Sanitarium

“Instead of a war on poverty – they got a war on drugs so the police can bother me…” In the song Changes, Tupac shares a popular opinion on the legality of illegal street drugs. Although the basic interpretation of this opinion is that it does not root itself in the ethics of the consequences resulting from the use of the drugs, but rather questioning the ethics behind enforcing a more winnable [for lack of a better term] war than the war on poverty for example. Contrary to popular belief, the war on drugs is not completely tied to the health risks linked to substance abuse – the more controversial issue is that the economy is not being directly boosted by the sale of such substances. Common knowledge gives the assumption that all transactions involving the sale of illegal substances are dealt with in cash form. Cash means that there is no money trail to be traced, means that there are no expense/profit records, means that the US government has no idea how much money has been exchanged in such transactions, means taxes are not paid, which means that there is essentially hundreds of millions of dollars literally floating around – money that is not being used to pull the country out of debt or to help solve any other issue that affects Americans regularly. The controversy of legalizing the drugs and taxing the sale presents the exact question at hand: What are the ethical issues of abandoning the war on drugs and decriminalizing and taxing the marketing of certain drugs?
The question proposed is addressing the ethical issues surrounding the legal profitability of marijuana through the use of taxation and marketing – as opposed to the actual use of the herb in both medical and recreational cases. Simply put, the opposing forces presented in the issue are: individual [person’s] health versus profitable gain for the economy as a whole – which is somewhat comparable to a classic ethical dilemma such as: let one (in this case, many one(s)) suffer for a greater [monetary] good (in this case, money that could be used to solve countless other problems). To be more specific, the officials in charge of drug regulations are stuck weighing the value of the health of single people versus the significant benefits that would arise from the surplus in tax dollars coming into the economy. According to the Center for Disease Control (sub-operational division of the US Department of Health and Human Services) the percentage of regular marijuana users above the age of twelve was approximately 6.6% - that number is surprisingly low for a habit that seems to be quite prevalent in many communities. But if the statistical facts show that the amount of people that regularly abuse marijuana is so low, why then is there such a concern over public opinion? One possible reason may be that there is a fear of marijuana (if legalized) having the same result as alcohol after the prohibition – becoming a social norm, in which case safety enforcement laws would need to be put in place and actually enforcing those laws may prove to be more of a hassle than prohibiting its use as a whole. All of a sudden the ethical issue has expanded and complexities come flying out.
Currently, with marijuana’s legal state, the only stakeholders that are legitimately benefiting are the suppliers at the top of the chain. They are the ones raking in the millions of dollars – the ‘street pharmacists’ are also sharing in a portion of the benefit – until they get put in jail [for possession and intent to sell – (a criminal charge that is filling up and overloading the prison system – an argument that is often used by pro-marijuana lobbyists)]. The people on the supply end of the exchange are the ones making money – everyone else (all citizens that are not involved in the drug trade) can be the categorized as the disgruntled stakeholders; because they are losing the benefits of millions of lost tax dollars. What if the ruling was flipped and marijuana (and maybe other selected drugs) were legalized and marketed – who then would be the stakeholders [both benefiting and suffering]? Once the tables are turned, the disgruntled stakeholder becomes the beneficiary, but only as a whole; each individual [that chooses to entertain the abuse of legalized substances] is now on the losing end of the stick. Not that people that are currently users are not suffering, but in the case of marijuana becoming legalized, the user base is bound to grow exponentially and therefore affects more individuals. The legalization of marijuana would negatively affect more stakeholders than it currently does – speaking from strictly a health stance (which is the ethical stance – the individual health of the many exceeds the monetary needs of the whole.)
There are a several psychological factors to be addressed here – many of which are intertwined and stem from one another. Drastically changing a public policy that is in place to maintain the physical and mental well-being of the country’s citizens could lead to an array of misleading thoughts, which would result in an exponential decrease of public satisfaction in the country’s leaders. For example: if marijuana was suddenly legalized, there is a strong chance that the majority of registered voters would feel betrayed by the government – that the government is willing to trade the individual health of its people to make some extra money. A feeling like betrayal seems to have a strong influence the decisions of the people affected – when people feel betrayed by their leaders, their first instinct is to find a new leader; one that will put the needs of the people first, in a way that is pleasing to the people. On a more literal level, the psychological effects of using marijuana can be, in many ways, detrimental to the user’s mental health. To name just a few of these effects: paranoia, delusions, short-term memory loss, anxiety, depression, etc . all of which have the possibility of becoming permanent issues if exposed continuously.
Politicians running for [re]election would likely be unwilling to take a strong stance on either side of this issue. When considering a stance for a politician, we see yet again, the rise of another ethical issue; take the stance that the majority of the community is likely to take or take the deontological stance? But if the community demanded a stance on the issue, the smart politician would side on the view of the majority. In today’s society it is safe to assume that the view of the majority and the deontological view would be one and the same. The problem with standing on the side to legalize the drugs is that there really is no justification to knowingly allow your own people to jeopardize their health. It’s one thing if a person chooses to put their health at risk, but when a government essentially encourages, through enabling, its citizens to develop unhealthy habits, they have betrayed their citizens in a moral sense. A comparable example which can be brought up to get a better sense of the issue is the prohibition of alcohol in 1920’s. Alcohol was made illegal due to its health hazards. But once it was legalized again it has since become a social norm and is widely encouraged in today’s society. The same result may come with the legalization of marijuana – this is one of the main fears in legalizing the substance. The difference between letting alcohol become a social norm and letting the same happen to marijuana is that there is no real way to measure the current state of a person under the influence of marijuana. For example, a police officer may conduct a breathalyzer test to determine the drunken state of a person – but there is no way to determine how much of a high a person is on. With all of that being said, a politician concerned with his political career should side with the majority, whereas a politician concerned with his moral and ethical integrity will stand on the side of keeping harmful substance banned from use; no matter the effect on his career.
The legalization of marijuana would not only cause a re-architect of most insurance companies’ policies, but it would also have a major impact on how and what kinds of healthcare organizations offer. One would assume that the legalization of the drug would come paired with a set of enforceable rules and protocols to regulate its distribution. Though fifteen states have legalized the use of medical marijuana, the federal government still classifies it as a controlled substance – which means that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved the substance yet; and until that happens, no insurance company is willing to take a chance on covering medical marijuana under its policies. If the legal state of marijuana is overturned, then it is plausible to think that organizations would have to figure out a way to incorporate the use of medical marijuana into their healthcare packages. Obviously a limit would be applied to avoid the abuse of the marijuana – the only difficult part would be the enforcement of the set restrictions.
A complete flip on the legality of marijuana would spawn the birth of countless shops openly selling the drug. Not only that, but all the shops that already do sell it would began to publicize themselves in hopes of booming business. As exciting as it would be to finally be able to openly sell a previously banned, but surprisingly popular substance, the liability and risk involved in supplying mind-altering drugs is too high. In the way that a customer is allowed to sue a store for selling a defective product that caused some sort of damage, customers would be able to do the same to a weed shop; but in the case of a drug such as marijuana, the customer may also be able to argue that the drug caused the user to perform a certain action or to behave in a certain manner – the fault for that would come back to the shop owner. The reason that cases like that are not prevalent in today’s society is because taking a drug dealer to court would be incriminating oneself in the process.

Aside from the research aspect of this paper, I feel like it is necessary to add a personal opinion and stance on the subject. Since there are apparent [arguable] pros and cons to each side of the argument, an alternative solution could be to legalize the drug on a probationary period and apply very, very strict restrictions and limitations to its use. Although trying to come up with a plausible proposal for this alternative has proven difficult, I’m sure that if enough thought is put into it, a good plan can be proposed. In my own opinion, I do not find that there is sufficient evidence or reason that legalizing a mind-altering substance would serve a greater good than harm. My stance remains to keep the substance banned and continue to enforce the laws currently in place to prevent the sale and consumption of the drug.

Bibliography/ Works Cited

Adams, M. (2005, 8 15). The Raw (and Ugly) Truth About the War on Drugs. Retrieved 10 28, 2011, from Natural News: http://www.naturalnews.com/010944.html

Amal Chakraburtty, M. (2010). Marijuana Use and Its Effects. Retrieved 2011, from WebMD: http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/marijuana-use-and-its-effects

Center for Disease Control. (2011, July). Illegal Drug Use. Retrieved October 2011, from FastStats: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/druguse.htm

Egan, B. H. (n.d.). Health insurance coverage for medical marijuana? No way, dude! Retrieved 2011, from InsuranceQuotes.com: http://www.insurancequotes.com/health-insurance-medical-marijuana/

Nocon, A. (2006). Journal of Psychiatric Research vol 40.