THE PROS AND CONS OF LIGHT DRUGS LEGALIZATION
Certain subjects usually arouse spirited public debates that culminate into gauging whether the pros outweigh the cons, or otherwise. Legalization of light drugs such as marijuana is a strong topic, which elicit strong feelings and reaction on either side of the public opinion. The idea of legalizing light drugs continue to dominate most of the public for a, prompting the concerned authorities to review the net effects that such drugs have in the society once legalized. Of much anxiety and delight in these debates is the fact that since marijuana falls under light drugs, its legalization might just be in the offing. Opponents of light drugs legalization see marijuana as a lesser drug whose frequent use has the capacity of resulting in the consumer graduating to even harder drugs. Proponents of light drug legalization, on the other hand, see a very impressive opportunity in terms of expanding the scope of business, as well as making marijuana to outlive its myriad recreational uses. In retrospect, legalizing light drugs such as marijuana will have both pros and cons in the society.
Discussion Proponents’ Views Proponents of light drug legalization offer numerous reasons including citing the prohibition of light drugs such as marijuana as the government affront on personal choice. The most outstanding argument for marijuana legalization is its medical purposes. Numerous research avail that marijuana is instrumental in treating various ailments with health concerns. From this perspective, legalizing marijuana would make it proper for the patients to receive the drug without alarm. Alternatively, scientists will find it easier to study the drug, and explore further other hidden medical benefits inherent in marijuana. Scientifically, marijuana is not an addictive drug and consumers record minimal side effects compared to tobacco and alcohol that have far-reaching negative effects including cancer and the likelihood of stroke. Marijuana effectively relieves nausea experienced by patients suffering from cancer or those undergoing powerful chemotherapy. In some cases, it is effective in patients with multiple sclerosis and HIV/AIDS. Among the light drugs, marijuana is effective in treating glaucoma given its ability to lower the pressure in the body. Specifically for recreational use, marijuana coupled with its medicinal significance needs consideration in a broader legal view. Marijuana has a couple of uses among which transcends the bounds of medical purposes alone.
Opponents of light drug legalization argue that some of these drugs are too dangerous for human consumption. Accordingly, these groups of people argue that marijuana lacks Food and Drug Administration certification, and that the presence of various legal drugs in the market makes the legalization of marijuana, especially for medicinal use unnecessary. Marijuana, they contend, is addictive and leads to harder drug abuse given its ability to orient consumers for other drugs. Others insist that marijuana interferes with fertility and impairs steadiness in consumers, making individuals to report problems handling machinery and driving. Moreover, opponents of marijuana legalization opine that marijuana consumption could be injurious to the lungs and lower the immune system with the probability to damage the brain. In more certain terms, these individuals believe that legalizing marijuana for its medical purposes is affront to drug legalization in the society.
From the forgoing analysis, it is evident that light drugs legalization carries negative and positive effects with equal proportions. From the debates that dominate this subject and the research already done in this area, there are strong pointers that policy makers might have to reconsider their stand to approach the process of legalization of light drugs. With the already divided public opinion and varying research both in support and against the benefits of marijuana, it might be a time bomb before policymakers ascertain the net impacts of these drugs. Therefore, it is advisable for the institutions of law to consult widely as a way to produce a conclusive call.