Marijuana legalization pros and cons research paper

Recently in Mexico the subject of legalization of marijuana for recreational and recreational purposes has provoked opinions found in society, as in any controversial subject, are those who are for and against. Both parties have submitted arguments to the competent authorities to authorize the use of said psychotropic plant.

With four votes in favor and one against the First Chamber of the SCJN endorsed the consumption, sheltering four people who challenged the law that prohibits this possibility.

This by declaring unconstitutional five articles of the General Health Law that prohibit the Secretary of Health authorize acts related to the personal consumption of this drug for recreational purposes.

According to the National Council against Addictions (Comedic), almost 600,000 Mexicans use drugs, of which about half smoke marijuana.

Recall that in the United States the first recreational marijuana industry began operating on January 1, 2014 in Colorado, as the beginning of an experiment that has been observed very closely in the world. Advocates are confident it will show that legalization is a better alternative than the costly anti-narcotics war that heads the country, but will this measure work in Mexico? Here are some pros and cons on the subject.

The pros:

Among the benefits that legalization could bring would be treating addicts as ill rather than criminals, lowering cartel revenues, lessening violence and killing more people in the fight against drug trafficking.
If this merchandise were legalized, taxes would have to be paid; Money saved and proceeds could be invested in education, information and prevention of addictions.
In the DF has been a success the program Breathalyzer. The program has helped reduce the rate of fatal accidents associated with alcohol consumption by 30% and deaths caused by drunk driving by 70%. If marijuana is legalized, it would be logical to have marihuana meters, and that the penalties for driving under the influence of this drug could range from community service to compulsory admission to rehabilitation clinics.
A proposed alternative is “cannabis clubs” to try to eradicate nacre-trafficking networks. These partnerships would provide a number of real benefits to users. This would eliminate the need to go to illegal traffickers, who take advantage to offer stronger drugs and thus engage the consumer.

The cons:

Marijuana is not safe. Causes serious disorders and consequences such as:
Biological consequences: increased heart rate; Decreased responsiveness, which increases the likelihood of an accident.
Psychological consequences: exacerbate schizophrenia, psychosis; Can generate psychotic outbreaks.
Social consequences: it generates dependence, abstinence syndrome.
According to statistics, marijuana use accounts for 1.2% of other substance use. Only 3% of users continue to use marijuana, the rest (97%) use it as a springboard for other drugs, mainly alcohol.
The risks of obtaining marijuana are practically nil; Legalization will make it cheaper, more immediate and more accessible.
Its legalization will not solve the problem of drug trafficking, but will open a larger market where greater supply, greater consumption.

The debate will continue, since only four people failed; For his part, President Enrique Pena Nieto declared that his government will abide by the ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice (SCJN) on the playful use of marijuana, however, said that this measure does not mean legalizing the marketing of this Enervating or eliminating the persecution of the transfer of the same.

In the same vein, Federal Health Secretary Mercedes Juan Lopez said that the fact that four people have been approved for the cultivation and self-consumption of marijuana does not mean that this is legalization. Decision of the SCJN in favor of the ampere of four people is not the legalization of marijuana in the country, nor the authorization to produce and market this product. He added that the Ministry of Health will be respectful of the ruling of the Supreme Court, “although our approaches are different.”