(Marijuana Cartoons and Comics)
Brief Background History of Drugs/Alcohol in the U.S.
7000-8000 B.C.
7000-8000 B.C.
The first woven fabric was recognized to be from hemp.
1619
The Jamestown Colony, Virginia enforce a law that requires farmers to grow hemp.
1700s
One of George Washington's primary crops grown at Mount Vernon was hemp, and it was Thomas Jefferson's secondary crop grown at Monticello.
1884
Maine was the first state to outlaw alcohol.
1906
The Pure Food and Drug Act is passed, which created the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA). This was the first time drugs had supervision over any government oversight.
1913
California, as the first state to do so, allegedly passes the marijuana law. This is often misconstrued by many because it referred to
“preparations of hemp, or loco weed.”
1914
The Harrison Act is passed, which outlaws opiates and cocaine (taxing
scheme).
1915
Utah then passes state anti-marijuana law.
1919
18th Amendment to the Constitution (alcohol prohibition) is
ratified.
1933
21st Amendment to the Constitution is ratified, repealing
alcohol prohibition.
1937
Marijuana Tax Act: This was a United States Act that placed a tax on the sale of cannabis; it was drafted by Harry Anslinger.
1951
Boggs Amendment to the Harrison Narcotic Act: This created maximum criminal punishments for violations of the import/export and internal revenue laws related to drugs, which then created mandatory sentences in jail.
1988
Anti-Drug Abuse Act: establishes oversight office: National Office of Drug Control Policy.
2000
The Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000 (DATA 2000): It enables qualified physicians to prescribe and/or dispense narcotics for the purpose of treating opioid dependency.
2005
Amends the Controlled Substances Act to eliminate the 30-patient limit for medical group practices allowed to dispense narcotic.
Through a United States constitutional lens, each person has
certain rights reserved to them: one of them being freedom of choice. Under
law, the government can only restrict certain choices individuals make if they put
themselves at risk of harming others or themselves. When considering the
legalization of marijuana one must consider whether it is right “constitutionally”
by considering the factors that demean marijuana. The following arguments below
are used to demean and keep marijuana illegal:
- "Marijuana is often used as a stepping-stone drug, leading to heroin, cocaine, or other harder drugs.
- Stoned driving and other dangers would be increased.
- Some consider use of the drug as morally wrong.
- Legalization would increase the chances of the drug falling into the hands of kids.
- Because of drug-related arrests, people who have committed or are likely to commit more serious crimes can be taken off the streets.
- Physical damage would be done to users that abuse the drug.
- More widespread use would increase the dangers of secondhand smoke-damage to bystanders (Should Marijuana Be Legalized under Any Circumstances?)."
For
the first point there has been no research that has been conducted and shown
that marijuana is a “gate-way” drug, or in other words a drug that may pursue
one to try harder drugs such as heroin, meth, etc.
Looking
at the second point, the same effect is caused with alcohol but when regulated
by law enforcement the dangers are reduced.
What
is “morally” wrong according to the third point? In some Hindu, Buddhist, and Rastafarian traditions
marijuana is used in a ritual, and as Amendment 1 states “freedom of religion”.
Morals are adapted from religion and traditions, making it separate from
obeying the law; that is when rights are being violated.
In
the fourth point, alcohol, tobacco, and guns are all legal under certain
circumstances (age restriction, license, etc.) Despite marijuana or not, the
issue of a child getting in contact with any of these substances/objects would
be the same as marijuana so with close supervision the chances of a child being
in contact with any of these would be reduced.
Arguing
the fifth point, those arrested for the use of marijuana is not only costly to
the government because of the amount of people they catch, but there is no
research that shows marijuana and high crime rates are causally linked. The
only thing this does is oppress individuals who are arrested for the use of
marijuana by giving them a criminal record and not being able to get a job.
The
abuse of any substances is harmful to individuals, but marijuana creates no
significant difference in one’s health; if anything tobacco does more harm and
gives the chance of individuals getting cancer, so the sixth point is not a
valid point.
Lastly
taking a look at the seventh point, there are already areas where smoking is
prohibited, such as restaurants, movie theaters, etc. and when regulated
correctly innocent bystanders will not be in contact with it.
With the government prohibiting marijuana, it's ironically violating certain rights of some individuals by preventing them exercise freedom of "choice", religion, etc. "There
is no good evidence that prohibition decreases drug use, and there are several
theories that suggest prohibition might actually increase drug use (i.e. the
"forbidden fruit" effect, and easier accessibility for youth) (Why Marijuana Should Be Legal)." As such, marijuana should be legalized but regulated properly, for the simple fact that it oppresses individuals by taking their rights to use it.
Sources:
(Marijuana Cartoons and Comics. Cartoon Stock, n.d. Web. 15 Oct. 2012. <http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/directory/m/marijuana.asp>.)
Why Is Marijuana Illegal? Pete Guither, n.d. Web. 15 Oct. 2012. <http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/why-is-marijuana-illegal/>.
(Should Marijuana Be Legalized under Any Circumstances? Balanced Politics, n.d. Web. 15 Oct. 2012. <http://www.balancedpolitics.org/marijuana_legalization.htm>.)
(Marijuana Cartoons and Comics. Cartoon Stock, n.d. Web. 15 Oct. 2012. <http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/directory/m/marijuana.asp>.)
A History of Opiate Opioid Laws in the United States. NAABT, n.d. Web. 15 Oct. 2012. <http://www.naabt.org/laws.cfm>.
Why Is Marijuana Illegal? Pete Guither, n.d. Web. 15 Oct. 2012. <http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/why-is-marijuana-illegal/>.
(Should Marijuana Be Legalized under Any Circumstances? Balanced Politics, n.d. Web. 15 Oct. 2012. <http://www.balancedpolitics.org/marijuana_legalization.htm>.)
Why Marijuana Should Be Legal. Marijuana Legalization Organization, n.d. Web. 17 Oct. 2012. <http://www.mjlegal.org/essayspeech.html>.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRabekah, You blog post fails to make a coherent argument. You begin your post with a timeline that most readers would just skim over. If you were trying to provide background history on the topic, then it may have been more effective for you to present a video.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfiaC-2K1LM
Also, the structure of the post is very unorganized. The videos do not have any explanation, nor do they correlate to the information surrounding them. Finally, when you stated “More widespread use would increase the dangers of secondhand smoke-damage to bystanders.” One could argue that there is no proven evidence that secondhand marijuana smoke can actually cause damage.
First off, the timeline was unnecessarily long and if it did hold any interesting points, they were lost in the abyss of your timeline. You could have saved a lot of space and typing through a nice video like the one on our page http://ptchristalerik.blogspot.com/. Also #2 in your counterpoint doesn't seem to serve as a counterpoint. Are you even trying to argue anything? Lastly, I think I would have liked a lot more sources. In the point, counterpoint section, its hard to tell whether you did research or went off memory from what you already knew about the topic. I'm sure Wikipedia wouldn't appreciate you taking all the credit.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, the timeline is unnecessary, and there is a more concise way to go about relaying the information without posting the entire timeline. Maybe you could have written a brief background of the history and used a hyperlink to include a more entertaining way to see the timeline, such as this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POd5ueijdWA . Also, your videos had no real introduction, so what would drive the readers to even watch the clip at all? Personally, I think that it would be best if you had introduced your stance first. Make sure not to be biased about it, but your readers need to know what your blog is about because right now it is pretty ambiguous. If you had a “through” “by” sentence defining your fulcrum, the blog would read easier. For example, “By allowing alcohol and tobacco in the United States, marijuana should be equal to these products through the legalization of the drug.”
ReplyDeleteI think setting your blog up as a timeline was an ineffective way to catch the reader’s attention. I could understand if you gave just a very brief overview, but you list a lot of useless information in your timeline that is not even going to be able to support your argument, so why include it?
ReplyDeleteYou simply just list the pros and cons of the legalization of marijuana but where do you exactly stand? It almost seems as if you just copy and pasted all of the information in your blog with little reasoning of your own.
Also, you just list all general facts/opinions without going into much detail, for example when you list.. “Physical damage would be done to users that abuse the drug.”… You should list examples of What kind of physical damages, so your reader knows what kind of harm marijuana could cause.
Overall, your blog reads as if it is a Lit Review, and offers nothing special to either side of the debate of the legalization of marijuana because you do not point out where you stand.
Your argument is not very clear. You don’t take a direct stance, I was left confused as to weather you supported legalization or not. Although the timeline of marijuana is interesting, I think that it is too long and a reader will not take the time to look at it. It would also be nice if said under each video what the video was about or what exactly you were trying to convey through posting the video. You go into more detail on why marijuana should not be illegal so I assume you are taking the stance that it should be legalized. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK0fGbn2dT0 this would be a good video to highlight number 2 of your counterargument.
ReplyDeleteNever begin your blog with facts. Although it may seem appealing to you, they may not intrigue the reader causing he, or she to turn away. They will not look into the following paragraphs. Your blog consists of so many facts as to why marijuana should be illegal, but there is no evidence to back it up. All your blog consists of is a lousy statement that may appear biased to the reader. Furthermore, you state that there is no research to determine if marijuana is a gateway drug. This is not true. There is plenty of research by a number of scientists and other people. You have to state these researchers whether you agree with them or not
ReplyDeleteI think it would help you had a better intro or more interesting cartoon to capture the reader's attention. I like how your second post told clearly told us your stance on marijuana and what you are arguing for because it was confusing. The blog is very and you have a lot of good information, but some evidence to back it up would help it be more convincing. Furthermore you could talk other benefits of legalizing marijuana for example how you tax it and create revenue.
ReplyDelete“Marijuana creates no significant difference in one’s health”? Get your facts straight. According to the National institute of Health (http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana), it is “estimated that marijuana users have a 4.8-fold increase in the risk of heart attack in the first hour after smoking the drug”. Basically a person prone to or has a history of cardiovascular disease could DIE due to smoking marijuana. I do appreciate the fact that, even though your argument is severely biased and backed by little legitimate support, you at least tried to provide both side of this issue.
ReplyDelete