the legalization more than the Hispanics. In addition, men are likely to support it compared to the women. On political grounds, 60% of the Democrats and the independents are in favor while only 40% of the Republicans support legalization. This shows that both parties differ ideologically over the issue. The conservative Republicans opposed to the legalization are in the ratio of 2 to one compared to those in support. This difference is also evident among the liberal and moderate Republicans just as the liberal, conservative, and moderate Democrats (Basu, 2015).

These opposing camps often offer different perspectives concerning the issue in discussion. The common theme for providing insights on the use of marijuana is the danger that it poses. For an instant, the persons who favor legalization often cite its perceived medical and health benefits or at time see it not to be as dangerous in comparison to other drugs such as cocaine and heroine among others. Interestingly, the supporters explicitly mention that substances such as cigarettes and alcohol are more dangerous than marijuana. Jaffe (2007) explains that antidrug activists elaborate that the legalization is likely to result in many individuals using the drug which may consequently lead to increased levels o addiction. Worse of the level of potency which has been increasing significantly has a high chance of rising. Humphrey (2016) reinforces that the dependency on the substance occurs in approximately 10% of Americans who have at one point or the other used the drug, as well as, between 34% and 50% who on daily basis have smoked it. Besides, there are roughly 3.7 million Americans who are daily users of the substance. Individuals who have used the drug for so long often find it difficult or are often unsuccessful in their attempts to quit. The opponents, on the other hand, illuminate the drug as a dangerous substance that not only inflicts damage on individuals but also to the society at large (Caulkins, Hawken, Kilmer & Kleiman, 2012).

There are four states including Washington DC that have incorporated measures that permit personal use of the substance. Piondexter (2014) illuminates that a section of the supporters argue that the legalization would result in increase in revenues from taxes and improvement in the regulation of the drug. There is also a section of the supporter who contradicting argue that there is likely to be problems and costs associated with enforcing laws on marijuana. They just claim that individuals should just be free to use it. As illuminated earlier, the opponents of legalization claim that marijuana is both bad for individuals and hurts the society. They vehemently oppose the narrative that marijuana is less dangerous in comparison to other drugs as they point out that its dangers entails issues such as the possibility of addiction and abuse and sometimes can be a gateway to harder drugs.

The supporters of legalization of the pot argue by making comparison between the pot and tobacco and alcohol. Tobacco and alcohol are also perceived as life threatening substances but ironically they are legal. This often leads to more questions why the pot is prohibited. Lowinson (2005) illuminates that the difference between substances that are either illegal or legal especially marijuana and alcohol should be examined. Jaffe (2007) alerts that alcohol was once an illegal substance. The cause for its prohibition was its ill effects. Some of the effects tend to be direct while others alter the motor skills and behaviors of the user. Humphrey (2016) highlights that one of the direct effects emanates from heavy drinking. Alcoholics are frequently diagnosed with depression. Rosenthal, Kubby & Newhart (2003) explain that just getting drunk has the potential of causing serious harm. For an instant, the main cause of brain damage that emanates from alcohol is accidental trauma hence just like marijuana; alcohol can be a threat to the health of an individual. As for marijuana, it appears out of place to be classified as an illegal substance. Even though its classification for the purpose of regulation is as schedule 1 drug, it is pharmacologically different from the opiate referred to as analgesics. Besides, the debate on medical value of the pot despite the facts being unclear continues to suffocate various media channels. However, for alcohol or even tobacco, no such debates have rented the air. Lowinson (2005) concludes that cannabis is less dangerous and harmful in comparison to tobacco and alcohol.

Claims that the pot is medicinal, makes users feel good and calm are claims that are further from the truth. It is also ridiculous to assert that it is not as harmful or dangerous as alcohol and tobacco among other drugs. These reasons are not weighty on the weighing scale to warrant the legalization of the drug. Besides, their facts are absolutely wrong. The legalization of marijuana in the United States is likely to increase the number of pot smokers which in turn may cause effects on both health and families of the victims. The legalization of the use of the substance has the potential of making individuals of constructing individuals to incorporate in their systems that they can use it anytime on daily basis. As a result, it will increase cases of drug use.Individuals will smoke it without the fear of getting arrested or getting in trouble. Moreover, its access is not only likely to be made easier but purchasing it may also be cheaper. Piondexter (2014) asserts that the drug dealers will also grow marijuana without the fear of being arrested hence the easier access may result in increased cases of addiction.

According to Caulkins, Hawken, Kilmer & Kleiman (2012), the negative health effects are as a result of increased of the drug. There is a belief by those who use the drug that it helps them calm down when they are depressed. However, this is farfetched lie since marijuana worsens depression. Rosenthal, Kubby & Newhart, 2003) highlight other health effects as lung cancer, lung infection, respiratiory illness, and cancer of the throat, mouth and the esophagus. Jaffe (2007) stresses that individuals who some the pot have higher chances of getting cancer compared to those who smoke cigarette. Lowinson (2005) adds that research has revealed that the rate of heart bit tends to be faster after a few minutes when an individual has smoked. As the heart beats faster, the blood pressure of the body usually drops. Therefore, the users have higher changes of getting heart attack especially within the first few minutes of smoking the substance because it not only lowers the blood pressure but also increases the rate of the heartbeat.

As illuminated earlier, legalizing the use of the substance may affect the families of the users negatively. Humphrey (2016) elaborates that the use of the drug, in 2006 dropped to 4 percent from 14 percent in the late eighties. Jaffe (2007) illuminates that the prohibition of the use of marijuana has significantly contributed to the number of users being small.If it were legal, young individuals in their youthful stages would use it. Parents would also use, and its consequence is that they would be bad example to these young persons. Moreover, the drug affects young people or teens and may hamper their ability to concentrate on their studies while at school. Parents who use marijuana are likely to neglect their responsibilities or even abuse their children. Therefore, the prohibition has the potential of reducing the negative effects of the pot. When the barriers against the drug are relatively many such as the fear of succumbing from overdose or the fear of cops, then the chances of an individual getting addicted are minimized. Rosenthal, Kubby & Newhart (2003) conclude that the consequences that emanate from legalizing the use of the drug outweigh those that surface when it is legalized.

The proponents of legalization argue that the effects of banning the substance range from ruined lives to wasted resources. The US police invest a lot of time booking, arresting, and imprisoning pot makers who the majority is law abiding individuals. Unfortunately, some of the individuals who have been arrested have spent more than decades in prison. In fact, some of the cases are due to the possession of the substance for personal use. Lowinson (2005) reports that, in 2012, the figures given out by the FBI reveal that more than six hundred individuals were arrested for possession of the drug. The figure is more than that of heroin and cocaine and their derivatives which were reported to be more than two hundred and fifty thousand. Basu (2015) asserts that the arrest has the potential of taking away officers from issue that are more urgent and can also have severe consequences for the arrested individuals. Piondexter (2014) adds that the cost of enforcing laws on the possession of the drug, as per the American Civil Liberty Union is approximately more than 3 million annually.

The amount of time the officer takes in arresting and booking a suspect often encompasses more hours. The arrested person, in turn, is likely to take more time to the local jail and court in the attempts of resolving the cases. Jaffe (2007) stresses that the ripple effects entail mare than making appearances in the courts. Moreover, the huge number of individuals that are arrested yearly and eventually do not go to jail usually suffer. Their arrests are often recorded hence often cripple their prospects of getting loans, jobs, benefits, and housing. With the rate of underemployment and unemployment, as well as, the country experiencing a housing problem, an arrest because of use or possession of marijuana may cause serious consequences (Fox, Armentano & Tvert, 2013).

According to Rosenthal, Kubby & Newhart (2003), the benefits of criminalizing the drug are relatively minuscule to nonexistent. The criminalization of the drug is relatively costly. The strange issue concerning war on drugs is that it has completely flopped at minimizing the use of drugs even though it huge amount of government money annually. Besides, the three decades for which criminalization have been employed has not had a significant effect on the general use. There are approximately more than three million Americans who use the pot annually. Even though there are chances of users of marijuana being involved in criminal activities, arresting them for either the possession or use can squeeze the life of the criminal. The payroll for public safety does not commensurate the efforts towards the war in discussion. Human Rights Watch in 2012 tracked roughly thirty thousand individuals from New York, who had never been convicted when the authorities arrested them for possession of the drug. A greater percentage of the group had no subsequent convictions of any felony. In fact, only three percent were reported to have committed an offense percieved violent. The use of marijuana by the law enforcement agencies to correlate it with violent and dangerous crimes does not make sense. Humphrey (2016) argues that being high may not necessarily inspire the user to indulge in violence hence there is no real case that smoking marijuana is likely to lead one into committing worse crimes. Furthermore, the getaway effect that is used to illuminate that the drug leads to other drugs can be discarded (Fox, Armentano & Tvert, 2013).

Jaffe (2007) further adds that the illegalization of marijuana is racist. Lowinson (2005) supports and highlights the history of the drug. The onset of the campaigns towards criminalization supports this assertion. These campaigns were firmly rooted in discrimination against African Americans and Mexican immigrants because at the time they were associated with the use of the substance. In fact, the polarization of the word marijuana was a technique that was employed with the aim of associating the plant with individuals from Mexico. Piondexter (2014) narrates at the time there were approximately ten thousand total smokers within the US and most of them were the Filipinos, the blacks, and the Hispanic entertainers. Their techniques of entertainment were perceived to be satanic and were perceived to emanate from the use of the pot. Moreover, there were propagandas that resonated across the American population that falsely claimed that the use of the drug resulted in white women to have sexual relations with the Negros including the other groups mentioned above.

However, the rate at which the blacks and whites use the substance appears the same. Interestingly, the likelihood of the blacks being arrested in comparison to the whites is relatively higher. According to Rosenthal, Kubby & Newhart (2003), the war on marijuana appears to be overwhelmingly being employed on African Americans on the street and not the white smokers who smoke safely in closed doors. This disparity based on race has been present throughout the time of which marijuana was prohibited to today. The supporters of the prohibition of marijuana may mean well but in practice, the war appears to have been channeled towards assaulting the minorities, as well as, their economic mobility. Basu (2015), on the other hand, argues that controlling legal substances tend to be quite easier than the illegal ones. Lowinson (2005) asserts that this should be an adequate reason for those who oppose the use of the drug to turn around and support legalization.

Humphrey (2016) uses alcohol consumption and a cigarette to support the argument. For an instant, the government and science have learned on a technique of keeping alcohol out of reach fro children or minors. Effective marketing campaign coupled with underage drinking contributed to the drop in the usage of alcohol among the underage to 25% in 2011 from 34% in the nineties. Besides, the increase in limits by the municipal and tobacco taxes have also lead to the use of cigarette to drop among high school students. The legalization in Colorado, which commenced regulating medical use of marijuana, provides an evidence regulation may help in combating the use of the substance among the teens. Boffey (2015) explains that the illegal markets with no regulations, standards, and control of prices pose danger to the health of the public.

Piondexter (2014) argues that after several years of clogged cases in the courtrooms, wasted resources, and a shift in the perception of the public, the war on weed ought to come to an end. However, legalizing it will not put a stop to the war on other drug substances. Lowinson (2005) asserts that the debate on weed should ben within the realms of facts while the focus on the war against the use of drugs should be on supply. Successful political movements tend to depend on how activists engineer consent. They often target the majority of the public to be in favor of their ideas. Politicians being individuals who are often consumed by huge masses of individuals are likely to jump on the ideas by passing laws that make these ideas reality. Propaganda is a vital tool for driving the process. Humphrey (2016) stresses that it is an ideal tool that is commonly used in swaying the opinion of the public. Even though propaganda is not a bad thing, it keeps individuals from perceiving issues accurately. The proponents of marijuana are exceptional marketers in the political arena. Their propaganda concerning the substance has convinced the public about the myth that the drug has never killed any person, it is not addictive, and that on medical grounds, it is a wonder drug for the treatment of epilepsy. Furthermore, they have managed to label their opponents as individuals who morally judge the users. This has consequently led to their messages appearing more credible (Rosenthal, Kubby & Newhart, 2003).

Piondexter (2014) reveals that facts indicate otherwise about the above assertions. It is not only an addictive but also a gateway substance and accidents related to its use have been rapidly increasing.An individual who smokes weed usually inhales a large percentage of pesticides in the buds. In fact, much of the evidence that marijuana can treat an epileptic person is anecdotal since they are not based on research and facts but on personal accounts. The other rhetoric by the supporters of the use and legalization of the drug is that they believe that when it is permitted, then it will put an end to the war on drugs. This assertion reveals naivety on their part because of their failure to have a comprehension of the complexities for the national drugs not being functional (Rosenthal, Kubby & Newhart, 2003).

In 1971, Richard Nixon as the president of the US not only declared but also waged war against drugs. His policy on this particular war majorly targeted the supply (Lowinson, 2005). He invested heavily in programs associated with drug treatment and also targeted the main cartels. When President Ronald Regan acquired power, his focused appeared different from that of Nixon as his policy shifted on demand. He has a ‘zero tolerant and gets tough' policyIt is an approach that hampered many individuals from nonviolent offenses associated with the drug. He in fact reduced funding on prevention, treatment, and education programs and instead increased funding for the enforcement of the law. The addicts were the enemy while the crack epidemics worsened the matter. The policy grew and eventually individuals began to perceive it to be driven partly by racism. The 1986 Ant-Drug Abuse Act created compulsory sentencing that leads to the increase in the population of African Americans in prisons. Moreover, the penalty for possession was more than that for heroine and cocaine. Politicians began associating the war with the blacks who were low income earning persons (Caulkins, Hawken, Kilmer & Kleiman, 2012).

According to Christensen & Wilson (2014), the policy on the side of the demand for the drug, in the last three decades, has become a norm within the political atmosphere. Piondexter, O (2014) argues that it has remained so because politicians have used it for electoral gains. For example, despite President Obama making remarks that appear friendly concerning the pot, he continues to support the war on drugs. There are some programs that the Bush's administration de-funded but with the 2009 Recovery and Reinvestment Act; Obama has allocated some funds to programs that Bush defunded. Apparently, he was driven by the need to convince and create the perception among the Americans on his toughness on crime.

The Congress should pass the Sentencing Act of 2014 as the initial step towards providing a solution to the problem. It is a law that is likely to provide funding that helps in the mitigation of overcrowding of prisons including racial disparities, reforming the rules on sentencing, and better identification of the dangerous offenders of the drug. However, it should be noted that legalizing marijuana will not fix the policy on the natioanl drug. The drug cartels, on the other hand, will shift to other ways of making money by focusing on other hard drugs or even searching for new markets that are likely to allow them to smuggle the pot (Caulkins, Hawken, Kilmer & Kleiman, 2012). Therefore, reforming the policy on national drug requires the focus to be shifted back to the supply, as well as pushing the politicians to do rationally more than jumping on the pro-marijuana bandwagon. It is important that we get the debate on legalization of marijuana off. Failure to design policies on drugs from the lessons that have surfaced from the inability to fight effectively on drugs is likely to lead us into enacting shoddy policies that do not result in the benefit of the common good. It leaves more questions than answers why individuals would prefer taking the risk of legalizing marijuana. It just provides a bad idea and picture to children, youths, parents, and families. Increased use of drugs, negative implications on health and families are some of the consequences of permitting the use of the drug in the discussion (Rosenthal, Kubby & Newhart, 2003). The supporters should have a though on whether legalization will increase or decrease the use by individuals, the negative implications on health and families, its effects on school going children and their learning abilities. Also, is it likely to make an individual to be depressed besides increasing the risk of having cancer?

6

Stakeholders are:

1- Citizens

2- Medical communities

3- Law Enforcement

Stakeholders of the marijuana