The well known issue of drug abuse had been in circulation since time immemorial. In the United States, numerous laws and acts were passed in order to prohibit those people who are adamant enough to use them even if it could further damage their well-being. However, these drug legislations had not come to its position without the hurdles of the issues augmented by people who are against or have irreconcilable aversion to some parts of the laws or acts. The idea here then is that this paper would then try to aim in presenting arguments that would elucidate certain facts and fictions that might set up some doubts regarding drugs.
In this case, narrowing down the drug issue to the marijuana issue would be the next recourse especially when this is considered to be the rampant “social” problem. Facts and Fiction In the advent of the pharmaceutical height, it would seem that various drugs are now put into distribution. But drug usage had been highly contained and the issue for this regulation had been navigated towards the social welfare or well-being of the people concerned. It would be put then that the regulations were done for the greater good. Tantamount to this view is geared for the benefit of those who are ignorant to the results that these drugs would elicit.
But what could be seen here is that the views were seldom discriminatory or it has avoided certain aspects of the drugs, i. e. the beneficence that some drugs might have. The long term releases of propaganda against certain drugs have seldom tainted the issue of whether or not certain drugs could have several beneficial facets. This may be a hasty generalization for the public but it would not be a surprise if the public had been swayed to automatically argue against the release of these drugs without a certain benefit of a doubt. It was said that the media had been the number one culprit for this matter (Lana D.
Harrison, 1995). The news usually highlights the negative effects of these drugs too much that public awareness is naturally and generally inclined to believe only the effects that are readily presented to them. One good opinion is directed towards the usage of marijuana. The by-product of these public opinions through media had created attitudes that could curtail new innovations for safer drug use on marijuana. It could be seen then that before opening up the idea of marijuana as an alternative for other accepted drugs, it has already been flushed down as something holistically harmful.
In the history of the legislative structures regarding drugs, it could be seen that law makers focused more on curtailing these drugs to avoid “abusive” use that penalties and punishments that were indicated are those that could be considered as a felony (Lana D. Harrison, 1995). Here, the usage of marijuana was classified under drugs that were considered to be highly harmful. It was during the later years that marijuana was particularly recognized through the Marijuana Tax Act in 1937 (Lana D. Harrison, 1995). Still, recognition did not develop to classifying or distinguishing marijuana from other illicit drugs.
It was later that the distinction was made and possession of marijuana had been considered a crime. Some states may have different policies and some recognize that small amounts of this product for personal use is still acceptable (Lana D. Harrison, 1995). The over-all assessment of these policies then had been centered on the “legal sanction” that the policies had missed the issue of “prevention, treatment, and education” (Lana D. Harrison, 1995). Thus, this creates a generalized view that marijuana is a social bane that should be avoided without further argument.
These legislations then had failed to recognize the importance of educating the people with the pros and cons of marijuana usage. Sure enough, a wide variety of catalogs for educating people are distributed in numerous information dissemination devices but the fact still remains that the lack of knowledge regarding these issues could push other people to find their own means, i. e. using it for themselves. It was said that curiosity is natural when it comes to the nature of human beings. The number one enemy of the state regarding marijuana usage then is the curious tendency of the people.
The fears that the media had instilled in the mind of the public are sometimes disregarded by some people. Instead, it has made them more aware of the fact that is marijuana. Going back to the media issue, it could be seen that the media had been the vast distributer of information that is available to all. It was said that awareness came from media and the awareness could come on two sides. It could restrict and it could also encourage. It was said that despite the fears that the media had instilled in the people, there could be those who were still influenced by media to use marijuana.
This may be a fascinating observation that was already explained above. The restricting part of media then is that the fears could also sway the people to stubbornly see marijuana as a good for nothing appendage in the world or the social sphere. What the media had disregarded though is that marijuana has its own perks despite the so-called addictive features that it has. Studies were already made for marijuana uses from it being medically capable and for it to be a good alternative for clothing materials (The Gale Group, 2007).
Some of these studies were led by accident. Some benefits that marijuana is highly known are for its ability ease vomiting, nausea, and appetite problem (“Medicinal Benefits,” 2003). Seeing this, some people have braved the odds in arguing that marijuana could have its own advantage. However, a pessimistic view from the media had already created a certain firm frame that let people think that the only evidence that these advocates have are their own words and testimonies form other users.
The restrictions that were made regarding the possession of marijuana had become the most effective way for others to be discouraged in studying the effects that marijuana could have. The medicinal benefits of marijuana could not be contested though when some medical institutions have already recognized the therapeutic elements of marijuana (Kallen, 2006). The restrictions may not be lifted easily and some advocates for the usage of marijuana had been giving out their own arguments that legalization of marijuana could give certain benefits.
I am not one to jump to any conclusion though nor was I generally persuaded by them especially when some points are asinine in nature. Some points though that I would highly agree on is that the government and the people as well should not disregard the sprouting evidences that marijuana have certain benefits that other drugs have for the patients. If restrictions could be a way to prevent the abusive use of marijuana then it could be done but the policies that were made regarding marijuana were drawn from the inconclusive remarks of the past and generalized view from the media.
But these restrictions should not cater to the great hindrance of further studying the advantages that marijuana could bring. The point here is that drug legislations have already made a mistake in drawing marijuana as automatically harmful without reconsidering the fact that it does have certain benefits. The lacking information regarding the effects of marijuana had become the most unerring reason for marijuana to be disregarded as a medical breakthrough and alternative. Conclusion
Marijuana then could not be generalized wholly as something harmful especially when it is one of the drugs that the government has tried to restrict. It could not also be generalized that marijuana is unacceptable since media had already advocated a propaganda that says it is. Most people would believe almost anything that media would feed them that it is already recognized that the media could be destructive as well as constructive. The restrictions that was created against marijuana should be reassessed is given the chance that marijuana too could have certain advantages. References
Kallen, S. A. (2006). Medicinal Marijuana should be Legalized. Retrieved August 20, 2007, from http://socialissues. wiseto. com/Articles/EJ3010018223/ Lana D. Harrison, M. B. , & James A. Inciardi. (1995). Cannabis Use in the United States: Implications for Policy. Retrieved August 20, 2007, from http://www. cedro-uva. org/lib/harrison. cannabis. pdf Medicinal Benefits. (2003). Retrieved August 21, 2007, from http://www. wamm. org/medicinalbenefits. htm The Gale Group, I. (2007). Marijuana. Retrieved August 20, 2007, from http://socialissues. wiseto. com/Articles/FO3020640088/