1

Marijuana and the Law

In recent years, with the acknowledgement of the potentially positive role marijuana may
play in the treatment of several serious medical conditions, the debate has broadened from an
originally moral (and panicked) one about socially undesirable intoxicants to one extending
into state of the art best practices in contemporary healthcare. In short, the marijuana legalization
debate now entails both moral and medical questions: Should the drug be illegal, given its
purportedly deleterious effects on at least some recreational users? or alternatively, Should it
be legal, given its purportedly beneficial effects on at least some users in medical contexts?
In this paper, I will argue that the use of marijuana, like any drug, carries some risk, but
the Canadian prohibition of marijuana continues to do more harm than good. Prohibition or
criminalization of marijuana stigmatizes medical users of the drug, exposes millions of
recreational users to potentially-serious and easily-preventable risks, squanders valuable
policing, judicial, and institutional resources and creates deeper and broader social problems than
it solves.
I first examine some of the often cited arguments for continuing marijuana prohibition in
Canada. Second, I will explain the flaws in these arguments. Third, I will present my own
arguments for why marijuana should be legalized in Canada. Fourth, I will offer a concrete set of
suggestions for how best to proceed with a program of legalization.
The Argument for Prohibition
Advocates of marijuana prohibition argue that the laws as they stand, which criminalize
the possession, use, and trafficking of marijuana are effective in preventing some of the negative
consequences that would result through legalization. I will focus on three categories of allegedly
negative consequences:

(1) Health consequences, borne by the user

(2) Safety and security consequences, borne by society
(3) Moral consequences, borne by society
In terms of the health consequences borne by the user, prohibition advocates point to
studies showing that marijuana use negatively affects ones ability to conduct basic tasks that
require care and concentration like driving or even crossing the street. For example, one study
suggests that marijuana consumption can cause drivers to become absent-minded, disoriented or
even fall asleep behind the wheel (Monroe, 1997). Another study found that while a moderate
marijuana dose results in moderate impairment behind the wheel, a moderate marijuana dose
combined with even a mild alcohol dose produces a much more significant impairment. As a
result, marijuana poses risks to concentration, arithmetic performance, and attention (Earlywine,
2002).
Second, studies have shown that marijuana use can negatively affect the mental health of
adolescents. In particular, marijuana use has been correlated with an increased likelihood of
developing psychosis and other related disorders (Paolo, et al., 2012). Other studies also point
out that even when used by AIDS and cancer patients as an appetite stimulant, marijuana can
have an overall deleterious effect on a patients health due to its side effects. Given these
potentially negative health consequences borne by the user, prohibitionists claim that marijuana
should remain illegal.
In terms of the safety and security consequences borne by society, prohibition advocates
claim that marijuana use can lead negative safety and security consequences. As an example,
take the driver who has consumed both alcohol and marijuana. What might have been a mild
impairment from alcohol alone can become a significant impairment due to the combined effect

of the two drugs. The impaired driver not only endangers himself or herself but also every other
driver on the road. The prohibition advocates claim that the problem goes beyond just driving,
referring to workplace intoxication, and the unreliable on-the-spot tests for marijuana use
(Hickox, 2012). Given the emphasis placed in many blue collar and even white collar workplaces
on occupational health and safety, an inability to accurately test for marijuana use among
employees can create serious risks to all those who might be affected by the actions or inactions
of intoxicated persons.
Many marijuana prohibition supporters claim that marijuana is a gateway drug; i.e., that
users often proceed to using more serious and more socially harmful drugs. Prohibitionists claim
that given the negative safety and security consequences of marijuana use on society and the
huge costs in terms of monitoring, policing, and institutionally addressing the risks, marijuana
should remain illegal.
Finally, prohibitionists often claim that marijuana legalization would entail negative
moral consequences for society as a whole. One such moral consequence would be in lowering
the state to a position of profiteering (through taxation) from the poor decisions and potentially
destructive behaviors of vulnerable segments of society. Another negative moral consequence
might be the implicit endorsement by the government of the idea that drug use is acceptable, or
at least, a weak-willed admission that the government is powerless to stop it. In short,
prohibitionists argue that legalization would make the government and the Canadian society
complicit in the self-abasing actions of drug addicts.
The Argument for Legalization
At this point, I will counter the prohibitionists arguments according to the same three
categories: (1) health consequences, borne by users; (2) safety and security consequences, borne

by society; and (3) moral consequences, borne by society. The U. S. Center for Disease Control
(2014) reported that excessive alcohol use causes about 88,000 deaths per year and tobacco use
is the leading preventable cause of death. Given the extensive mortality statistics flowing from
alcohol and tobacco use, singling out marijuana from the three drugs for prohibition does not
make sense, especially when studies like the Brown University Digest of Addiction Theory &
Application (1997) have shown that marijuana use is not strongly correlated with increased risk
of death among its users. As for the risk of car crashes due to marijuana use, the literature
suggest that while marijuana and alcohol use significantly increases the chance of a crash, the
effect of marijuana alone is unclear. One study even found that drivers with small amounts of
marijuana in their system have a decreased chance of crashing, compared to the average sober
driver (Longo, Hunter, Lokan, White, & White, 2000). In short, marijuana becomes considerably
more dangerous when combined with other drugs just as over-the-counter cold medications
become significantly more dangerous when combined with alcohol. In fact, the legalization and
regulation of marijuana could lead to a greater awareness (e.g., through appropriately labeled
packaging) of the negative effects of marijuana on driving and other tasks requiring careful
motor function.
The prohibition of marijuana also creates additional health risks for users. For example,
marijuanas effect as a gateway drug could be related to the fact that users must communicate
with dealers to buy the drug and dealers, in turn, often possess and push more than just
marijuana. Prohibition also means that buyers do not know with any certainty the exact content
of the marijuana they are smoking. In some cases, users may have purchased marijuana laced
with harder substances. Finally, prohibition entails that no controls are exerted over who buys the
marijuana or how much they might buy (e.g., it could be sold to vulnerable teenagers in Canada).

As a result, in the case of marijuana prohibition, the negative health consequences to drug users
would exceed those in a legalized and regulated scenario.
Similarly, the negative consequences to non-users, in terms of security and safety, would
exceed those in a legalized scenario. In particular, the prohibition of marijuana has created a
huge black market with nefarious effects for users and the community. The vast amounts of
money that are involved in the business of marijuana can attract criminals and gangs who
compete with one another for a share of the market. The competition among gangs often results
in violence that can harm innocent citizens who might be caught in the crossfire. For more safety
and security, legalized and regulated sale of marijuana would disarm the out of control marijuana
black market in Canada. While marijuana, like any other drug, entails risks for society when it is
abused, Canadian policy makers need to keep in mind that the risks can actually be diminished
with the legalized and regulated drug.
Finally, negative moral consequences of marijuana prohibition exceed the negative moral
consequences that would be caused by its legalization. While legalized marijuana might
implicate the state and society in endorsing the drug habits of some, a similar situation already
exists with alcohol, which has far more egregious effects in terms of domestic violence, car
accidents, criminality, depression, and addiction. According to Kennedy (2014), we accept
alcohol, in part, because we recognize that the vast majority of Canadians support its legality. In
recent years, polls have shown that the vast majority of Canadians now support softening the
marijuana laws. We also need to keep in mind the negative consequences that occur when laws
against marijuana use are widely disregarded by the more than three million Canadians who
report using the drug. The widespread flouting of a law can create a culture of disrespect towards
the law and state. Most modern states try to modify their laws to keep up with the times, instead

of running the risk of being perceived as antiquated, democratically-unresponsive, and

draconian. The prohibition of marijuana also tends to stigmatize patients who use the drug as
being users of an illegal drug. Some who might consider the drug, based on their doctors
recommendation may decline out of fear of being stigmatized. This is an example of the moral
consequence that legalization would help to redress.
Conclusion
Marijuana legalization is a contentious issue. A moral panic is present on both sides of the
debate, with prohibitionists claiming that legalizing the drug will lead young people to the drug,
and advocates of legalization claiming that the vulnerable in society will be better protected by
government regulation. The regulation would ensure quality control of the drug, while
decreasing the power of nefarious gangs that are running the marijuana black market. In this
paper, I argued that the health consequences, borne by the user, and the safety, security and moral
consequences, borne by society, are worsened under the current model of prohibition.
Legalization is not yet supported by most Canadians, though some surveys since 2003 have
reported that the lion's share of Canadians concur with the statement: The utilization of
marijuana ought to be decriminalized. In a 2014 survey conducted by Angus Reid Global, 59%
of Canadians would bolster pot sanctioning, with the strongest backing in British Columbia.
Support continues to drift in that direction. Legalization is the best policy for cultivating a
renewed sense among Canadians of our society as a lawful society that does what it can to curb
gang violence and illegitimate sources of tax-free income. Legalization is the compassionate
route that can protect users (with quality controls) and help de-stigmatize medical patients who
wish to try the drug as part of their treatment regime. The best first course of action is that
indicated by the Liberal Party, which has identified legalization as a firmly held party policy.

Second, political leaders in Canada must show leadership and courage to put the issue to a
national referendum so that Canadians can have an open and honest debate about the costs of
prohibition and the benefits that legalization would bring to users and society.

References
Anna, K., Paolo, F.-P., & Zerrin, A. (2012). Cannabis abuse and vulnerability to psychosis:
Targeting preventive services. Current Pharmaceutical Design, 18(4), 542-549.
CBC. (2012). B.C. marijuana tax could net billions if pot legalized. Retrieved from
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-marijuana-tax-could-netbillions-if-pot-Legalized-1.1127751

Center for Disease Control. (2014). Smoking & tobacco use. Retrieved
from .http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/
Earltwine. (2002). Understanding marijuana. Oxford University Press, NY.
Hickox, S. A. (2012). Drug testing of medical marijuana users in the workplace: An inaccurate
test of impairment. Hofstra Labor & Employment Law Journal, 29(2), 273-341.
Kennedy, M. (2014). More than two-thirds of Canadians want marijuana laws softened, though a
majority are still against legalization: Poll. Retrieved from
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/07/30/more-than-two-thirds-of-canadians-wantMarijuana-laws-softened-though-a-majority-still-against-legalization-poll/
Longo, M. C., Hunter, C. E., Lokan, R. J., White, J. M., & White, M. A. (2000). The prevalence
of alcohol, cannabinoids, benzodiazepines and stimulants amongst injured drivers and
their role in driver culpability: Part II: The relationship between drug prevalence and drug
concentration, and driver culpability. Accident; Analysis and Prevention, 32(5), 623-32.
Monroe, J. (1997). How marijuana affects driving. Current Health 2, 23(9), 22.
Montigny, E.-A. (2014). The real dope: Social, legal and historical perspectives on the
regulations of drugs in Canada. Retrieved from
http://www.impactethics.ca/2014/10/20/is-medicinal-marijuana-bad-medicine/