thesis on legalizing marijuana

Marijuana Legalization - Free Essay Examples And Topic Ideas

Marijuana legalization is a contentious issue with implications for health, economy, and society. Essays might explore the arguments for and against legalization, the experiences of regions where marijuana has been legalized, and the legal, economic, and social ramifications of legalization. Additionally, discussions might extend to the medical uses of marijuana, its impact on the criminal justice system, and its societal perceptions. We have collected a large number of free essay examples about Marijuana Legalization you can find in Papersowl database. You can use our samples for inspiration to write your own essay, research paper, or just to explore a new topic for yourself.

Marijuana Legalization and Regulation

Medications/Drugs are a part of everyday life. We take medications for various ailments, to return ourselves to good health. Yet, as time and healthcare technology have moved along, we have discovered that some medications or drugs are inherently good (i.e.: antibiotics, cancer medications, and insulin) and some are inherently bad or, at least, can be used for bad purposes (i.e.: mind altering substances such as LSD, and cocaine). The "bad" drugs can be deadly. They have effects that can addict […]

Medical Marijuana and Marijuana Legalization

Thursday, June 09, 2011 Much debate has been conducted regarding the legalization of marijuana, with an unusual amount of contradicting research. There are many perspectives to take into account, and they always seem to come down to the personal motives of the debater. Whether it's being argued from a medical, political, or economical perspective; it continually comes down to whether Federal Government should be our dictators or we should be responsible for our actions. The Canadian medical Association Journal reports […]

Marijuana should be Legalized?

We are living in an era where noxious things like alcohol, rum and cigarettes -that lead us to nothing but a dreadful death- are legal, and a plant which has no obnoxious effects on our body and mind is illegal. For years and years, marijuana has been used as a mean to achieve elation. The criterion to impose a ban on something, or to term it illegal, is that its cons should overshadow its pros; and that it will have […]

We will write an essay sample crafted to your needs.

Medical Marijuana Legalization the Good Bad and Ugly

The legalization of medical marijuana has been discussed amongst the country's states for decades. Medical marijuana legalization has taken a positive shift throughout these years and is now legal in 20 states and the District of Columbia. The initial drug, marijuana, was band for the dangerous effects it brought to people. Throughout the year's people have turned to marijuana to ease anxiety, pain, and stress. Legalizing marijuana has brought multiple perspectives on the topic. Differences such as medical marijuana legalization, […]

Medical Marijuana Legalization

Marijuana legalization has become a topic of relevance in the United States as recent changes in various state legislations fuel the controversial issue relating to its effects on society. With more than thirty states legalizing marijuana for medicinal or recreational uses, the once taboo topic has reemerged into the spotlight for policymakers to consider the benefits and adverse effects of cannabis for state legislation. Although the legal status is changing nationwide, the uncertainties surrounding marijuana today stem from the political […]

Pros and Cons of Legalizing Marijuana

When we first picked our topic for our presentations I had an idea of what we were going to do. Ideas from school shootings to you and human trafficking were some I was thinking of. The drug epidemic was what first came to thought but I felt that was to broad of of a topic. With state after state legalizing Medical or Recreational Marijuana it is becoming more likely within the near future will become federally legal. Today there are […]

Against Marijuana Legalization

In my high school years I met a lot of people, I’ve meet hundreds of people who ruined their lives by just “trying” a drug. One of those friends is named Carmen, my dear friend Carmen smokes marijuana recreationally everyday, she’s tried everything under the rainbow; pot brownies, gummi bears, cookies, anything that you can think of is probably an edible. She’s even forced me to try marijuana when we were in high school once. It was the worst experience […]

Marijuana Legalization in Texas: an In-Depth Examination of the Ongoing Debate

The contentious issue of marijuana legalization has engendered fervent discourse across the United States, resulting in a patchwork of divergent legislation among different states. The state of Texas, renowned for its traditionally conservative ideology, is now grappling with a pivotal juncture as it engages in more prevalent deliberations around the legalization of marijuana. The primary objective of this essay is to critically analyze the complex and intricate discourse pertaining to the subject matter in the state of Texas. This analysis […]

Legalization of Marijuana: Good or Bad

The legalization of marijuana is a hot topic these days. Marijuana has been legalized in many different states. Colorado legalized marijuana for recreational use in 2012. Since then, Texas has been talking of legalizing it as well. Although the legalization of marijuana has brought quite a bit of controversy over the nation, I believe the good outweigh the bad. Marijuana is used for different medical reasons, ranging from anxiety all the way to helping some side effects of cancer. Many […]

Legalization of Recreational Marijuana

Marijuana, also known as pot, weed, kush, or dank, is a debated topic nationwide. Surveys have shown that " more than half of American adults have tried marijuana at least once in their lives ...nearly 55 million of them, or twenty two percent, currently use it"(Ingraham). Many people believe that there are only few negative effects affiliated with smoking weed, but there are many poor and preventable outcomes that are not always taken into consideration. The effects of marijuana on […]

A Legalized Drug in the United States

In the United States, marijuana is one of the most commonly used drugs that should have been legalized a long time ago along with alcohol. Although, 15 states in the United States have already legalized the use of marijuana, many others still lag behind at the thought of even legalizing Cannabis. In addition, many people think that marijuana is a bad drug, while on the other hand, people like myself believe for many reasons that it should be legalized. Marijuana […]

Pro-Legalization of Marijuana

Marijuana has always been a much-discussed subject that has sparked heated discussions among experts and officials, in addition to a perpetual dialogue among family and associates. This is primarily due to the fact that people are still divided on whether cannabis should be legalized or not. While many people are aware of the dangers of cannabis for recreational purposes, many states are pushing for the legalization of medical cannabis. Several studies of cannabinoid elements have revealed its medicinal qualities, which […]

Proposal One: Impact on Warren, MI’s Future

Proposal One is the allowing of individuals age 21 and older to purchase, possess and use marijuana and marijuana-infused edibles, and grow up to 12 marijuana plants for personal consumption. Impose a 10-ounce limit for marijuana kept at residences and require that amounts over 2.5 ounces be secured in locked containers. Creating a state licensing system for marijuana businesses including growers, processors, and transporters. Ryan Mainer (Libertarian party) supports proposal one. How do we know this is true? He has […]

The Legalization of Marijuana Today

Over the last decade, there has been plenty of speculation revolving around the whether the legalization of marijuana is even ethical, well it is here, and it is legal. For the time being it happens to be in only a select number of states. Despite some people not agreeing with various laws that have decriminalized marijuana because they still believe it is a harmful "drug" for humans. Well when the facts reveal the real benefits from marijuana and how it […]

Legalization of Marijuana: the Current Situation

Scholars are increasingly exhibiting interest in matters concerning marijuana legalization especially considering laws related to healthcare. The increments in interest emanate from concerns that legalization of this drug is not in alignment with existing health-related laws according to the federal government (Kilmer et al., 2010). According to Hopfer (2014), the government has failed to fully support legalization because few studies have been conducted to prove its medicinal worth. Nonetheless, medical legalization of this particular drug is increasingly gaining support. A […]

Marijuana Decriminalization in all States

The government should legalize marijuana on the federal use due to the multifaceted health, economic, and criminal benefits now outweigh the outdated downsides of use. Many researchers have come to the conclusion of outdated research not being correct. "One function of government is to protect citizens from harm, whether it is from foreign enemies or from internal causes such as poisonous food or contaminated water." Researchers believe that legalizing marijuana will not help the people only harm them and the […]

The Cost and Benefit of Legalization of Marijuana

In recent years, marijuana has become a controversial topic, and the United States government has been struggling to find a solution for the legalization of marijuana. Some argue that the government should legalize marijuana because it is less harmful than alcohol and tobacco. They also believe legalizing marijuana will decrease crime rates, especially drug trafficking. It is because marijuana is illegal in most states, and its penalties are often quite harsh, which can deter people from committing related crimes. Others […]

Legalization of Marijuana Throughout States

Legalization of marijuana use is spreading throughout states in the nation. There are many people who want to make recreational marijuana legal in the state of Texas. Some opponents of keeping marijuana criminalized argue that it would decreased alcohol and tobacco consumption, makes people passive and peaceful and that it aids those who are in pain. However after researching the effects that long-term marijuana use has on people, one will find that those are not realistically always the case and […]

The Impacts of Legalizing Marijuana

The impacts of legalizing marijuana have been far reaching. Legal or not, there are health issues to consider when it comes to medicinal purposes or recreational purposes. Studies show that non-medical marijuana users are at an increased risk for physical ailments involving the respiratory system and pulmonary functions. Psychological problems are also a concern, involving depression, insomnia, anxiety, and drug addiction. Other things associated with marijuana use are criminal justice involvement and lower academic achievement and functioning (Lankenau, et al., […]

Legalization of Marijuana and Economic Growth

These would make occupations as well as set the ball moving for financial action in the pot business in these regions. On account of states like California and Nevada where such foundation as of now exists, the financial effect has turned out to be more quantifiable as the part has developed. A RCG Economics and Marijuana Policy Group consider on Nevada says that legitimizing recreational marijuana in the state could bolster more than 41,000 employments till 2024 and produce over […]

Marijuana as a Psychoactive Drug

Marijuana is a psychoactive drug from the Cannabis plant used for medical or recreational purposes. It is sold in the form of dried leaves which can be smoked. Recreational marijuana was introduced in the U.S in the early 20th century by immigrants from Mexico. Marijuana is a controversial topic in the United States because many people think it shouldn't be legalized . Some will agree on making it legal throughout the United States, and some would think otherwise. Many debates […]

Persuasive Speeches on Legalizing Weed: Exploring the Benefits and Concerns

Introduction Legalizing marijuana is a controversial topic for many states. If marijuana is legalized, it would save prisons and jails funds because they could release people who have been convicted of felonies with the dealing of this incidental drug. This means that the government would have more money to use towards education on the safe use of the product and the prosecution of dealers who control the use of extremely dangerous hard drugs. However, people against legalizing marijuana argue that […]

Related topic

Additional example essays.

• Substance Abuse and Mental Illnesses
• Drunk Driving
• Homelessness Problem In LA
• War On Drugs and Mass Incarceration
• Is Social Media Making Us More Narcissistic?
• Why Smoking Is Illegal For Pregnant Women
• The Mental Health Stigma
• Logical Fallacies in Letter From Birmingham Jail
• Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner
• Oedipus is a Tragic Hero
• Nursing Shortage: solutions of the problem
• Homelessness in America

How To Write an Essay About Marijuana Legalization

Introduction to marijuana legalization.

When embarking on an essay about marijuana legalization, it's crucial to begin with a comprehensive overview of the topic. Marijuana legalization is a multifaceted issue that encompasses legal, medical, social, and economic dimensions. Your introduction should briefly touch upon the history of marijuana use and its legal status over time, setting the stage for a deeper exploration of the arguments for and against legalization. Establish your thesis statement, outlining the specific aspect of marijuana legalization you will focus on, whether it's the potential medical benefits, the social implications, or the economic impact of legalizing marijuana.

Examining the Arguments for Legalization

In this section, delve into the arguments commonly made in favor of legalizing marijuana. These arguments often include the potential medical benefits of marijuana, such as its use in pain management and treatment of certain medical conditions. Discuss the viewpoint that legalization could lead to better regulation and quality control of the substance, as well as potentially reduce crime rates related to illegal drug trade. It's also important to consider the economic aspect, such as the revenue generated from taxing legal marijuana sales. Provide well-researched evidence and examples to support these arguments, ensuring that your essay presents a balanced and informed perspective.

Exploring the Counterarguments

Next, address the arguments against marijuana legalization. These may include concerns about the health risks associated with marijuana use, such as potential impacts on mental health and cognitive function, especially among young people. Discuss the fears that legalization might lead to increased usage rates, particularly in adolescents, and the potential for marijuana to act as a gateway drug. There's also the argument regarding the challenges of enforcing regulations and controlling the quality and distribution of legal marijuana. Like the previous section, ensure that you present these counterarguments with supporting evidence and a fair analysis, demonstrating an understanding of the complexities of the issue.

Concluding the Essay

Conclude your essay by summarizing the main points from both sides of the argument. This is your opportunity to reinforce your thesis and provide a final analysis of the issue based on the evidence presented. Reflect on the potential future of marijuana legalization, considering the current trends and policy changes. A well-crafted conclusion should provide closure to your essay and encourage the reader to continue contemplating the nuanced aspects of marijuana legalization. Your concluding remarks might also suggest areas for further research or consideration, underscoring the ongoing nature of the debate surrounding marijuana legalization.

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

2018 Theses Doctoral

Essays on Cannabis Legalization

Thomas, Danna Kang

Though the drug remains illegal at the federal level, in recent years states and localities have increasingly liberalized their marijuana laws in order to generate tax revenue and save resources on marijuana law enforcement. Many states have adopted some form of medical marijuana and/or marijuana decriminalization laws, and as of 2017, Washington, Colorado, Maine, California, Oregon, Massachusetts, Nevada, Alaska, and the District of Columbia have all legalized marijuana for recreational use. In 2016 recreational marijuana generated over $1.8 billion in sales. Hence, studying marijuana reforms and the policies and outcomes of early recreational marijuana adopters is an important area of research. However, perhaps due to the fact that legalized recreational cannabis is a recent phenomenon, a scarcity of research exists on the impacts of recreational cannabis legalization and the efficacy and efficiency of cannabis regulation. This dissertation aims to fill this gap, using the Washington recreational marijuana market as the primary setting to study cannabis legalization in the United States. Of first order importance in the regulation of sin goods such as cannabis is quantifying the value of the marginal damages of negative externalities. Hence, Chapter 1 (co-authored with Lin Tian) explores the impact of marijuana dispensary location on neighborhood property values, exploiting plausibly exogenous variation in marijuana retailer location. Policymakers and advocates have long expressed concerns that the positive effects of the legalization--e.g., increases in tax revenue--are well spread spatially, but the negative effects are highly localized through channels such as crime. Hence, we use changes in property values to measure individuals' willingness to pay to avoid localized externalities caused by the arrival of marijuana dispensaries. Our key identification strategy is to compare changes in housing sales around winners and losers in a lottery for recreational marijuana retail licenses. (Due to location restrictions, license applicants were required to provide an address of where they would like to locate.) Hence, we have the locations of both actual entrants and potential entrants, which provides a natural difference-in-differences set-up. Using data from King County, Washington, we find an almost 2.4% decrease in the value of properties within a 0.5 mile radius of an entrant, a $9,400 decline in median property values. The aforementioned retail license lottery was used to distribute licenses due to a license quota. Retail license quotas are often used by states to regulate entry into sin goods markets as quotas can restrict consumption by decreasing access and by reducing competition (and, therefore, increasing markups). However, license quotas also create allocative inefficiency. For example, license quotas are often based on the population of a city or county. Hence, licenses are not necessarily allocated to the areas where they offer the highest marginal benefit. Moreover, as seen in the case of the Washington recreational marijuana market, licenses are often distributed via lottery, meaning that in the absence of an efficiency secondary market for licenses, the license recipients are not necessarily the most efficient potential entrants. This allocative inefficiency is generated by heterogeneity in firms and consumers. Therefore, in Chapter 2, I develop a model of demand and firm pricing in order to investigate firm-level heterogeneity and inefficiency. Demand is differentiated by geography and incorporates consumer demographics. I estimate this demand model using data on firm sales from Washington. Utilizing the estimates and firm pricing model, I back out a non-parametric distribution of firm variable costs. These variable costs differ by product and firm and provide a measure of firm inefficiency. I find that variable costs have lower inventory turnover; hence, randomly choosing entrants in a lottery could be a large contributor to allocative inefficiency. Chapter 3 explores the sources of allocative inefficiency in license distribution in the Washington recreational marijuana market. A difficulty in studying the welfare effects of license quotas is finding credible counterfactuals of unrestricted entry. Therefore, I take a structural approach: I first develop a three stage model that endogenizes firm entry and incorporates the spatial demand and pricing model discussed in Chapter 2. Using the estimates of the demand and pricing model, I estimate firms' fixed costs and use data on locations of those potential entrants that did not win Washington's retail license lottery to simulate counterfactual entry patterns. I find that allowing firms to enter freely at Washington's current marijuana tax rate increases total surplus by 21.5% relative to a baseline simulation of Washington's license quota regime. Geographic misallocation and random allocation of licenses account for 6.6\% and 65.9\% of this difference, respectively. Moreover, as the primary objective of these quotas is to mitigate the negative externalities of marijuana consumption, I study alternative state tax policies that directly control for the marginal damages of marijuana consumption. Free entry with tax rates that keep the quantity of marijuana or THC consumed equal to baseline consumption increases welfare by 6.9% and 11.7%, respectively. I also explore the possibility of heterogeneous marginal damages of consumption across geography, backing out the non-uniform sales tax across geography that is consistent with Washington's license quota policy. Free entry with a non-uniform sales tax increases efficiency by over 7% relative to the baseline simulation of license quotas due to improvements in license allocation.

• Cannabis--Law and legislation
• Marijuana industry
• Drug legalization
• Drugs--Economic aspects

More About This Work

• DOI Copy DOI to clipboard

Home » Uncategorized » Five Reasons Why We Should Legalize Cannabis

The Yale Ledger is a student-led magazine showcasing content from around the Yale community.

If you are affiliated with the Yale student community and have an article you want to share, please email Layla Winston .

If you notice any spam or inappropriate content, please contact us so we can remove it.

• February 2024
• January 2024
• December 2023
• November 2023
• October 2023
• September 2023
• August 2023
• February 2023
• January 2023
• December 2022
• November 2022
• October 2022
• September 2022
• August 2022
• February 2022
• January 2022
• December 2021
• September 2021
• August 2021
• February 2021
• January 2021

Five Reasons Why We Should Legalize Cannabis

Cannabis use in the United States has had a long and complicated history. For decades, people who used cannabis were subject to social ostracization and criminal prosecution. However, attitudes toward cannabis have been evolving in recent years. An increasing number of states have started to legalize cannabis for medical or recreational use. This shift in policy has been driven by a variety of factors including changing public attitudes and the potential economic benefits of legalization. In this article, we will explore the potential benefits of legalizing cannabis in our country.

1. Legalization for the Environment

Legalizing cannabis can have significant benefits for the environment. When cannabis is grown illegally, it is often done in environmentally damaging ways, such as using chemical pesticides or clearing primary forests to make room for crops. Legalization could allow customers to support more environmental growers. This will incentivize more responsible growing practices, such as the use of organic farming methods or the use of renewable energy sources to power indoor grow operations. In addition, the culture of growing cannabis can help to discover and preserve precious marijuana seeds , increasing biodiversity and facilitating a deeper understanding of cannabis plants and their cultivation.

2. Legalization for Justice

Where cannabis is illegal, people are being arrested and charged for possession or sale, which leads to costly court cases and a burden on the criminal justice system. Legalization would free up law enforcement resources to focus on more serious crimes and simultaneously reduce the number of people incarcerated for non-violent drug offenses. This could help to reduce the overall prison population and save taxpayers money.

In addition, legalization can have significant benefits for justice and equity, particularly for marginalized communities that have been disproportionately affected by the criminalization of cannabis. Communities of color have been particularly affected by the war on drugs, with Black Americans being nearly four times more likely to be arrested for cannabis possession than white Americans, despite similar rates of use.

By regulating cannabis cultivation and sales, legalization can help to eliminate the black market and reduce the involvement of criminal organizations in the cannabis industry. This can lead to safer communities and reduced drug-related violence in communities that have been most affected by the criminalization of cannabis.

3. Legalization for Public Health

Cannabis has been shown to have many beneficial and therapeutic effects on both physical and mental health. However, people may be hesitant to seek medical marijuana treatment due to fear of legal repercussions if cannabis is illegal. Legalization can allow more people to enjoy better health outcomes. It can also promote the safer use of cannabis by educating the public on appropriate cannabis use and providing quality control measures for cannabis products. Legalization can also lead to increased research into potential medical applications of cannabis and could lead to the development of innovative treatments.

Another potential perk of cannabis legalization is that it could reduce the use of more harmful drugs. In the absence of cannabis, people may turn to more dangerous drugs like heroin or fentanyl to manage chronic pain or other conditions. By legalizing cannabis, we can provide a safer alternative for these individuals and could reduce the overall demand for these more dangerous drugs. States that have legalized cannabis found a decrease in opioid overdose deaths and hospitalizations, suggesting that cannabis are an effective alternative to prescription painkillers.

4. Legalization for the Economy

The legalization of cannabis can generate significant tax revenue for governments and create new economic opportunities. When cannabis is illegal, it is sold on the black market, and no taxes are collected on these sales. However, when it is legal, sales can be regulated, and taxes can be imposed on those sales. In states that have legalized cannabis, tax revenue from cannabis sales has been in the millions of dollars , with California registering a whopping $1.2 billion in cannabis tax revenue in 2021. This impressive income can be used to reduce budget deficits, fund various public services such as education and healthcare, and create new opportunities for investment in projects that revitalize the economy.

Aside from tax revenue, legalizing cannabis can create new jobs. The cannabis industry is a rapidly growing industry, and legalization could lead to the creation of new jobs in areas such as cultivation, processing, and retail sales. This can help to reduce unemployment and create new gainful opportunities for people who may have struggled to find employment in other industries. Legalization can also lead to increased investment in related industries, such as the development of new products or technologies to improve cannabis cultivation or the creation of new retail businesses. There are now several venture capital funds and investment groups that focus solely on cannabis-related enterprises.

5. Legalization for Acceptance

Finally, legalization could help reduce the stigma surrounding cannabis use. Before cannabis legalization, people who use the plant were often viewed as criminals or deviants. Legalization can help change this perception and lead to more open and honest conversations about cannabis use. Ultimately, legalization could lead to a more accepting and inclusive society where individuals are not judged or discriminated against for their personal and healthcare choices. By legalizing cannabis, we can harness the power of a therapeutic plant. Legalization can heal not just physical and mental ailments of individuals but also the social wounds that have resulted from its criminalization.

Leave a comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Powered by WordPress / Academica WordPress Theme by WPZOOM

THREE ESSAYS ON THE EFFECT OF LEGALIZING MARIJUANA ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND SOCIAL SECURITY

The legalization of marijuana has emerged as a critical public policy issue, with far-reaching implications for health, education, and government programs at both the state and federal levels. The three essays of this dissertation show that medical marijuana legalization (MML) has a negative effect in each of these areas. The first essay shows, that the enactment of MMLs can exacerbate the crisis of overdose deaths in the United States. The study analyzes three key areas: the rate of overdose deaths caused by both legal and illegal drugs, the impact of MML on social norms regarding the perceived harm of marijuana, and an investigation into the gateway theory by examining the use of other addictive drugs. I find that MMLs increase deaths attributed to overdose by 21.5% population. MMLs s also indicate increase the number of deaths due to prescribed opioids by 44.6%, and deaths from all opioids (heroin and cocaine in addition to prescribed opioids) by 37.2 % Results suggest an overall increase in the use of marijuana, primarily due to lower perceived risk among adolescents. Additionally, results show an increase in hospital admissions due to substance abuse. The analysis suggests that legalizing medical marijuana may exaggerate the current problem of drug overdose in the United States. The second essay examines the impact of improved access to medical marijuana, measured by the proximity of schools to the nearest dispensary, on the academic performance of high school students in California. Students in schools farther from a marijuana dispensary have higher academic performance as measured through AP, ACT, SAT scores, and average GPA, and lower number of suspensions due to violence and illicit drug use. To show this, I construct the first geocoded dataset on marijuana dispensary and high school locations, use newly developed difference-in-differences estimators that rule out any bias due to heterogeneous treatment effects over time, and explore dynamic responses. This essay reveals the importance of ensuring a largest possible distance between schools and dispensaries to protect adolescents from the potential harm caused by medical marijuana. Finally, the third essay shows that in the long term, MMLs increase the number of disabled workers who receive Social Security Disability Income (SSDI) because of mental health issues. SSDI is a major social insurance program that provides benefits to workers who become disabled, and understanding how policy changes in other areas may impact this program is important. In this study, there were important differences between the results of a two-way fixed effects model and a new model by Callaway and Santa’Anna. MMLs, in theory, could either increase or decrease the number of SSDI recipients, and traditional fixed effects models suggest both could be at play; however, only the negative effect is robust to correction for heterogeneous effects. This highlights the need for future research to understand the true impact of medical marijuana legalization

Contributors

Degree grantor, degree level, submission id, usage metrics.

• Health economics
• Welfare economics
• Epidemiology
• Health policy
• Public policy
• Medical and health law

• Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
• Biostatistics
• Environmental Health and Engineering
• Epidemiology
• Health Policy and Management
• Health, Behavior and Society
• International Health
• Mental Health
• Molecular Microbiology and Immunology
• Population, Family and Reproductive Health
• Program Finder
• Admissions Services
• Course Directory
• Academic Calendar
• Hybrid Campus
• Lecture Series
• Convocation
• Strategy and Development
• Implementation and Impact
• Integrity and Oversight
• In the School
• In the Field
• In Baltimore
• Resources for Practitioners
• Articles & News Releases
• In The News
• Statements & Announcements
• At a Glance
• Student Life
• Strategic Priorities
• Inclusion, Diversity, Anti-Racism, and Equity (IDARE)
• What is Public Health?

The Evidence—and Lack Thereof—About Cannabis

Research is still needed on cannabis’s risks and benefits. 

Lindsay Smith Rogers

Although the use and possession of cannabis is illegal under federal law, medicinal and recreational cannabis use has become increasingly widespread.

Thirty-eight states and Washington, D.C., have legalized medical cannabis, while 23 states and D.C. have legalized recreational use. Cannabis legalization has benefits, such as removing the product from the illegal market so it can be taxed and regulated, but science is still trying to catch up as social norms evolve and different products become available. 

In this Q&A, adapted from the August 25 episode of Public Health On Call , Lindsay Smith Rogers talks with Johannes Thrul, PhD, MS , associate professor of Mental Health , about cannabis as medicine, potential risks involved with its use, and what research is showing about its safety and efficacy. 

Do you think medicinal cannabis paved the way for legalization of recreational use?

The momentum has been clear for a few years now. California was the first to legalize it for medical reasons [in 1996]. Washington and Colorado were the first states to legalize recreational use back in 2012. You see one state after another changing their laws, and over time, you see a change in social norms. It's clear from the national surveys that people are becoming more and more in favor of cannabis legalization. That started with medical use, and has now continued into recreational use.

But there is a murky differentiation between medical and recreational cannabis. I think a lot of people are using cannabis to self-medicate. It's not like a medication you get prescribed for a very narrow symptom or a specific disease. Anyone with a medical cannabis prescription, or who meets the age limit for recreational cannabis, can purchase it. Then what they use it for is really all over the place—maybe because it makes them feel good, or because it helps them deal with certain symptoms, diseases, and disorders.

Does cannabis have viable medicinal uses?

The evidence is mixed at this point. There hasn’t been a lot of funding going into testing cannabis in a rigorous way. There is more evidence for certain indications than for others, like CBD for seizures—one of the first indications that cannabis was approved for. And THC has been used effectively for things like nausea and appetite for people with cancer.

There are other indications where the evidence is a lot more mixed. For example, pain—one of the main reasons that people report for using cannabis. When we talk to patients, they say cannabis improved their quality of life. In the big studies that have been done so far, there are some indications from animal models that cannabis might help [with pain]. When we look at human studies, it's very much a mixed bag. 

And, when we say cannabis, in a way it's a misnomer because cannabis is so many things. We have different cannabinoids and different concentrations of different cannabinoids. The main cannabinoids that are being studied are THC and CBD, but there are dozens of other minor cannabinoids and terpenes in cannabis products, all of varying concentrations. And then you also have a lot of different routes of administration available. You can smoke, vape, take edibles, use tinctures and topicals. When you think about the explosion of all of the different combinations of different products and different routes of administration, it tells you how complicated it gets to study this in a rigorous way. You almost need a randomized trial for every single one of those and then for every single indication.

What do we know about the risks of marijuana use?  

Cannabis use disorder is a legitimate disorder in the DSM. There are, unfortunately, a lot of people who develop a problematic use of cannabis. We know there are risks for mental health consequences. The evidence is probably the strongest that if you have a family history of psychosis or schizophrenia, using cannabis early in adolescence is not the best idea. We know cannabis can trigger psychotic symptoms and potentially longer lasting problems with psychosis and schizophrenia. 

It is hard to study, because you also don't know if people are medicating early negative symptoms of schizophrenia. They wouldn't necessarily have a diagnosis yet, but maybe cannabis helps them to deal with negative symptoms, and then they develop psychosis. There is also some evidence that there could be something going on with the impact of cannabis on the developing brain that could prime you to be at greater risk of using other substances later down the road, or finding the use of other substances more reinforcing. 

What benefits do you see to legalization?

When we look at the public health landscape and the effect of legislation, in this case legalization, one of the big benefits is taking cannabis out of the underground illegal market. Taking cannabis out of that particular space is a great idea. You're taking it out of the illegal market and giving it to legitimate businesses where there is going to be oversight and testing of products, so you know what you're getting. And these products undergo quality control and are labeled. Those labels so far are a bit variable, but at least we're getting there. If you're picking up cannabis at the street corner, you have no idea what's in it. 

And we know that drug laws in general have been used to criminalize communities of color and minorities. Legalizing cannabis [can help] reduce the overpolicing of these populations.

What big questions about cannabis would you most like to see answered?

We know there are certain, most-often-mentioned conditions that people are already using medical cannabis for: pain, insomnia, anxiety, and PTSD. We really need to improve the evidence base for those. I think clinical trials for different cannabis products for those conditions are warranted.

Another question is, now that the states are getting more tax revenue from cannabis sales, what are they doing with that money? If you look at tobacco legislation, for example, certain states have required that those funds get used for research on those particular issues. To me, that would be a very good use of the tax revenue that is now coming in. We know, for example, that there’s a lot more tax revenue now that Maryland has legalized recreational use. Maryland could really step up here and help provide some of that evidence.

Are there studies looking into the risks you mentioned?

Large national studies are done every year or every other year to collect data, so we already have a pretty good sense of the prevalence of cannabis use disorder. Obviously, we'll keep tracking that to see if those numbers increase, for example, in states that are legalizing. But, you wouldn't necessarily expect to see an uptick in cannabis use disorder a month after legalization. The evidence from states that have legalized it has not demonstrated that we might all of a sudden see an increase in psychosis or in cannabis use disorder. This happens slowly over time with a change in social norms and availability, and potentially also with a change in marketing. And, with increasing use of an addictive substance, you will see over time a potential increase in problematic use and then also an increase in use disorder.

If you're interested in seeing if cannabis is right for you, is this something you can talk to your doctor about?

I think your mileage may vary there with how much your doctor is comfortable and knows about it. It's still relatively fringe. That will very much depend on who you talk to. But I think as providers and professionals, everybody needs to learn more about this, because patients are going to ask no matter what.

Lindsay Smith Rogers, MA, is the producer of the Public Health On Call podcast , an editor for Expert Insights , and the director of content strategy for the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

Could Medical Marijuana Help Address the Opioid Epidemic?

Policy Is Public Health

Medical Marijuana Laws Linked to Health and Labor Supply Benefits in Older Adults

Related Content

Understanding Sleep, Activity, and Circadian Rhythms in Major Depressive Disorder

The Threat to Abortion Rights You Haven’t Heard Of

How to Offer Support and Find Strength on a Trauma Anniversary

Mental Health in the Workplace: A Conversation Bridging Research and Practice

Activity, Sleep & Dementia

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Medical Marijuana and Marijuana Legalization

Rosalie liccardo pacula.

1 RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California 90407; gro.dnar@alucap , gro.dnar@tramsr

2 National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138

Rosanna Smart

State-level marijuana liberalization policies have been evolving for the past five decades, and yet the overall scientific evidence of the impact of these policies is widely believed to be inconclusive. In this review we summarize some of the key limitations of the studies evaluating the effects of decriminalization and medical marijuana laws on marijuana use, highlighting their inconsistencies in terms of the heterogeneity of policies, the timing of the evaluations, and the measures of use being considered. We suggest that the heterogeneity in the responsiveness of different populations to particular laws is important for interpreting the mixed findings from the literature, and we highlight the limitations of the existing literature in providing clear insights into the probable effects of marijuana legalization.

INTRODUCTION

Although the federal law has prohibited the use and distribution of marijuana in the United States since 1937, for the past five decades states have been experimenting with marijuana liberalization polices. State decriminalization policies were first passed in the 1970s, patient medical access laws began to get adopted in the 1990s, and more recently states have been experimenting with legalization of recreational markets. This has resulted in a spectrum of marijuana liberalization policies across the United States that is often not fully recognized or considered when conducting evaluations of recent policy changes. Consider for example the state of marijuana policies in the United States at a single point of time. As shown in Figure 1 , as of January 1, 2016, 21 states 1 have decriminalized certain marijuana possession offenses ( NCSL 2016a ), 26 states have legalized medical marijuana use, and another 16 states have adopted cannabidiol (CBD)-only laws ( NCSL 2016b ) that protect only certain strains of marijuana to be used for medicinal purposes. However, there is tremendous overlap because some states have implemented combinations of each of these policies, as shown by the fact that the five states currently legalizing recreational marijuana use (Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, Washington, and the District of Columbia) all initially decriminalized marijuana and then passed medical marijuana allowances before passing their legalization policies. Thus, the vast majority of US states have moved away from a strict prohibition position toward marijuana well before they started considering outright legalization.

State marijuana policies as of January 1, 2016. Data from the RAND Marijuana Policy Database ( Pacula et al. 2015 ) and NCSL (2016a , b) with permission. Abbreviation: CBD, cannabidiol.

A number of factors have driven the policy changes observed over the past several decades, including rising state budgetary costs associated with arresting and incarcerating nonviolent drug offenders ( Raphael & Stoll 2013 , Reuter et al. 2001 ), growing scientific evidence of the therapeutic benefits of cannabinoids found in the marijuana plant ( Hill 2015 , Koppel et al. 2014 ), and strained state budgets that have caused legislatures to look for new sources of tax revenue ( Caulkins et al. 2015 , Kilmer et al. 2010 ).

The tremendous policy variation over time and across states would appear to give researchers ample opportunities to quantitatively assess the effect of marijuana liberalization policies on a variety of health and social outcomes. However, the scientific literature has been slow to develop, and what exists in the literature offers generally mixed and largely insignificant findings. This has led many to conclude that the previous liberalization policies must be harmless and that ongoing legalization would similarly generate very little harm to society. Indeed, recent surveys of people’s attitudes about marijuana show a clear shift in favor of legalization ( Caulkins et al. 2015 ).

As we will argue throughout this article, however, at least three reasons suggest that we use caution in drawing conclusions from the mixed empirical evidence or, more importantly, in assuming that a change to legally protected commercial markets would result in outcomes similar to those of the previous experiments. First, the literature has largely treated both decriminalization and medical marijuana policies as if they were simple dichotomous choices, implemented similarly across states. Such a treatment ignores the significant heterogeneity in these policies that can differentially influence harms and benefits and also contributes to what appear to be mixed results from evaluations. Second, the vast majority of policy evaluations conducted thus far examine the effect of the policy in terms of changes in prevalence rates in the general population, which assumes that the proportion of casual and heavy users, who are pooled together in these simple prevalence rates, remains stable even as the policy changes. Finally, research has been slow to consider the extent to which these changes in policies influence the method by which the typical user consumes marijuana. The potential acute harm associated with smoking a joint is different from that associated with consuming an edible or dabbing wax, particularly given that the average potency of the product typically differs and the body’s rate of absorption of THC varies by method ( Huestis 2007 ).

In this article, we review the existing literature on the effects of decriminalization and medical marijuana laws on marijuana use and marijuana use disorders in light of these limitations. Unlike other reviews, our goal is not to summarize all the existing literature on the effects of decriminalization and medicalization. Rather, the purpose of this review is to provide a better understanding of what can be gleaned from the literature when more consideration is given to the complexities of these policies, the populations examined, and the measures of use considered. Doing so allows us to convey the need for more research, in terms of measurement and analysis, before we can truly understand the impacts of marijuana liberalization policies.

WHAT IS MEANT BY HETEROGENEOUS MARIJUANA POLICIES

Defining the policies.

It is important for any discussion of the literature to begin by defining the policies being considered. For the purposes of this review, we define four specific marijuana policies (prohibition, decriminalization, medical marijuana, and legalization) in terms of their legal definitions rather than their implementation in local communities, as the latter is often a function of the level of enforcement, which is difficult to measure in a systematic and analytic way. Prohibition, therefore, can be defined as a law that maintains the criminal status of any action related to marijuana possession, use, cultivation, sale, or distribution. The level of crime may be statutorily defined as either a misdemeanor (incurring relatively lower criminal penalties that may or may not include jail time) or a felony (entailing much more serious charges, tougher sanctions, and certain prison time), and the charge may be a function of the amount of marijuana involved or simply of the nature of the activity (e.g., sale to minors). Regardless, the emphasis is on the criminal status of the related offenses, not the degree to which local law enforcement chooses to enforce it. The US federal government, for example, retains its prohibition on all marijuana activities (possession, use, cultivation, distribution, processing, and sale) as do cities like San Francisco, although San Francisco has adopted a policy of low-priority enforcement ( Ross & Walker 2017 ).

Decriminalization is a policy that was first defined by the 1972 Shaffer Commission (also known as the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse), and it describes policies that do not define possession for personal use or casual (nonmonetary) distribution as a criminal offense. The Shaffer Commission clearly stated that policies that simply lowered the penalties without removing the criminal status of the offense were not technically decriminalized, because they maintained the substantial social harm of the associated criminal convictions ( Natl. Comm. Marihuana Drug Abus. 1972 ). This distinction between policies that simply lower penalties and those that actually change the legal status of the offense is important, and yet it is not widely understood by many researchers evaluating even the early policies. At least 2 of the 11 widely recognized decriminalized states from the 1970s and 1980s, California and North Carolina, did not remove the criminal status of the offense ( Pacula et al. 2003 , Reuter & MacCoun 1995 ). Instead, these states merely reduced the penalties associated with possession and/or use of marijuana, a policy generally known as depenalization ( MacCoun & Reuter 2001 , Pacula et al. 2005 ). Yet, individuals in depenalization jurisdictions can still face significant barriers to access work, student loans, and public assistance if caught in possession of marijuana, even if they are only charged with a small fine, because they can still get a criminal charge on their record.

Medical marijuana laws (MMLs) remove state penalties for the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes under specified conditions. Although the federal government continues to retain the 1970 classification of marijuana as a Schedule I substance with high potential for abuse and no accepted medical value (Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, P.L. 91–513, October 27, 1970, 84 Stat. 1242, 21 U.S.C. 801, et seq.), states have employed a number of regulatory approaches aimed at increasing access to marijuana for medicinal purposes since the 1970s. Early initiatives through the 1980s aimed to encourage study of the therapeutic value of marijuana, but they had little practical significance due to their heavy reliance on federal cooperation and the failure to establish a legitimate supply channel for patients ( Pacula et al. 2002 ). Initiatives passed since the 1990s have been far more comprehensive, establishing allowances for the use, possession, and supply of high (>3%) Δ 9 -tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) products for qualifying patients and their caregivers or providers. These modern MMLs have become the most commonly evaluated policies in comparative alcohol and drugs policy analysis ( Ritter et al. 2016 ), but incomplete consideration of widespread variation in how these laws have been designed and implemented has resulted in inconclusive and often contradictory findings ( Hunt & Miles 2015 ; Pacula et al. 2014a , 2015 ).

Legalization removes criminal and monetary penalties for the possession, use, and supply of marijuana for recreational purposes. Whereas decriminalized countries such as the Netherlands have histories of de facto legalization, and medical marijuana programs are often regarded as thinly veiled recreational legalization ( Fischer et al. 2015 , Haney & Evins 2016 ), de jure legalization is a relatively new phenomenon. The November 2012 ballot initiatives passed by voters in Colorado and Washington marked the first time that any jurisdiction worldwide has legally regulated marijuana. Much attention has been given to the recently created retail markets for legal marijuana in these two states, but the commercial model is but one regulatory option for legal production, and a number of alternative strategies are available ( Caulkins et al. 2015 ). Research has not yet assessed the consequences of legalization, but the effects on the prevalence of marijuana use and use disorders will depend largely on the specific state-level regulations adopted as well as the response of the federal government.

Establishing clear definitions for decriminalized, medicalized, and legalized states is not merely a semantic exercise; rather, it highlights the different mechanisms through which policies may influence use, including changes in perceptions of risk or social disapproval, changes in product availability and variety, and changes in production methods or costs that reduce prices. Although it is tempting to use evaluations of decriminalization and medical marijuana policies to shed light on the likely consequences of legalization, the experiences of these states may not fully reflect the changes in price, potency, and product variety that will likely result from increased commercialization and promotion under legalization ( Caulkins et al. 2012 ). Additionally, prior research on decriminalization and MMLs has suffered from serious limitations due to an overreliance on crude indicators that do not account for the complex and varied ways in which states have designed and implemented their policies ( Pacula & Sevigny 2014a , b ; Pacula et al. 2005 ). Although the existing literature may be limited in answering how legalization will affect marijuana use and associated outcomes, it offers significant insights into how we should evaluate the effects of marijuana policy changes in a rapidly evolving and multilayered policy environment.

Decriminalization and Definitional Problems

As stated previously, much of the scientific research evaluating the impacts of decriminalization in the United States has ignored the legal definition provided by the Shaffer Commission. In an examination of the original 11 statutes passed shortly after the Shaffer Commission, Pacula and colleagues (2003) discovered that 2 of the 11 widely recognized decriminalized states (California and North Carolina) retained the criminal status of marijuana possession offenses. Moreover, the reduced penalties in 4 of the original 11 states (Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, and North Carolina) only applied to first-time offenders, a distinction not consistent with the spirit of the Shaffer Commission definition. A comparison of state statutory penalties in so-called nondecriminalized states and in decriminalized states reveals that it is not possible to uniquely distinguish the two groups ( Pacula et al. 2003 , 2005 ). As early as 2001, there were 7 so-called nondecriminalized states that had removed the criminal status of all marijuana possession offenses and another 13 states that allowed for the reduced penalties and expungement of the criminal offense for first-time offenders ( Pacula et al. 2005 ). Yet, research continued to use the decriminalization variable to identify differences in state marijuana policies that were not truly based on the criminal status or level of penalties.

Given that most US studies have made use of a single dichotomous measure that cannot uniquely differentiate states with lower penalties and reduced criminal status, it is not surprising that they had mixed results. Even early studies examining immediate changes in laws using data from the 1970s and 1980s did not generate consistent findings. Although several studies making use of population survey data found no statistically significant impact of decriminalization on general prevalence rates of marijuana use ( Johnston et al. 1981 , Maloff 1981 , Single 1989 ), one study looking at emergency room episodes found that cities in states that had decriminalized had higher marijuana-involved episodes than cities in nondecriminalized states ( Model 1993 ). More recent studies that analytically relied on cross-sectional variation in decriminalization status in the late 1980s and 1990s also produced mixed findings. For example, studies examining self-reported use among youth and young adults that only included the single dichotomous measure for marijuana decriminalization found no statistical association with measures of past-year or past-month use ( DiNardo & Lemieux 2001 , Pacula 1998 , Thies & Register 1993 ). Yet analyses of the adult household population ( Saffer & Chaloupka 1999 ) and studies examining youth but incorporating other measures of legal risk ( DeSimone & Farrelly 2003 , Pacula et al. 2003 ) did find evidence of a positive association between decriminalization status and prevalence of use. MacCoun et al. (2009) note that the fact that the state decriminalization indicator remains positive and significant in analyses that also include additional controls for the statutory penalties for these offenses suggests that this measure is picking up something other than a signal related to a reduction in the legal risk. Hypotheses offered include a proxy of broader social acceptance of marijuana use and an advertising effect of the reduced policies.

Even beyond the problem of policy measurement, results from US studies evaluating the impact of marijuana decriminalization need to be interpreted with caution for several reasons. First, in many studies, marijuana possession penalties do not vary substantially over time, which analytically confounds the effects of unobserved state characteristics (e.g., tough-on-crime lawmakers) with differences observed in the level of penalties. Second, because there is no comprehensive data source reporting the actual penalties incurred by offenders, these studies have all relied on proxies, such as maximum or median fines as indicated by statutory laws. These statutory penalties may or may not accurately reflect the true severity of the penalties imposed in a jurisdiction. Last, evidence has shown that citizens have relatively limited knowledge as to the statutory penalties and policies for marijuana possession in their states ( MacCoun et al. 2009 ), which makes it difficult to interpret evidence showing that removal of such penalties has a significant causal effect on marijuana consumption.

Medical Marijuana Laws in a Complex and Dynamic Policy Environment

In 1996, California became the first state to pass what is now commonly recognized as an MML. As of January 2016, 25 additional states have passed similar legislation. Empirical evidence consistently shows a strong correlation between MMLs and the prevalence of marijuana use and marijuana use disorders ( Cerdá et al. 2012 , Wall et al. 2011 ), but studies have not consistently supported a causal interpretation ( Anderson et al. 2015 , Hasin et al. 2015b , Lynne-Landsman et al. 2013 , Wen et al. 2015 ).

One explanation for the inconsistent findings from causal studies is that the specific provisions of state MMLs have varied widely both among states and within any given state over time ( Pacula et al. 2014a , b ). The use of a single dichotomous indicator for the initial passage of an MML in policy evaluation obscures both types of variation. Because the effects of any policy will depend on the specific statutory provisions and their implementation, studies examining outcome data covering different time frames are in fact evaluating the effects of very different policies. Further confounding comparison of prior estimates is the fact that the federal enforcement position has changed over time, and state MML provisions have adapted alongside changes in the federal stance.

When one takes a historical look at how MMLs have evolved since the passage of California’s law in 1996, it becomes easy to understand how a single dichotomous measure falls short of describing these policies within a state and across states over time. We broadly categorize state policies into three waves, each initiated by an important political change: the ballot era (1996–2000), the early legislative era (2000–2009), and the late legislative era (2009–present).

The ballot era states are the first seven states that enacted policies through ballot initiatives (whether subsequently contested by state courts or not). These early laws aimed to protect the rights of patients who used medical marijuana and their caregivers who assisted in that use. Federal opposition to these policies was explicit, and one month after Proposition 215 passed in California, then-drug czar Barry McCaffrey threatened to arrest any physician who recommended cannabis to a patient ( Pertwee 2014 ). The threat of federal enforcement created an important barrier to establishing clearly defined legal access to medical marijuana. Early MMLs during the ballot era were often vague, defining medical use broadly to include consumption, home cultivation, production, transportation, and acquisition. Most of the laws were ambiguous as to the legality of group growing or storefront dispensaries, resulting in confusion among law enforcement, patients, and caregivers as to what constituted legal participation in the medical marijuana market. Furthermore, the uncertainty of the federal response to these state experiments meant that ballot era policies rarely mandated patients to register with a state authority, making it even more difficult for law enforcement to differentiate legitimate medical users from recreational users. It is thus unsurprising that research examining the effects of the early state ballot laws on marijuana use has found insignificant effects ( Gorman & Huber 2007 , Khatapoush & Hallfors 2004 ).

With the passage of S.B. 862 in 2000, Hawaii became the first state to pass an MML through the state legislature rather than by ballot initiative. Learning from the frustrating experiences of patients and law enforcement under the earlier state policies, states that passed laws during this early legislative era (2000–2009) made more explicit allowances regarding the supply chain. Most laws passed during this period included patient registry provisions, allowances for home cultivation, and limits on the amount of marijuana that patients or caregivers could possess and grow. In addition, many states that had initially passed laws through ballot initiatives (e.g., California and Oregon) made further policy changes through their state legislatures during this period in an attempt to clarify issues and address tensions that had emerged.

Although MMLs during this early legislative era established clearer definitions of what constituted legal supply, uncertainty about the federal response to these policies inhibited a formal state regulation of producers. For instance, Colorado’s 2001 law did not explicitly sanction cooperative growing, but the ambiguity of the law allowed for its de facto operation. Through S.B. 420, California amended its initial MML to explicitly allow for cooperative cultivation, but regulatory discretion was left to local governments. New Mexico was the only state in the early legislative era to establish legal provisions for state-licensed dispensaries in its initial legislation in July 2007, but threats of federal prosecution led to indefinite delays in licensing ( Baker 2007 ).

Protracted legal disputes about the legitimacy of retail outlets under state law combined with tremendous uncertainty about the federal response led to the slow development of medical marijuana markets throughout many states during the early legislative era, which helps explain why many studies evaluating MMLs from this period find insignificant effects on prevalence of marijuana use ( Anderson et al. 2012 , 2015 ; Harper et al. 2012 ; Lynne-Landsman et al. 2013 ; Pacula et al. 2015 ). Whereas norms may have been changing in response to these laws, direct access through markets was not necessarily increasing ( Smart 2016 ). Yet, two studies making use of data from only this time period find a significant positive effect of MML enactment on use among specific high-risk populations ( Chu 2014 , Pacula et al. 2010 ). Making use of quarterly data from the 2000–2003 Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM), Pacula et al. (2010) find a positive association between MML and self-reported marijuana use (confirmed through urine samples) among adult male arrestees. Chu (2014) similarly found significant positive effects of MML policies on marijuana possession arrests and marijuana-related treatment admissions, though the results are sensitive to model specification. These studies may indicate that increased medical marijuana supply in an uncertain policy environment primarily affected marijuana consumption among an at-risk population of heavy users. However, the results are also consistent with endogenous responses by police enforcement or treatment facilities and may not reflect actual changes in use.

In 2009, the uncertainty about the federal government’s response was seemingly resolved. Shortly following the inauguration of President Barack Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder issued a statement that federal authorities would cease interfering with medical marijuana dispensaries operating in compliance with state law ( Johnston & Lewis 2009 ). On October 19, 2009, Deputy Attorney General David Ogden formalized this policy of federal nonenforcement with a memorandum stating that federal prosecutors “should not focus federal resources … on individuals who are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana” ( Ogden 2009 , pp. 1–2).

The clarification of the federal position dramatically changed the regulatory structure of state medical marijuana supply channels. State MMLs passed during the late legislative era (2009–present) established far more comprehensive and explicit regulations regarding medical marijuana distribution, often requiring elaborate systems that would take years to fully implement. Several early-enacting states (e.g., Oregon and Maine) amended their laws to formally allow and regulate state-licensed dispensaries. State regulatory authorities became more prominently involved in the production and distribution of marijuana by overseeing the dispensing, manufacturing, and labeling of cannabis-derived products.

Following the Ogden Memo, requirements for the registration of patients and caregivers became far more standard in state policies, and the participation of both increased dramatically in state medical marijuana programs ( Fairman 2015 , Sevigny 2014 ). States that had delayed the implementation of formal supply channels (e.g., New Mexico) moved quickly to license dispensaries, and other states began to resolve legislative disputes about what constituted legally protected sources of supply. Alongside this expansion of medical marijuana markets during this period, media attention toward the issue of legal marijuana also increased markedly ( Schuermeyer et al. 2014 , Stringer & Maggard 2016 ).

Compared to earlier time periods, in the late legislative era marijuana use might respond more significantly to changes in policy as the availability and potency of the drug evolved with the changing structure and size of medical marijuana markets ( Sevigny et al. 2014 ). Indeed, the one study to evaluate the effects of MML passage using only policies enacted in the early and late legislative eras ( Wen et al. 2015 ) found a significant positive effect of MML enactment on the probability of recent marijuana use (14%), daily marijuana use (15%), and marijuana use disorders (10%). More studies focused on these later laws are needed to assess if these findings are robust.

Perhaps because of the federal permission for states to regulate medical marijuana more directly, medical marijuana policies adopted by states for the first time during this postlegislative era (e.g., by New York, Massachusetts, Illinois) contain a variety of features that differ considerably from those of the laws of early adopting states. For example, all MMLs passed after 2009 have established a state-licensed dispensary system and do not allow personal cultivation by patients or their caregivers, except under narrowly defined circumstances. Moreover, since 2010, states have adopted medical marijuana policies that are more consistent with traditional medical care and pharmaceutical regulation ( Williams et al. 2016 ). For example, all require testing and labeling of marijuana cannabinoid profiles in addition to a bona-fide clinical doctor-patient relationship requiring the ongoing management of the condition.

Evidence that MML statutes are continuing to move in a more medicalized direction is evident by the growing number of high CBD-only laws since 2014. CBD is a naturally occurring nonpsychoactive compound in cannabis that has been demonstrated in a variety of clinical studies not only to have therapeutic effects but also to counter the intoxicating effects of THC ( Koppel et al. 2014 , Russo et al. 2007 , Whiting et al. 2015 ). These new laws allow qualifying patients to use CBD extract, mostly in oil form, with minimal THC content, and its use is generally only allowed for a narrow range of medical conditions. Sixteen states have passed CBD laws since 2014, but these policies have been largely ignored by advocacy groups, and no research is studying their impacts ( NCSL 2016b ). With some exceptions, there is still limited regulation on potency (THC concentration) and other cannabinoids, medical product testing, and methods of consumption.

Considering Heterogeneous Implementation of Legalization

As of July 2016, five states have policies legalizing the possession of specified quantities of marijuana by adults aged 21 and older for recreational purposes. 2 Voters in Colorado and Washington approved legalization initiatives in November 2012, and additional policies were passed in Alaska, Oregon, and the District of Columbia in November 2014. The current regulatory environment is complex and dynamic, as state and local governments are continually adapting legislation to evolve along with the industry ( Subritzky et al. 2016 ). The effects of these policies on marijuana use and use disorders will be determined by how the design and implementation of the legal regulatory framework influence market structure, price and availability, and perceptions of risk and social approval. As research moves forward in evaluating the effects of recreational legalization, consideration needs to be given to differences and similarities in the regulatory frameworks established by each state.

The District of Columbia is the only legalized jurisdiction in the United States that does not allow the sale of marijuana for recreational use. Under DC’s law, adults can legally grow up to six plants (of which no more than three can be mature) in their primary residence and transfer up to 1 ounce of marijuana to another adult aged 21 and older if there is no remuneration. Sale of any amount of marijuana remains a criminal offense, punishable by up to six months in jail and a fine of $1,000 ( Marijuana Work. Group 2016 ). In contrast, policies in Colorado, Washington, Oregon, and Alaska establish commercialized models of marijuana regulation. Retail sales in Colorado and Washington began respectively in January and July 2014, and Oregon began allowing sales for recreational use from medical marijuana dispensaries in October 2015. Alaska began licensing retail and product manufacturers in September 2016 ( Hall & Lynskey 2016 ). Relative to the home cultivation model of the District of Columbia, commercialization is expected to substantially reduce production costs and generate incentives for legal suppliers to promote heavy consumption ( Caulkins & Kilmer 2016 ).

However, the commercial model of legalization also offers increased scope for regulation, and each state has crafted its own collection of regulatory guidelines and legal provisions that could have important implications for the markets that develop within them. For example, whereas all states require separate licenses for cultivators, manufacturers or processors, and retailers, as well as licensing or certification for testing facilities, Washington alone has adopted regulations restricting the number of licenses a single firm can own. Moreover, Washington prohibits license holders from being involved in both production and retail, in an effort to forbid vertical integration and the efficiencies in production and distribution that can come with it. Washington has further limited the number of retail store licenses available to avoid issues related to overproduction; the other states have not. However, all states except Alaska restrict the size of cultivation facilities, and Washington has an additional cap on total statewide production. In addition to this policy heterogeneity at the state level, local municipalities have some discretion in determining the number of establishments permitted, the strictness of zoning requirements, and the time and manner in which businesses are allowed to operate. These differences in the structure of the market should theoretically influence the availability and cost of marijuana in each state, for reasons described in greater detail below.

Other important legal differences exist across states in terms of the allowance for a nonretail market. Washington is the only state that requires all marijuana for recreational use to be purchased through state-licensed retailers; no home cultivation is allowed. The other three states permit home cultivation by adults subject to specified plant limits (as in the District of Columbia). There are also different approaches to taxation. Currently, the three states with operating retail markets (Colorado, Washington, and Oregon) have instituted ad valorem taxes specific to marijuana, ranging from 17% in Oregon to 37% in Washington. In contrast, Alaska’s policy establishes a tax on cultivation, imposing a $50 per ounce tax on marijuana bud (i.e., flowers) and a $15 per ounce tax on other parts of the plant (stems and leaves).

Differences in how state and local governments regulate the commercial market will generate heterogeneous effects on the retail price of marijuana, which will have important consequences for both the extensive and intensive margins of use and abuse ( Pacula & Lundberg 2014 , Pacula et al. 2014b ). Moreover, because marijuana is involved in a variety of forms and potencies, choices about the tax level, base, and point of collection can also influence the products and potencies available to consumers and the prices they face ( Caulkins et al. 2015 ). Currently, retail stores are allowed to offer marijuana flowers, concentrates, and infused products in solid and liquid form. The original legalization measures in Colorado and Washington did not explicitly distinguish between product types when establishing consumer purchase limits. As marijuana concentrates and infused products have captured an increasing share of legal retail sales, regulations have had to expand. Effective October 2016, adult residents in Colorado are limited to purchasing 1 ounce of marijuana flower, 8 g of concentrates, or 80 10-mg servings of THC in infused product form. In Washington and Alaska, consumers can purchase 1 ounce of marijuana flower, 7 g of marijuana concentrates, 16 ounces of infused product in solid form, or 72 ounces in beverage form. Oregon’s regulations are similar, except for a stricter limit of 5 g for marijuana concentrates. Alaska’s rules also limit buyers to 5,600 mg of THC in a single purchase.

Due to concerns regarding accidental ingestion of edibles by children, states have further regulated marijuana-infused products by implementing stricter packaging and labeling requirements and designating potency limits for individual serving sizes. Washington and Colorado designate individual serving sizes of 10 mg of THC and 100 mg total for an individually wrapped package. In Colorado, products that cannot be stamped, such as drinks or granola, must contain no more than a designated individual serving, effectively banning many of the high-potency marijuana-infused beverages currently sold. Oregon and Alaska have more conservative requirements, designating individual serving sizes of 5 mg of THC and 50 mg total for an individually wrapped package. Still, no state has capped the potency of marijuana products. A measure to limit the THC content of all marijuana products sold at retail stores in Colorado to 16% (Initiative 139) was withdrawn by the Healthy Colorado Coalition in 2016 due to the emergence of a well-funded opposition campaign ( Armbrister 2016 ). In Alaska, a proposal to cap marijuana product potency at 76% THC was also voted down. The lack of restrictions on potency enables the marketing of products with very high (and often uncertain) levels of THC.

Increased marketing has been an important concern under the commercial model, because advertising can be used to promote harmful use and has been shown to influence adolescent marijuana use and intention to use ( D’Amico et al. 2015 ). Colorado’s regulations prohibit Internet pop-up advertisements and advertisements that target children. Washington allows retailers to have only two signs (not to exceed 1,600 square inches) at their place of business, but the signs cannot contain marijuana-themed imagery nor can marijuana-related imagery be featured in window displays. Alaska and Oregon continue to revise rules for marijuana marketing. The strictness of state regulations for advertising and the way they are enforced can partly mediate the extent to which legalization influences perceptions and consumption behaviors among legal consumers as well as adolescents. However, these potential benefits of advertising restrictions must be balanced against potential efficiency costs resulting from information asymmetries between suppliers and consumers.

As was the case with decriminalization and MMLs, legalization is not a binary policy variable. The home cultivation model of the District of Columbia will have very different implications for supply than the commercialized models of Colorado, Washington, Oregon, and Alaska. Within commercialized states, heterogeneity in how production and price are regulated will lead to different consequences for consumption by legal adult users and spillovers to adolescent markets. Restrictions placed on advertising could limit youth exposure to messaging that could encourage experimentation, but only if the regulations are enforced. The way in which product availability and potency are regulated will have important effects on the total quantity of marijuana consumed by users and their level of intoxication, which will in turn influence the prevalence of marijuana use disorders. Legalized states have chosen different ways of regulating, and this policy heterogeneity will need to be considered in future work when assessing the effects of legalization on use.

WHAT IS MEANT BY HETEROGENEOUS POPULATIONS

The previous section focused on the heterogeneity of the policies being implemented. However, the effects of these diverse policies may well vary depending on the population group studied. Heterogeneous effects across population subgroups may be driven by differences in budget constraints ( Markowitz & Taurus 2009 ), price elasticities ( Pacula & Lundberg 2014 ), preferences for risk ( Fox & Tannenbaum 2011 ), or search costs ( Galenianos et al. 2012 , Pacula et al. 2010 ), to name a few. Mixed findings in the current literature with respect to the impact of prior liberalization policies may thus reflect legitimate differences in the populations being studied.

Past research has generally attempted to accommodate this potential heterogeneity by stratifying analyses by age (e.g., adolescents, young adults, older adults) and, to a lesser extent, frequency of use (number of times used in the past month/year or near-daily use). The potential effects on youth consumption have been of particular concern in the literature, because evidence suggests that use of marijuana during early adolescence predicts increased risk of dependence, lower educational attainment, and cognitive impairment ( Hall 2009 , 2015 ). Limiting the analysis to adolescents, research shows that MML enactment has largely insignificant or even negative effects on youth marijuana use measures ( Anderson et al. 2015 , Choo et al. 2014 , Gorman & Huber 2007 , Harper et al. 2012 , Hasin et al. 2015b , Lynne-Landsman et al. 2013 ), with only Wen et al. (2015) finding a significant increase in the probability of past-year initiation among youths aged 12–20. The results of the few studies that have focused on changes in marijuana consumption among adults have been more mixed, with some showing no effect of MML passage on measures of use ( Gorman & Huber 2007 , Harper et al. 2012 ) and others finding significant positive effects ( Chu 2014 , Wen et al. 2015 ).

Yet, as noted above, the use of a dichotomous MML variable misses important variations in the specific implementation of supply channels, which may be particularly important in determining the extent to which medical marijuana is diverted to adolescent markets ( Boyd et al. 2015 , Nussbaum et al. 2015 , Salomonsen-Sautel et al. 2012 ). When studies focus on the effects of dispensary legalization, there is some evidence of a significant increase in youth consumption ( Pacula et al. 2015 , Wen et al. 2015 ), though other studies find no effect ( Hasin et al. 2015b ). Even within the same study, estimated effects switch sign depending on whether consumption is measured by past-month use, frequency of use, or dependence ( Pacula et al. 2015 , Wen et al. 2015 ). Similar inconsistencies exist in studies of the effects of specific dimensions of MML policy on measures of marijuana use in the general population ( Anderson & Rees 2014 , Choi 2014 , Pacula et al. 2015 ). Thus, age alone is clearly not an adequate way of capturing population heterogeneity.

Perhaps a more relevant dimension of population heterogeneity pertains to differentiating casual or light users from high-risk consumers, often identified in this literature as arrestees ( Chu 2014 , Pacula et al. 2010 ), polysubstance users ( Wen et al. 2015 , Williams & Mahmoudi 2004 ), or those admitted to treatment ( Pacula et al. 2015 ). Only a few studies have focused on high-risk users, but those that have tend to find more consistent evidence that marijuana liberalization significantly increases use ( Chu 2014 ; Model 1993 ; Pacula et al. 2010 , 2015 ; Wen et al. 2015 ). The response of high-risk users to marijuana policy changes will likely differ from that of casual users or nonusers due to differences in price sensitivity ( Pacula & Lundberg 2014 , Sumnall et al. 2004 ), knowledge of the policy environment ( MacCoun et al. 2009 ), engagement with drug markets ( Pacula et al. 2010 ), and perceived social or physical harms from use ( Haardörfer et al. 2016 , Kilmer et al. 2007 ). By examining how marijuana liberalization policy affects the prevalence of marijuana use, many past evaluations have conflated changes in the consumption of casual users with changes in the consumption of regular or heavy users. Because casual users represent a larger proportion of the total number of users, such analyses will discount the behaviors of heavy users, who account for a larger proportion of the total quantity of marijuana consumed ( Burns et al. 2013 , Davenport & Caulkins 2016 ).

The overreliance on using prevalence measures as the outcome of interest in past work is largely a consequence of limited data availability, but as legal markets for marijuana develop, there is an urgent need to assess the alternative measures of use that are more relevant for understanding potential harms. Nationally representative data show that the number of daily or near-daily (DND) users has increased approximately sevenfold since 1992 ( Burns et al. 2013 ), and the prevalence of marijuana use disorders has almost doubled since 2001 ( Hasin et al. 2015a ). Simultaneous use of marijuana with other substances (e.g., tobacco and alcohol) is common and has been shown to be associated with increased risk of adverse consequences ( Subbaraman & Kerr 2015 , Terry-McElrath et al. 2014 ). Currently, we have little evidence to indicate how marijuana liberalization policies will affect these outcomes ( Wen et al. 2015 ). Moving forward, it will be important to develop more comprehensive data collection and sampling designs to assess how marijuana liberalization policies affect populations at risk for problematic use as well as the use of particularly dangerous products or methods of consumption.

WHAT IS MEANT BY HETEROGENEOUS PRODUCTS

Past research has generally focused on how liberalization affects the prevalence of marijuana use and has paid less attention to how liberalization affects the type of marijuana used or the way in which it is consumed. But marijuana is not a uniform product. The cannabis plant itself can develop in a number of different ways, depending on the genetic variety, temperature, culture condition, and lighting it receives. The potency of the consumable product, typically measured by concentration or level of THC, will vary by strain, cultivation technique, and method of processing. There are also a variety of ways to consume marijuana, with the most common methods including smoking, vaporization, and ingestion of edible products ( Schauer et al. 2016 ).

Both potency and methods of consumption have evolved over time. Decriminalization occurred during a time when marijuana was largely smoked, which facilitated comparisons of marijuana use rates between decriminalized and nondecriminalized states. Medical marijuana brought with it new products (e.g., oils and edibles), new methods for consuming it (e.g., dabbing, vaping), and new techniques for controlling potency ( Pacula et al. 2016 , Rendon 2013 ). Legalization only extends these new products to even more users. It is difficult to predict the extent to which legalization will increase product innovation, as growth in the industry will promote the development of new methods for extracting and synthesizing the hundreds of chemicals in the cannabis plant, of which relatively little is known ( Caulkins et al. 2015 ).

Systematic data collection on methods of use and potency is limited, but available evidence indicates that marijuana users in states with medical or recreational legalization consume a different product mix than users in other states. Individuals living in MML states, particularly in states with greater access to dispensaries, have significantly higher likelihood of vaporizing or ingesting marijuana products compared to individuals in states without MMLs ( Borodovsky et al. 2016 ). Evidence also suggests that states that legally permit medical marijuana dispensaries experience significant increases in average marijuana potency ( Sevigny et al. 2014 ). Within states with legalized dispensaries, adults who use marijuana for medicinal purposes are significantly more likely to vaporize it or consume edibles than individuals who use it for recreational purposes ( Pacula et al. 2016 ).

It is complicated to assess the impact of policy on use if the product being consumed or the method of consumption changes in line with the policy. Outcomes such as level of intoxication or dependency may well vary according to the type and method of marijuana consumption, and simply comparing use in legalized states to use in nonlegalized states will not reflect these differences. Changes in product variety will not threaten the identification of changes on the extensive margin of use (meaning any use or prevalence), because existing survey measures can provide information on the number of people who transition from nonusers to users and those who continue using rather than quitting. However, most of the adverse physical and behavioral consequences associated with marijuana use come from heavy users ( Gordon et al. 2013 , Hall 2015 , Volkow et al. 2014 ). Proper evaluation of the public health consequences of legalization relies on the ability of research to estimate the effects of marijuana policy changes on the intensive margin of use.

Data on quantity of marijuana used are surprisingly limited, and researchers have yet to construct a standardized measure for the unit of marijuana consumption (as exists with alcohol). Prior research has examined changes on the intensive margin through self-reported data on frequency of use, measured by days of use in the past month or past year. The implicit assumption has been that more days of use accurately proxies for higher intensity of use ( Temple et al. 2011 ). Yet, marijuana consumption among DND users can vary from smoking a single low-THC joint each day to using high-THC products multiple times per day via multiple delivery methods ( Hughes et al. 2014 , Zeisser et al. 2012 ). Given the variety of delivery devices, strains, and cannabinoid concentrations that become available as the legal industry expands, measuring changes in days of use will fail to capture a number of individuals who transition from occasional to heavy users.

Heterogeneity of marijuana products presents further problems for understanding how medical and recreational legalization affect marijuana use disorders. Previous research examining patterns of use and the development of dependence may not generalize to a legal environment in which there is greater social acceptance, fewer perceived risks and harms, and a wider variety of product types and potencies ( Asbridge et al. 2014 ). Although the definition of marijuana use disorder is evolving ( Compton & Baler 2016 , Hasin et al. 2013 ), there has been little clinical assessment of whether the use of different marijuana products carries different risks of dependence or harms. Some evidence suggests that vaporizing hash oil or dabbing is more positively associated with tolerance and withdrawal among adults compared to smoking marijuana ( Loflin & Earleywine 2014 ), but there may be differential effects for adolescents. As marijuana product diversity expands, there is a need for a more comprehensive understanding and analysis of consumption to accurately evaluate changes in use prevalence, intensity of use, and risk for marijuana use disorder.

AN ALTERNATIVE PERSPECTIVE FOR EVALUATING THE EFFECTS OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA LAWS AND LEGALIZATION

In light of the substantial variation underlying the policies being evaluated, the populations considered, and the products consumed, it is not surprising that the scientific literature evaluating the impact of these policies is inconclusive. The decisions made by researchers to focus on specific time periods, states, populations, and/or outcome measures have often been driven by what data were available and not by a careful consideration of the mechanisms by which these policies are expected to influence marijuana use or use disorders among various populations. As this article has established, these decisions can influence the likelihood of finding—or not finding—specific effects because of the heterogeneity of these policies and of the markets that are emerging in light of them.

The program evaluation literature has widely recognized the time it takes between the passing of new policies and their full implementation as a problematic issue ( Hunt & Miles 2015 , King & Behrman 2009 ). A common empirical strategy for accommodating delays in implementation is the inclusion of lagged policy variables, and this approach has been explored in a few articles from the medical marijuana literature ( Anderson et al. 2013 , Bachhuber et al. 2014 , Chu 2014 ). However, assuming a constant allowance for lagged effects obscures the fact that these delays are not random but are correlated with the specific provisions established by state law, the broader federal policy environment, and the setting in which the policy change occurs.

The relationship between state policy heterogeneity and variation in how long it takes for markets to emerge is something that is just beginning to receive the attention it deserves in the literature ( Collett et al. 2013 , Smart 2016 ). As explained by Smart (2016) , patient registration rates do a better job than simple dichotomous policy variables at capturing the extent to which medical marijuana markets are operating throughout a state. Smart notes that despite the adoption of early policies by many states, the relative size of the associated markets, as measured by registered patients, remained small in most states until federal enforcement policy was clarified in 2009, at which time markets in all states grew substantially faster. In an analysis that explicitly accounts for changes in the size of medical marijuana markets, Smart (2016) finds statistically more robust and consistent evidence of the impacts of these markets on various measures of consumption across users from all age groups.

The consideration of the relative size of these markets across states highlights the necessity to consider the issue of dynamics. Whereas some aspects of medical marijuana and legalization policies can have immediate impacts (e.g., on the criminalization of marijuana use or the ability to grow it at home), other effects of these policies take time to occur or disseminate. In the case of markets, for example, it takes time for regulations to develop regarding how many businesses are allowed, who is allowed to operate a business, and where those businesses are allowed to operate. It takes even longer once those rules are passed for businesses to obtain permits and begin distribution. Thus, it should not be surprising that after the passing of marijuana legalization measures in Colorado and Washington in November 2012, it took at least 18–20 months for retail stores to open. Data on the consequences of the opening of these stores beyond sales and tax revenues are just beginning to become available, which is why rigorous scientific evaluations of the impact of these policies have been slow to develop.

What that means is that researchers working in this space need to pay far greater attention to the specific mechanisms that different types of policies are likely to influence and to consider them within the proper timeframe when assessing impacts on specific populations. We show in Figure 2 some of the primary mechanisms discussed in the literature through which these changes in policies might impact use (i.e., perceived harm, disapproval of regular use, legal risk of use, ease of access and price) as well as the hypothesized effects of various types of policies on each. For simplicity, we consider each mechanism separately, though it is important to note that these are likely not independently determined (e.g., changes in legal risk may influence perceived harms, or changes in ease of access may influence disapproval). A small, medium, or large arrow (pointing up or down) in each cell indicates the relative magnitude and direction of the hypothesized effect. Shading represents the availability of empirical evidence to support the theoretical prediction, with white indicating an absence of existing studies and darker shades representing greater and more consistent support for the hypothesized effect. We provide three simplified versions of a medical marijuana policy and a legal recreational market to illustrate a wider range of policies that would to varying degrees influence the general size of the associated markets (in terms of both users and sellers).

Mechanisms through which marijuana policies might affect marijuana use and use disorders. This simple illustration shows that even within a single policy area (e.g., medical marijuana), the different variations of the policy can differentially influence each of the mechanisms related to use. For example, we hypothesize that medical marijuana policies will ceteris paribus have a larger impact on people’s perceptions about the drug (perceived harm and disapproval of regular use) than they will have on the legal risk and ease of access to marijuana regardless of policy, assuming that only medical users are provided access and legal protections. Relatedly, because these markets serve a relatively smaller group of users, the overall impacts on price are presumed to be small, although they might increase with the third type of MML, which could allow for competitive forces among suppliers to start influencing price ( Anderson et al. 2013 , Humphreys 2016 , Pacula et al. 2010 ) and potency ( Sevigny et al. 2014 ) in these markets. The existing evidence generally suggests that the passage of any type of MML significantly lowers perceived harms among adults ( Choi 2014 , Khatapoush & Hallfors 2004 ) but not among adolescents ( Choi 2014 , Keyes et al. 2016 ). However, the expansion of commercial medical marijuana markets and increased exposure to medical marijuana after 2009 have been associated with significant reductions in adolescent perceptions of harm or disapproval associated with marijuana use ( Miech et al. 2015 , Schuermeyer et al. 2014 , Sobesky & Gorgens 2016 , Thurstone et al. 2011 ).

Of course, under a policy of legalization, the hypothesized effects on some of the mechanisms (perceptions and legal risk) are larger and more immediate. Preliminary evidence from Colorado and Washington shows that commercial legalization has significantly reduced perceived harms and disapproval of marijuana use ( Kosterman et al. 2016 , Sobesky & Gorgens 2016 ), and marijuana-related arrests have plummeted ( Gettman 2015a , b ). Access and prices, however, will likely still be differentially influenced by the regulations that shape the market structure and the level of competition in the market ( Caulkins et al. 2015 , Smart 2016 ). The overall impact on consumption, then, would depend on ( a ) the relative importance of perceptions and legal risk vis-à-vis access and price for the specific population being evaluated, and ( b ) whether one is evaluating an immediate (short-run) response to the policy or a long-run effect that is inclusive of market mechanisms.

Another important consideration for interpreting findings when evaluating legalization effects is the baseline policy in place prior to legalization. Because most careful evaluations are done based on marginal changes over time, the baseline policy in the states that subsequently legalize will determine the extent to which a particular mechanism is impacted by the change in formal policy. States like Washington and Colorado, for example, which moved to legalization from a medical marijuana policy that already provided broad access and loose regulation of dispensaries, will likely experience far less of an impact on perceptions and access than states starting from a more restrictive medical marijuana policy or no law at all. Generalization of findings from these two state experiences, therefore, would not necessarily apply to states that may be considering a move to legalization without first allowing medical marijuana markets.

Thus far we have discussed heterogeneous policies, populations, and products as limitations that complicate the evaluation of how marijuana liberalization policies affect marijuana use and marijuana use disorders. However, Figure 2 suggests that this rich variation also offers unique opportunities for future research. By carefully considering the specific aspects of legalization statutes in the context of existing state policies, researchers have increased the scope for determining the mechanisms that are most important for influencing marijuana use among different populations. As more comprehensive data on marijuana prices and products become available, future work can examine not only whether liberalization affects marijuana use, but also whether it affects who uses marijuana, what products are used, and how these products are consumed. The literature has shown that not all marijuana liberalization policies are created equal, but by exploiting this variation we will be able to better evaluate which policy designs will maximize the potential benefits of legalization while minimizing potential harms.

The variety of marijuana liberalization policies across the US states is often ignored or inadequately considered when assessing the impacts of further policy reform. Despite the widespread state experimentation with alternative marijuana policies since the 1970s, our knowledge of the impact of these liberalization policies on the consumption of marijuana, and its benefits and harms, is far less developed than one would expect. There are a number of reasons for this, including, particularly, lack of attention to the heterogeneity of existing policies, the specificity of the populations examined, and modes of consumption.

Although findings tend to be mixed when we look at the literature as a whole, some consistent themes seem to emerge when we consider the literature with an eye toward differences between policies and populations. For example, studies that are attentive to the development of medical marijuana markets (e.g., through measures of the presence of active dispensaries or the size of the market) seem to consistently show a positive correlation of liberalization policies with use among high-risk users (arrestees, people in need of treatment, and polysubstance users). Similarly, many studies have shown a positive association with adult use of marijuana, whereas most have found no association with youth prevalence or frequency of use in general school populations. The extent to which these findings can be drawn on to make inferences about the potential impact of legalization on these same populations is not clear. Just as it took time for researchers to pay more careful attention to the differential effects of policy elements over time ( Hasin et al. 2015b , Pacula et al. 2015 , Smart 2016 , Wen et al. 2015 ), as well as possible heterogeneous responses by different types of users ( Pacula et al. 2015 , Wen et al. 2015 ), it will take time for research to emerge that fully reconsiders these associations in light of the full policy dynamics (i.e., changes in a policy within a single state over time and duration of exposure of a population to a given policy type). As more studies account for and consider these heterogeneous effects and dynamics, we may get better clarity regarding the margins on which particular types of policies do or do not influence behavior, and for whom.

Because legal markets will continue to evolve before these questions are fully answered, the real work that lies ahead relies on obtaining more accurate information on the amount and type of products that various people are consuming. Imagine trying to communicate to the public health field the health benefits or harms of alcohol consumption without being able to indicate specific levels or amounts that translate into impairment in well-understood dose-response relationships. Or imagine trying to assess the harmful effects of smoking without being able to differentiate an experimental or occasional smoker from someone who smokes a pack a day. Yet, that is exactly where the science is today in terms of our measurement of marijuana consumption. Precise data on things such as a standardized dose, regular versus experimental use, heavy use, episodic impairment, or even simultaneous use of marijuana and alcohol are not yet captured in most of the data tracking systems used to evaluate the impact of these policies, and they are desperately needed. If marijuana is anything like alcohol, little harm will come from casual, occasional use by mature adults, and indeed such use might generate considerable benefits. Moreover, it is also possible that marijuana, like alcohol, generates positive benefits for one population (mature adults) while also causing negative harms for another population (youth and young adults). Scientific research needs to be mindful of this heterogeneity.

SUMMARY POINTS

• State policies legalizing marijuana are part of the evolution of state liberalization policies that has taken place since the 1970s.
• Existing studies evaluating the impacts of prior state experimentation have generated inconclusive findings, and only recently has research attempted to understand the reasons for these mixed results.
• One should be cautious when interpreting the evidence from all studies pooled together, because studies are not equivalent in their attention to policy heterogeneity, policy dynamics, and population heterogeneity.
• The literature has largely treated both decriminalization and medical marijuana policies as if they were simple dichotomous choices, when in fact there can be substantial variation in the implementation of these policies that influences how adults or youth respond.
• Relatively few studies evaluating the impact of MMLs give adequate consideration to the fact that some aspects of liberalizations policies are realized immediately (e.g., ability to grow one’s own), whereas other aspects may take time to evolve (e.g., opening of a market) or change in response to future state and federal policies.
• Studies that focus on how marijuana liberalization policies influence past-month or past-year prevalence conflate changes in consumption among light and casual users with changes in consumption among regular and heavy users.
• Although relatively few in number, studies that focus on high-risk users (arrestees, poly-substance users, heavy users) tend to find more consistent evidence that medical marijuana policies increase use, suggesting that this segment of the population is particularly sensitive to policy changes.

FUTURE ISSUES

• As legal markets for marijuana develop, there is an urgent need to assess the consequences of liberalization on alternative measures of use that are relevant for understanding potential harms; this requires developing better measures of standardized dose, heavy use, episodic impairment, and simultaneous use.
• Research needs to pay more attention to the influence of these policies on the types of products consumed, the amount of THC being consumed in different products, and product development.
• Future work also needs to give stronger consideration of the baseline from which new state policies are being evaluated. For example, legalization is likely to generate smaller population changes in medical marijuana states that already have active dispensaries than in states with no prior medical marijuana stores.
• Researchers need to pay far greater attention to the specific mechanisms different types of policies are likely to influence and to consider them within the proper timeframe when assessing impacts on specific populations because not all users will respond in the same ways.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This article was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Drug Abuse to the RAND Corporation (R01DA032693). The article benefited from research assistance provided by Anne Boustead, Ervant Maksabedian, and Gabriel Weinberger. We should also give credit to several of our DPRC colleagues whom we have been fortunate enough to conduct research with and who have influenced our thinking on this literature, including Jonathan Caulkins, Beau Kilmer, Mark Kleiman, Mireille Jacobson, Priscillia Hunt, David Powell, Paul Heaton, Eric Sevigny, Peter Reuter, and Rob MacCoun. All errors in the article are our own.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

The authors are not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holdings that might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.

1 For simplicity, this article refers to the District of Columbia (DC) as a state.

2 Uruguay also legalized recreational marijuana in 2013, and Canada’s prime minister is working on a formal proposal expected to be delivered to the Canadian Parliament in April 2017. We are focusing on the US experience here because no formal stores are open in either Uruguay or Canada at this time.

LITERATURE CITED

• Anderson DM, Hansen B, Rees DI. 2012. Medical marijuana laws and teen marijuana use . Disc. Pap. 6592, IZA, Bonn, Ger. [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson DM, Hansen B, Rees DI. 2013. Medical marijuana laws, traffic fatalities, and alcohol consumption . J. Law Econ 56 :333–69 [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson DM, Hansen B, Rees DI. 2015. Medical marijuana laws and teen marijuana use . Am. Law Econ. Rev 17 ( 2 ):495–528 [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson DM, Rees DI. 2014. The role of dispensaries: The devil is in the details . J. Policy Anal. Manag 33 ( 1 ):235–40 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Armbrister M 2016. Colorado pot potency ballot initiative is withdrawn . Denver Bus. J , July 8 [ Google Scholar ]
• Asbridge M, Duff C, Marsh DC, Erickson PG. 2014. Problems with the identification of “problematic” cannabis use: examining the issues of frequency, quantity, and drug use environment . Eur. Addict. Res 20 :254–67 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bachhuber MA, Saloner B, Cunningham CO, Barry CL. 2014. Medical cannabis laws and opioid analgesic overdose mortality in the United States, 1999–2010 . JAMA Intern. Med 174 ( 10 ):1668–73 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baker D 2007. N.M.:Won’t oversee marijuana production . Assoc. Press , August 16 [ Google Scholar ]
• Borodovsky JT, Crosier BS, Lee DC, Sargent JD, Budney AJ. 2016. Smoking, vaping, eating: Is legalization impacting the way people use cannabis? Int. J. Drug Policy 36 :141–47 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boyd CJ, Veliz PT, McCabe SE. 2015. Adolescents’ use of medical marijuana: a secondary analysis of Monitoring the Future data . J. Adolesc. Health 57 ( 2 ):241–44 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Burns RM, Caulkins JP, Everingham SS, Kilmer B. 2013. Statistics on cannabis users skew perceptions of cannabis use . Front. Psychiatry 4 ( 138 ):1–10 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Caulkins JP, Hawken A, Kilmer B, Kleiman M. 2012. Marijuana Legalization: What Everyone Needs to Know . New York: Oxford Univ. Press [ Google Scholar ]
• Caulkins JP, Kilmer B. 2016. Considering marijuana legalization carefully: insights for other jurisdictions from analysis for Vermont . Addiction 111 ( 12 ):2082–89 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Caulkins JP, Kilmer B, Kleiman MAR, MacCoun RJ, Midgette G, et al. 2015. Considering Marijuana Legalization: Insights for Vermont and Other Jurisdictions . Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corp. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cerdà M, Wall M, Keyes KM, Galea S, Hasin DS. 2012. Medical marijuana laws in 50 states: investigating the relationship between state legalization of medical marijuana and marijuana use, abuse and dependence . Drug Alcohol Depend . 120 :22–27 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Choi A 2014. The impact of medical marijuana laws on marijuana use and other risky health behaviors . Presented at ASHE Conf., 5th, Los Angeles [ Google Scholar ]
• Choo EK, Benz M, Zaller N, Warren O, Rising KL, McConnell KJ. 2014. The impact of state medical marijuana legislation on adolescent marijuana use . J. Adolesc. Health 55 ( 2 ):160–66 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chu YWL. 2014. The effects of medical marijuana laws on illegal marijuana use . J. Health Econ . 38 :43–61 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Collett SC, Gariffo T, Hernandez-Morgan M. 2013. Evaluation of the Medical Marijuana Program in Washington, D.C . Los Angeles: UCLA [ Google Scholar ]
• Compton WM, Baler R. 2016. The epidemiology ofDSM-5 cannabis use disorders among U.S. adults: science to inform clinicians working in a shifting social landscape . Am. J. Psychiatry 173 ( 6 ):551–53 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• D’Amico EJ, Miles JNV, Tucker JS. 2015. Gateway to curiosity: medical marijuana ads and intention and use during middle school . Psychol. Addict. Behav 29 ( 3 ):613–19 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Davenport SS, Caulkins JP. 2016. Evolution of the United States: marijuana market in the decade of liberalization before full legalization . J. Drug Issues 46 ( 4 ):411–27 [ Google Scholar ]
• DeSimone J, Farrelly MC. 2003. Price and enforcement effects on cocaine and marijuana demand . Econ. Inquiry 41 :98–115 [ Google Scholar ]
• Dinardo J, Lemieux T. 2001. Alcohol, marijuana, and American youth: the unintended consequences of government regulation . J. Health Econ 20 ( 6 ):991–1010 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fairman BJ. 2015. Trends in registered medical marijuana participation rates across 13 US states and District of Columbia . Drug Alcohol Depend . 159 :72–79 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fischer B, Kuganesan S, Room R. 2015. Medical marijuana programs: implications for cannabis control policy—observations from Canada . Int. J. Drug Policy 26 ( 1 ):15–19 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fox CR, Tannenbaum D. 2011. The elusive search for stable risk preferences . Front. Psychol 2 :298. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Galenianos M, Pacula RL, Persico N. 2012. A search-theoretic model of the retail market for illicit drugs . Rev. Econ. Studies 79 :1239–69 [ Google Scholar ]
• Gettman J 2015a. Marijuana Arrests in Colorado After the Passage of Amendment 64 . New York: Drug Policy Alliance [ Google Scholar ]
• Gettman J 2015b. Status Report: Marijuana Legalization in Washington After 1 Year of Retail Sales and 2.5 Years of Legal Possession . New York: Drug Policy Alliance [ Google Scholar ]
• Gordon AJ, Conley JW, Gordon JM. 2013. Medical consequences of marijuana use: a review of the current literature . Curr. Psychiatry Rep 15 ( 12 ):419. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gorman DM, Huber J. 2007. Do medical cannabis laws encourage cannabis use? Int. J. Drug Policy 18 ( 3 ):160–67 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Haardörfer R, Berg CJ, Lewis M, Payne J, Pillai D, et al. 2016. Polytobacco, marijuana, and alcohol use patterns in college students: a latent class analysis . Addict. Behav 59 :58–64 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hall W 2009. The adverse health effects of cannabis use: What are they, and what are their implications for policy? Int. J. Drug Policy 20 ( 6 ):458–66 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hall W 2015. What has research over the past two decades revealed about the adverse effects of cannabis use? Addiction 110 ( 1 ):19–35 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hall W, Lynskey M. 2016. Evaluating the public health impacts of legalizing recreational cannabis use in the United States . Addiction 111 ( 10 ):1764–73 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Haney M, Evins AE. 2016. Does cannabis cause, exacerbate, or ameliorate psychiatric disorders? An oversimplified debate discussed . Neuropsychopharmacology 41 ( 2 ):393–401 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harper S, Strumpf EC, Kaufman JS. 2012. Do medical marijuana laws increase marijuana use? Replication study and extension . Ann. Epidemiol 22 ( 3 ):207–12 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hasin DS, O’Brien CP, Auriacombe M, Borges G, Bucholz K, et al. 2013. DSM-5 criteria for substance use disorders: recommendations and rationale . Am. J. Psychiatry 170 :834–51 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hasin DS, Saha TD, Kerridge BT, Goldstein RB, Chou SP, et al. 2015a. Prevalence of marijuana use disorders in the United States between 2001–2002 and 2012–2013 . JAMA Psychiatry 72 ( 12 ):1235–42 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hasin DS, Wall M, Keyes KM, Cerdà M, Schulenberg J, et al. 2015b Medical marijuana laws and adolescent marijuana use in the USA from 1991–2014: results from annual, repeated cross-sectional surveys . Lancet Psychiatry 2 ( 7 ):601–8 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hill KP. 2015. Medical marijuana for treatment of chronic pain and other medical and psychiatric problems: a clinical review . JAMA 313 ( 24 ):2474–83 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huestis MA. 2007. Human cannabinoid pharmacokinetics . Chem. Biodivers 4 ( 8 ):1770–804 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hughes JR, Fingar JR, Budney AJ, Naud S, Helzer JE. 2014. Marijuana use and intoxication among daily users: an intensive longitudinal study . Addict. Behav 39 ( 10 ):1464–70 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Humphreys K 2016. So, something interesting happens to weed after it’s legal. The Washington Post Wonkblog , May 4. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/05/04/the-priceof-legal-pot-is-collapsing/
• Hunt PE, Miles J. 2015. The impact of legalizing and regulating weed: issues with study design and emerging findings in the USA . Curr. Topics Behav. Neurosci 10.1007/7854_2015_423 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnston D, Lewis NA. 2009. Ending raids of dispensers of marijuana for patients . New York: Times, March 18, p. A20 [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnston LD, O’Malley PM, Bachman JG. 1981. Marijuana decriminalization: the impact on youth 1975–1980 Monitoring the Future Occas . Pap. 13, Inst. Soc. Res., Univ. Mich., Ann Arbor [ Google Scholar ]
• Keyes KM, Wall M, Cerdà M, Schulenberg J, O’Malley PM, et al. 2016. How does state marijuana policy affect US youth? Medical marijuana laws, marijuana use and perceived harmfulness: 1991–2014 . Addiction 111 :2187–95. 10.1111/add.13523 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Khatapoush S, Hallfors D. 2004. “Sending the wrong message”: Did medical marijuana legalization in California change attitudes about and use of marijuana? J. Drug Issues 34 :741–70 [ Google Scholar ]
• Kilmer B, Caulkins JP, Pacula RL, MacCoun RJ, Reuter P. 2010. Altered State? Assessing How Marijuana Legalization in California Could Influence Marijuana Consumption and Public Budgets . Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corp. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kilmer JR, Hunt SB, Lee CM, Neighbors C. 2007. Marijuana use, risk perception, and consequences: Is perceived risk congruent with reality? Addict. Behav 32 :3026–33 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• King E, Behrman J. 2009. Timing and duration of exposure in evaluations of social programs . World Bank Econ. Rev 22 :539–66 [ Google Scholar ]
• Koppel BS, Brust JC, Fife T, Bronstein J, Youssof S, et al. 2014. Systematic review: efficacy and safety of medical marijuana in selected neurologic disorders. Report of the Guideline Development Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology . Neurology 82 ( 17 ):1556–63 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kosterman R, Bailey JA, Guttmannova K, Jones TM, Eisenberg N, et al. 2016. Marijuana legalization and parents’ attitudes, use, and parenting in Washington State . J. Adolesc. Health 59 ( 4 ):450–56 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Loflin M, Earleywine M. 2014. A new method of cannabis ingestion: the dangers of dabs? Addict. Behav 39 ( 10 ):1430–33 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lynne-Landsman SD, Livingston MD, Wagenaar AC. 2013. Effects of state medical marijuana laws on adolescent marijuana use . Am. J. Public Health 103 ( 8 ):1500–6 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• MacCoun R, Pacula RL, Chriqui JF, Harris K, Reuter P. 2009. Do citizens know whether their state has decriminalized marijuana? Assessing the perceptual component of deterrence theory . Rev. Law Econ . 5 :347–71 [ Google Scholar ]
• MacCoun R, Reuter P. 2001. Evaluating alternative cannabis regimes . Br. J. Psychiatry 178 :123–28 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maloff D 1981. A review of the effects of the decriminalization of marijuana . Contemp. Drug Probl . 10 :307–22 [ Google Scholar ]
• Marijuana Work. Group. 2016. Initiative 71: Marijuana Working Group Status Report . Washington, DC: Gov. D.C. [ Google Scholar ]
• Markowitz S, Tauras J. 2009. Substance use among adolescent students with consideration of budget constraints . Rev. Econ. Househ 7 :423–46 [ Google Scholar ]
• Miech RA, Johnston L, O’Malley PM, Bachman JG, Schulenberg J, Patrick ME. 2015. Trends in use of marijuana and attitudes toward marijuana among youth before and after decriminalization: the case of California 2007–2013 . Int. J. Drug Policy 26 :336–44 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Model K 1993. The effect of marijuana decriminalization on hospital emergency room episodes: 1975–1978 . J. Am. Stat. Assoc 88 ( 423 ):737–47 [ Google Scholar ]
• Natl. Comm. Marihuana Drug Abus. 1972. Marihuana: a signal of misunderstanding First Rep. Natl. Comm. Marihuana Drug Abus , US Gov. Print. Off., Washington, DC [ Google Scholar ]
• NCSL (Natl. Conf. State Legis.). 2016a. Marijuana overview , Aug. 2. http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/marijuana-overview.aspx
• NCSL (Natl. Conf. State Legis.). 2016b. State medical marijuana laws , Jul. 20. http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/state-medical-marijuana-laws.aspx
• Nussbaum AM, Thurstone C, McGarry L, Walker B, Sabel AL. 2015. Use and diversion of medical marijuana among adults admitted to inpatient psychiatry . Am. J. Drug Alcohol Abus . 41 ( 2 ):166–72 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ogden DW.2009. Investigations and Prosecutions in States Authorizing the Medical Use of Marijuana: Memorandum for Selected United States Attorneys . Washington, DC: US Dep. Justice, Off. Deputy Atty. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pacula RL. 1998. Does increasing the beer tax reduce marijuana consumption? J. Health Econ 17 ( 5 ):557–86 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pacula RL, Boustead A, Hunt P. 2014a Words can be deceiving: a review of variation among legally effective medical marijuana laws in the United States . J. Drug Policy Anal 7 ( 1 ):1–19 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pacula RL, Chriqui JF, King J. 2003. Decriminalization in the United States: What does it mean? Work. Pap. 9690, NBER, Cambridge, MA [ Google Scholar ]
• Pacula RL, Chriqui JF, Reichmann DA, Terry-McElrath YM. 2002. State medical marijuana laws: understanding the laws and their limitations . J. Public Health Policy 23 ( 4 ):413–39 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pacula RL, Heaton P, Powell D, Sevigny EL. 2015. Assessing the effects of medical marijuana laws on marijuana use: The devil is in the details . J. Policy Anal. Manag 34 ( 1 ):7–31 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pacula RL, Jacobson M, Maksabedian EJ. 2016. In the weeds: a baseline view of cannabis use among legalizing states and their neighbors . Addiction 111 :973–80 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pacula RL, Kilmer B, Grossman M, Chaloupka FJ. 2010. Risks and prices: the role of user sanctions in marijuana markets . B. E. J. Econ. Anal. Policy 10 ( 1 ):1–36 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pacula RL, Kilmer B, Wagenaar AC, Chaloupka FJ, Caulkins JP. 2014b Developing public health regulations for marijuana: lessons from alcohol and tobacco . Am. J. Public Health 104 ( 6 ):1021–28 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pacula RL, Lundberg R. 2014. Why changes in price matter when thinking about marijuana policy: a review of the literature on the elasticity of demand . Public Health Rev . 35 ( 2 ):1–18 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pacula RL, MacCoun R, Reuter P, Chriqui J, Kilmer B, et al. 2005. What does it mean to decriminalize marijuana? A cross-national empirical examination In Substance Abuse: Individual Behaviour, Social Interactions, Markets and Politics , Vol. 16 , ed. Grossman M, Lindgren B, pp. 347–70. Amsterdam: Elsevier [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pacula RL, Powell D, Heaton P, Sevigny E. 2015. Assessing the effects of medical marijuana laws on marijuana: The devil is in the details . J. Public Policy Anal. Manag 34 :7–31 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pacula RL, Sevigny EL. 2014a Marijuana liberalization policies: why we can’t learn much from policy still in motion . J. Policy Anal. Manag 33 ( 1 ):212–21 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pacula RL, Sevigny EL. 2014b. Natural experiments in a complex and dynamic environment: the need for measured assessment of the evidence . J. Policy Anal. Manag 33 ( 1 ):232–35 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pertwee R 2014. Handbook of Cannabis . Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [ Google Scholar ]
• Raphael S, Stoll MA. 2013. Why Are So Many Americans in Prison? New York: Russell Sage Found. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rendon J 2013. Super-Charged: How Outlaws, Hippies, and Scientists Reinvented Marijuana . Portland, OR: Timber Press [ Google Scholar ]
• Reuter P, Hirschfield P, Davies C. 2001. Assessing the Crackdown on Marijuana in Maryland . Baltimore, MD: Abell Found. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reuter P, MacCoun RJ. 1995. Assessing the legalization debate In Policies and Strategies to Combat Drugs in Europe , ed. Estievenart G, pp. 39–49. Amsterdam: Kluwer [ Google Scholar ]
• Ritter A, Livingston M, Chalmers J, Berends L, Reuter P. 2016. Comparative policy analysis for alcohol and drugs: current state of the field . Int. J. Drug Policy 31 :39–50 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ross A, Walker A. 2017. The impact of low-priority laws on criminal activity: evidence from California . Contemp. Econ. Policy In press 10.1111/coep.12179 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Russo EB, Guy GW, Robson PJ. 2007. Cannabis, pain, and sleep: lessons from therapeutic clinical trials of Sativex, a cannabis-based medicine . Chem. Biodivers 4 ( 8 ):1729–43 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Saffer H, Chaloupka FJ. 1999. The demand for illicit drugs . Econ. Inq 37 ( 3 ):401–11 [ Google Scholar ]
• Salomonsen-Sautel S, Sakai JT, Thurstone C, Corley R, Hopfer C. 2012. Medical marijuana use among adolescents in substance abuse treatment . J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 51 ( 7 ):694–702 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schauer GL, King BA, Bunnell RE, Promoff G, McAfee TA. 2016. Toking, vaping, and eating for health or fun: marijuana use patterns in adults, U.S., 2014 . Am. J. Prev. Med 50 ( 1 ):1–8 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schuermeyer J, Salomonsen-Sautel S, Price RK, Balan S, Thurstone C, et al. 2014. Temporal trends in marijuana attitudes, availability and use in Colorado compared to non-medical marijuana states: 2003–2011 . Drug Alcohol Depend . 140 :145–55 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sevigny EL. 2014. Medical marijuana by the numbers Presented at Annu. Conf. Int. Soc. Study Drug Policy , 8th, Rome [ Google Scholar ]
• Sevigny EL, Pacula RL, Heaton P. 2014. The effects of medical marijuana laws on potency . Int. J. Drug Policy 25 :308–19 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Single E 1989. The impact of marijuana decriminalization: an update . J. Public Health Policy 10 :456–66 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smart R 2016. Essays on the effects of medical marijuana laws PhD Thesis , Univ. Calif., Los Angeles [ Google Scholar ]
• Sobesky M, Gorgens K. 2016. Cannabis and adolescents: exploring the substance misuse treatment provider experience in a climate of legalization . Int. J. Drug Policy 33 :66–74 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stringer RJ, Maggard SR. 2016. Reefer madness to marijuana legalization: media exposure and American attitudes toward marijuana (1975–2012) . J. Drug Issues 46 ( 4 ):428–45 [ Google Scholar ]
• Subbaraman MS, Kerr WC. 2015. Simultaneous versus concurrent use of alcohol and cannabis in the National Alcohol Survey . Alcohol. Clin. Exp. Res 39 ( 5 ):872–79 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Subritzky T, Pettigrew S, Lenton S. 2016. Issues in the implementation and evolution of the commercial recreational cannabis market in Colorado . Int. J. Drug Policy 27 :1–12 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sumnall HR, Tyler E, Wagstaff GF, Cole JC. 2004. A behavioural economic analysis of alcohol, amphetamine, cocaine and ecstasy purchases by polysubstance misusers . Drug Alcohol Depend . 76 ( 1 ):93–99 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Temple EC, Brown RF, Hine DW. 2011. The “grass ceiling”: Limitations in the literature hinder our understanding of cannabis use and its consequences . Addiction 106 :238–44 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Terry-McElrath YM, O’Malley PM, Johnston LD. 2014. Alcohol and marijuana use patterns associated with unsafe driving among U.S. high school seniors: high use frequency, concurrent use, and simultaneous use . J. Stud. Alcohol Drugs 75 ( 3 ):378–89 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thies CF, Register CA. 1993. Decriminalization of marijuana and the demand for alcohol, marijuana and cocaine . Soc. Sci. J 30 ( 4 ):385–99 [ Google Scholar ]
• Thurstone C, Lieberman SA, Schmiege SJ. 2011. Medical marijuana diversion and associated problems in adolescent substance treatment . Drug Alcohol Depend . 118 ( 2–3 ):489–92 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Volkow ND, Baler RD, Compton WM, Weiss SRB. 2014. Adverse health effects of marijuana use . N. Engl. J. Med 370 :2219–27 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wall MM, Poh E, Cerdà M, Keyes KM, Galea S, Hasin DS. 2011. Adolescent marijuana use from 2002 to 2008: higher in states with medical marijuana laws, cause still unclear . Ann. Epidemiol 21 ( 9 ):714–16 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wen H, Hockenberry JM, Cummings JR. 2015. The effect of medical marijuana laws on adolescent and adult use of marijuana, alcohol, and other substances . J. Health Econ . 42 :64–80 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Whiting PF, Wolff RF, Deshpande S, Di Nisio M, Duffy S, et al. 2015. Cannabinoids for medical use: a systematic review and meta-analysis . JAMA 313 ( 24 ):2456–73 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Williams AR, Olfson M, Kim JH, Martins SS, Kleber HD. 2016. Older, less regulated medical marijuana programs have much greater enrollment rates than newer “medicalized” programs . Health Aff . 35 ( 3 ):480–88 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Williams J, Mahmoudi P. 2004. Economic relationship between alcohol and cannabis revisited . Econ. Rec 80 ( 248 ):36–48 [ Google Scholar ]
• Zeisser C, Thompson K, Stockwell T, Duff C, Chow C, et al. 2012. A “standard joint”? The role of quantity in predicting cannabis-related problems . Addict. Res. Theory 20 ( 1 ):82–92 [ Google Scholar ]

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Americans overwhelmingly say marijuana should be legal for medical or recreational use

With a growing number of states authorizing the use of marijuana, the public continues to broadly favor legalization of the drug for medical and recreational purposes. 

An overwhelming share of U.S. adults (88%) say either that marijuana should be legal for medical and recreational use by adults (59%) or that it should be legal for medical use only (30%). Just one-in-ten (10%) say marijuana use should not be legal, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted Oct. 10-16, 2022. These views are virtually unchanged since April 2021.

The new survey follows President Joe Biden’s decision to pardon people convicted of marijuana possession at the federal level and direct his administration to review how marijuana is classified under federal law. It was fielded before the Nov. 8 midterm elections, when two states legalized the use of marijuana for recreational purposes – joining 19 states and the District of Columbia , which had already done so.

Pew Research Center asked this question to track public views about the legal status of marijuana. For this analysis, we surveyed 5,098 adults from Oct. 10-16, 2022. Everyone who took part in this survey is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATP’s methodology .

Here are the questions used for this report, along with responses, and its methodology .

Over the long term, there has been a steep rise in public support for marijuana legalization, as measured by a separate Gallup survey question that asks whether the use of marijuana should be made legal – without specifying whether it would be legalized for recreational or medical use. This year, 68% of adults say marijuana should be legal , matching the record-high support for legalization Gallup found in 2021.

There continue to be sizable age and partisan differences in Americans’ views about marijuana. While very small shares of adults of any age are completely opposed to the legalization of the drug, older adults are far less likely than younger ones to favor legalizing it for recreational purposes.

This is particularly the case among those ages 75 and older, just three-in-ten of whom say marijuana should be legal for both medical and recreational use. Larger shares in every other age group – including 53% of those ages 65 to 74 – say the drug should be legal for both medical and recreational use.

Republicans are more wary than Democrats about legalizing marijuana for recreational use: 45% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents favor legalizing marijuana for both medical and recreational use, while an additional 39% say it should only be legal for medical use. By comparison, 73% of Democrats and Democratic leaners say marijuana should be legal for both medical and recreational use; an additional 21% say it should be legal for medical use only.

Ideological differences are evident within each party. About four-in-ten conservative Republicans (37%) say marijuana should be legal for medical and recreational use, compared with a 60% majority of moderate and liberal Republicans.

Nearly two-thirds of conservative and moderate Democrats (63%) say marijuana should be legal for medical and recreational use. An overwhelming majority of liberal Democrats (84%) say the same.

There also are racial and ethnic differences in views of legalizing marijuana. Roughly two-thirds of Black adults (68%) and six-in-ten White adults say marijuana should be legal for medical and recreational use, compared with smaller shares of Hispanic (49%) and Asian adults (48%).

Related: Clear majorities of Black Americans favor marijuana legalization, easing of criminal penalties

In both parties, views of marijuana legalization vary by age

While Republicans and Democrats differ greatly on whether marijuana should be legal for medial and recreational use, there are also age divides within each party.

A 62% majority of Republicans ages 18 to 29 favor making marijuana legal for medical and recreational use, compared with 52% of those ages 30 to 49. Roughly four-in-ten Republicans ages 50 to 64 (41%) and 65 to 74 (38%) say marijuana should be legal for both purposes, as do 18% of those 75 and older.

Still, wide majorities of Republicans in all age groups favor legalizing marijuana for medical use. Even among Republicans 65 and older, just 17% say marijuana use should not be legal even for medical purposes.

While majorities of Democrats across all age groups support legalizing marijuana for medical and recreational use, older Democrats are less likely to say this. About half of Democrats ages 75 and older (51%) say marijuana should be legal for medical or recreational purposes; larger shares of younger Democrats say the same. Still, only 8% of Democrats 75 and older think marijuana should not be legalized even for medical use – similar to the share of all other Democrats who say this.

Note: Here are the questions used for this report, along with responses, and its methodology .

• Drug Policy
• Medicine & Health

Ted Van Green is a research analyst focusing on U.S. politics and policy at Pew Research Center .

9 facts about Americans and marijuana

Most americans favor legalizing marijuana for medical, recreational use, most americans now live in a legal marijuana state – and most have at least one dispensary in their county, clear majorities of black americans favor marijuana legalization, easing of criminal penalties, concern about drug addiction has declined in u.s., even in areas where fatal overdoses have risen the most, most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

Argumentative Essay On Marijuana Legalization

Published by gudwriter on May 27, 2018 May 27, 2018

Most students have serious problems writing a quality essay as they lack the necessary experience. If you need help writing an essay on legalization of marijuana, the perfect solution is to buy thesis proposal from experts online.

Elevate Your Writing with Our Free Writing Tools!

Did you know that we provide a free essay and speech generator, plagiarism checker, summarizer, paraphraser, and other writing tools for free?

Why Marijuana Should be Legalized Argumentative Essay Outline

Introduction.

Thesis: Marijuana should be legalized as it is more beneficial that it may be detrimental to society.

Paragraph 1:

Marijuana has not caused turmoil in some of the countries where it has been legalized.

• Marijuana does not increase violent, and property crimes as many suggest.
• Studies reveal that in Colorado, violent crimes have declined following the legalization of marijuana.

Paragraph 2:

Prohibiting use of marijuana does not limit its consumption.

• In spite of the many laws prohibiting the use of marijuana, it is one of the most highly abused drugs.
• 58% of young people from all over the world use marijuana.
• It has not been attributed to any health complications.

Paragraph 3:

Legalization of marijuana would help state governments save taxpayers money.

• Governments spend lots of funds on law enforcement agencies that uphold laws restricting the use of marijuana.
• They also spend vast sums of money on sustaining arrested dealers and consumers in prison.
• Legalizing marijuana would result in saving vast sums of money.

Paragraph 4:

Marijuana is less noxious than other legal substances.

• Marijuana has less health side effects than other legal substances such as alcohol and tobacco.
• Alcohol is 114 times more destructive than marijuana.

Paragraph 5:

Marijuana has been proven to have medical benefits.

• Marijuana helps stop seizures in epileptic patients.
• It helps stop nausea in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy .

Paragraph 6:

Marijuana has been proven to be a stress reliever.

• Marijuana relieves stress and depression in their users by causing excitement.
• Its use reduces violence and deaths related to stress and depression.

Conclusion.

There are many misconceptions about marijuana existent in the modern world. People have continued to ignore health benefits linked to this substance citing their unproven beliefs. Owing to its ability to stop seizures, nausea, and stress in individuals governments should highly consider marijuana legalization. Its legalization will also help state governments reduce expenses that result from maintaining suspects convicted of marijuana possession and consumption.

Why Marijuana Should be Legalized Argumentative Essay

The argument that marijuana use should be made legal has gained momentum both in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world in recent years. This has seen the drug being legalized in some states in the U.S. such that by 2013, twenty states had legalized medical marijuana. As of the same year, Colorado and Washington had legalized recreational marijuana. The arguments behind the push for legalization majorly revolve around the idea that the drug has medicinal effects. However, there are also arguments that there are serious health effects associated with the drug and this has only further fueled the already raging debate. This paper argues that marijuana should be legalized as it is more beneficial that it may be detrimental to society.

Marijuana has not caused any notable negative effects in countries where it has been legalized. There is a general belief that marijuana consumers are violent. However, no authentic research can prove these assertions. As already seen, some states in the United States have legalized both medicinal and recreational marijuana. In spite of this, no cases of marijuana-related violence have been recorded so far in such states (Markol, 2018). Reports reveal that the rate of violence and property crimes have decreased in Colorado following the legalization of the drug. If marijuana does not increase violent crimes, there is no reason as to why it should not be legalized.

It is also noteworthy that prohibiting marijuana use does not limit its consumption. Less than 10% of countries in the world prevent the use of marijuana, but according to research, 58% of young people in most of these countries are marijuana users (Head, 2016). General reports reveal that marijuana is one of most commonly abused drug in the world. It is also readily available in most states as it is a naturally growing plant (Head, 2016). In spite of its continued use, there are few cases, if any, of marijuana-related health complications that have been reported in any of these countries (Head, 2016). Therefore, if the illegality of marijuana does not limit its consumption, then state governments should consider its legalization.

Legalization of marijuana would further help state governments save taxpayers’ money. It is widely known that in countries where marijuana is illegal, authorities are stringent and will arrest any individual found in possession of the drug (Sanger, 2017). However, as earlier mentioned, laws prohibiting the use of the drug do not prevent its consumption, and this means that many people are arrested and prosecuted for possessing it (Sanger, 2017). State governments therefore use a lot of funds to support law enforcement agencies that seek to uphold laws prohibiting the use of marijuana (Sanger, 2017). Many people have been arrested and incarcerated for either possessing or consuming the drug, and the government has to use taxpayers’ money to sustain such people in prison. Since these actions do not limit consumption of marijuana, state governments should legalize the drug so as to save taxpayers money.

Another advantage of marijuana is that it is less noxious than other legal substances. According to research, marijuana is the least harmful drug among the many legal drugs existent in the world today (Owen, 2014). There are millions of campaigns every year cautioning people against smoking cigarettes, but there has been none seeking to warn people about marijuana consumption (Owen, 2014). Lobby groups have even been making efforts to push for legalization of marijuana. If marijuana had severe health effects as many purport, state governments would be investing heavily in campaigns aimed at discouraging its consumption (Owen, 2014). According to studies, alcohol, which is legal in many countries, is 114 times more harmful than marijuana (Owen, 2014). Therefore, if such harmful substances can be legalized, then there are no justifications as to why marijuana should not be legalized.

Further, marijuana has been proven to have medicinal benefits. Several countries, particularly in Europe, and the United States have legalized both medicinal and recreational marijuana. Their move to legalize marijuana was based on medical reports that showed a variety of health benefits linked to the drug (Noonan, 2017). Research shows that marijuana can reduce seizures in epileptic persons. Several studies have also proven that the drug indeed has a variety of health benefits. For instance, Charlotte Figi, who is now aged 10, used to have more than 100 seizures every month at age three, but since Colorado legalized medicinal and recreational marijuana, her parents started treating her with the substance, and today her seizures have significantly reduced (Noonan, 2017). Marijuana has as well been proven to reduce nausea in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. Owing to this medicinal value, state governments should consider legalizing the drug.

Additionally, marijuana has been proven to be a stress reliever. Consumption of the drug causes excitement among its users enabling them to forget about troubling situations. Unlike alcohol which is likely to aggravate stress and depression, marijuana works wonders in alleviating anxiety and depression (Sanger, 2017). There are many health and social effects associated with stress, including mental disorders and violence against others (Sanger, 2017). To avoid cases of stress-related violence and mental disorders, state governments should make marijuana consumption legal.

There are many misconceptions about marijuana in the world today. People have continued to ignore the health benefits linked with this substance and have instead focused on citing yet-to-be proven misconceptions. Owing to the ability of the drug to stop seizures, nausea, and stress in individuals, governments should seriously consider its legalization. The legalization will also help state governments reduce expenses that result from sustaining suspects convicted of marijuana possession and consumption. So far, there is more than enough evidence proving that marijuana has lots of benefits to individuals, the society, and the government, and therefore should be legalized.

Head, T. (2016). “8 reasons why marijuana should be legalized”. ThoughtCo . Retrieved June 27, 2020 from https://www.thoughtco.com/reasons-why-marijuana-should-be-legalized-721154

Markol, T. (2018). “5 reasons why marijuana should be legalized”. Marijuana Reform . Retrieved June 27, 2020 from http://marijuanareform.org/5-reasons-marijuana-legalized/

Noonan, D. (2017). “Marijuana treatment reduces severe epileptic seizures”. Scientific American . Retrieved June 27, 2020 from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/marijuana-treatment-reduces-severe-epileptic-seizures/

Owen, P. (2014). “6 powerful reasons to legalize marijuana”. New York Times . Retrieved June 27, 2020 from https://www.alternet.org/drugs/6-powerful-reasons-new-york-times-says-end-marijuana-prohibition

Sanger, B. (2017). “10 legit reasons why weed should be legalized right now”. Herb . Retrieved June 27, 2020 from https://herb.co/marijuana/news/reasons-weed-legalized

Why Marijuana Should be Legal Essay Outline

Thesis:  Marijuana has health benefits and should thus be legal.

Benefits of Marijuana

Marijuana slows and stops the spread of cancer cells.

• Cannabidiol can turn off a gene called Id-1 and can therefore stop cancer.
• In an experiment, researchers were able to treat breast cancer cells with Cannabidiol.

Marijuana helps with pain and nausea reduction for people going through chemotherapy.

• Cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy suffer from severe pains and nausea.
• This can further complicate their health.
• Marijuana can stir up their appetite, decrease nausea, and reduce pain.

Paragraph  3:

Marijuana can control epileptic seizure.

• Marijuana extract stopped seizures in epileptic rats in ten hours.
• The seizures were controlled by the THC.

Disadvantages of Marijuana

Marijuana is addictive.

• One in ten marijuana users become addicted over time.
• If one stops using the drug abruptly, they may suffer from such withdrawal symptoms.

Marijuana use decreases mental health.

• Users suffer from memory loss and restricted blood flow to the brain.
• Users have higher chances of developing depression and schizophrenia.

Marijuana use damages the lungs more than cigarette smoking .

• Marijuana smokers inhale the smoke more deeply into their lungs and let it stay there for longer.
• The likelihood of lung cancer can be increased by this deeper, longer exposure to carcinogens.

Why Marijuana Should Be Legal

Paragraph 7:

Improved quality and safety control.

• Legalization would lead to the creation of a set of standards for safety and quality control.
• Users would know what they exactly get in exchange for the money they offer.
• There would be no risks of users taking in unknown substances mixed in marijuana.

Paragraph 8:

Marijuana has a medicinal value.

• Medical marijuana treats a wide assortment of “untreatable” diseases and conditions.
• Public health would be improved and the healthcare system would experience less of a drain.  

Paragraph 9: 

Among the major arguments against marijuana legalization is often that legalization would yield an increase in drug-impaired driving.

• This argument holds that even now when the drug is yet to be fully legalized in the country, it is a major causal factor in highway deaths, injuries, and crushes.
• It however beats logic why marijuana is illegalized on the ground that it would increase drug-impaired driving while alcohol is legal but also significantly contributes to the same problem.

Legalization of marijuana would have many benefits. The drug is associated with the treatment of many serious illnesses including the dreaded cancer. Legalization would also save users from consuming unsafe marijuana sold by unscrupulous people.

Why Marijuana Should Be Legal Essay

There is an ongoing tension between the belief that marijuana effectively treats a wide range of ailments and the argument that it has far-reaching negative health effects. There has nevertheless been a drive towards legalization of the drug in the United States with twenty nine states and the District of Columbia having legalized it for medical and recreational purposes. It was also found by a study that there is a sharp increase in the use of marijuana across the country (Kerr, Lui & Ye, 2017). Major public health concerns are being prompted by this rise. This should however not be the case because marijuana has health benefits and should thus be legal.

Marijuana slows and stops the spread of cancer cells. A study found that Cannabidiol can turn off a gene called Id-1 and can therefore stop cancer. A 2007 report by researchers at California Pacific Medical Center in San Francisco also indicated that the spread of cancer may be prevented by Cannabidiol. In their lab experiment, the researchers were able to treat breast cancer cells with this component (Nawaz, 2017). The positive outcome of the experiment showed that Id-1 expression had been significantly decreased.

Marijuana also helps with pain and nausea reduction for people going through chemotherapy. Cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy suffer from severe pains, appetite loss, vomiting, and painful nausea. This can further complicate their already deteriorating health. Marijuana can be of help here by stirring up the appetite, decreasing nausea, and reducing pain (Nawaz, 2017). There are also other cannabinoid drugs used for the same purposes as approved by the FDA.

It was additionally shown by a 2003 study that the use of marijuana can control epileptic seizure. Synthetic marijuana and marijuana extracts were given to epileptic rats by Virginia Commonwealth University’s Robert J. DeLorenzo. In about ten hours, the seizures had been stopped by the drugs (Nawaz, 2017). It was found that the seizures were controlled by the THC which bound the brain cells responsible for regulating relaxation and controlling excitability.

Some scientists claim that marijuana is addictive. According to them, one in ten marijuana users become addicted over time. They argue that if one stops using the drug abruptly, they may suffer from such withdrawal symptoms as anxiety and irritability (Barcott, 2015). However, the same argument could be applied to cigarette smoking, which is notably legal. There is need for more studies to be conducted into this claim being spread by opponents of marijuana legalization.

It is also argued that marijuana use decreases mental health. Those opposed to the legalization of recreational marijuana like to cite studies that show that users of the drug suffer from memory loss and restricted blood flow to the brain. They also argue that users have higher chances of developing depression and schizophrenia. However, these assertions have not yet been completely ascertained by science (Barcott, 2015). The claim about depression and schizophrenia is particularly not clear because researchers are not sure whether the drug triggers the conditions or it is used by smokers to alleviate the symptoms.

It is further claimed that marijuana use damages the lungs more than cigarette smoking. It is presumed that marijuana smokers inhale the smoke more deeply into their lungs and let it stay there for longer. The likelihood of lung cancer, according to this argument, can be increased by this deeper, longer exposure to carcinogens. However, the argument touches not on the frequency of use between marijuana and cigarette smokers (Barcott, 2015). It neither takes into account such alternative administration methods as edibles, tinctures, and vaporizing.

Legalization of marijuana would lead to improved quality and safety control. Purchasing the drug off the street provides end users with no means of knowing what they are exactly getting. On the other hand, legalizing it would immediately lead to the creation of a set of standards for safety and quality control (Caulkins, Kilmer & Kleiman, 2016). This would certainly work in the marijuana industry just as it is working in the tobacco and alcohol industries. Users would be able to know what they exactly get in exchange for the money they offer. Additionally, there would be no risks of users taking in unknown substances mixed in marijuana sold on the streets.

Marijuana should also be legal because it has a medicinal value. It has been proven that medical marijuana treats a wide assortment of “untreatable” diseases and conditions. These include problems due to chemotherapy, cancer, post-traumatic stress disorder, migraines, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, and Crohn’s disease (Caulkins, Kilmer & Kleiman, 2016). Public health would be improved and the healthcare system would experience less of a drain if medical cannabis products were made available to those suffering from the mentioned conditions. Consequently, more public funds would be available for such other public service initiatives as schools and roads.

Among the major arguments against marijuana legalization is often that legalization would yield an increase in drug-impaired driving. This argument holds that even now when the drug is yet to be fully legalized in the country, it has already been cited to be a major causal factor in highway deaths, injuries, and crushes. Among the surveys those arguing along this line might cite is one that was conducted back in 2010, revealing that of the participating weekend night-time drivers, “8.6 percent tested positive for marijuana or its metabolites” (“Why We Should Not Legalize Marijuana,” 2010). It was found in yet another study that 26.9% of drivers who were being attended to at a trauma center after sustaining serious injuries tested positive for the drug (“Why We Should Not Legalize Marijuana,” 2010). It however beats logic why marijuana is illegalized on the ground that it would increase drug-impaired driving while alcohol is legal but also significantly contributes to the same problem.

As the discussion reveals, legalization of marijuana would have many benefits. The drug is associated with the treatment of many serious illnesses including the dreaded cancer. Legalization would also save users from consuming unsafe marijuana sold by unscrupulous people. There are also other health conditions that can be controlled through the drug. Arguments against its legalization based on its effects on human health also lack sufficient scientific support. It is thus only safe that the drug is legalized in all states.

Barcott, B. (2015).  Weed the people: the future of legal marijuana in America . New York, NY: Time Home Entertainment.

Caulkins, J. P., Kilmer, B., & Kleiman, M. (2016).  Marijuana legalization: what everyone needs to know . New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Kerr, W., Lui, C., & Ye, Y. (2017). Trends and age, period and cohort effects for marijuana use prevalence in the 1984-2015 US National Alcohol Surveys.  Addiction ,  113 (3), 473-481.

Nawaz, H. (2017).  The debate between legalizing marijuana and its benefits for medical purposes: a pros and cons analysis . Munich, Germany: GRIN Verlag.

Why We Should Not Legalize Marijuana. (2010). In  CNBC . Retrieved June 25, 2020 from  https://www.cnbc.com/id/36267223 .

More examples of Argumentative Essays written by our team of quality writers

• Same Sex Marriage Argumentative Essay, with Outline
• American Patriotism Argumentative Essay
• Euthanasia Argumentative Essay Sample
• Artificial Intelligence Argumentative Essay
• Argumentative Essay on Abortion – Sample Essay
• Gun Control Argumentative Essay – Sample Essay
• Can Money Buy Happiness Argumentative Essay
• Illegal Immigration Argumentative Essay

 There are typical mistakes most students make when writing their argumentative papers . When writing your argumentative essay you ought to understand that it calls for the ability to present facts, provide supportive evidence, and use logical reasoning to illustrate points. This will help you write a quality paper.

You can relieve yourself all the tussle by buying an argumentative essay  from a trustworthy argumentative essay help service. Hire Gudwriter now and you will never regret it.

Special offer! Get 20% discount on your first order. Promo code: SAVE20

Related Posts

Free essays and research papers, artificial intelligence argumentative essay – with outline.

Artificial Intelligence Argumentative Essay Outline In recent years, Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become one of the rapidly developing fields and as its capabilities continue to expand, its potential impact on society has become a topic Read more…

Synthesis Essay Example – With Outline

The goal of a synthesis paper is to show that you can handle in-depth research, dissect complex ideas, and present the arguments. Most college or university students have a hard time writing a synthesis essay, Read more…

Examples of Spatial Order – With Outline

A spatial order is an organizational style that helps in the presentation of ideas or things as is in their locations. Most students struggle to understand the meaning of spatial order in writing and have Read more…

This website uses cookies.

By clicking the "Accept" button or continuing to browse our site, you agree to first-party and session-only cookies being stored on your device to enhance site navigation and analyze site performance and traffic. For more information on our use of cookies, please see our Privacy Policy .

Journal of Economic Literature

The public health effects of legalizing marijuana.

ISSN 0022-0515 (Print) | ISSN 2328-8175 (Online)

• Editorial Policy
• Annual Report of the Editor
• Research Highlights
• Contact Information
• Current Issue
• Forthcoming Articles
• Guidelines for Proposals
• Accepted Article Guidelines
• Style Guide
• Coverage of New Books
• D. Mark Anderson
• Daniel I. Rees
• Article Information

Additional Materials

• Author Disclosure Statement(s) (158.63 KB)

JEL Classification

• R41 Transportation: Demand, Supply, and Congestion; Travel Time; Safety and Accidents; Transportation Noise

Project Types We Cover

• Admissions Essay
• PowerPoint Presentation
• Research Paper
• Book Reviews
• Personal Statement
• Ph.D Dissertation
• Proofreading

Academic Fields & Subjects

• Programming
• Computer Science
• Other projects we help with
• Our Experts
• Plagiarism Checker
• Writing Tips

How to Write Legalization of Marijuana Essays

By: Angelina Grin

Since the legalization of marijuana has been a heated subject in recent years, many teachers give essay writing assignments on this to judge a student's knowledge of current affairs. Although you may have a basic understanding of what an essay on the legalization of marijuana is and how to write one, it is critical to continue to improve your research, composition, and essay structure. You can always build in some respects.

Essay Sample: Should Marijuana Be Legalized?

Health benefits of legalizing marijuana, negative effects of legalizing marijuana, use of medical studies, use of sub-headings and sub-points, references to use in the essay.

Studybay has provided a sample essay, its analysis, reviewed some essay fundamentals, and what the examiner will be looking for. If you want to go the extra mile, you can also seek   homework help . 

Marijuana is one most vehement adversaries in the war on drugs by Americans. And, given that alcohol and tobacco, two life-threatening drugs, are legal, it's fair to wonder why medical marijuana is prohibited. When taxpayers in America fill out their tax forms and hear the government's hash argument against marijuana, they will partially address this issue.

Marijuana, which is derived from Cannabis plants, is known by a variety of names. Marijuana has a variety of nicknames, ranging from cannabis to ganja to weed. Marijuana is made up of the leaves and flowers of the Cannabis plant. 

THC, or delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, is the primary active ingredient in marijuana. It enters the bloodstream and travels to the brain. This substance induces a state of relaxation in the body.

There have been several debates on whether or not marijuana should be legalized. Many people assume that this substance is toxic to the human body, but there is hard evidence to the contrary. Marijuana has real advantages that can outweigh the ostensibly negative consequences. Arguments for drug legalization began in the United States of America. It has been shown to have many medical benefits, including anxiety relief, pain relief, nausea relief, and the reduction of epileptic seizures. A significant number of states in the United States allow for the use of marijuana on a prescription basis.

Medical Cannabis is commonly used to treat sleeping problems, appetite deficiency, autism, and cancer therapies such as chemotherapy. Cannabis can also be used to cure anorexia until it is approved. Emotion and mood control are two immediate effects of cannabis for medicinal purposes. Marijuana has been shown to have mild side effects when used in controlled doses.

The legalization of marijuana is expected to improve the country's economic development. If state officials vote to legalize marijuana, they will save a lot of money for taxpayers. 

State officials spend a lot of money on the branches of law enforcement that are in charge of enforcing drug prohibition laws. Every year, thousands of people are prosecuted for either using or possessing marijuana, and governments pay vast sums of money to keep them locked up. Legalizing marijuana would save this money.

Marijuana has not caused any apparent harm in countries where cannabis has been legalized. Marijuana users are thought to be abusive, according to some stereotypes. However, there is no concrete evidence to back up this claim to date. In the United States, several states have allowed marijuana for both medicinal and recreational uses, with no harmful consequences. In contrast, Colorado has seen a decline in marijuana-related property destruction and crime.

Essay Analysis

The essay example above is a fairly insightful work that covers many of the essential facets of essay composition. There are, however, certain main segments and points that are required. The aspects that should have been included are as follows:

A Strong Argument

Since we don't necessarily agree with what's right or rational, a well-crafted argument will assist us in determining what's fair or real. It's used to resolve disagreements to find the facts. Argument shows us how to analyze competing theories, as well as how to evaluate proof and inquiry processes. Argument teaches one how to explain our views and express them clearly and objectively and how to respectfully and critically evaluate the ideas of others.

In the above sample, the following sections on the effects of marijuana can be added:

• Pharmaceutical cannabis has been   shown in studies   to reduce nausea caused by cancer chemotherapy and almost entirely prevent vomiting.
• Marijuana can help with muscle spasticity, which is   often linked to multiple sclerosis   and paralysis.
• Marijuana can aid in the   treatment of appetite loss   caused by HIV/AIDS and some forms of cancers.
• Certain forms of chronic pain, such as neuropathic pain, may be   relieved by marijuana .
• When isolated, as CBD has been, these compounds can contribute to   further advances in medical treatment options   without the "high" provided by THC.
• Regular usage of marijuana causes a   negative impact   on your short-term memory.
• Smoking any substance, whether nicotine or marijuana,   will cause significant lung harm .
• Due to drug abuse, marijuana has a high potential for violence and addiction.
• Marijuana has been linked   to a large number of car collisions and industrial accidents.

No wild claims have been made. All the pros and cons are back up with solid evidence from studies and proper medical research journals. 

On this point, there are some vital benefits you should note while writing your essay:

• It adds creativity and interest to your essay.
• You have a lot of options for adding information.
• Your essay would be 100% original.
• Your ideas would be clearer and more efficient.

Headings describe the paper's main themes and supporting theories, subheadings, bullets, numbered lists, etc. They use visual cues to communicate significance levels. Readers can discern the key points from the others thanks to differences in text size.

For instance, in point 1, we see the sub-headings as 'Pros and Cons of Legalizing Marijuana' further by sub-points in alphabetical order. 

The sample essay lacks a summary, an analysis, or a conclusion to the topic. The following paragraph could have been added as a conclusion:

While medical marijuana is still controversial, it is gaining popularity as a legal treatment option for several ailments. Although many states have approved cannabis for medical uses (and a few for commercial use), it would require more lawmakers and the federal government to make it accepted and sold around the country. However, proving or disproving the effectiveness of medical marijuana and eventually loosening the prohibitions on its use would almost certainly necessitate a much broader body of legal clinical study.

Additional Points

The following points can be expanded upon in this essay:

• History of drug use in the medical history and as a recreational drug
• Recreational purposes of marijuana
• Decriminalization on the federal level
• How to approach the marijuana-related drug policy
• Other illegal drugs and their usage

You can also opt for   essay help   in covering the main points from professional services.

Here are some valuable research papers and sources to include and quote to get good grades:

• FDA and Cannabis: Research and Drug Approval Process
• Legalization of Marijuana: Potential Impact on Youth
• Experimenting with Pot: The State of Colorado's Legalization of Marijuana 
• Legalizing Marijuana: California's Pot of Gold?   (Covers the economic benefits)
• Medicinal and Recreational Marijuana Use by Patients Infected with HIV

After you've finished writing your cannabis Sativa legalization essay, be sure to address the following points:

• The grammar and distinctiveness of the marijuana essay have been double-checked and revised.
• A solid a backed up by ideas, arguments, and proof.
• The overview and analysis of the research and opinions of other authors.
• An introduction, body paragraphs, and a conclusion are all part of a coherent framework.

Keep in mind that you can get expert essay assistance from Studybay when writing your   research paper .

User ratings:

User ratings is 3.8 stars.

3.8 /5 ( 9 Votes)

Creative Writer and Blog Editor

Despite my relatively young age, I am a professional writer with more than 14 years of experience. I studied journalism at the university, worked for media and digital agencies, and organized several events for ed-tech companies. Yet for the last 6 years, I've worked mainly in marketing. Here, at Studybay, my objective is to make sure all our texts are clear, informative, and engaging.

Add Your Comment

We are very interested to know your opinion

This is very clear thanks for giving me the point to start my essay

i think you have helped me a lot as i could not gather and form a complete paragraph about my topic, but with what you provided me with I think my problem was solved.

I like how you're bringing it out more understandable, you know. We need to talk more often about the side effect of substance abuse. Thanks

Faith chepkemoi

Upgrade your writing skills!

Try our AI essay writer from Studybay today!

Breadcrumbs

One-year high: the impacts of maryland’s legalization of marijuana.

Mario Macis, professor of economics, health, and management and organization at the Johns Hopkins Carey Business School, shares how tax revenue is up, crime is down, and a recent gubernatorial declaration changes thousands of lives.

Nearly a year after legalizing marijuana in Maryland, some of the early effects of this legislation are beginning to show, marking just the beginning of a broader understanding of its impacts.

On July 1, 2023, Maryland legalized the recreational use of marijuana for individuals 21 years and older. This significant change, affirmed by 67% of voters in the November 2022 Question 4 referendum, comes more than a decade after the state initially authorized medical marijuana use in 2012. Under the new legislation, individuals are allowed to possess up to 1.5 ounces for personal use, cultivate up to two plants at home, and gift cannabis to others without monetary compensation. 

Erasing crime?

On June 16, 2024, Maryland Governor Wes Moore announced pardons for 175,000 persons convicted of crimes related to the possession of cannabis and cannabis paraphernalia. The governor’s action is in line with other governors who have previously legalized marijuana. This provision has important societal implications, influencing the broader opportunities and life outcomes for convicted individuals and their families. 

In Maryland, the pardon applies to everyone convicted of marijuana possession—a population that is  disproportionately Black. Although Black and African American persons make up 33% of Maryland's population, they comprise 70% of persons incarcerated in the state. This has real impacts in Black communities. Convictions on-record make it harder for someone to obtain housing, employment, and education, all of which are crucial for achieving financial stability and building long-term wealth for future generations.

The legislation sparked extensive debates. Detractors express concerns about increased consumption—particularly among youth—a rise in addiction, and elevated crime rates. Proponents counter these arguments by referencing historical events like the Prohibition Era, where criminal activities burgeoned due to the illegal alcohol trade. In fact, legalizing and regulating marijuana can decrease organized crime, enhance consumer safety, and ensure product quality.

Evidence from states where marijuana has been previously legalized tends to support these counterarguments, as detailed in studies such as the one published in the Journal of Economic Literature in 2023 by economists Mark Anderson and Daniel Rees, titled "The Public Health Effects of Legalizing Marijuana." This research contributes to the understanding of the broader impacts of marijuana legalization on public health, crime, and other outcomes, although it is difficult to draw firm conclusions for most outcomes without more post-reform data.

Statistics reveal that crime rates don't necessarily surge post-legalization. This could be because states reallocate law enforcement resources to more severe criminal activities. Various studies have also attempted to shed light on the impact of medical and recreational marijuana legalization on consumption patterns and public health. Youth consumption has not been shown to increase significantly after legalization. Meanwhile, marijuana appears to be a substitute for alcohol, leading to decreased consumption and instances of binge drinking.

That makes a difference, because alcohol is correlated with violence. Several studies suggest that legalization could reduce non-drug related crimes, such as homicides, assaults, rapes, and thefts. The decrease in crime following marijuana legalization can be attributed to a few key factors, including the potential reduction in alcohol use, as well as the elimination of illicit marketplaces that often lead to violence and criminal activity, and the reallocation of law enforcement resources towards more serious offenses. However, the effects of opening and closing dispensaries on crime rates and other societal factors still require more rigorous investigation.

As for the notorious “gateway drug” theory, the evidence doesn't convincingly connect marijuana legalization to increased usage of other, “harder” drugs. In fact, preliminary studies suggest a reduction in opioid use post-legalization. However, these findings require further research to confirm.

Market and tax impacts

The law is reshaping Maryland's cannabis market. In March 2024, Maryland regulators awarded 174 adult-use marijuana social equity licenses from a pool of 1,515 eligible applicants. This was part of a lottery conducted on March 14, which included six different license types, reflecting the state's effort to ensure equitable distribution of licenses in the burgeoning industry. The state distributed licenses across 44 geographic pools, with the number of licenses per area varying based on population density and demand. 

A sales tax on marijuana products has generated significant revenue for the state. According to the Marijuana Policy Project, from July 1, 2023, through March 2024, tax revenues from cannabis sales totaled $40,230,000. In addition to tax revenues, the state benefits from the redirection of resources previously expended on law enforcement, court proceedings, and imprisonment associated with marijuana consumption, letting the state spend more on societal needs.

Public and mental health

Marijuana has shown positive impacts on mental health, with some studies indicating a decrease in prescription medications for mental health conditions. Additionally, while the effect of recreational marijuana on road safety remains under examination, some evidence points to improved road safety following the legalization of medical marijuana.

What to Read Next

career outcomes

Maryland's journey toward fully understanding the ripple effects of marijuana legalization is just beginning. The state's focus on regulation, equity, and a data-driven approach aims to guide the comprehensive exploration of the benefits and potential hurdles brought about by this new cannabis policy era. However, the post-legalization data is still limited, preventing firm conclusions and highlighting the need for ongoing research and monitoring to fully assess the effects of the new regulations.

Authored by Mario Macis, PhD

Mario Macis, PhD , is a professor of economics at the Johns Hopkins Carey Business School. He is an applied economist who studies the role of incentives in shaping pro-social behavior, attitudes toward morally contentious exchanges and, more generally, the determinants of social support for market-based solutions to social problems. He is also interested in various topics in health, development, labor and organizational economics. 

Media Inquiry

Discover related content.

• Executive Education
• About Carey Business School
• Women's Leadership Initiative

Home — Essay Samples — Law, Crime & Punishment — Marijuana Legalization

Essays on Marijuana Legalization

The pros and cons of legalizing marijuana, the reasons why marijuana should be legal, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

The Debate Over Marijuana Legalization

Arguments against the prohibition of marijuana, discussion on whether marijuana should be legal in the us, why weed should be legal: a case for legalizing in america, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

The Legalization of Marijuana Would Do More Good than Harm

Should marijuana be legal for medicinal purposes, legalizing marijuana: examining the pros and cons, the economic benefits of marijuana legalization, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

Marijuana and The Arguments for Its Legalization

Legalization of marijuana: advantages outweigh the disadvantages, the reasoning why marijuana should be legal, why marijuana must remain illegalized, marijuana: the benefits are well worth the risks, a research paper on marijuana legalization, marijuana legalization issue: should marijuana be legalized, pros and cons to cannabis being legal, persuasive arguments why marijuana should be legal, argumentative why marijuanas should be legal in australia, the idea to legalize marijuana: a double-edged sword, marijuana is not a drug, it’s a remedy, persuasive why marijuana should be legal in canada, marijuana legalisation: positive and negative effects of marijuana, analytical heinrich’s evolving opinion on the idea to legalize marijuana, unpacking the debate: the pros and cons of legalizing marijuana, the reasons why i support the legalization of medical marijuana, medicinal marijuana: the plant that should be given a chance, the issue of legalization of cannabis in canada, letter to trump regarding legalization of marijuana.

Marijuana, also known as cannabis, is a psychoactive drug derived from the Cannabis sativa plant. It is typically consumed for its mind-altering effects, which can induce feelings of relaxation, euphoria, and altered sensory perception. The plant contains various chemical compounds called cannabinoids, with delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) being the most well-known and responsible for its psychoactive properties.

Marijuana legalization in the United States refers to the process of legalizing the recreational and/or medicinal use of marijuana at the state level. Over the past few decades, there has been a significant shift in public opinion and policy towards marijuana, leading to various states enacting their own laws to regulate its use. The movement towards marijuana legalization gained momentum in the 1990s with the passage of medical marijuana laws in California and other states. These laws allowed patients with certain medical conditions to access marijuana for therapeutic purposes. Since then, many states have followed suit, legalizing medical marijuana and establishing regulated systems for cultivation, distribution, and consumption. In recent years, there has been a growing trend towards the legalization of recreational marijuana. As of now, several states, including Colorado, Washington, Oregon, and California, have legalized the recreational use of marijuana for adults. These states have implemented strict regulatory frameworks to control its production, sale, and use. It's important to note that while some states have legalized marijuana, it remains illegal at the federal level in the United States. This has created a complex legal landscape, with variations in regulations and enforcement across different jurisdictions.

The historical context of marijuana legalization in the world and the United States is marked by changing perceptions, legal battles, and evolving social attitudes. Globally, the prohibition of marijuana can be traced back to the early 20th century when various countries, influenced by international treaties, criminalized its use. However, in recent decades, several countries have started to challenge this approach. The Netherlands, for example, adopted a tolerant stance towards marijuana in the 1970s, allowing small quantities to be sold and consumed in designated coffee shops. Uruguay became the first country to fully legalize marijuana in 2013, followed by Canada in 2018. In the United States, marijuana was criminalized with the passage of the Marihuana Tax Act in 1937. The federal government classified it as a Schedule I controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, considering it to have no medical value and a high potential for abuse. However, starting in the 1990s, a wave of states began to pass medical marijuana laws to allow its use for medicinal purposes. This paved the way for further changes, and as of 2021, recreational marijuana is legal in several states, with more considering or implementing similar measures.

Public opinion on marijuana legalization has undergone a significant transformation in recent years. While marijuana was once heavily stigmatized and associated with criminality, the general attitude towards its legalization has become more favorable. Polls and surveys consistently show that a majority of Americans now support the legalization of marijuana. Public opinion has shifted primarily due to changing perceptions of marijuana's potential benefits and a reevaluation of the social and economic consequences of its prohibition. Supporters argue that marijuana legalization can generate tax revenue, create job opportunities, and redirect law enforcement resources towards more pressing issues. They also highlight the medicinal properties of marijuana, advocating for its use as a treatment option for various conditions. Opponents, on the other hand, express concerns about the potential risks associated with marijuana use, particularly among young people. They worry about increased accessibility, impaired driving, and the potential for marijuana to serve as a gateway drug.

1. Medicinal benefits: Marijuana has proven medical benefits for conditions such as chronic pain, epilepsy, and nausea associated with chemotherapy. 2. Economic opportunities: Legalizing marijuana can create a new industry, generate tax revenue, and create jobs. 3. Individual freedom: Advocates emphasize that adults should have the right to make decisions about their own bodies, including the choice to use marijuana responsibly. 4. Criminal justice reform: Marijuana legalization would help reduce arrests and convictions related to marijuana possession, alleviating the burden on the criminal justice system and addressing racial disparities in law enforcement. 5. Regulation and safety: Legalization allows for the regulation of marijuana production, quality control, and sales. This would help ensure product safety, discourage the use of illicit substances, and promote responsible consumption.

1. Health risks: Marijuana use can have negative health effects, including respiratory problems, cognitive impairment, and addiction. 2. Gateway drug: Marijuana can serve as a gateway drug, potentially leading to the use of more dangerous substances. 3. Impaired driving: Legalization may lead to an increase in impaired driving incidents, posing risks to public safety. 4. Youth exposure: Legalization may make marijuana more accessible to minors. 5. Public health and societal costs:Marijuana legalization could lead to increased healthcare costs, workplace productivity issues, and other social problems.

In recent years, there has been an increase in media coverage that highlights the potential benefits and challenges of marijuana legalization. Documentaries like "Weed" by CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta and "The Culture High" shed light on the medical uses of marijuana and the impact of prohibition on individuals and communities. News outlets have covered various aspects of marijuana legalization, including its economic impact, public health concerns, and criminal justice reform. Publications like The New York Times and The Washington Post have published opinion pieces and investigative reports discussing the pros and cons of legalization. Popular TV shows like "Weeds" and "High Maintenance" have depicted the marijuana industry and its cultural influence, showcasing both positive and negative aspects. Additionally, social media platforms have provided a space for diverse voices and perspectives on marijuana legalization. Online discussions, podcasts, and YouTube channels have emerged, allowing individuals to share their experiences and opinions.

1. According to a report by New Frontier Data, the legal cannabis industry in the United States was projected to generate $30 billion in annual sales by 2025, creating numerous job opportunities and contributing to tax revenues. 2. A survey conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2021 found that 91% of Americans believed marijuana should be legal for medical or recreational use, indicating a significant increase in support over the years. 3. In states where marijuana is legal, there has been a decrease in marijuana-related arrests, reducing the burden on the legal system and freeing up resources for more serious crimes. For example, a study published in the journal Drug and Alcohol Dependence found that states with legalized medical marijuana experienced a 20% decrease in arrests for possession of marijuana.

The topic of marijuana legalization is important to write an essay about due to its multifaceted impact on society, economy, and public health. With shifting attitudes and changing laws surrounding marijuana, understanding the implications of its legalization is crucial. Firstly, marijuana legalization has significant social and criminal justice implications. It affects the lives of individuals who use marijuana for medical or recreational purposes, as well as those who have been disproportionately affected by the war on drugs. Exploring the social justice aspects, such as racial disparities in marijuana-related arrests and convictions, can shed light on the need for equitable policies. Secondly, the economic impact of marijuana legalization is noteworthy. Legalizing and regulating the cannabis industry can stimulate economic growth, create jobs, and generate tax revenue. Analyzing the economic benefits and potential challenges, such as market competition and taxation, can provide insights into the broader economic landscape. Lastly, the public health implications of marijuana legalization cannot be overlooked. Studying the effects of marijuana on physical and mental health, as well as its potential therapeutic uses, can inform public health policies and interventions.

1. Caulkins, J. P., Kilmer, B., & Kleiman, M. A. R. (2016). Marijuana legalization: What everyone needs to know. Oxford University Press. 2. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). The health effects of cannabis and cannabinoids: The current state of evidence and recommendations for research. The National Academies Press. 3. Pacula, R. L., Kilmer, B., Wagenaar, A. C., & Chaloupka, F. J. (Eds.). (2014). Marijuana legalization: What everyone needs to know (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. 4. ProCon.org. (2021). Should marijuana be a medical option? Retrieved from https://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/ 5. Caulkins, J. P., & Bond, B. M. (2019). The marijuana legalization paradox. Addiction, 114(9), 1614-1620. 6. National Conference of State Legislatures. (2021). State medical marijuana laws. Retrieved from https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/state-medical-marijuana-laws.aspx 7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2021). Marijuana and public health. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/marijuana/index.htm 8. Rosenthal, E. (2013). The big book of buds: Marijuana varieties from the world's great seed breeders. Quick Trading Company. 9. Caulkins, J. P., Hawken, A., Kilmer, B., & Kleiman, M. A. R. (2012). Marijuana legalization: What everyone needs to know. Oxford University Press. 10. Drug Policy Alliance. (2021). Marijuana legalization and regulation. Retrieved from https://drugpolicy.org/marijuana-legalization-and-regulation

Relevant topics

• War on Drugs
• Community Policing
• Serial Killer
• Drunk Driving
• Animal Cruelty
• Child Abuse

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Community Voice

Steve Alm: Marijuana Legalization Carries Risks For Hawaii

The Honolulu prosecutor says greater usage would mean more negative and harmful consequences.

By Steve Alm

June 27, 2024 · 10 min read

About the Author

As an active participant in the effort to stop commercial (recreational) legalization of marijuana (personal use has already been decriminalized), I read Neal Milner’s recent column with great interest ( “How Both Sides In Marijuana Debate Blew Smoke Up Our Okole” ).

There are a number of points that Milner got wrong in his article.

First, there is a lot of good research now from credible sources that show the negative consequences of using marijuana. There is also good research that concludes that legalizing the commercial (recreational) sale of marijuana increases usage. As a result, more usage would mean more negative consequences that would be harmful for Hawaii.

I have pointed to some of these sources in some of my past articles and testimony and I have included some of them later in this article. Milner is either unaware of or has ignored the existence of this research.

Second, Milner supports the Rand Corporation’s advice to rely on transparent, nonpartisan and impartial review processes to arrive at a shared set of facts to guide better policymaking. That is exactly what I am doing in citing sources such as the Journal of the American Medical Association, the New England Journal of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health.

More research is certainly needed on the cost/benefit effects of legalization, looking at a specific state with its unique features, like Hawaii, with our overwhelming reliance on the tourist industry.  We asked a committee chair at the legislature to do a cost/benefit analysis for Hawaii and he was not interested. I would argue that until that is done, there are enough red flags in the current research done by reputable organizations about marijuana that should give us all pause.

Third, while legislation and policymaking may be done by other people through feelings and beliefs, all of which is passed off as unadorned “real” facts, that is not the case with us here. Our criminal justice policy positions are based on facts and are backed up by well-researched studies.

I didn’t publicly comment on the marijuana legalization issue before or during the 2023 legislative session because I had not yet done my due diligence in researching it. I had an open mind when looking at the marijuana of today and in carefully considering the evidence, pro and con.

Currently, in Hawaii, medical marijuana is available and personal use has been decriminalized.

The pros that I identified include the following: First, there will be some tax money collected (although it may be negated by resultant social costs). Second, a number of people will be employed at the marijuana stores and in the grow fields. The more stores and fields, the more people employed.

Third, if testing is done at the stores, they should be able to control for harmful additives like fentanyl. At the same time, many people will still buy from the sources they have always bought their marijuana from, as the black market, without taxes, will always be cheaper.

Fourth, depending on what legislative bill might actually pass, possession of up to 30 grams (60 joints) would no longer be illegal. Now, possession of up to an ounce (28.34 grams) is a petty misdemeanor, typically punished by a fine. Possession of three grams (6 joints) or less is a violation.

Fifth, those favoring legalization might say it will remove the stigma and marijuana possession and use. Those opposed would say legislation of this new powerful drug would send the wrong message to kids that, if it is legal, it must be safe.

Finally, some would argue that “social equity” provisions would help disadvantaged individuals and communities that had been disproportionately impacted by marijuana laws.

Pot Lowers IQs

Next, I shall include but a small sample of the good research from reputable sources that I found compelling. Due to space considerations, I am not including research showing, for example, how the proportion of drivers involved in fatal car crashes who test positive for marijuana increases or how marijuana grows negatively impact the environment and water usage, or how the black market for marijuana actually increases after legalizing commercial (recreational) marijuana.

Studies point to a decline in IQ among cannabis users, especially in teenagers. In 2021, the National Institutes of Health, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration published a systemic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies of frequent and dependent cannabis use in adolescents. The researchers found an average decline of approximately two IQ points following exposure to cannabis in youth.

Further, a study published by the National Institutes of Health, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration in 2013 surveyed 1,037 people in New Zealand and found that those who were dependent on cannabis before age 18 lost an average of eight IQ points.

For this group, “quitting or cutting back their cannabis use did not fully eliminate the IQ loss.” The authors, from Duke University, King’s College London and The University of Otago said “their findings accord with other data that have suggested that cannabis use may harm the developing brain.”

Marijuana use also leads to a number of health problems. In February 2024, the Journal of the American Heart Association published a study by the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which analyzed survey data from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention of 434,104 adults from 2011 to 2020.

Any use of marijuana was linked to a higher risk of heart attack and stroke, with daily users having a 25% increased likelihood of a heart attack and a 42% increased risk of a stroke.

Studies point to a decline in IQ among cannabis users, especially in teenagers.

Noted local physician, Dr. Scott Miscovich, has pointed to studies in Canada that looked at cannabis emergency department poisoning over two periods of legalization: when cannabis was legalized in 2018, and when the sale of cannabis edibles (e.g., gummies, chocolates, and baked goods) was legalized in 2020.

The New England Journal of Medicine published a study in August 2022 about the unintentional marijuana poisoning in children across Canada. Hospitalization rates were 2.6 times as high as before legalization. When edibles were legalized, the hospitalization rates were 7.5 times as high as before legalization.

“Our data indicates that legalization was associated with increases in hospitalizations for cannabis poisoning in children. Most of the increase occurred after legalization of cannabis edibles and despite strict regulations aimed at reducing poisoning in children,” according to the study.

More Emergency Room Visits

A study published by the Journal of the American Medical Association in May 2024 found that, for older adults, the rate of emergency department visits for cannabis poisoning was substantially higher than pre-legalization (15.4 versus 5.8 per 100,000 person-years.)

The rate of emergency department visits was even higher, at 21.1 per 100,000 person-years. During the eight-year study period, there were 2,322 emergency department visits for cannabis poisoning in older adults whose average age was 69.5 years.

Even some of the data from a resource that was touted by Milner is alarming. He points us, through a link, to a September 2023 publication by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, “Economic Benefits and Social Costs of Legalizing Recreational Marijuana.”

The authors said, “Given the significant increase in the number of states that have legalized recreational use over the past decade, this paper aims to fill a gap in the literature by considering both the potential benefits and costs using state-level data from every U.S. state.”

They found that “Post-legalization, average state income grew by 3%, house prices by 6% and population by 2%. However, substance use disorders, chronic homelessness and arrests increased by 17, 35 and 13% respectively.

The marijuana of today is much more potent than it was in the past. A study published in 2023 by Deepak Cyril D’Souza and Albert E. Kent, professors of psychiatry at the Yale School of Medicine, noted: “In 1995, the average THC content in cannabis seized by the Drug Enforcement Administration was about 4%. By 2017, it had increased to 17% and continues to increase.”

Beyond the plant, a staggering array of other cannabis products with an even higher THC content like dabs, oils and edibles are readily available — some as high as 90%.

States that have legalized commercial (recreational) marijuana have higher usage rates. A study published in the Journal of Addiction Medicine (July-August 2020), titled “Differences in Opinions About Marijuana Use and Prevalence of Use by State Legalization Status,” found that prevalence of past-year use of any form of marijuana use was more common among residents of recreationally legal states compared with other states (20.3% in recreationally legal states, 15.4% in medically legal states and 11.9% in non-legal states) is concerning.

This survey sampled a representative sample of U.S. adults, comprising 16,280 participants.

Additionally, in a study published in the Addictions journal in 2022, researchers from the University of Colorado’s Boulder Center for Antisocial Drug Dependence and the Minnesota Center for Twin and Family Research in Minneapolis found that usage increased with legalization among the 3,452 surveyed. The study looked at cannabis usage before 2014, when it was illegal to sell recreational cannabis, and after 2014, when it became legal to sell in Colorado. Only medical cannabis was legal in Minnesota during the post-2014 portion of the study.

The participants, many of whom were born in Colorado and Minnesota, but had since relocated, were surveyed pre- and post–2014 on the number of days they used cannabis in the previous six months. Researchers found there was about a 24% increase in usage in states that legalized recreational cannabis compared with ones that did not.

Based on where the subjects were living at the time of the surveys, nearly every state was represented, along with Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico. The study included 111 pairs of identical twins, as well, with one twin living in a state that legalized recreational cannabis and the other in a state that did not legalize.

Among the identical twins, researchers found that marijuana usage increased about 20% in states that legalized recreational cannabis compared with ones that did not. As identical twins share so many similarities, that percentage is a more accurate estimate of the causal influence of commercial legalization on cannabis use, according to lead researcher Stephanie Zellers, now a researcher at the University of Helsinki. Co-author John Hewitt stated, “This is the first study to confirm that the association between legal cannabis and increased use holds within families in genetically identical individuals. That makes it much more likely that legalization does, in itself, result in increased use.”

Being cautious about legalizing commercial (recreational) marijuana is prudent in the face of these, and other studies. An action such as this would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to reverse. It is not “overselling limited evidence or generating more heat than light.” Why expose ourselves to the potential harm shown in study after study, all for the sake of a few tax dollars?

I commend the Legislature for doing the right thing in declining to legalize commercial (recreational) marijuana in the 2024 session. I, and others, will continue our efforts to keep providing relevant research and information to assist the legislators in making research- and data-informed policies and decisions.

--> Sign up for our FREE morning newsletter and face each day more informed. --> Sign up for our FREE morning newsletter and face each day more informed.

Community Voices aims to encourage broad discussion on many topics of community interest. It’s kind of a cross between Letters to the Editor and op-eds. This is your space to talk about important issues or interesting people who are making a difference in our world. Column lengths should be no more than 800 words and we need a photo of the author and a bio. We welcome video commentary and other multimedia formats. Send to [email protected] . The opinions and information expressed in Community Voices are solely those of the authors and not Civil Beat.

Read this next:

Waikiki Needs A Campaign To Clean Up All The Litter

By Helena Andrade · June 28, 2024 · 6 min read

Local reporting when you need it most

Support timely, accurate, independent journalism.

Honolulu Civil Beat is a nonprofit organization, and your donation helps us produce local reporting that serves all of Hawaii.

Steve Alm is the prosecuting attorney for the City and County of Honolulu.

Latest Comments (0)

Checked into getting a Cannabis card. $$$$! No wonder they want to keep it illegal, they're making to much money with the Medical racket.

moc · 8 hours ago

Yeah, legalization is coming, Mr. Alms, matter of time and regardless of your words and efforts and this year. Matter of time, would not be surprised if the issue comes RIGHT BACK start of 2025.

Willmarch · 18 hours ago

Steve, do you realize that your same arguments can be made for alcohol use? How come you're not against repealing the use of alcohol? It kills way more people, and is much more dangerous. Marijuana overdose does not kill people. Many drugs do. Why are you trying to impose your views on the citizens of this state?

Scotty_Poppins · 1 day ago

About IDEAS

IDEAS is the place you'll find essays, analysis and opinion on every aspect of life and public affairs in Hawaii. We want to showcase smart ideas about the future of Hawaii, from the state's sharpest thinkers, to stretch our collective thinking about a problem or an issue. Email [email protected] to submit an idea.

You're officially signed up for our daily newsletter, the Morning Beat. A confirmation email will arrive shortly.

In the meantime, we have other newsletters that you might enjoy. Check the boxes for emails you'd like to receive.

• Breaking News Alerts What's this? Be the first to hear about important news stories with these occasional emails.
• Special Projects & Investigations What's this? You'll hear from us whenever Civil Beat publishes a major project or investigation.
• Environment What's this? Get our latest environmental news on a monthly basis, including updates on Nathan Eagle's 'Hawaii 2040' series.
• Ideas What's this? Get occasional emails highlighting essays, analysis and opinion from IDEAS, Civil Beat's commentary section.

Inbox overcrowded? Don't worry, you can unsubscribe or update your preferences at any time.

Minor and Major Arguments on Legalization of Marijuana Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Minor argument

Major argument.

Conlusion : Marijuana should not be legalised.

Premises 1 : If marijuana were to be legalized it would be impossible to regulate its’ sell to, and use by the minors. It would set free, the bounds that exist on the transit of the drug, making it reach the intended and unintended places including possession by children. The use of the drug by minors on the other hand has devastating effects.

Premises 2 : legalization increases the use of the drug for non-medical reasons. Legalization increases the circulation in the society which means that those who are to use it for reactional purposes are also getting it at increased rates than when it is illegal. The increased use for non-medical reasons means more abuse in the society (White, 2009).

Premises 3: Marijuana use has long-term adverse medical effects. Legalization the legalization would mean that the country was allowing the citizens be exposed to these conditions when it was possible to control such through having it remain illegal (Vick, 2010).

Premise 4 : Even when used for medical reasons, Marijuana still has side effects which need to be avoided through not legalizing it. They include destabilized thinking.

Premise 5 : With legal marijuana, deviancy cases will increase. Marijuana has been directly related to crime. With it being legalized, the impact is that crime will rise.

Support: As Govier (2010) identifies, “Marijuana should not be legalized. That’s because sustained use of marijuana worsens a person’s memory, and nothing that adversely affects one’s mental abilities should be legalized”. According to Govier (2010), the medical harms of marijuana outweigh its medical benefits.

Lepore (1985) states, “Marijuana should not be legalized because of its side effects!!” According to Lepore (1985), “Marijuana weakens the adrenal glands”, and displaces a vitamin called L-glutamine. The loss of L-glutamine, according to Lepore (1985), makes one have a hampered thinking.

A survey by U.S Department of Justice (1992), identified that 80 percent of the American population believe “it was a bad idea” to legalize and only “14% said it was a good idea”. As Peck and Dolch (2001) state, Marijuana use in a case study caused a boy to, “ran away from home a couple of times, vandalize buildings, and stole things”. As the authors believe, such use distorts the normal behavior of the citizens thus a loss especially from the most active category of the youth.

Conlusion: marijuana should be legalized.

Premise 1 : Marijuana remaining illegal is against the constitutional rights of people. According to the constitution, citizen posses the right to chose what they do as liberty bestowed on them by the constitution. Not legalizing it makes it that the government was controlling their liberty thus defining what they can do not do with their own lives.

Premise 2: Some people are prescribed to use marijuana as a medication to their medical conditions. Making marijuana illegal is denying them a right to the use of this substance as a medicine. This is inhumane because for some the unavailability of marijuana due to its being illegal means they have to suffer pains (Cantor & Berkowitz, 1984).

Premise 3: Having marijuana as illegal is an act of discrimination. It discriminates the minority who are the citizens and users of the drug. This discrimination leads to branding and name calling on this category and thus an act which continues and fuels deviancy in society.

Premise 4: Marijuana being illegal causes legal battles which lead to waste of security and law enforcement resources. With this quality, the police units are engaged in constant struggles called drug wars. This reduces the number of police who can be engaged in other meaningful security activities aimed at protecting citizens.

Support: Rosenthal, Kubby and Newhart (2003) state, “ the damage to the mental health of millions of Americans as a result of arrest, incarceration, loss of property, and humiliation are far more serious than any medical damage ever reported from the use of marijuana” as Rosenthal, Kubby and Newhart (2003) believe, marijuana’s use for medical reasons is a valid reason why it has to be legalized because for these categories, denying them through having it illegal is like denying then a drug they cannot live without.

As Rosenthal, Kubby and Newhart (2003) believe too, the millions who depend on marijuana for medical and non-medical reasons should not be made to suffer further loses through the court procedures they are put to.

Study done by Flowers (1999) reveled that, “1 in 10 respondents believed use of marijuana should be legal. Nearly 49 percent felt that marijuana should be legal by prescription for medical purposes, while over 13 percent believed marijuana use should be decriminalized”

Cantor, N., & Berkowitz, L. (1984). Theorizing in social psychology: Special topics . Orlando: Academic Press.

Flowers, R. B. (1999). Drugs, alcohol and criminality in American society . Jefferson, NC: McFarland.

Govier, T. (2010). A practical study of argument . Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.

Lepore, D. (1985). The ultimate healing system: Breakthrough in nutrition, Kinesiology and holistic healing techniques: course manual . Pleasant Grove, Utah: Woodland Pub.

Rosenthal, E., Kubby, S., & Newhart, S. (2003). Why marijuana should be legal . Philadelphia: Running Press.

U.S Department of Justice (1992). Drugs, Crime, and the Justice System . New York: DIANE Publishing.

Peck, D. L., & Dolch, N. A. (2001). Extraordinary behavior: A case study approach to understanding social problems . Westport, Conn: Praeger.

Vick, D. (2010). Drugs & Alcohol in the 21st Century: Theory, Behavior, & Policy . NY: Jones & Bartlett Learning.

White, J. E. (2009). Contemporary moral problems . Australia: Thomson Wadsworth.

• Moral, Ethical, and Social Issues
• Argument About Legalizing Marijuana in America
• Why Is Marijuana Legalized In Some States And Not Others?
• Contemporary Examples of Fascist Thoughts
• Revolution's Positive Effects
• Crime Prevention Programs in the State of California
• Fundamental Right to Live: Abolish the Death Penalty
• Should Guns be Limited?
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, October 12). Minor and Major Arguments on Legalization of Marijuana. https://ivypanda.com/essays/legalization-of-marijuana/

"Minor and Major Arguments on Legalization of Marijuana." IvyPanda , 12 Oct. 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/legalization-of-marijuana/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'Minor and Major Arguments on Legalization of Marijuana'. 12 October.

IvyPanda . 2018. "Minor and Major Arguments on Legalization of Marijuana." October 12, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/legalization-of-marijuana/.

1. IvyPanda . "Minor and Major Arguments on Legalization of Marijuana." October 12, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/legalization-of-marijuana/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Minor and Major Arguments on Legalization of Marijuana." October 12, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/legalization-of-marijuana/.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Brazil Becomes the Largest Nation to Decriminalize Marijuana

The country’s Supreme Court voted to remove criminal penalties for possession of up to 40 grams of marijuana.

By Jack Nicas and Ana Ionova

Reporting from Rio de Janeiro

Brazil decriminalized marijuana for personal use on Wednesday, making the nation of 203 million the largest to take such a measure and the latest sign of a growing global acceptance of the drug.

Brazil’s Supreme Court ruled that Brazilians could possess up to 40 grams of cannabis — roughly enough for 80 joints — without facing penalties, a decision that would take effect within days and stand for the next 18 months.

The court asked Brazil’s Congress and health authorities to then set the permanent amount of marijuana that citizens could possess. Selling marijuana remains a criminal offense.

Thousands of Brazilians are serving prison sentences for possessing an amount of marijuana below the new threshold, legal analysts said. It is unclear how the decision would affect those convictions.

Many are Black men, who represent 61 percent of drug-trafficking prosecutions but 27 percent of the population. Studies have shown thousands of Black Brazilians have been convicted in situations that have led to lesser or no charges against white people.

Brazil has long taken a harsh criminal approach to drugs, so its decision to effectively allow citizens to smoke marijuana is part of a remarkable shift in public opinion and public policy on the drug over the past two decades. More than 20 countries have now decriminalized or legalized recreational use of marijuana, most in Europe and the Americas.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .