Nathan Daleo Sophia Learning English Composition II 23 January 2023 Decriminalizing Marijuana: High-Risk or High-Reward? The legalization of marijuana in the United States has long been debated for both medicinal and recreational use. Since being banned at the Federal level by the U.S. Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (Gieringer, 1999, as cited in Kavousi et al., 2021, p. 145), public opinion on the legalization of marijuana has shifted back and forth. Kavousi et al. (2021) overview U.S. cannabis regulation and discuss the opportunities and challenges associated with decriminalizing marijuana before offering recommendations for dealing with related concerns in their article “What do we know about opportunities and challenges for localities from Cannabis legalization?” published in the Review of Policy Research journal. The article “Legalization, Decriminalization & Medicinal Use of Cannabis: A Scientific and Public Health Perspective,” written by Svrakic et al. (2012) and published in the Missouri Medicine journal, discusses the popular perception of cannabis but ultimately argues that smoking cannabis has adverse effects on physical and mental health and can interfere with social and occupational functioning. Svrakic et al. deduce that advocacy groups are ultimately calling for the legalization of smoking cannabis, as other methods of administration have largely been ignored. With the decriminalization of marijuana for medicinal and recreational use becoming more imminent, common ground can be reached by limiting the availability of smokable marijuana to recreational use while medicinal use utilizes less adverse forms of administration. The benefits of the legalization of marijuana have been studied extensively. From increased government revenue and business expansion to job growth, Kavousi et al. show that the decriminalization of marijuana has been shown to support economic growth in these categories in localities with legalized cannabis (pp. 146-148). Citing Boesen (2021), Kavousi et al. mention that states can earn up to $450 million annually in excise revenues, highlighting Washington and Colorado as examples. According to Carnevale et al. (2017, as cited in Kavousi et al.), these two states earned $12 million monthly from the cannabis industry (p. 146). This industry also positively impacts agricultural expansion as legalization promotes growers to purchase farm supplies and the like (p. 147). This inevitably leads to job creation. Nobile (2020, as cited in Kavousi et al.) found that the cannabis industry is one of the fastest growing, with 68% job growth from 2018-2019 (p. 148). The authors contend that local government officials should carefully consider the benefits and drawbacks of marijuana production and distribution (p. 157) as there are valid concerns about public health (p. 153) and the possibility that an anticannabis stigma can devalue the character of a community that legalizes cannabis (p. 153). Despite the legitimacy of these concerns, it should be noted that no state with legalized cannabis has reversed its decision based on these concerns. On the other hand, the argument against the legalization of marijuana typically involves the adverse health effects from smoking the plant. Svrakic et al. review the findings of several studies on the effects of medicinal marijuana use. In pill form, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a synthetic form of psychoactive ingredients in marijuana for several medicinal uses (p. 92). From antiemetics to appetite stimulants and neuropathic pain medication, medicinal marijuana in pill form has been shown to be effective but shares similar undesired effects with smoked cannabis: acute psychosis and cognitive dulling (p. 93). The authors of this article go on to explain the detrimental effects of smoking cannabis. Respiratory effects such as decreased pulmonary function have been found in users who smoke marijuana, which is similar to smoking tobacco, but unlike tobacco use, lung injury is not reversed when a user stops smoking marijuana (p. 93). There are also negative impacts on cardiovascular health and the liver. Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is unsafe in cardiac patients as it leads to an increase in heart rate, while daily marijuana use by patients with liver disease can increase the progression of fibrosis (p. 93). Svrakic et al. contend that the biggest issue with advocating for the legalization of marijuana is the appearance that these groups are only concerned with the legalization of smoked marijuana (p. 97), claiming that other forms of THC administration have largely gone ignored by these groups. They propose that any medicinal use for cannabis should be limited to chemically modified extracts and not include consumption of the unprocessed cannabis plant. Both sides of the argument present strong data to support their stance on decriminalizing marijuana. On one hand, Kavousi et al. argue that decriminalizing marijuana can have a significant economic impact. On the other side of the argument, Svrakic et al. argue that advocacy groups are more concerned with legalizing smoking cannabis than embracing the medicinal use of chemically modified extracts that originate from cannabis, and while there are medicinal benefits, neither form of marijuana consumption are without harm. Opponents have also raised concerns that legalizing marijuana will result in greater use by local youth, but the Marijuana Policy Project (n.d.) noted that teen use of marijuana remains lower than the U.S. average, even though the state decriminalized marijuana in 1976. The public health concerns raised by Svrakic et al. do not suggest that marijuana should remain illegal, as the effects are not much more toxic than cigarettes. Instead, their concerns seem rooted in the advocate's motivation for legalizing marijuana. With this in mind, the recommendations presented by both sets of authors can be used to formulate a solution that satisfies both sides of the argument. With the decriminalization of marijuana becoming more imminent, local government officials should weigh the benefits and disadvantages of legalizing marijuana consumption. Should they conclude that the economic impacts outweigh the risks, they can limit smoking unprocessed cannabis plants to recreational users, while medicinal marijuana users can be prescribed chemically modified extracts. This would allow the economic impacts to take place while also limiting the adverse health effects of smoking cannabis for patients that are prescribed the medication. Touchstone 3.1 Rubric and Feedback Rubric Category Your Grade Summary of Positions (10 points) - 20% Advanced (100%) - Effectively introduces both authors and provides a complete and concise summary of both positions presented in the articles. Thesis/Claim (20 points) - 40% Advanced (100%) - Provides a thesis that clearly and effectively advocates for a solution to satisfy both sides of the argument. Organization (5 points) - 10% Advanced (100%) - Includes all of the required components of a Rogerian argument paper, including an engaging introduction with source summaries and a claim, body paragraphs with topic sentences, and a conclusion with a concluding statement. Style (5 points) 10% Advanced (100%) - Demonstrates thoughtful and effective word choices, avoids redundancy and imprecise language, and uses a wide variety of sentence structures. Conventions (5 points) - 10% Advanced (100%) - There are only a few, if any, negligible errors in grammar, punctuation, spelling, capitalization, formatting, and usage. Reflection (5 points) - 10% Advanced (100%) - Demonstrates thoughtful reflection; consistently includes insights, observations, and/or examples in all responses, following or exceeding response length guidelines. SCORE: 50/50 Nathan, You've done a great job of summarizing each article and arriving at a middle-ground that satisfies both sides of the debate. All components are present and in order, and your writing style and mechanics are academically appropriate and polished. Best of luck with the rough draft of your research paper! - James References Carnevale, J., Kagan, R., Murphy, P., & Esrick, J. (2017). A practical framework for regulating for-profit recreational marijuana in US states. International Journal of Drug Policy, 42, 71–85. Gieringer, D. (1999). The forgotten origins of cannabis prohibition in California. Contemporary Drug Problems, 26(2), 237–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/009145099902600204 Kavousi, P., Giamo, T., Arnold, G., Alliende, M., Huynh, E., Lea, J., Lucine, R., Tillett Miller, A., Webre, A., Yee, A., Champagne‐Zamora, A., & Taylor, K. (2021). What do we know about opportunities and challenges for localities from cannabis legalization? Review of Policy Research, 39(2), 143–169. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12460 Marijuana Policy Project. (n.d.). Decriminalization: Teen Use Analysis. MPP. Retrieved January 23, 2023, from https://www.mpp.org/issues/decriminalization/decrim-teen-use-analysis/ Svrakic, D. M., Lustman, P. L., Mallya, A., Lynn, T. A., Finney, R., & Svrakic, N. M. (2012). Legalizing, Decriminalization & Medicinal Use of Cannabis: A Scientific and Public Health Perspective. Missouri Medicine, 109(2), 90–98. Reflection Questions 01. How does the Rogerian model of argument help you better understand the topic that’s being discussed? Why is it a good practice to acknowledge both sides of the argument? (3-4 sentences) The Rogerian model of argument helps me better understand both sides of the argument. By identifying the concerns driving each side of the argument, the Rogerian model allows for a common ground to be sought. Acknowledging both sides of the argument allows for a more informed point of view. 02. How might the Rogerian approach help you gain insight into your own argumentative essay? (2-3 sentences) The Rogerian approach will allow me to present my counterargument and rebuttal in a more informed manner. Understanding both sides of the argument makes the rebuttal stronger.
