Legalize it?

The debate on whether marijuana should be legalized for either medicinal or recreational purposes is and has been raging on within each and every state. In my opinion, I believe medicinal marijuana and only medicinal marijuana should be legalized. Even then, doctors should be strict and careful with whom they prescribe marijuana to. If the drug can be beneficial and help someone, then I’m all for it. But, the reason I say no to legalization of recreational use is because this act could eventually lead to the legalization of heroine, cocaine, etc. When arguing for recreational legalization, some make it a point this country is based on freedom and we as citizens of this country should have the freedom to choose what to put in our bodies. Wouldn’t that be the same argument for use of more hardcore drugs? Additionally, like alcohol, marijuana impairs judgement. Some people assume having a high is safer than being under the influence of alcohol, which is not necessarily true. A high from any drug can be dangerous to yourself and others around you.

John Hawkins, also against legalization of marijuana, gives five main reasons he believes the drug should be illegal. First, it can be extremely addictive to some people. Some people is the key word. Most people do not become dangerously addicted, but those who do become addicted struggle greatly. Hawkins refers to Amsterdam, a city who has legalized marijuana and is having second thoughts of their decision. Residents of Amsterdam are concerned with their children’s constant exposure to the smoke and smoking around schools and public places. Research has shown marijuana can have a negative effect on mental health and lower IQ. Along with mental health, physical health is greatly effected. Smoking any substance is bad for lungs and can cause serious problems in the future for smokers. And finally, marijuana can ruin someone’s life if dangerous use becomes regular. A study was conducted with college students, and the students who smoked at least 27 out of the 30 days before the survey showed their “critical skills related to attention, memory and learning were seriously diminished” (14). Another study of postal workers found that employees who tested positive for marijuana had “55% more accidents, 85% more injuries and a 75% increase in being absent from work” (14). These studies do not represent the general population, but are still significant because of the large percentages and findings resulting from the studies. Hawkins validated all five of his reasons with other sources including doctors and other research studies.

On the other hand, Renee Jacques is all for legalization. She points out marijuana has never killed anyone. Too much THC in a body system will not be harmful. Also, 40% of Americans have already used the drug and 58% of people agree to legalize it. Some people have trouble sleeping, need medicine daily, or have serious medical problems and marijuana can be an aid to each one of those issues. Currently, marijuana substances are already in some prescription drugs. Jacques goes on to list celebrities who smoke marijuana such as Martha Stewart and Morgan Freeman. The fact she used this as a way to prove her point, and there were various animations and humorous gifs caused me to not take what she was saying seriously or trustworthy. I found the two statistics she provided useful, but nothing else.

To compare both articles, Hawkins justified my original opinion and also added new insight to my thoughts. He had statistics, research, and other people to back up his information, while Jacques had animations. I know every article or post will have pros and cons, but my opinion still stands: marijuana should not be legal with the exception of strictly and cautiously prescribed medicinal marijuana.

Sources:

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2014/01/21/5-reasons-marijuana-should-remain-illegal-n1782086/page/full

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/24/marijuana-legalization_n_4151423.html

 

Video Game Violence

Benedict Carey of the New York Times looked into the effects of playing video games because of an open fire at Columbine High School and at a movie theater in Colorado. The two shooters both were active video game players. Researchers used three categories to guide their research: short-term, long-term, and correlation studies. They took various measures of arousal, “both physical and psychological”. They found, compared with others who played a nonviolent video game, those who had played “Mortal Kombat” were tested more aggressive. Of course there are several factors that would influence a shooter, but video game violence could very well be one of the contributing factors.

On the other hand, Rick Nauert wrote about a study that shows video game violence does not influence real-life aggression. Surprisingly, they found playing violent video games can actually calm the mood of players. The researchers could not relate the findings to circumstances such as mass homicides, but to smaller acts of aggression.

I found the first article to be more reliable than the second. The study was explained and clarified much better than the second. The second article did not talk about the process or experiment as much as it just stated what the results were. I am more to believe the first article that says violent video games do have affect on aggression because the information provided is more trustworthy than the other side.

I do believe video games can have an affect on acts of aggression, but not to the point video games should be banned entirely.

Sources:

http://psychcentral.com/news/2013/08/27/in-new-study-video-games-not-tied-to-violence-in-high-risk-youth/58934.html