marijuana disagree essay

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.110(6); Nov-Dec 2013

More Reasons States Should Not Legalize Marijuana: Medical and Recreational Marijuana: Commentary and Review of the Literature

Recent years have seen substantial shifts in cultural attitudes towards marijuana for medical and recreational use. Potential problems with the approval, production, dispensation, route of administration, and negative health effects of medical and recreational marijuana are reviewed. Medical marijuana should be subject to the same rigorous approval process as other medications prescribed by physicians. Legalizing recreational marijuana may have negative public health effects.

Introduction

Recent years have seen a cultural shift in attitudes towards marijuana. At the time of this writing, medical marijuana is legal in 20 states and the District of Columbia; recreational marijuana is now legal in Washington and Colorado. A substantial and growing literature documents legalized marijuana may have adverse effects on individual and public health.

Medical Use of Marijuana

The term ‘medical marijuana’ implies that marijuana is like any other medication prescribed by a physician. Yet the ways in which medical marijuana has been approved, prescribed, and made available to the public are very different from other commercially available prescription drugs. These differences pose problems unrecognized by the public and by many physicians.

Lack of Evidence for Therapeutic Benefit

In the United States, commercially available drugs are subject to rigorous clinical trials to evaluate safety and efficacy. Data appraising the effectiveness of marijuana in conditions such as HIV/AIDS, epilepsy, and chemotherapy-associated vomiting is limited and often only anecdotal. 1 , 2 To date, there has been only one randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of smoked marijuana for any of its potential indications, which showed that marijuana was superior to placebo but inferior to Ondansetron in treating nausea. 3 Recent reviews by the Cochrane Collaboration find insufficient evidence to support the use of smoked marijuana for a number of potential indications, including pain related to rheumatoid arthritis, 4 dementia, 5 ataxia or tremor in multiple sclerosis, 6 and cachexia and other symptoms in HIV/AIDS. 2 This does not mean, of course, that components of marijuana do not have potential therapeutic effects to alleviate onerous symptoms of these diseases; but, given the unfavorable side effect profile of marijuana, the evidence to justify use in these conditions is still lacking.

Contamination, Concentration & Route of Administration

Unlike any other prescription drug used for medical purposes, marijuana is not subject to central regulatory oversight. It is grown in dispensaries, which, depending on the state, have regulatory standards ranging from strict to almost non-existent. The crude marijuana plant and its products may be contaminated with fungus or mold. 7 This is especially problematic for immunocompromised patients, 8 including those with HIV/AIDS or cancer. 9 Furthermore, crude marijuana contains over 60 active cannabinoids, 10 few of which are well studied. Marijuana growers often breed their plants to alter the concentrations of different chemicals compounds. For instance, the concentration of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the principal psychoactive ingredient, is more than 20-fold more than in marijuana products used several decades ago. Without rigorous clinical trials, we have no way of knowing which combinations of cannabinoids may be therapeutic and which may be deleterious. As marijuana dispensaries experiment by breeding out different cannabinoids in order to increase the potency of THC, there may be unanticipated negative and lasting effects for individuals who smoke these strains.

Marijuana is the only ‘medication’ that is smoked, and, while still incompletely understood, there are legitimate concerns about long-term effects of marijuana smoke on the lungs. 11 , 12 Compared with cigarette smoke, marijuana smoke can result in three times the amount of inhaled tar and four times the amount of inhaled carbon-monoxide. 13 Further, smoking marijuana has been shown to be a risk factor for lung cancer in many 14 , 15 but not all 16 studies.

High Potential for Diversion

In some states, patients are permitted to grow their own marijuana. In addition to contributing to problems such as contamination and concentration as discussed above, this practice also invites drug diversion. Patients seeking to benefit financially may bypass local regulations of production and sell home-grown marijuana at prices lower than dispensaries. We do not allow patient to grow their own opium for treatment of chronic pain; the derivatives of opium, like marijuana, are highly addictive and thus stringently regulated.

Widespread “Off-label” Use

FDA-approved forms of THC (Dronabinol) and a THC-analog (Nabilone), both available orally, already exist. Indications for these drugs are HIV/AIDS cachexia and chemotherapy-associated nausea and vomiting. Unlike smoked, crude marijuana, these medications have been subject to randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trials. Yet despite these limited indications where marijuana compounds have a proven but modest effect in high-quality clinical trials, medical marijuana is used overwhelmingly for non-specific pain or muscle spasms. Recent data from Colorado show that 94% of patients with medical marijuana cards received them for treatment of “severe pain.” 17 Similar trends are evident in California. 18 Evidence for the benefit of marijuana in neuropathic pain is seen in many 19 - 21 but not all 22 clinical trials. There is no high-quality evidence, however, that the drug reduces non-neuropathic pain; this remains an indication for which data sufficient to justify the risks of medical marijuana is lacking. 4 , 23 – 25

If marijuana is to be ‘prescribed’ by physicians and used as a medication, it should be subject to the same rigorous approval process that other commercially available drugs undergo. Potentially therapeutic components of marijuana should be investigated, but they should only be made available to the public after adequately powered, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials have demonstrated efficacy and acceptable safety profiles. Furthermore, these compounds should be administered in a way that poses less risk than smoking and dispensed via standardized and FDA-regulated pharmacies to ensure purity and concentration. Bypassing the FDA and approving ‘medicine’ at the ballot box sets a dangerous precedent. Physicians should be discouraged from recommending medical marijuana. Alternatively, consideration can be given to prescribing FDA-approved medicines (Dronabinol or Cesamet) as the purity and concentration of these drugs are assured and their efficacy and side effect profiles have been well documented in rigorous clinical trials.

Recreational Marijuana

The question of recreational marijuana is a broader social policy consideration involving implications of the effects of legalization on international drug cartels, domestic criminal justice policy, and federal and state tax revenue in addition to public health. Yet physicians, with a responsibility for public health, are experts with a vested interest in this issue. Recent legislation, reflecting changes in the public’s attitudes towards marijuana, has permitted the recreational use of marijuana in Colorado and Washington. Unfortunately, the negative health consequences of the drug are not prominent in the debate over legalizing marijuana for recreational use. In many cases, these negative effects are more pronounced in adolescents. A compelling argument, based on these negative health effects in both adolescents and adults, can be made to abort the direction society is moving with regards to the legalization of recreational marijuana.

Myth: Marijuana is Not Addictive

A growing myth among the public is that marijuana is not an addictive substance. Data clearly show that about 10% of those who use cannabis become addicted; this number is higher among adolescents. 26 Users who seek treatment for marijuana addiction average 10 years of daily use. 27 A withdrawal syndrome has been described, consisting of anxiety, restlessness, insomnia, depression, and changes in appetite 28 and affects as many as 44% of frequent users, 29 contributing to the addictive potential of the drug. This addictive potential may be less than that of opiates; but the belief, especially among adolescents, that the drug is not addictive is misguided.

Schizophrenia and Other Psychotic Disorders

Marijuana has been consistently shown to be a risk factor for schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders. 30 – 32 The association between marijuana and schizophrenia fulfills many, but not all, of the standard criteria for the epidemiological establishment of causation, including experimental evidence, 33 , 34 temporal relationship, 35 – 38 biological gradient, 30 , 31 , 39 and biological plausibility. 40 Genetic variation may explain why marijuana use does not strongly fulfill remaining criteria, such as strength of association and specificity. 41 , 42 As these genetic variants are explored and further characterized, marijuana use may be shown to cause or precipitate schizophrenia in a genetically vulnerable population. The risk of psychotic disorder is more pronounced when marijuana is used at an earlier age. 32 , 43

There is some evidence that compounds naturally found in marijuana have therapeutic benefit for symptoms of diseases such as HIV/AIDS, multiple sclerosis, and cancer. If these compounds are to be used under the auspices of ‘medical marijuana,’ they should undergo the same rigorous approval process that other medications prescribed by physicians, including randomized, placebo- and active-controlled trials to evaluate safety and efficacy, not by popular vote or state legislature.

Effects on Cognition

Early studies suggested cognitive declines associated with marijuana (especially early and heavy use); these declines persisted long after the period of acute cannabis intoxication. 44 – 46 Recently, Meier and colleagues analyzed data from a prospective study which followed subjects from birth to age 38; their findings yielded supportive evidence that cannabis use, when begun during adolescence, was associated with cognitive impairment in multiple areas, including executive functioning, processing speed, memory, perceptual reasoning, and verbal comprehension. 47 Rogeberg 48 criticized the study’s methodology, claiming that the results were confounded by differences in socioeconomic status; this claim, however, was based on sub-analyses that used very small numbers. Additional sub-analyses 49 of the original study cohort showed that marijuana was just as prevalent in populations of higher socioeconomic status, suggesting that socioeconomic status was not a confounding variable. Any epidemiological study is subject to confounding biases and future research will be needed to clarify and quantify the relationship between cognitive decline and adolescent marijuana use. However, the findings of the original study by Meier et al show there is indeed an independent relationship between loss of intelligence and adolescent marijuana use. This finding, moreover, is consistent with prior studies. 44

Other Negative Health Effects

Substantial evidence exists suggesting that marijuana is harmful to the respiratory system. It is associated with symptoms of obstructive and inflammatory lung disease, 11 , 50 an increased risk of lung cancer, 14 , 15 and it is suspected to be associated with reduced pulmonary function in heavy users. 51 Further, its use has been associated with harmful effects to other organ systems, including the reproductive, 52 gastrointestinal, 53 and immunologic 10 , 54 systems.

Social Safety Implications: Effects on Driving

Marijuana impairs the ability to judge time, distance, and speed; it slows reaction time and reduces ability to track moving objects. 55 , 56 In many studies of drug-related motor vehicle fatalities, marijuana is the most common drug detected except for alcohol. 57 , 58 Based on post-mortem studies, Couch et al determined that marijuana was likely an impairing factor in as many fatal accidents as alcohol. 59 One study showed that in motor vehicle accidents where the driver was killed, recent marijuana use was detected in 12% of cases. 57 Other research confirms a significantly increased risk of motor vehicle fatalities in association with acute cannabis intoxication. 60

Risk Perception and Use in Adolescents

Marijuana use among adolescents has been increasing. Data that has tracked risk perception and use of marijuana among adolescents over decades clearly shows an inverse relationship; as adolescent risk perception wanes, marijuana use increases. 61 As more states legalize medical and recreational marijuana, risk perception is expected to decrease, causing the prevalence of use among adolescent to continue to rise. This is among the most concerning of issues about the drug’s legalization because so many of the negative effects of marijuana—including cognitive impairment and risk for short- and long-term psychosis— are heightened when used during adolescence.

There is some evidence that compounds naturally found in marijuana have therapeutic benefit for symptoms of diseases such as HIV/AIDS, multiple sclerosis, and cancer. If these compounds are to be used under the auspices of ‘medical marijuana,’ they should undergo the same rigorous approval process that other medications prescribed by physicians, including randomized, placebo- and active-controlled trials to evaluate safety and efficacy, not by popular vote or state legislature. Furthermore, these therapeutic compounds should be administered via a route that minimizes long-term health risk (i.e., via oral pill) and should be dispensed by centrally regulated pharmacies to ensure the purity and concentration of the drug and allow for the recall of contaminated batches.

Marijuana for recreational use will have many adverse health effects. The drug is addictive, with mounting evidence for the existence of a withdrawal syndrome. Furthermore, it has been shown to have adverse effects on mental health, intelligence (including irreversible declines in cognition), and the respiratory system. Driving while acutely intoxicated with marijuana greatly increases the risk of fatal motor vehicle collision. Legalization for recreational use may have theoretical (but still unproven) beneficial social effects regarding issues such as domestic criminal justice policy, but these effects will not come without substantial public health and social costs. Currently there is a lack of resources devoted to educating physicians about this most commonly used illicit substance. The potential benefits and significant risks associated with marijuana use should be taught in medical schools and residency programs throughout the country.

Samuel T. Wilkinson, MD, is in the Department of Psychiatry at the Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Ct.

Contact: [email protected]

None reported.

Gonzales V. Raich: a Landmark Case in Federalism and Medical Marijuana

This essay about Gonzales v. Raich explores its significance in American federalism and the debate over medical marijuana. It highlights the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision that upheld federal authority to regulate locally grown marijuana, emphasizing the balance between state autonomy and federal power. The essay also discusses the evolving landscape of marijuana legalization and its implications for federal and state relations.

How it works

In the complex framework of American federalism and the ongoing debate surrounding medical marijuana, Gonzales v. Raich stands as a crucial juncture, a battlefield where constitutional interpretations collide, and a testament to the delicate equilibrium between state autonomy and federal authority.

As the new millennium dawned, medical marijuana gained traction as a potential treatment for various ailments, leading to its legalization in several states. California emerged as a pioneer, passing Proposition 215 in 1996 and spearheading medical cannabis legislation. This set the stage for a legal confrontation that reverberated through Washington, D.

C., and resonated across state capitals.

Angel Raich, a Californian suffering from severe medical conditions, depended on medical marijuana to manage her symptoms. Alongside Diane Monson, another Californian using cannabis for medicinal purposes, Raich contested the federal government’s authority to regulate marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). They argued that their local cultivation and personal use of cannabis for medical treatment fell outside federal jurisdiction, as it did not involve interstate commerce.

This dispute reached the Supreme Court in 2004 as Gonzales v. Raich, posing a fundamental question: to what extent does Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce extend to prohibiting the cultivation and use of marijuana for medicinal purposes within states that have legalized it?

In a 6-3 decision in 2005, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion against Raich and Monson. The Court ruled that Congress’s authority to regulate interstate commerce encompassed the regulation of locally grown and consumed marijuana, even if such activities had no direct impact on interstate commerce. This decision heavily relied on precedents like Wickard v. Filburn (1942), which established that intrastate activities could fall under Congress’s regulatory purview if part of a broader economic scheme.

Justice Stevens emphasized the need for a comprehensive federal regulatory approach to controlled substances, highlighting the potential impact of locally grown marijuana on the national market and federal drug law enforcement. The ruling reaffirmed federal law supremacy in areas where Congress chose to exercise its authority, thereby limiting states’ autonomy in shaping drug policy.

However, dissenting justices, led by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, expressed concerns about the expansive interpretation of federal power under the Commerce Clause. They argued that allowing Congress to regulate purely local, non-commercial activities like medical marijuana cultivation could undermine federalism and the balance of power between federal and state governments.

Gonzales v. Raich sent ripples through the medical marijuana movement and the broader debate over states’ rights versus federal authority. While reinforcing federal enforcement of drug laws, it drew criticism from medical marijuana advocates and states’ rights proponents, who viewed it as an encroachment on individual freedoms and state sovereignty.

In the years following the Supreme Court’s decision, the landscape of marijuana legalization continued to evolve, with more states defying federal prohibition to legalize medical and recreational cannabis. This dynamic prompted calls for legislative reform at the national level.

In 2009, the Obama administration issued the “Ogden Memo,” directing federal prosecutors to prioritize enforcement against major drug traffickers rather than individuals complying with state medical marijuana laws. This marked a shift in federal enforcement policy, showing some deference to state marijuana laws while maintaining federal prohibition.

Subsequent administrations adopted varying approaches to federal marijuana enforcement, reflecting the ongoing tension between state autonomy and federal authority. The legalization of recreational marijuana in states like Colorado and Washington further complicated the federal government’s stance on cannabis regulation.

In 2018, the passage of the Agriculture Improvement Act, or the Farm Bill, federally legalized hemp production, removing hemp-derived CBD from the list of controlled substances. This legislative milestone signaled increasing acceptance of cannabis-related products and paved the way for further reforms in marijuana policy.

Yet, the legacy of Gonzales v. Raich endures as a poignant reminder of the intricate interplay between federal power and states’ rights in the United States. The case encapsulates the enduring tensions within the American federal system, where conflicting visions of governance and individual liberties continue to shape law and policy. As the debate over marijuana legalization and drug policy reform persists, Gonzales v. Raich remains a pivotal touchstone in the ongoing struggle to reconcile divergent interests within the fabric of American federalism.

Cite this page

Gonzales v. Raich: A Landmark Case in Federalism and Medical Marijuana. (2024, May 28). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/gonzales-v-raich-a-landmark-case-in-federalism-and-medical-marijuana/

"Gonzales v. Raich: A Landmark Case in Federalism and Medical Marijuana." PapersOwl.com , 28 May 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/gonzales-v-raich-a-landmark-case-in-federalism-and-medical-marijuana/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Gonzales v. Raich: A Landmark Case in Federalism and Medical Marijuana . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/gonzales-v-raich-a-landmark-case-in-federalism-and-medical-marijuana/ [Accessed: 1 Jun. 2024]

"Gonzales v. Raich: A Landmark Case in Federalism and Medical Marijuana." PapersOwl.com, May 28, 2024. Accessed June 1, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/gonzales-v-raich-a-landmark-case-in-federalism-and-medical-marijuana/

"Gonzales v. Raich: A Landmark Case in Federalism and Medical Marijuana," PapersOwl.com , 28-May-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/gonzales-v-raich-a-landmark-case-in-federalism-and-medical-marijuana/. [Accessed: 1-Jun-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Gonzales v. Raich: A Landmark Case in Federalism and Medical Marijuana . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/gonzales-v-raich-a-landmark-case-in-federalism-and-medical-marijuana/ [Accessed: 1-Jun-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Partisans Disagree on Legalization of Marijuana, but Agree on Law Enforcement Policies

For the first time in more than four decades of polling on the issue, a majority of Americans favor legalizing the use of marijuana. A national survey conducted in March found that 52% said the use of marijuana should be made legal while 45% said it should not.

There were partisan differences over legalizing marijuana use. About six-in-ten (59%) of Democrats favor the legalization of marijuana use compared to 37% of Republicans — a difference of 22 percentage points. Independents favor legalization by about the same percentage as Democrats.

More Republicans (47%) than Democrats (26%) also say that use of marijuana is morally wrong. Again, the views of independents are closer to those of Democrats, with just 28% considering marijuana use to be morally wrong.

But Democrats and Republicans do find agreement when it comes to enforcement of laws on marijuana and whether that effort is worth it.

Roughly equal numbers of Republicans (57%) and Democrats (59%) say that the federal government should not enforce federal marijuana laws in states that permit its use.

Substantial majorities of both Republicans (67%) and Democrats (71%) also say federal enforcement of marijuana laws is not worth the cost. Read more

Bruce Drake is a former senior editor at Pew Research Center .

Most Popular

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

Why you shouldn’t dismiss the risk of marijuana addiction

There are real concerns with marijuana addiction. That doesn’t mean legalization is a bad idea.

by German Lopez

It is now widely accepted that marijuana is, at the very least, less dangerous than other recreational drugs. The typical line you’ll hear — I certainly do in my email inbox — is that “marijuana is harmless,” often meant as a justification for legalizing cannabis .

But at the Atlantic, Annie Lowrey provides a corrective to this narrative , diving into the real risks of marijuana addiction. The whole thing is worth reading , but here’s the key paragraph:

For Keith Humphreys, a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford University, the most compelling evidence of the deleterious effects comes from users themselves. “In large national surveys, about one in 10 people who smoke it say they have a lot of problems. They say things like, ‘I have trouble quitting. I think a lot about quitting and I can’t do it. I smoked more than I intended to. I neglect responsibilities.’ There are plenty of people who have problems with it, in terms of things like concentration, short-term memory, and motivation,” he said. “People will say, ‘Oh, that’s just you fuddy-duddy doctors.’ Actually, no. It’s millions of people who use the drug who say that it causes problems.”

People say marijuana is harmless, largely based on their own experiences with the drug. When it comes to countering that narrative, it’s one thing for doctors or Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents to claim that pot really is harmful — that can be easy to ignore. But when marijuana users themselves claim to have problems, maybe that’s worth listening to and taking seriously.

The evidence is the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH). The most recent version , from 2016, found that about 4 million people 12 and older meet the classification for a marijuana use disorder — due to the kinds of problems that Humphreys noted. That’s nearly 11 percent of the 37.6 million people 12 and older who reportedly used marijuana in 2016.

These are real people with real problems. Lowrey follows the story of Evan, whose personal life and law career slipped as he found himself compulsively using marijuana, letting it take over his life.

As Jon Caulkins, a drug policy expert at Carnegie Mellon University, has told me , “At some level, we know that spending more than half of your waking hours intoxicated for years and years on end is not increasing the likelihood that you’ll win a Pulitzer Prize or discover the cure for cancer.”

That doesn’t mean marijuana is anywhere as dangerous as cocaine, heroin, alcohol, or smoked tobacco, all of which carry a real risk of death that pot doesn’t. But weed isn’t harmless.

It’s not clear if marijuana addiction is becoming more widespread as more states legalize pot, but the problem is certainly not getting better. Lowery, citing data from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC), reported that the “share of adults with [a cannabis use disorder]  has doubled  since the early aughts.”

But some researchers argue that NSDUH is more reliable for tracking trends and changes in drug use — since, unlike NESARC, it doesn’t go through major methodological changes between waves. And while NSDUH has found that use in general and daily or near-daily use are up , the prevalence of cannabis use disorder has remained roughly flat.

The existence and risks of marijuana addiction aren’t necessarily a knock on legalization. Other addictive and much more dangerous substances, like alcohol and smoked tobacco, are legal, after all. But as the country and world move forward with legalization, addiction is a risk that’s worth keeping in mind.

The risk of addiction doesn’t necessarily mean marijuana legalization is a bad idea

When evaluating whether to legalize, the question should not be whether marijuana is harmless, but whether pot’s harms and the harms of legalizing it outweigh the harms of prohibition. It’s a cost-benefit analysis.

On the cost side, will legalization, by increasing access and potentially use, lead to more overuse and addiction to marijuana? Will it lead to more car crashes, mental health issues, and respiratory problems (all of which are problems linked to pot in the scientific research )?

On the benefit side, will legalization lead to fewer arrests over a drug that is, after all, still not that bad compared to other drugs (given that it can’t cause overdose deaths)? Will the revenue drug cartels lose from illicit marijuana make them less powerful and less able to carry out violent acts around the world? Will legalization be a boon for people who could benefit from pot medically, given its potential use as a treatment for pain, muscle stiffness, and other issues? Will a regulated market be able to tame the risks of the drug better than prohibition has, particularly by keeping it away from children?

And how will all of these potential costs and benefits balance out — a net gain or net loss?

The jury is still out on a lot of these questions. Drug policy experts caution that more years of legalization and more research into the policy’s implementation are needed before a hard conclusion can be reached.

One early concern, though, is that the most common form of legalization that states are pursuing does not adequately minimize the risks of addiction.

Currently, most of the states that have legalized have adopted a model that lets for-profit companies produce, sell, and market the drug, similar to alcohol. But these companies have a perverse incentive — because the most lucrative customers, for them, are those who use (and buy) a lot of pot, even if it’s to feed an addiction.

Some early data from Colorado, one of the first two states to legalize, speaks to this point. A 2014 study  of the state’s legal pot market, conducted by the Marijuana Policy Group for the state’s Department of Revenue, found the top 29.9 percent heaviest pot users in Colorado made up 87.1 percent of the demand for the drug.

Given these statistics, to whom is the marijuana industry likely to market its product? Will the industry care much about the risk of addiction if companies profit from it?

That’s why experts caution that tougher regulations are necessary. But as Humphreys told Lowrey, that’s not really happening with marijuana: “Here, what we’ve done is we’ve copied the alcohol industry fully formed, and then on steroids with very minimal regulation. The oversight boards of some states are the industry themselves. We’ve learned enough about capitalism to know that’s very dangerous.” (Excessive drinking is linked to 88,000 deaths a year , and tobacco smoking to 480,000  to  540,000 deaths a year.)

There are also other models, besides the commercialized approach, for legalization. The government could legalize possession and gifting but not sales, as Washington, DC, has done. It could put state agencies in charge of selling pot, as some provinces in Canada are doing — which research has linked to better public health outcomes for alcohol. A RAND report , in fact, noted that there are at least a dozen alternatives to standard prohibition.

So far, though, only prohibition and the standard commercial model have gotten a lot of discussion. But if you take the risks of addiction seriously, the commercial model may not be the best idea even if you support legalization.

For more on marijuana legalization, read Vox’s explainer .

Most Popular

Why the ludicrous republican response to trump’s conviction matters, the felon frontrunner: how trump warped our politics, the nra just won a big supreme court victory. good., take a mental break with the newest vox crossword, the best — and worst — criticisms of trump’s conviction, today, explained.

Understand the world with a daily explainer plus the most compelling stories of the day.

More in Science

The science of near-death experiences

Dopamine, explained

How worried should we be about Russia putting a nuke in space?

Massive invasive snakes are on the loose and spreading in Puerto Rico

Psychedelics could treat some of the worst chronic pain in the world

Why we’ve been seeing the northern lights so often lately

The MLB’s long-overdue decision to add Negro Leagues’ stats, briefly explained

We need to talk more about Trump’s misogyny

20 years of Bennifer, explained

This article is OpenAI training data

Big Milk has taken over American schools

• The Blue Review
• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share on LinkedIn
• Share through Email

How marijuana legalization would benefit the criminal justice system

Cody Jorgensen is Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice at Boise State University. His research interests include developmental and biosocial criminology, policing and forensics, drug policy, and quantitative methods.

The 2020 election is ramping up and the democratic candidates have been laying out their agendas in preparation for the upcoming primary election. The issue of marijuana policy reform is not the cornerstone of any of the leading democratic candidates’ platforms; however, most of them have discussed their plan dealing with the marijuana issue.

For example, Bernie Sanders has laid out a comprehensive plan to reform our current marijuana laws that includes legalizing the substance within the first 100 days in office and vacating/expunging all marijuana-related convictions. Other candidates like Elizabeth Warren, Corey Booker, Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, Andrew Yang, and Amy Klobuchar have taken a similar stance and most of the democratic candidates support the Marijuana Justice Act sponsored by Senator Booker. This proposed legislation would remove cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act, expunge marijuana-related convictions, and bar federal funds to states that enforce cannabis laws in a discriminatory way.

Of the leading candidates, Joe Biden is an outlier. He does not support the legalization of marijuana at the federal level. Instead, Biden argues that legalization should be determined by the states. His reluctance seems to be due to his belief that marijuana is a gateway drug. However, research ( Jorgensen ; Cleveland and Wiebe ; Van Gundy and Rebellon ) has consistently shown that Biden’s belief is misguided.

On the other hand, President Trump and his fellow members of the GOP remain steadfast in their opposition to marijuana legalization. They tend to favor the status quo or even ramping up enforcement and prosecution of marijuana-related offenses.

Critics of cannabis reform have given several justifications for prohibiting marijuana, including arguments such as the following

• marijuana causes more harm to society and the user than alcohol and tobacco
• the increased potency of marijuana is dangerous
• the addictive properties of cannabis cause abuse
• decriminalizing marijuana sends a latent message that people should be using it
• drug use is on the rise (especially among youth)
• and marijuana is a gateway drug causing the use of harder drugs.

All of these justifications listed have been debunked by empirical research and are more fiction than fact. As an alternative to misinformation supporting prohibition, this article will present an evidence-based argument for legalizing marijuana and suggests that doing so would be beneficial to our criminal justice system. In short, the Marijuana Justice Act would be good policy.

Marijuana prohibition is undemocratic

According to the latest Gallup poll , a large majority of Americans favor legalizing marijuana. As of 2019, 66% of Americans support legalization. Looking back at long term trends, the data show that attitudes about marijuana and its prohibition have changed dramatically over the past few decades.

When Gallup first measured attitudes about marijuana, only 12% of the population favored legalization. A steady increase in favorable attitudes towards legalization followed with a more dramatic increase beginning in the early 2000s. In 2001, 31% favored legalization and in 2010 that percentage increased to 44%.

There also seems to be a relationship between political ideology and attitudes toward legal cannabis. Gallup data shows that 76% of Democrats, 68% of Independents, and 51% of Republicans favor legalization. Going into 2020, the recreational use of marijuana will be legal in 11 states. This trend began with moves by Colorado and Washington to legalize in 2012.

A likely explanation for the change in marijuana attitudes is that the public understands that cannabis is a less harmful substance than other substances that are currently legal, such as alcohol or prescription drugs. Alcohol is by far a more harmful drug to society and the individual user as compared with marijuana . It follows that criminalizing recreational marijuana use is seen by a large swath of Americans as unjustified or even hypocritical because many Americans drink.

It should also be noted that laws that are viewed by the public as unjustified or illegitimate are not likely to be complied with . Put another way, people are unlikely to voluntarily abide by laws or rules that they view as unwarranted. When the criminal justice system enforces laws that the bulk of the public disagrees with, it harms the credibility of the criminal justice system which, in turn, impedes its ability to accomplish its goals of controlling and reducing crime.

Marijuana prohibition is costly

In 2018, there were more than 663,000 marijuana-related arrests made in the United States. More than 608,000 of those arrests were for marijuana possession only . This means that law enforcement is primarily arresting recreational cannabis users, not dealers. Many of those arrested will end up incarcerated, exacerbating the fact that tax monies supporting the incarceration of non-violent drug offenders are significant. Costs range between $30,000-$35,000 per year to house an inmate.

Furthermore, there are substantial costs involved in making arrests. While calculating the cost of an arrest is difficult and estimates vary widely based on how the cost is calculated, low estimates put the average cost of an arrest around $1,000 ( The National Juvenile Justice Network ; Drug Policy Alliance) and up to around $5,000 on the higher end . This suggests that between $600,000,000 and $3,000,000,000 is spent simply arresting recreational marijuana users. Those tax dollars could be better spent elsewhere, such as on officers’ salaries or updating equipment. Additionally, the process of making an arrest and taking an offender to jail takes the arresting officer off of the street for a significant amount of time, typically a couple of hours. That lost time could also be better spent with officers out on the street making their presence known and/or engaging with community members.

The economic costs are not the only costs associated with marijuana prohibition. There are also human costs, which may outweigh the economic costs . Having a conviction for marijuana possession on a record is not a trivial matter. This mark of a criminal record can negatively affect people in numerous ways. For example, college students can lose their federal aid for tuition and employees can get fired from their jobs due to a single marijuana-related offense. Having such a record also makes it significantly more difficult to get a job, a loan, or to rent an apartment. These are obviously stressful events that can strain relationships and negatively impact one’s mental well-being.

One of the more damaging effects of an arrest is the harm caused by introducing an otherwise law-abiding pot smoker into the formal criminal justice process. Being processed through the system, from initial contact with police to completion of a sentence, is stressful, frustrating, and often seen as unjust. This is especially relevant for non-violent recreational marijuana users who have done nothing else wrong.

The experience is generally viewed as an excessive punishment that does not fit the crime which often leads to offenders (and people close to them) to lose faith and trust in the criminal justice system . This is important because the system cannot effectively do its job if it does not have the support of the public. In this way, marijuana prohibition can do more harm than good.

Marijuana enforcement is racially biased

Marijuana use is fairly equally distributed across social strata. Whites, blacks, Hispanics, the affluent, and the poor use marijuana at about the same rate . However, enforcement of marijuana laws is not equally distributed across social strata. Instead, minorities and the poor are much more likely to be arrested for simple marijuana offenses. Nationally, African Americans are about four times more likely than whites to be arrested for cannabis.

The disparity is even greater depending on where people live. For example, in Iowa, Washington, DC, and Minnesota, African Americans are eight times more likely to be arrested. This is strong evidence of racial bias and largely stems from the racially biased practice of stop-and-frisk .

Stop-and-frisk tactics have been used in cities throughout the country; however, nowhere has the issue been more salient than in New York City. Throughout the history of the practice used by the NYPD, the overwhelming majority of people stopped-and-frisked were young black and Hispanic men. In the overwhelming majority of these instances, the young men were innocent . In 2013, the way the NYPD had been implementing stop-and-frisk was ruled unconstitutional.

Racial profiling is damning to the criminal justice system for obvious reasons. This is particularly the case for police. Racial bias, whether real or simply perceived, negatively affects the police-community relationship . The relationships police have with minority communities have been fractured in recent years due to racial disparities in enforcement and use of force, the consequences of which certainly hinder the system from doing its job effectively .

For example, the police typically do not solve crimes on their own. Instead, crimes are usually solved because members of the community cooperate with the police and give them information about the crime. Community members tell the police who the suspect is, where they hang out, who they hang out with, etc. When people do not trust the police, they will be unlikely to help them in their investigations, and racial profiling is a primary source of distrust.

Additionally, when the police-community relationship is fractured, people in minority communities may be reluctant to call the police for service. Instead, they might opt to deal with problems or conflicts themselves which could lead to an increase in violence.

The War on Drugs is basically a war on marijuana

In their book Drugs and Drug Policy , researchers Clayton Mosher and Scott Akins examine the evidence showing that the War on Drugs has been a resounding failure. This is not a controversial or speculative statement. There is consensus among criminologists, criminal justice scholars, and drug policy experts that the War on Drugs has not been effective and offers no clear benefit to society. It is also expensive costing around $47 billion per year .

The War on Drugs has not reduced drug use and has not reduced crime associated with drug use and the illegal drug trade. At the same time, this approach has incentivized policing for profit via asset forfeiture laws , increased police militarization through the Pentagon’s 1033 program , and contributed significantly to mass incarceration which has disproportionately affected communities of color.

What is more, the War on Drugs is primarily a war on marijuana since the vast majority of arrests made and resources spent have been focused on marijuana offenses. In recent years, drug arrests in general, and marijuana possession arrests in particular, have been increasing while at the same time the rates of serious crimes have been decreasing .

This increase is unwarranted since marijuana use is not a cause of harder drug use nor is it associated with an increase in crime and violence, as is the case with other substance use, like alcohol or methamphetamine. Marijuana is also not associated with the risk of overdose, unlike heroin and the prescription drugs that are at the heart of the current opioid epidemic. This topic has been extensively studied and the empirical evidence generally shows that the War on Drugs has caused more harm than it has prevented.

An evidence-based alternative to the War on Drugs is harm reduction. Harm reduction aims to reduce the harms associated with substance use by focusing on prevention and rehabilitation instead of enforcement and incarceration. Harm reduction strategies have shown to reduce drug use, crime associated with drug use, the spread of infectious diseases, drug overdoses, etc. For example, therapeutic community programs  and drug court programs  are far more effective at reducing behavioral problems associated with drug use than typical “get tough” deterrence based approaches which typically have little to no effect on reducing antisocial behavior.

Wasting precious resources on ineffective deterrence-based strategies does not inspire confidence in the system. The money spent on the enforcement of marijuana laws and the sentencing of marijuana offenders would be better spent on rehabilitation and prevention programs.  As such, continuing the failed War on Drugs, marijuana prohibition in particular, is not conducive to the goals of the criminal justice system. It is ineffective, expensive, and it harms the credibility of our legal institutions.

The marijuana economy is worth billions

It is estimated that the illicit marijuana economy is worth around $30-$40 billion dollars. Surely, it is reasonable to think that this industry should be run by American business owners rather than drug cartels and drug gangs. Demand for marijuana will always exist, and whenever an in demand product or service is made illegal, the black market will inevitably provide it. Criminal enterprises that deliver illicit goods and services do not use the law to solve problems and resolve conflicts. They use violence. Recent research has shown that legalizing marijuana reduces violence and trafficking associated with the illegal drug trade thereby reducing the power and wealth of cartels and drug gangs .

On top of reducing drug related crime, legalizing marijuana has shown to be a meaningful avenue of raising tax revenue. For example, Colorado’s legal marijuana industry has brought in over one billion dollars in tax revenue to the state since it abandoned prohibition . A portion of the tax revenue generated by a legal cannabis industry could be earmarked for police agencies, correctional facilities, drug rehabilitation centers, and crime prevention programs.

There are several programs that are not only effective at reducing crime, but are also cost effective as well. For every dollar spent on an evidence-based crime reduction or prevention program, several dollars are saved down the road in enforcement and correctional expenditures. One of the most successful prevention programs known is the Nurse Family Partnership program .

Using tax money generated from a legal marijuana industry to fund this program nationally will not only reduce crime rates, but will save a lot of money in the long term. Another useful way to spend this proposed tax revenue is by paying our police better. The current salaries for newly hired police officers are abysmal in most jurisdictions across America. Increasing base pay for these public servants may entice qualified candidates into police work who were previously uninterested because of the low pay. Additionally, it is not good for our police to be tired and under excessive stress while on duty.

It is fairly common for police officers to work overtime or have a part-time job to make extra money. Having an over-worked, under-paid, and stressed police force is not conducive to a healthy police-community relationship . Paying rank-and-file police officers more could help reduce their stress and fatigue and may help with recruiting excellent candidates that will make good cops.

The common denominator

The underlying theme of the previous paragraphs is that marijuana prohibition harms the legitimacy and credibility of the criminal justice system for a variety of reasons: it is undemocratic, racially biased, ineffective, detrimental, costly, and wasteful. When any authority figure is viewed as illegitimate or not credible, people are not likely to support that authority figure nor are people likely to voluntarily comply or cooperate with that authority.

In his book Why People Obey the Law , Yale psychologist Tom Tyler shows that this is a robust and consistent finding across a variety of domains. Such evidence strongly suggests that the criminal justice system must be viewed by the public to be legitimate, and the laws it enforces justified, in order to gain the compliance and cooperation of the public and to function as effectively as possible. Marijuana prohibition damages that legitimacy.

Our criminal justice system is ripe for major reform. Some of the reforms that are needed are those that will maximize the perceived legitimacy of our legal institutions. Given the reasons outlined, it is argued here that one of the simplest and most effective ways to accomplish that would be to legalize marijuana. Doing so would also be an effective way to fund crime reduction efforts and to ease the financial burden placed on the criminal justice system.

In the end, marijuana use is not completely harmless and the legalization of it is not without risk; however, the harm associated with marijuana use and legalization pales in comparison to prohibition. The Marijuana Justice Act would make good policy and would ultimately be beneficial to the criminal justice system.

Usage and Effects of Marijuana Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Reasons for discussion, origins and history, effects and properties, production, use, legalization.

Cannabis, or marijuana, has been a subject of discussions for decades. Emerging from earliest societies, the drug has had considerable presence in all kinds of industries and applications – ranging from medical to spiritual uses. In the modern world, more and more countries are recognizing the role of cannabis in bringing benefits to the population. As a result, discussions of legalization and decriminalization emerge with increased force. However, the actual relationship between society and marijuana is complex. The substance can have both positive and negative effects on the population. For some, it is a source of relief, for others it is a difficult habit that affects their daily functioning. For the purposes of better understanding the drug and navigating the modern realities, it is necessary to discuss marijuana in more detail.

As mentioned previously, marijuana plays an increasingly large role in society. Efforts or legalizing the drug bring forth challenges connected with the best way to regulate its distribution, usage and production. In cases of decriminalization, governments also struggle to choose the correct way to implement their policies. The process is hampered by the need to navigate the needs of diverse populations. In order to build a structure upon which the distribution and production of marijuana can be built, legislators must consider the wishes of companies and the populace alike.

At the same time, the population itself reaches a new level of understanding cannabis use. After a considerable period of being considered taboo and misunderstood, marijuana is entering the mainstream thought. Researchers, scholars and enthusiasts alike are searching for more ways of applying the plant, while also discussing its effects on the population.

Cannabis has a storied history. First appearing in Asia, the plant was popularized by Chinese emperors. From China, it quickly spread to surrounding countries, such as India, where it became a prominent part of culture and myth. Earliest uses of the substance are connected with medical remedies and rituals to appease gods. Europeans got into contact with marijuana much later, closer to the 19 th century, when explorers, seafarers and travelers started interacting with China. Much like the Asian continent, Europeans and Americans used marijuana for its medicinal purposes. However, it was slowly pushed out of the market by taxation and regulation.

Cannabidiol is one of the two primary active part of cannabis, one that is responsible for affecting individual’s nervous and cardio systems. Instead of stimulating receptors, like it was assumed, the substance works as an antagonist, potentially affecting the effectiveness of HTC, another active ingredient in cannabis.

The effectiveness of consuming cannabis or its extracts depends on how they entered the body – inhaling or smoking works quicker than eating products containing marijuana.

There are a number of potential effects that a person will feel after consuming cannabis. Depending on the individual, cannabis can produce different effects. Altered sense of smell, sense or perception is common, as well as an inability to properly understand time. The individual usually feels relaxed, or experiences quick mood changes. In addition, speech impairment, trouble moving and hallucinations can be common symptoms.

Each country chooses how to handle the process of legalizing/decriminalizing cannabis differently. Depending on the president/ruling party, the process can be restrictive or overarching. In some countries, focus is made on managing marijuana use, while in others possession itself is the target.

• Cannabis is difficult to discuss or ascribe morally.
• The drug affects a person’s mental and physical condition.
• Antagonizing one’s brain receptors, cannabis has relaxing properties.
• Efforts of decriminalization and legalization help populations that need cannabis.
• Certain populations are endangered by marijuana decriminalization.

Barton, Allen W., et al. “Trajectory classes of cannabis use and heavy drinking among rural African American adolescents: multi-level predictors of class membership.” Addiction , vol. 113, no. 8, 2018, pp. 1439-1449.

Carliner, Hannah, et al. “Cannabis use, attitudes, and legal status in the U.S.: A review.” Preventive Medicine , vol. 104, 2017, pp. 13-23.

Goode, Erich. “ Pot and the Myth of Shen Nung .” The New York Review of Books , Web.

Halperin, Alex. “ Cannabis Capitalism: Who is Making Money in the Marijuana Industry? ” The Guardian , Web.

Kicman, Aleksandra, and Marek Toczek. “The Effects of Cannabidiol, a Non-Intoxicating Compound of Cannabis, on the Cardiovascular System in Health and Disease.” International Journal of Molecular Sciences , vol. 21, no. 18, 2020, p. 6740.

Knaappila, Noora, et al. “Changes in cannabis use according to socioeconomic status among Finnish adolescents from 2000 to 2015.” Journal of Cannabis Research , vol. 2, no. 1, 2020.

“Legality of cannabis by country.” Map. Wikimedia Commons , Van De Voorde, Nick T., et al. “Denver’s Green Mile: Marijuana gentrification as a process of urban change.” Journal of Urban Affairs , 2021, pp. 1-19.

• The Marijuana Usage Legislation
• Cannabis or Marijuana for Medical Use
• Can Cannabis Cause Schizophrenia?
• Health Policy: Identification and Definition
• Health and Fitness: Developing a Healthy Community
• Promoting Healthy Lifestyles in a Community
• Health Care Spending Over Time
• Substance (Heroin) Use as Community Problem
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, December 14). Usage and Effects of Marijuana. https://ivypanda.com/essays/usage-and-effects-of-marijuana/

"Usage and Effects of Marijuana." IvyPanda , 14 Dec. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/usage-and-effects-of-marijuana/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'Usage and Effects of Marijuana'. 14 December.

IvyPanda . 2023. "Usage and Effects of Marijuana." December 14, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/usage-and-effects-of-marijuana/.

1. IvyPanda . "Usage and Effects of Marijuana." December 14, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/usage-and-effects-of-marijuana/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Usage and Effects of Marijuana." December 14, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/usage-and-effects-of-marijuana/.

Argumentative Essay On Marijuana Legalization

Published by gudwriter on May 27, 2018 May 27, 2018

Most students have serious problems writing a quality essay as they lack the necessary experience. If you need help writing an essay on legalization of marijuana, the perfect solution is to buy thesis proposal from experts online.

Elevate Your Writing with Our Free Writing Tools!

Did you know that we provide a free essay and speech generator, plagiarism checker, summarizer, paraphraser, and other writing tools for free?

Why Marijuana Should be Legalized Argumentative Essay Outline

Introduction.

Thesis: Marijuana should be legalized as it is more beneficial that it may be detrimental to society.

Paragraph 1:

Marijuana has not caused turmoil in some of the countries where it has been legalized.

• Marijuana does not increase violent, and property crimes as many suggest.
• Studies reveal that in Colorado, violent crimes have declined following the legalization of marijuana.

Paragraph 2:

Prohibiting use of marijuana does not limit its consumption.

• In spite of the many laws prohibiting the use of marijuana, it is one of the most highly abused drugs.
• 58% of young people from all over the world use marijuana.
• It has not been attributed to any health complications.

Paragraph 3:

Legalization of marijuana would help state governments save taxpayers money.

• Governments spend lots of funds on law enforcement agencies that uphold laws restricting the use of marijuana.
• They also spend vast sums of money on sustaining arrested dealers and consumers in prison.
• Legalizing marijuana would result in saving vast sums of money.

Paragraph 4:

Marijuana is less noxious than other legal substances.

• Marijuana has less health side effects than other legal substances such as alcohol and tobacco.
• Alcohol is 114 times more destructive than marijuana.

Paragraph 5:

Marijuana has been proven to have medical benefits.

• Marijuana helps stop seizures in epileptic patients.
• It helps stop nausea in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy .

Paragraph 6:

Marijuana has been proven to be a stress reliever.

• Marijuana relieves stress and depression in their users by causing excitement.
• Its use reduces violence and deaths related to stress and depression.

Conclusion.

There are many misconceptions about marijuana existent in the modern world. People have continued to ignore health benefits linked to this substance citing their unproven beliefs. Owing to its ability to stop seizures, nausea, and stress in individuals governments should highly consider marijuana legalization. Its legalization will also help state governments reduce expenses that result from maintaining suspects convicted of marijuana possession and consumption.

Why Marijuana Should be Legalized Argumentative Essay

The argument that marijuana use should be made legal has gained momentum both in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world in recent years. This has seen the drug being legalized in some states in the U.S. such that by 2013, twenty states had legalized medical marijuana. As of the same year, Colorado and Washington had legalized recreational marijuana. The arguments behind the push for legalization majorly revolve around the idea that the drug has medicinal effects. However, there are also arguments that there are serious health effects associated with the drug and this has only further fueled the already raging debate. This paper argues that marijuana should be legalized as it is more beneficial that it may be detrimental to society.

Marijuana has not caused any notable negative effects in countries where it has been legalized. There is a general belief that marijuana consumers are violent. However, no authentic research can prove these assertions. As already seen, some states in the United States have legalized both medicinal and recreational marijuana. In spite of this, no cases of marijuana-related violence have been recorded so far in such states (Markol, 2018). Reports reveal that the rate of violence and property crimes have decreased in Colorado following the legalization of the drug. If marijuana does not increase violent crimes, there is no reason as to why it should not be legalized.

It is also noteworthy that prohibiting marijuana use does not limit its consumption. Less than 10% of countries in the world prevent the use of marijuana, but according to research, 58% of young people in most of these countries are marijuana users (Head, 2016). General reports reveal that marijuana is one of most commonly abused drug in the world. It is also readily available in most states as it is a naturally growing plant (Head, 2016). In spite of its continued use, there are few cases, if any, of marijuana-related health complications that have been reported in any of these countries (Head, 2016). Therefore, if the illegality of marijuana does not limit its consumption, then state governments should consider its legalization.

Legalization of marijuana would further help state governments save taxpayers’ money. It is widely known that in countries where marijuana is illegal, authorities are stringent and will arrest any individual found in possession of the drug (Sanger, 2017). However, as earlier mentioned, laws prohibiting the use of the drug do not prevent its consumption, and this means that many people are arrested and prosecuted for possessing it (Sanger, 2017). State governments therefore use a lot of funds to support law enforcement agencies that seek to uphold laws prohibiting the use of marijuana (Sanger, 2017). Many people have been arrested and incarcerated for either possessing or consuming the drug, and the government has to use taxpayers’ money to sustain such people in prison. Since these actions do not limit consumption of marijuana, state governments should legalize the drug so as to save taxpayers money.

Another advantage of marijuana is that it is less noxious than other legal substances. According to research, marijuana is the least harmful drug among the many legal drugs existent in the world today (Owen, 2014). There are millions of campaigns every year cautioning people against smoking cigarettes, but there has been none seeking to warn people about marijuana consumption (Owen, 2014). Lobby groups have even been making efforts to push for legalization of marijuana. If marijuana had severe health effects as many purport, state governments would be investing heavily in campaigns aimed at discouraging its consumption (Owen, 2014). According to studies, alcohol, which is legal in many countries, is 114 times more harmful than marijuana (Owen, 2014). Therefore, if such harmful substances can be legalized, then there are no justifications as to why marijuana should not be legalized.

Further, marijuana has been proven to have medicinal benefits. Several countries, particularly in Europe, and the United States have legalized both medicinal and recreational marijuana. Their move to legalize marijuana was based on medical reports that showed a variety of health benefits linked to the drug (Noonan, 2017). Research shows that marijuana can reduce seizures in epileptic persons. Several studies have also proven that the drug indeed has a variety of health benefits. For instance, Charlotte Figi, who is now aged 10, used to have more than 100 seizures every month at age three, but since Colorado legalized medicinal and recreational marijuana, her parents started treating her with the substance, and today her seizures have significantly reduced (Noonan, 2017). Marijuana has as well been proven to reduce nausea in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. Owing to this medicinal value, state governments should consider legalizing the drug.

Additionally, marijuana has been proven to be a stress reliever. Consumption of the drug causes excitement among its users enabling them to forget about troubling situations. Unlike alcohol which is likely to aggravate stress and depression, marijuana works wonders in alleviating anxiety and depression (Sanger, 2017). There are many health and social effects associated with stress, including mental disorders and violence against others (Sanger, 2017). To avoid cases of stress-related violence and mental disorders, state governments should make marijuana consumption legal.

There are many misconceptions about marijuana in the world today. People have continued to ignore the health benefits linked with this substance and have instead focused on citing yet-to-be proven misconceptions. Owing to the ability of the drug to stop seizures, nausea, and stress in individuals, governments should seriously consider its legalization. The legalization will also help state governments reduce expenses that result from sustaining suspects convicted of marijuana possession and consumption. So far, there is more than enough evidence proving that marijuana has lots of benefits to individuals, the society, and the government, and therefore should be legalized.

Head, T. (2016). “8 reasons why marijuana should be legalized”. ThoughtCo . Retrieved June 27, 2020 from https://www.thoughtco.com/reasons-why-marijuana-should-be-legalized-721154

Markol, T. (2018). “5 reasons why marijuana should be legalized”. Marijuana Reform . Retrieved June 27, 2020 from http://marijuanareform.org/5-reasons-marijuana-legalized/

Noonan, D. (2017). “Marijuana treatment reduces severe epileptic seizures”. Scientific American . Retrieved June 27, 2020 from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/marijuana-treatment-reduces-severe-epileptic-seizures/

Owen, P. (2014). “6 powerful reasons to legalize marijuana”. New York Times . Retrieved June 27, 2020 from https://www.alternet.org/drugs/6-powerful-reasons-new-york-times-says-end-marijuana-prohibition

Sanger, B. (2017). “10 legit reasons why weed should be legalized right now”. Herb . Retrieved June 27, 2020 from https://herb.co/marijuana/news/reasons-weed-legalized

Why Marijuana Should be Legal Essay Outline

Thesis:  Marijuana has health benefits and should thus be legal.

Benefits of Marijuana

Marijuana slows and stops the spread of cancer cells.

• Cannabidiol can turn off a gene called Id-1 and can therefore stop cancer.
• In an experiment, researchers were able to treat breast cancer cells with Cannabidiol.

Marijuana helps with pain and nausea reduction for people going through chemotherapy.

• Cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy suffer from severe pains and nausea.
• This can further complicate their health.
• Marijuana can stir up their appetite, decrease nausea, and reduce pain.

Paragraph  3:

Marijuana can control epileptic seizure.

• Marijuana extract stopped seizures in epileptic rats in ten hours.
• The seizures were controlled by the THC.

Disadvantages of Marijuana

Marijuana is addictive.

• One in ten marijuana users become addicted over time.
• If one stops using the drug abruptly, they may suffer from such withdrawal symptoms.

Marijuana use decreases mental health.

• Users suffer from memory loss and restricted blood flow to the brain.
• Users have higher chances of developing depression and schizophrenia.

Marijuana use damages the lungs more than cigarette smoking .

• Marijuana smokers inhale the smoke more deeply into their lungs and let it stay there for longer.
• The likelihood of lung cancer can be increased by this deeper, longer exposure to carcinogens.

Why Marijuana Should Be Legal

Paragraph 7:

Improved quality and safety control.

• Legalization would lead to the creation of a set of standards for safety and quality control.
• Users would know what they exactly get in exchange for the money they offer.
• There would be no risks of users taking in unknown substances mixed in marijuana.

Paragraph 8:

Marijuana has a medicinal value.

• Medical marijuana treats a wide assortment of “untreatable” diseases and conditions.
• Public health would be improved and the healthcare system would experience less of a drain.  

Paragraph 9: 

Among the major arguments against marijuana legalization is often that legalization would yield an increase in drug-impaired driving.

• This argument holds that even now when the drug is yet to be fully legalized in the country, it is a major causal factor in highway deaths, injuries, and crushes.
• It however beats logic why marijuana is illegalized on the ground that it would increase drug-impaired driving while alcohol is legal but also significantly contributes to the same problem.

Legalization of marijuana would have many benefits. The drug is associated with the treatment of many serious illnesses including the dreaded cancer. Legalization would also save users from consuming unsafe marijuana sold by unscrupulous people.

Why Marijuana Should Be Legal Essay

There is an ongoing tension between the belief that marijuana effectively treats a wide range of ailments and the argument that it has far-reaching negative health effects. There has nevertheless been a drive towards legalization of the drug in the United States with twenty nine states and the District of Columbia having legalized it for medical and recreational purposes. It was also found by a study that there is a sharp increase in the use of marijuana across the country (Kerr, Lui & Ye, 2017). Major public health concerns are being prompted by this rise. This should however not be the case because marijuana has health benefits and should thus be legal.

Marijuana slows and stops the spread of cancer cells. A study found that Cannabidiol can turn off a gene called Id-1 and can therefore stop cancer. A 2007 report by researchers at California Pacific Medical Center in San Francisco also indicated that the spread of cancer may be prevented by Cannabidiol. In their lab experiment, the researchers were able to treat breast cancer cells with this component (Nawaz, 2017). The positive outcome of the experiment showed that Id-1 expression had been significantly decreased.

Marijuana also helps with pain and nausea reduction for people going through chemotherapy. Cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy suffer from severe pains, appetite loss, vomiting, and painful nausea. This can further complicate their already deteriorating health. Marijuana can be of help here by stirring up the appetite, decreasing nausea, and reducing pain (Nawaz, 2017). There are also other cannabinoid drugs used for the same purposes as approved by the FDA.

It was additionally shown by a 2003 study that the use of marijuana can control epileptic seizure. Synthetic marijuana and marijuana extracts were given to epileptic rats by Virginia Commonwealth University’s Robert J. DeLorenzo. In about ten hours, the seizures had been stopped by the drugs (Nawaz, 2017). It was found that the seizures were controlled by the THC which bound the brain cells responsible for regulating relaxation and controlling excitability.

Some scientists claim that marijuana is addictive. According to them, one in ten marijuana users become addicted over time. They argue that if one stops using the drug abruptly, they may suffer from such withdrawal symptoms as anxiety and irritability (Barcott, 2015). However, the same argument could be applied to cigarette smoking, which is notably legal. There is need for more studies to be conducted into this claim being spread by opponents of marijuana legalization.

It is also argued that marijuana use decreases mental health. Those opposed to the legalization of recreational marijuana like to cite studies that show that users of the drug suffer from memory loss and restricted blood flow to the brain. They also argue that users have higher chances of developing depression and schizophrenia. However, these assertions have not yet been completely ascertained by science (Barcott, 2015). The claim about depression and schizophrenia is particularly not clear because researchers are not sure whether the drug triggers the conditions or it is used by smokers to alleviate the symptoms.

It is further claimed that marijuana use damages the lungs more than cigarette smoking. It is presumed that marijuana smokers inhale the smoke more deeply into their lungs and let it stay there for longer. The likelihood of lung cancer, according to this argument, can be increased by this deeper, longer exposure to carcinogens. However, the argument touches not on the frequency of use between marijuana and cigarette smokers (Barcott, 2015). It neither takes into account such alternative administration methods as edibles, tinctures, and vaporizing.

Legalization of marijuana would lead to improved quality and safety control. Purchasing the drug off the street provides end users with no means of knowing what they are exactly getting. On the other hand, legalizing it would immediately lead to the creation of a set of standards for safety and quality control (Caulkins, Kilmer & Kleiman, 2016). This would certainly work in the marijuana industry just as it is working in the tobacco and alcohol industries. Users would be able to know what they exactly get in exchange for the money they offer. Additionally, there would be no risks of users taking in unknown substances mixed in marijuana sold on the streets.

Marijuana should also be legal because it has a medicinal value. It has been proven that medical marijuana treats a wide assortment of “untreatable” diseases and conditions. These include problems due to chemotherapy, cancer, post-traumatic stress disorder, migraines, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, and Crohn’s disease (Caulkins, Kilmer & Kleiman, 2016). Public health would be improved and the healthcare system would experience less of a drain if medical cannabis products were made available to those suffering from the mentioned conditions. Consequently, more public funds would be available for such other public service initiatives as schools and roads.

Among the major arguments against marijuana legalization is often that legalization would yield an increase in drug-impaired driving. This argument holds that even now when the drug is yet to be fully legalized in the country, it has already been cited to be a major causal factor in highway deaths, injuries, and crushes. Among the surveys those arguing along this line might cite is one that was conducted back in 2010, revealing that of the participating weekend night-time drivers, “8.6 percent tested positive for marijuana or its metabolites” (“Why We Should Not Legalize Marijuana,” 2010). It was found in yet another study that 26.9% of drivers who were being attended to at a trauma center after sustaining serious injuries tested positive for the drug (“Why We Should Not Legalize Marijuana,” 2010). It however beats logic why marijuana is illegalized on the ground that it would increase drug-impaired driving while alcohol is legal but also significantly contributes to the same problem.

As the discussion reveals, legalization of marijuana would have many benefits. The drug is associated with the treatment of many serious illnesses including the dreaded cancer. Legalization would also save users from consuming unsafe marijuana sold by unscrupulous people. There are also other health conditions that can be controlled through the drug. Arguments against its legalization based on its effects on human health also lack sufficient scientific support. It is thus only safe that the drug is legalized in all states.

Barcott, B. (2015).  Weed the people: the future of legal marijuana in America . New York, NY: Time Home Entertainment.

Caulkins, J. P., Kilmer, B., & Kleiman, M. (2016).  Marijuana legalization: what everyone needs to know . New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Kerr, W., Lui, C., & Ye, Y. (2017). Trends and age, period and cohort effects for marijuana use prevalence in the 1984-2015 US National Alcohol Surveys.  Addiction ,  113 (3), 473-481.

Nawaz, H. (2017).  The debate between legalizing marijuana and its benefits for medical purposes: a pros and cons analysis . Munich, Germany: GRIN Verlag.

Why We Should Not Legalize Marijuana. (2010). In  CNBC . Retrieved June 25, 2020 from  https://www.cnbc.com/id/36267223 .

More examples of Argumentative Essays written by our team of quality writers

• Same Sex Marriage Argumentative Essay, with Outline
• American Patriotism Argumentative Essay
• Euthanasia Argumentative Essay Sample
• Artificial Intelligence Argumentative Essay
• Argumentative Essay on Abortion – Sample Essay
• Gun Control Argumentative Essay – Sample Essay
• Can Money Buy Happiness Argumentative Essay
• Illegal Immigration Argumentative Essay

 There are typical mistakes most students make when writing their argumentative papers . When writing your argumentative essay you ought to understand that it calls for the ability to present facts, provide supportive evidence, and use logical reasoning to illustrate points. This will help you write a quality paper.

You can relieve yourself all the tussle by buying an argumentative essay  from a trustworthy argumentative essay help service. Hire Gudwriter now and you will never regret it.

Special offer! Get 20% discount on your first order. Promo code: SAVE20

Related Posts

Free essays and research papers, artificial intelligence argumentative essay – with outline.

Artificial Intelligence Argumentative Essay Outline In recent years, Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become one of the rapidly developing fields and as its capabilities continue to expand, its potential impact on society has become a topic Read more…

Synthesis Essay Example – With Outline

The goal of a synthesis paper is to show that you can handle in-depth research, dissect complex ideas, and present the arguments. Most college or university students have a hard time writing a synthesis essay, Read more…

Examples of Spatial Order – With Outline

A spatial order is an organizational style that helps in the presentation of ideas or things as is in their locations. Most students struggle to understand the meaning of spatial order in writing and have Read more…

March 1, 2024

Is Marijuana Bad for Health? Here’s What We Know So Far

Marijuana’s health impacts—good and bad—are coming into focus

By Jesse Greenspan

Cappi Thompson/Getty Images

With decades of legal and social opprobrium fading fast, marijuana has become an extremely popular commercial product with more than 48 million users across the U.S. Health concerns, once exaggerated, now often seem to be downplayed or overlooked. For example, pregnant patients “often tell me they had no idea there's any risk,” says University of Utah obstetrician Torri Metz, lead author of a recent paper in the Journal of the American Medical Association on cannabis and adverse pregnancy outcomes.

Fortunately, legal reforms are also gradually making it easier to study marijuana's health effects by giving U.S. scientists more access to the drug and a wider population of users to study. Although much research remains in “early stages,” the number of studies has finally been increasing, says Tiffany Sanchez, an environmental health scientist at Columbia University. As new results accumulate, they offer a long-overdue update on what science really knows about the drug.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

In addition to minor side effects that many users joke about—such as short-term memory loss—recent studies have linked marijuana to adverse health outcomes involving the lungs, heart, brain and gonads. For example, heavy marijuana consumption seems to increase the risk of clogged arteries and heart failure , and it may impact male fertility . Smoking weed likewise can lead to chronic bronchitis and other respiratory ailments (although, unlike tobacco, it hasn't been definitively tied to lung cancer). And cannabis plants hyperaccumulate metal pollutants, such as lead, which Sanchez found can enter users' bloodstreams .

Developing adolescent brains, particularly those predisposed to mental illness, may be most at risk from overconsumption. Although psychiatric effects are hotly debated , studies suggest that heavy weed use exacerbates—or may trigger— schizophrenia , psychosis and depression in youths and that it affects behavior and academic performance. “From a safety viewpoint, young people should definitely stay away from it,” says University of Ottawa psychiatrist Marco Solmi, lead author of a recent review of cannabis and health in the British Medical Journal .

24 states have legalized recreational marijuana, with 38 allowing medical use

Moreover, the drug can cross over to fetuses during pregnancy. Several studies have linked it to low birth weights , and researchers suspect it raises the likelihood of neonatal intensive care unit admissions and stillbirths . Some cannabis dispensaries have advertised their products as a cure for morning sickness, but Metz emphasizes that safer alternatives exist.

Of course, many adults use marijuana responsibly for pleasure and relaxation. Unlike with, say, opioids, there's effectively zero risk of life-threatening overdose. Plus, “people get addicted with tobacco way faster,” says Columbia University epidemiologist Silvia Martins, who studies substance use and related laws.

Cannabis, and its derivatives, also may help alleviate pain—although some researchers contend that it performs little better than a placebo . It may also decrease chemotherapy-induced nausea, calm epileptic seizures , ease the symptoms of multiple sclerosis and serve as a sleep aid .

Recent studies have hinted that the drug might slightly reduce opioid dependency rates, although this, too, is disputed . There's some evidence that weed users tend to be more empathetic , and researchers found that elderly mice get a mental boost from the drug. Still, experts caution against self-medicating: “You should ask your doctor,” Solmi says.

Some of the recent research into marijuana is more lighthearted. One study, for instance, found that, just like people, nematode worms dosed with cannabis get the munchies .

• Undergraduate
• High School
• Architecture
• American History
• Asian History
• Antique Literature
• American Literature
• Asian Literature
• Classic English Literature
• World Literature
• Creative Writing
• Linguistics
• Criminal Justice
• Legal Issues
• Anthropology
• Archaeology
• Political Science
• World Affairs
• African-American Studies
• East European Studies
• Latin-American Studies
• Native-American Studies
• West European Studies
• Family and Consumer Science
• Social Issues
• Women and Gender Studies
• Social Work
• Natural Sciences
• Pharmacology
• Earth science
• Agriculture
• Agricultural Studies
• Computer Science
• IT Management
• Mathematics
• Investments
• Engineering and Technology
• Engineering
• Aeronautics
• Medicine and Health
• Alternative Medicine
• Communications and Media
• Advertising
• Communication Strategies
• Public Relations
• Educational Theories
• Teacher's Career
• Chicago/Turabian
• Company Analysis
• Education Theories
• Shakespeare
• Canadian Studies
• Food Safety
• Relation of Global Warming and Extreme Weather Condition
• Movie Review
• Admission Essay

Annotated Bibliography

• Application Essay
• Article Critique
• Article Review
• Article Writing
• Book Review
• Business Plan
• Business Proposal
• Capstone Project
• Cover Letter
• Creative Essay
• Dissertation
• Dissertation - Abstract
• Dissertation - Conclusion
• Dissertation - Discussion
• Dissertation - Hypothesis
• Dissertation - Introduction
• Dissertation - Literature
• Dissertation - Methodology
• Dissertation - Results
• GCSE Coursework
• Grant Proposal
• Marketing Plan
• Multiple Choice Quiz
• Personal Statement
• Power Point Presentation
• Power Point Presentation With Speaker Notes
• Questionnaire
• Reaction Paper
• Research Paper
• Research Proposal
• SWOT analysis
• Thesis Paper
• Online Quiz
• Literature Review
• Movie Analysis
• Statistics problem
• Math Problem
• All papers examples
• How It Works
• Money Back Policy
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• We Are Hiring

Pros and Cons of Medical Marijuana, Essay Example

Pages: 6

Words: 1650

Hire a Writer for Custom Essay

Use 10% Off Discount: "custom10" in 1 Click 👇

You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work.

Introduction

Few issues remain as controversial as that of legalizing marijuana for medical purposes.  Certain states have enacted statutes which decriminalize marijuana as a medical aid prescribed by physicians, and others are under strong pressure to do so.   The therapeutic benefits of marijuana, proponents insist, far outweigh any negative consequences.   These same arguments typically include comparison with control substances which are legal, such as alcohol and tobacco, and yet which are known to create dangerous health conditions.   Meanwhile, opponents tend to refer to the psychoactive elements of marijuana as pernicious and dangerous, no matter the established benefits. This faction commonly argues that, if alcohol is legal and dangerous, there is no need to make another threatening agent so accessible.

When the pros and cons of medicinal marijuana are examined, it seems evident that a pervasive bias still is responsible for the controversy, as well as the illegality of it in many states. There are, to be sure, certain issues of questionable consequences from marijuana use, but this is true of virtually every medicinal substance already legalized and used. That marijuana continues to be identified with an undesirable subculture, an association dating back to the tumultuous period of the 1960s, may be a strong factor in blocking its acceptance. What is most important, however, is recognizing that the legal, medicinal use of marijuana does not encourage its use as a recreational substance. Legalization of medicinal marijuana, simply,  would provide for relieving a great deal of discomfort and pain in those suffering from a variety of illnesses.

As will be shortly demonstrated, marijuana offers an enormous benefit to those in physical and/or emotional distress. It is, however, as naïve to assert that marijuana is wholly free of potential dangers to health as it is to unquestioningly refute its therapeutic properties. The reality is that cannabinoids are psychoactive compounds, and cannabis, or marijuana, contains over fifty of these. One study of people under the age of twenty-five who used marijuana on a daily basis concluded that their risk of exhibiting psychotic symptoms was double that of non-users (Freberg  119). This is clearly a potentially dangerous effect, even as it must be as well acknowledged that daily use of even the most mild psychoactive compounds may generate similar results.

This relates, in fact, to the most prominent objection raised against marijuana as a medicinal treatment: the psychoactive properties. While there are no documented cases of fatalities as occurring from either the smoking or eating of cannabis, the reality is that the psychoactive properties of marijuana vary greatly, depending upon where and how the plant is cultivated. What this translates to is, ultimately, an unknown factor; that is to say, while most users never experience anything like an extreme, hallucinatory reaction to marijuana, some are reported to have undergone disturbingly “psychedelic” experiences (Mehling, Triggle  18).  The basic nature of psychoactive compounds inevitably translates to their effects as being completely dependent on the mind and physical being of the person ingesting them, and the marijuana merely soothing one individual may create mental distress in another. It is ironic,  that the same, soothing effect proponents of marijuana point to as validating its use as a medicine are those turned to by opponents to legalizing it. Simply, it affects the brain as a drug, and this is intrinsically a possible health threat. It may not be a substantial one, but it exists.

Then, one measure of a substance’s adverse effects is what occurs when using it ceases, which goes to the notorious “withdrawal” issues. In this arena, as in most others, evidence regarding marijuana is hopelessly conflicted, and also marked by decided agendas. For example, it is established that great numbers of users report absolutely no negative effects upon ending marijuana use, while other studies have documented that people who smoke it for brief spans of time suffer anxiety upon ending the usage (Earleywine  38). Data is widespread but, in this perpetually controversial subject, never actually conclusive.  It appears very much to be a case of information that may be applied to support any stance at all.

That said, the inescapable fact remains that marijuana is used for its psychoactive components, and any such agents are inherently unpredictable.   As they are attractive to many, so too may they easily become, or be used in a way as, addictive.  Then, this question of addiction arises simply because psychological addiction is as potent as the physical variety.  There is no evidence at all pointing to marijuana as physically addictive, and it is in fact lacking in the nicotine that makes tobacco addictive. Nonetheless, it must be acknowledged that the pleasant effects marijuana creates may easily lead to dependence. In this respect, it is remarkably similar to alcohol, in that dependence may be a consequence of any degree of usage, varying with the constitution of the user.  Marijuana is, therefore, potentially addictive.  Even as prescribed by a physician, this may be a result of its usage.

Interestingly, marijuana as a medicine is by no means new in the U.S. Before it was designated an illegal substance in 1937, it was both widely enjoyed in a  recreational way, and prescribed by physicians to alleviate a wide variety of conditions (Gieringer, Rosenthal, Carter  3). Until popular feeling identified marijuana as a symbol of counterculture, revolt, and social unrest, it was a commonly accessed source of relief from pain and disease.

The reasons are well known.  Virtually every independent study on the subject has determined that cannabinoid agents, such as are present in marijuana, are typically helpful in therapeutically treating nausea and pain relief, and in stimulating appetite control. This makes them particularly valuable as aids when other treatments for disease, such as chemotherapy, disrupt digestive functions in these manners.  Patients undergoing severe discomfort, or even unable to maintain a degree of diet and health essential in combating a serious illness, are able to take in and retain nutrition because of marijuana’s soothing effects on the digestive system. Similarly, the same data supports that marijuana is greatly effective in reducing stress and anxiety,  also common effects of serious and/or terminal illnesses (Burns 127).   The individual experiencing physical pain or discomfort through illness, or as a side effect of illness, is better enabled to live normally.

Then, not all cases of extreme stress or psychological distress are results of other ailments.  A wide variety of emotional and neurological conditions are relieved by marijuana; simply, it relaxes the mind and induces tranquility.   Furthermore, those states which have legalized medical marijuana enumerate the many diseases alleviated by its use.   Colorado lists some of the qualifying conditions for which marijuana is prescribed, and the roster includes some of the most severe illnesses patients endure.  The appetite stimulation aspect of marijuana, for example, makes it a distinctly effective weapon against Cachexia, which occurs when other factors bring about a weight loss dangerous to the patient.  Cachexia is, in fact, the condition referred to earlier as possibly a result of chemotherapy; it exists when illness is so debilitating, the patient is no longer able to take in sufficient nutrition independent of intravenous feeding.  Marijuana often renders that emergency resource unnecessary.

Cancer, not unexpectedly, is also eased by marijuana use, as patients of it are in urgent need of a calming agent.  This calming effect of marijuana on the body and the nervous system has also been documented as a significant aid in diminishing both the frequency and severity of epileptic attacks.   Similarly, marijuana acts to ease many of the palsy symptoms of Multiple Sclerosis, or MS, as the drug has been shown to improve balance, eyesight, and speech in MS patients. These diseases, along with HIV and others, are consistently eased by the use of marijuana (CMM), and increasing numbers of physicians are joining with citizens to demand that medicinal usage of it be legalized nationally.

Conclusion and Personal Reflection

It is tempting, in asserting the opinion that medicinal marijuana be legally allowed, to point to the various other control substances that offer little to no medical benefits and which are completely legal.   Alcohol, as is well known, is responsible for many thousands of fatalities on highways, as well as addictions that destroy lives, yet it may be purchased by any adult in any state.  Tobacco is established as being instrumental in generating cancers, yet only discreet warnings accompany its completely legal sale to adults.  Moreover, neither substance is viewed as a valid agent in treating illness, as marijuana is.

Turning to such arguments, however, is unnecessary, because the facts speak for themselves.  Whether or not marijuana should be a legal, recreational substance is not the issue; what is being debated is its value as prescribed by licensed physicians, and that so many are in favor of its legalization is no insignificant fact in itself. Then, substantial research irrefutably supports that marijuana’s effects are typically beneficial to those suffering from a wide variety of diseases, as well as for those undergoing distress due to other treatments. That marijuana may be addictive is also a largely irrelevant consideration, as many medicines, such as morphine, are addictive.  It is the discretion of the prescribing physician that safeguards them, as is the case with marijuana.   Given the vast amounts of information known about marijuana, and the equally striking absence of documentation of its having dangerous effects, it is unconscionable that, in today’s world, desperately ill people are being denied this readily available form of aid.

Works Cited

Burns, M.  Medical-Legal Aspects of Drugs.  Tucson, AZ: Lawyers & Judges Publishing Company, Inc., 2007.  Print.

Colorado Medicinal Marijuana. “Colorado Medical Marijuana Qualifying Conditions.” Retrieved from http://coloradomedicalmarijuana.com/qualifying-conditions.htm

Earleywine, M.   Understanding Marijuana: A New Look at the Scientific Evidence.  New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2002.  Print.

Freberg, L.  Discovering Biological Psychology.  Belmont, CA: Cengage learning, 2009.  Print.

Gieringer, D.,  Ph.D,  Rosenthal, E., & Carter, G. T. Marijuana Medical Handbook: Practical Guide to the Therapeutic Uses of Marijuana.  Oakland, CA: Quick American, 2008.  Print.

Mehling, R., & Triggle, D. J.  Marijuana.  New York, NY: Chelsea House Publishers, 2007. Print.

Stuck with your Essay?

Get in touch with one of our experts for instant help!

Short Story by Kate Chopin, Essay Example

Curtail Bashing Walmart, Annotated Bibliography Example

Time is precious

don’t waste it!

Plagiarism-free guarantee

Privacy guarantee

Secure checkout

Money back guarantee

Related Essay Samples & Examples

Voting as a civic responsibility, essay example.

Pages: 1

Words: 287

Utilitarianism and Its Applications, Essay Example

Words: 356

The Age-Related Changes of the Older Person, Essay Example

Pages: 2

Words: 448

The Problems ESOL Teachers Face, Essay Example

Pages: 8

Words: 2293

Should English Be the Primary Language? Essay Example

Pages: 4

Words: 999

The Term “Social Construction of Reality”, Essay Example

Words: 371

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy .

Legalizing medical marijuana in the Philippines: A pharmacist’s perspective

In the past few days, Sen. Robinhood Padilla has been making headlines for pushing the legalization of medical marijuana for compassionate use in the Philippines.

This news is not new to me since I’ve been following its legalization process since 2017 when the House of Representatives granted the medical marijuana bill, a step forward to becoming law despite the Duterte administration’s war on drugs.

Marijuana or cannabis is legal in some countries like Uruguay and Canada, and in some US states like Colorado. Thailand is the first Southeast Asian nation to decriminalize the growing and selling of cannabis. Thais even celebrate a cannabis festival that undoubtedly attracts tourists and helps boost their economy, especially in the post-pandemic era.

Like marijuana, some of the substances that we are consuming can be habit-forming. These include alcohol, tobacco, and coffee. They are “gateway drugs” whose use can lead to the dependence on a harder drug such as cocaine or heroin.

The oldest evidence of marijuana use can be traced back to a 2,500-year-old cemetery in China. Even old texts such as “Ebers Papyrus” from Ancient Egypt and “De Materia Medica” by Greek physician Dioscorides described medical cannabis. Cannabis was also used in religious practices such as in India and is allegedly used as a component of holy anointing oil mentioned in some parts of the Bible like Exodus.

It is important to note that marijuana contains the principal mind-altering constituent called tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). This is the cannabinoid responsible for the “high” feeling and can interrupt critical tasks such as driving and machine operation. However, there are existing drug forms of THC, such as dronabinol, used to treat nausea and vomiting caused by cancer chemotherapy and to increase appetite in people with HIV/AIDS.

Aside from THC, cannabidiol (CBD) is also a prevalent cannabinoid and is essential in medical marijuana. In humans, CBD exhibits no effects indicative of any addiction and some clinical studies suggest that CBD has broad therapeutic uses, including rare forms of epilepsy and chronic pain.

Currently, marijuana in the country is classified as a dangerous drug under the Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Despite this, terminally ill patients may apply for a special permit from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for compassionate purposes.

By account, marijuana is not the only medicinal plant that has a history of addiction. Opium poppy is the plant source of the powerful painkiller, morphine, especially used for cancer-related pain. Another is the coca plant, which is the source of the psychoactive stimulant, cocaine, that was once used for anesthesia. Before it was banned, cocaine was, in fact, the main ingredient in soft drinks.

While marijuana will only be used for medical purposes, the problem when it is legalized is the implementation of the law. Unfortunately, the Philippines is excellent at making a law, but not at implementing it. It could be prone to regulatory oversight. The ways in which medical marijuana has to be approved, prescribed, dosed, stored, and made available to the public will be very different from other prescription drugs. This will require a series of research and validations. Even though there is an enormous amount of research about marijuana from other countries like the US, these studies cannot be deemed similar to the marijuana grown on Philippine soil. Marijuana plants that are not cultivated in the same soil and environment would have a different plant chemistry and will not produce similar compounds even though they look morphologically the same. Because of this variation, results might have different safety profiles and might not exert the same therapeutic effects. There will still be a long journey before we see definite results.

Although the training of medical cannabis physicians and pharmacists is part of the bill, it is also critical that marijuana use should be taught in detail in medical and pharmacy schools, especially on treatment, dose, and route of administration.

Nevertheless, let us be open to the potential wonders of this disputed plant. If legalized, I hope it will be patient-oriented and research-oriented, with proper regulation and taxation.

Teresa Bandiola,

licensed pharmacist,

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

Quezon City

Fearless views on the news

Disclaimer: Comments do not represent the views of INQUIRER.net. We reserve the right to exclude comments which are inconsistent with our editorial standards. FULL DISCLAIMER

© copyright 1997-2024 inquirer.net | all rights reserved.

We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. By continuing, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. To find out more, please click this link.

• Subscribe Now

Law students debate on legalizing medical marijuana in PH

Already have Rappler+? Sign in to listen to groundbreaking journalism.

This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.

MANILA, Philippines – Is it time to legalize the medical use of marijuana in the Philippines? 

Debaters from the Ateneo de Manila University Law School and the University of Sto Tomas (UST) Law School discussed the issue at  “The Law and Policy Debate: An Inter-university Dialogue”  held at the House of Representatives on Tuesday, June 9.

It has been more than a year since Isabela 1st District Representative Rodolfo Albano III filed House Bill 4477 or the Compassionate Use of Medical Cannabis Bill, and it already has 69 co-authors to date.

The two debate teams argued on the necessity to passs  HB 4477 , with Ateneo on the affirmative side, and UST on the negative side. (READ:  PH doctors say no to medical marijuana bill )

While no team was declared a winner, Ateneo’s second affirmative speaker Pearl Simbulan was chosen as both Best Speaker and Best Interpellator.

Simbulan argued that legalizing medical marijuana will provide more options to patients who need it. It will also allow research and development on the “better uses” of marijuana  to continue.

The adjudicators were former Philippine Permanent Representative to the World Trade Organization Manuel Teehankee, Likhaan director and co-founder Junice Melgar, and Malou Tiquia, host of CNN Philippines’ current affairs program Agenda.

Debate arguments

Below are the arguments of each speaker:

ATENEO LAW SCHOOL

1st affirmative speaker: John Michael Villanueva

• There is a necessity to pass this bill in order to comply with the constitutional mandates and international obligations of promoting the right to health.
• There is a need to distinguish between the ill and the criminals, which can only be done by this bill.

2nd affirmative speaker: Pearl Simbulan

• Legalizing medical marijuana is the only and the best comprehensive approach to health. What we think in legalizing medical marijuana is that we provide the optimal care: [providing] a range of options that a physician who is in the best position to make these decisions can do for the patient.
• Because we illegalized blanketly marijuana, research on these kinds of things stopped, and it has become harder for us to discover even better uses of marijuana.

3rd affirmative speaker: Patrick Vincent Cocabo

“The q uestion should not be whether marijuana is good or bad, but rather, how can we control it? What is the best strategy to save lives?”

• Government regulation is important. 
• The bill provides an important mechanism of checks and balances of citizen accountability. 

UST LAW SCHOOL

1st negative speaker: Marie Sybil Tropicales

• Medical marijuana should not be legalized because at present, its detriments outweigh its benefits.  Medical marijuana is not necessary for legislation because essentially, it is not a cure in itself.

2nd negative speaker: John Paul Fabella

“The contentious documented benefits of medical marijuana cannot outweigh its adverse effects to the government and society.”

• On a socio-political level: Legalization sends a wrong message to public, especially to the youth, that marijuana is medically benevolent and not a harmful drug. The state cannot afford to risk our society to the dangers of increased marijuana use by implying a stance that it is not harmful.
• Legalizing medical marijuana is not advantageous to the government.
• Documented benefits are highly contentious at the moment and inconclusive.
• It undermines law enforcement by forcing officers to distinguish medical users and recreational users.

3rd negative speaker: Jackielyn Bana

• Is government ready for this? There are too much gray areas in the policy implementation at present, that no matter how noble the objective of the law is, that no matter how flawless its features are, it all go to waste because of the corrupt implementation of the laws.
• Example: Regulating tobacco, alocohol, sleeping pills, and prescription drugs
• This country has a problem with strict and faithful implementation of government policies and regulations. 
• What guarantee do we have that a seriously addictive drug could be regulated when simple regulations on tobacco and alcohol products prove to be impossible to impose?
• Once marijuana is legalized, there is no possibility of regulating it.

Adjudicators comment

The adjudicators welcomed the law students’ interest in discussing the advantages and disadvantages of legalizing medical marijuana in the Philippines. (READ:  Solon: Let’s start talking about medical marijuana )

“I’m happy that the youth are taking positions especially on an issue which is very, very real in your sector,” Tiquia said after all interpellations were done. She lauded the bill for being “very rigid,” and disagreed with UST’s Fabella that regulating marijuana means legitimizing it. 

Melgar noted how “selective” the bill is on legalizing marijuana only for medical use. (READ:  When medicines fail, marijuana is moms’ last hope )

“All the public knows about marijuana is the stereotype, that it’s all for getting high, and nobody shines a light on the few instances where it is the most compassionate for children who have epilepsy, for patients who have cancer,” Melgar added.

HB 4477 is still pending with the House committee on health. Albano said it is possible to enact the bill during the 16th Congress, but admitted the probability is “iffy” and will depend “on how fast they will settle the issue on the BBL (Bangsamoro Basic Law).”

Albano said Congress is “focused” on the Bangsamoro Basic Law, which  reached the House plenary on June 1. 

Tuesday’s debate was organized by the Teehankee Center for the Rule of Law and Ateneo’s St Thomas More Debate and Advocacy Society, in partnership with the Office of Representative Albano and the Office of Ang Nars party-list Representative Leah Paquiz.  – Rappler.com

Medical marijuana image from Shutterstock

Add a comment

Please abide by Rappler's commenting guidelines .

There are no comments yet. Add your comment to start the conversation.

How does this make you feel?

Related Topics

Jee Y. Geronimo

Recommended stories, {{ item.sitename }}, {{ item.title }}.

Checking your Rappler+ subscription...

Upgrade to Rappler+ for exclusive content and unlimited access.

Why is it important to subscribe? Learn more

You are subscribed to Rappler+

Flip through today’s papers

AMNY Newsletter

Tackle the city, with our help..

Manage your settings.

Why this New York Congress member wants President Biden to pardon some individuals convicted of non-violent cannabis crimes

U.S. Congress members from New York and two other states are urging President Joe Biden to grant clemency to anyone incarcerated in federal prison for non-violent cannabis offenses — citing benefits for not only those who are released, but communities across the country. 

U.S. Congress Member Dan Goldman (D-Manhattan and Brooklyn) is leading the charge locally. In a letter penned in collaboration with Congress Members Barbara Lee of California and Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, Goldman mentioned the Marijuana Opportunity, Reinvested and Expungement (MORE) Act introduced in 2021 that would, among other things, expunge the convictions related to federal cannabis offenses and impose an excise tax on cannabis products produced in or imported into the United States. 

Doomscroll and Fret… Or Roll Up Your Sleeves and Dive In

Talk it out: lgbtq voices in a queer election year.

The MORE Act is one of many federal cannabis reform bills being looked at by Congress. The bill, if passed, would create Small Business Administration loans and services available to entities that are “cannabis-related legitimate businesses or service providers.”

“Following the public’s lead, the U.S. House of Representatives twice passed the Marijuana Opportunity, Reinvestment, and Expungement Act to ensure that these programs work as intended and the revenue generated can be reinvested into the communities most harmed under criminalization,” the letter states. “The bill also provides for resentencing and expungement of marijuana offenses.”

New York legalized recreational marijuana in 2021. New Yorkers with previous marijuana convictions are among the first to get state licenses to sell the drug. Taxes from those sales go into a NYS Cannabis Revenue Fund helps support services within the state including education and community revitalization efforts such as housing and job placement services, according to New York State official documents . 

In addition to generating tax revenue from legalized sales, the Congress members also said in their letter that pardoning federal marijuana offenses would help close the gap on racial disparities in the criminal justice system.

“ For decades, unfair cannabis policies have led to unjust incarcerations and worsened racial disparities in the criminal justice system, with people of color representing a disproportionate rate of marijuana arrests,” the letter states. “The continuation of the outdated cannabis prohibition would represent a miscarriage of justice impacting all Americans.”

“We now know that the decades of criminalizing marijuana did nothing to keep us safer but shattered the lives of far too many families,” Goldman said. “While Congress works to fully decriminalize marijuana and expunge prior convictions, we urge President Biden to extend clemency to the Americans whose lives were upended by non-violent marijuana convictions. It’s time to give them the second chance they deserve.”

What New Yorkers are saying

Legalizing pot and pardoning cannabis convictions is an issue that has some communities divided across the country. In New York, many people see the benefits of pardoning federal or state marijuana offenses while others are more skeptical. 

“They haven’t committed a crime against another person,” he said. “Even though I disagree with drug use, if someone isn’t harming anyone, we should not throw them in a cage and ruin their life.”

But Percy Pitzer, a former prison warden who also runs the Pitzer Family Education Foundation, a national organization that helps former inmates get back into society, said he has never seen anyone in federal prison merely for possession of marijuana. 

“I’ve seen a number of people in prison for bringing semi-loads in through Mexico or boatloads through Miami, but that’s a different story. I wouldn’t agree that you should pardon people like that,” Pitzer said.

About the Author

Things to do in nyc.

Post an Event

Overcome Your Fear of Public Speaking – NYC (Virtual) – Free Trial

27th Brooklyn Film Festival

Food Truck Festival at the Mount 2024 Mount Loretto

View All Events…

Jobs in New York

Add your job.

• parkingticket.com Court Advocate – NYC Parking Violations Bureau
• Mark Halberstam, Esq. Legal Secretary
• Treatment Action Group Director of Development

View all jobs…

Related Articles

More from around NYC

How bronxites, local pols are reacting to trump’s guilty verdict in hush money case.

Western Queens lawmakers display pro-Palestinian stance: divergence from borough-wide pols

Affordable housing lottery opens at new ‘design-forward’ Bed-Stuy building

Hoylman-Sigal funds mpox vaccines for Pride Month at Ryan Health

Home — Essay Samples — Nursing & Health — Alternative Medicine — Positive Effects of Marijuana’s Impact on Health: Benefits

Positive Effects of Marijuana's Impact on Health: Benefits

• Categories: Alternative Medicine Marijuana Medical Marijuana

About this sample

Words: 1587 |

Published: Feb 12, 2019

Words: 1587 | Pages: 3 | 8 min read

Table of contents

Introduction, positive effects of marijuana on our health, negative effects of marijuanas on our health.

• Marijuana can be smoked .and it’s been prepared with a white plain square paper and the marijuana leaf is been put inside the paper and you use the paper wrap the leaf and tie on one and the other end will be acting like filter in cigarette.
• While some people put the marijuana leaf and mix marijuana in food (edibles), such as brownies, cookies, or candy, or brew it as a tea. A newly popular method of use is smoking or eating different forms of THC-rich resins in most cases it’s been put inside milk or juice.
• Marijuana can also be chewed like meat and some other solid materials that requires chewing. positive effect of marijuana to our health Marijuana have effect on two different occasions. We have the long and short term.in everything we do, we always have merit of that thing and demerit of that same thing.
• Decline in IQ (up to 8 points if prolonged use started in adolescent age)
• Poor school performance and higher chance of dropping out
• Impaired thinking and ability to learn and perform complex tasks
• Lower life satisfaction
• Addiction (about 9% of adults and 17% of people who started smoking as teens)
• Potential development of opiate abuse
• Relationship problems, intimate partner violence
• Antisocial behavior including stealing money or lying
• Financial difficulties
• Increased welfare dependence
• Greater chances of being unemployed or not getting good jobs.
• sexual problems for males
• increases risk of strokes
• slow in reaction
• Loss of sense of personal identity
• increase heart attacks
• short term memory problems.

Short Term Positive Effect of Marijuana in our Health

You may also be interested PSA Citation Generator

Long Term Positive Effect of Marijuana in our Health

How does marijuana affect the brain.

• altered senses (for example, seeing brighter colors)
• altered sense of time
• changes in mood
• impaired body movement difficulty with thinking and problem-solving
• impaired memory
• hallucinations (when taken in high doses)
• delusions (when taken in high doses)
• psychosis (when taken in high doses).

Cannabis plant,person smokes marijuana,chemical THC,oxidative damage,chronic stress,harmful free radicals,Cannabis sativa,Boston study,Cannabis indica plant,minutes of smoking,Marijuana,Oxidative stress,dried leaves,distress call,cannabis vapor,DNA damage,free radicals

Works Cited

• Belendiuk, K. A., Baldini, L. L., Bonn-Miller, M. O. (2015). Narrative review of the safety and efficacy of marijuana for the treatment of commonly state-approved medical and psychiatric disorders. Addiction Science & Clinical Practice, 10(1), 10.
• Blessing, E. M., Steenkamp, M. M., Manzanares, J., & Marmar, C. R. (2015). Cannabidiol as a potential treatment for anxiety disorders. Neurotherapeutics, 12(4), 825-836.
• Davis, M. P. (2016). Cannabinoids for symptom management and cancer therapy: the evidence. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, 14(7), 915-922.
• Huestis, M. A. (2007). Human cannabinoid pharmacokinetics. Chemistry & biodiversity, 4(8), 1770-1804.
• Juknat, A., & Mechoulam, R. (2012). Cannabinoids and inflammatory bowel diseases. Inflammatory bowel diseases, 18(10), 2064-2068.
• Loflin, M., Earleywine, M., & De Leo, J. (2014). Enjoyment and use of marijuana in different ways: Smoking, eating, and vaporizing. Journal of psychoactive drugs, 46(3), 221-227.
• National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2021). Marijuana. https://www.drugabuse.gov/drug-topics/marijuana
• National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). The health effects of cannabis and cannabinoids: the current state of evidence and recommendations for research. National Academies Press.
• Pazos, M. R., Mohammed, N., Lafuente, H., Santos, M., Martínez-Pinilla, E., & Moreno, E. (2013). Mechanisms of cannabidiol neuroprotection in hypoxic-ischemic newborn pigs: role of 5HT(1A) and CB2 receptors. Neuropharmacology, 71, 282-291.
• Volkow, N. D., Baler, R. D., Compton, W. M., & Weiss, S. R. B. (2014). Adverse health effects of marijuana use. New England Journal of Medicine, 370(23), 2219-2227.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Nursing & Health

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays

Natural cures have been around for a long, long time and have been utilized to help cure an assortment of wellbeing concerns. The greater part of the cures utilized before involved chiefly of home grown cures since there were no [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

📕 Studying HQ

Ultimate guide to writing an opinion essay, rachel r.n..

• June 14, 2023
• How to Guides

An opinion essay is often given to students at all levels of schooling. In this type of essay, the writer has to say what they think about a certain topic or issue and back up their point with evidence and examples. Students should learn how to write opinion essays because they teach them how to think critically and how to explain and defend a point of view. Opinion essays are an important part of academic writing, but they are also a great way to learn persuasive communication skills that you can use in your personal and professional life. This article will tell you everything you need to know about how to write an opinion essay. It will also give you 50 examples and ideas to help you get started. We will talk about the basic structure of an opinion essay and how to make a strong argument and back it up with facts and examples.

This guide will give you the tools you need to learn how to write a good opinion essay, whether you are a student looking to improve your academic writing or a professional looking to improve your persuasive communication skills .

What You'll Learn

Understanding Opinion Essays

Opinion essays are a type of academic writing in which the writer has to say what they think about a certain topic or issue. In an opinion essay, the writer should back up their point of view with evidence and examples and try to get the reader to agree with them. The point of opinion essays is to teach students how to think critically and talk in a way that makes others want to agree with them. If students want to do well in school, on the job, and in their personal lives, they need to have these skills. Opinion essays are different from descriptive or narrative essays because the writer has to take a clear stance on a certain topic and back up their claim with evidence and examples. It’s also important to have a clear thesis statement that explains the writer’s point of view.

Elements of an Opinion Essay

An opinion essay typically includes the following elements:

1. Introduction paragraph : The introduction should grab the reader’s attention and provide background information on the topic. It should also include a clear thesis statement that outlines the writer’s position.

2. Body paragraphs: The body of the essay should provide supporting evidence and examples to support the writer’s argument. Each paragraph should focus on a single point and should begin with a topic sentence that relates back to the thesis statement .

3. Supporting evidence and examples: It is important to use evidence and examples to support the writer’s argument. This can include statistics, facts, quotes, and personal experiences.

4. Counter arguments: It’s also important to address counter arguments or opposing viewpoints in an opinion essay. This shows the reader that the writer has considered alternative perspectives and has still arrived at their own position. Addressing counter arguments can also strengthen the writer’s position by showing that they have thought critically about the issue .

5. Conclusion paragraph: The conclusion should summarize the main points of the essay and restate the thesis statement . It should also leave the reader with a final thought or call to action.

Opinion essays are an important genre of academic writing that require critical thinking and persuasive communication skills. To write an effective opinion essay, it is important to have a clear thesis statement , use supporting evidence and examples, address counter arguments, and provide a strong conclusion. By mastering the elements of an opinion essay, students can develop their writing skills and become more effective communicators.

Opinion Essay Structure and Outline

Let’s look at an example of an opinion essay to comprehensively understand the structure of an opinion essay

The Impacts of Globalization on Local Economies

Globalization has become a heated topic of debate, with many differing perspectives on its effects. In this persuasive essay, I will form an opinion and provide a point of view on how globalization impacts local economies. As college students interested in reading different viewpoints, you’ll learn about writing an effective opinion piece.

To begin an opinion essay, the most important thing is to establish a clear thesis stating the main argument or belief. My thesis is: While globalization creates economic opportunities through trade and investment, it also poses challenges for local businesses trying to compete with larger multinational corporations. Both the positive potentials and negative pressures of globalization must be carefully considered.

The body of your opinion essay should logically organize evidence to support your stated perspective. One key benefit of globalization is giving local producers access to international markets, strengthening export revenues. Trade agreements facilitate selling goods and services across borders. Additionally, foreign direct investment from multinational companies can create new jobs and transfer technology/skills.

However, globalization also exposes local businesses to heightened competition which can be challenging for smaller firms. They may struggle to match the economies of scale, resources, and distribution networks of huge conglomerates. Domestic companies must innovate to avoid losing market share. There are also concerns about job losses if companies move production overseas.

While globalization allows corporations to efficiently manage worldwide supply chains and operations, this same flexibility enables circumventing local labor laws and taxes. Developing nations may engage in regulatory undercutting to attract investment, harming worker rights and the environment. Governments must strike a careful balance.

In crafting this opinion essay, I defined key concepts related to globalization’s impacts through examples local and international companies. Drawing on evidence from both sides strengthened my argument that globalization has significant trade-offs for local economies. For writers and students, seeing exactly how an opinion essay is structured with a clear thesis, body paragraphs explaining the perspective, and consideration of counterpoints can serve as a useful exercise.

Ultimately, opinion essays require logically organizing one’s thoughts and reasoning on a particular topic. Drafting an outline first, and then revising and proofreading, will improve the flow and persuasiveness. While all viewpoints are important to acknowledge, a good opinion piece persuades readers toward the author’s stance through a crystal clear thesis and well-supported arguments.

This basic opinion essay provides a simple guide on how to write persuasively about globalization’s effects. By establishing a position, giving evidence pro and con, defining key terms, and directly addressing the prompt of analyzing local economic impacts, the goal is to help the reader understand both sides while making a case for the writer’s perspective. For college students starting to pen opinion pieces, examples like this can strengthen essential academic writing skills.

Writing Process of an Opinion Essay

Writing an opinion essay requires careful planning and organization. Here are the steps to follow when writing an opinion essay:

1. Pre-writing strategies: Before you start writing, it’s important to brainstorm ideas and gather information on your topic . This can include researching your topic , making a list of arguments and counterarguments, and creating a mind map or outline.

2. Outlining an opinion essay : Once you have gathered your ideas, create an outline to organize your thoughts and develop a clear structure for your essay . Your outline should include an introduction, body paragraphs, and a conclusion.

3. Writing the introduction: The introduction should grab the reader’s attention and provide some background information on the topic. It should end with a thesis statement that clearly states your position on the issue.

4. Developing body paragraphs: The body of the essay should provide supporting evidence and examples to support your argument. Each paragraph should focus on a single point and should begin with a topic sentence that relates back to the thesis statement.

5. Using evidence and examples to support your argument: Use evidence and examples to support your argument. This can include statistics, facts, quotes, and personal experiences.

6. Addressing counter arguments: It’s important to address counterarguments or opposing viewpoints in an opinion essay. This shows the reader that you have considered alternative perspectives and have still arrived at your own position. Addressing counter arguments can also strengthen your position by showing that you have thought critically about the issue.

7. Writing the conclusion: The conclusion should summarize the main points of your essay and restate your thesis statement . It should also leave the reader with a final thought or call to action.

Tips and Techniques for Writing a Strong Opinion Essay

To write a strong opinion essay, follow these tips and techniques:

1. Writing with clarity and precision: Use clear and concise language to express your ideas. Avoid using too many complex words or phrases that may confuse the reader.

2. Crafting an effective thesis statement: Your thesis statement should be clear and concise, and it should clearly state your position on the issue.

3. Using transitional words and phrases: Use transitional words and phrases to connect your ideas and make your essay flow smoothly. Examples include “however,” “on the other hand,” and “in addition.”

4. Avoiding logical fallacies: Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that can weaken your argument. Examples include ad hominem attacks, straw man arguments, and false causality.

5. Editing and proofreading: After you have written your essay, take the time to edit and proofread it carefully. Look for spelling and grammar errors, and make sure that your ideas are presented clearly and logically.

Writing an opinion essay requires careful planning, organization, and attention to detail. By following the steps outlined above and using the tips and techniques provided, you can craft a strong and persuasive opinion essay that effectively communicates your position on the issue at hand.

10 Opinion Essay Examples

To help you understand what makes a strong opinion essay, here are 10 examples of well-written opinion essays, along with a detailed analysis of what makes each essay effective:

1. “The Benefits of a Vegetarian Diet” by Jane Smith

2. The Importance of Early Childhood Education” by John Doe

3. The Negative Effects of Social Media on Teenagers” by Sarah Johnson

4. The Pros and Cons of Online Learning” by Tom Brown

5. “The Need for Stricter Gun Control Laws” by Emily Davis

6. “The Ethics of Animal Testing” by Rachel Lee

7. The Benefits of Exercise for Mental Health” by David Nguyen

8. “The Importance of Diversity in the Workplace” by Maria Hernandez

9. The Harmful Effects of Plastic Pollution on the Environment” by Alex Lee

10. The Need for Universal Healthcare in the United States” by Samantha Jones

Each of these essays effectively communicates the writer’s position on a particular issue and provides strong supporting evidence and examples. By analyzing these essays , you can learn important lessons about how to effectively structure and develop an opinion essay.

50 Opinion Essay Topics That Will Impress Your Professors

To help you choose a topic for your opinion essay, here are 50 unique and engaging opinion essay topics that are relevant and important:

1. The impact of social media on interpersonal communication

2. The benefits and drawbacks of homeschooling

3. The role of technology in modern education

4. The need for stricter penalties for hate crimes

5. The impact of climate change on the global economy

6. The ethics of genetically modified foods

7. The impact of automation on jobs and the workforce

8. The effects of video games on children’s behavior

9. The need for better mental health support in schools

10. The benefits and drawbacks of remote work

11. The impact of social media on mental health

12. The need for stronger anti-bullying policies in schools

13. The effects of the gig economy on workers’ rights

14. The benefits and drawbacks of artificial intelligence

15. The impact of fast fashion on the environment

16. The ethics of animal agriculture

17. The need for more affordable housing in urban areas

18. The impact of immigration on local communities

19. The effects of screen time on children’s development

20. The need for stronger gun control laws

21. The impact of social media on political discourse

22. The benefits and drawbacks of renewable energy sources

23. The need for stronger anti-discrimination laws

24. The effects of legalization of marijuana on society

25. The impact of automation on the environment

26. The ethics of human cloning

27. The need for more accessible healthcare in rural areas

28. The effects of income inequality on society

29. The benefits and drawbacks of online dating

30. The impact of virtual reality on society

31. The need for stronger data privacy laws

32. The ethics of artificial intelligence in decision-making

33. The effects of social media on democracy

34. The impact of globalization on local economies

35. The benefits and drawbacks of autonomous vehicles

36. The need for stronger measures to combat cyberbullying

37. The effects of air pollution on public health

38. The ethics of euthanasia and assisted suicide

39. The impact of the sharing economy on traditional industries

40. The need for better access to mental health care for veterans

41. The benefits and drawbacks of cryptocurrency

42. The impact of space exploration on society

43. The ethics of gene editing

44. The need for stronger measures to combat human trafficking

45. The effects of social media on body image and self-esteem

46. The impact of automation on the future of work

47. The benefits and drawbacks of a cashless society

48. The need for stronger measures to combat domestic violence

49. The effects of social media on relationships

50. The impact of artificial intelligence on education

Choose a topic for your opinion essay that is important to you and about which you have strong feelings. Use the ideas and tips in this article to come up with a strong argument and back it up with proof and examples . With these tools, you can write a great opinion essay that will impress your professors and get your point across clearly.

1. What is the difference between an opinion essay and a persuasive essay?

An opinion essay and a persuasive essay are similar in that they both require the writer to express their viewpoint on a particular topic or issue. However, a persuasive essay is more focused on convincing the reader to take a particular action or adopt a particular viewpoint, while an opinion essay is more focused on expressing the writer’s personal perspective on the issue.

2. Can I include personal anecdotes in my opinion essay?

Yes, personal anecdotes can be a powerful tool for supporting your argument and making your essay more engaging. However, it’s important to ensure that your anecdotes are relevant to the topic and that they support your overall argument .

3. How do I address counterarguments in my essay?

To address counterarguments in your essay, consider presenting them in a separate paragraph or section of your essay . Then, explain why you disagree with the counterargument and provide evidence and examples to support your position.

4. How do I choose a topic for my opinion essay?

Choose a topic that you are passionate about and that you have a strong opinion on. Consider current events , social issues, or topics related to your field of study.

5. What is the recommended length for an opinion essay?

The length of an opinion essay can vary depending on the assignment requirements. However, a typical opinion essay is usually around 500-800 words.

6. What are some common mistakes to avoid when writing an opinion essay?

When writing an opinion essay, some common mistakes to avoid are not having a clear thesis statement, using weak or irrelevant evidence to back up your argument, not addressing counterarguments, and not proofreading your essay for mistakes. It’s important to take the time to carefully plan and edit your essay to make sure it clearly shows your point of view and gives strong evidence and examples to back up your argument.

Start by filling this short order form order.studyinghq.com

And then follow the progressive flow. 

Having an issue, chat with us here

Cathy, CS. 

New Concept ? Let a subject expert write your paper for You​

Have a subject expert write for you now, have a subject expert finish your paper for you, edit my paper for me, have an expert write your dissertation's chapter, popular topics.

Business Analysis Examples Essay Topics and Ideas How to Guides Nursing

• Nursing Solutions
• Study Guides
• Free College Essay Examples
• Privacy Policy
• Writing Service 
• Discounts / Offers 

Study Hub: 

• Studying Blog
• Topic Ideas 
• Business Studying 
• Nursing Studying 
• Literature and English Studying

Writing Tools  

• Citation Generator
• Topic Generator
• Paraphrasing Tool
• Conclusion Maker
• Research Title Generator
• Thesis Statement Generator
• Summarizing Tool
• Terms and Conditions
• Confidentiality Policy
• Cookies Policy
• Refund and Revision Policy

Our samples and other types of content are meant for research and reference purposes only. We are strongly against plagiarism and academic dishonesty. 

Contact Us:

📧 [email protected]

📞 +15512677917

2012-2024 © studyinghq.com. All rights reserved

• A Beginner’s Guide to IELTS
• Common Grammar Mistakes [for IELTS Writing Candidates]

Writing Correction Service

• Free IELTS Resources
• Practice Speaking Test

Select Page

How to Write “Agree or Disagree” Essays for IELTS

Posted by David S. Wills | Jan 15, 2021 | IELTS Tips , Writing | 1

There are various types of essay that you may be asked to write in task 2 of the IELTS writing test, but one of the most common ones is the “agree or disagree” question. This will provide some kind of statement and then ask you whether (or to what extent) you agree or disagree.

In this article, I will tell you everything you need to know about writing an agree or disagree essay .

What is an “Agree or Disagree” IELTS Question?

There are various kinds of questions in IELTS writing task 2, and one of them is called “agree or disagree” because that is precisely what you are asked to do. The question will normally contain those words although there are slight variations:

• Do you agree or disagree?
• To what extent do you agree or disagree?

This question will follow a statement and your task is to give your reaction to that statement. As long as you can understand the precise nature of the statement, this question is quite to understand.

Note that some people would call this an “opinion essay” but I would disagree with that label. Whilst it is certainly a type of opinion essay, there are other question types that require your opinion, so this is a problematic label. Here’s my guide to opinion essays.

How Should I Answer an “Agree or Disagree” Question?

The important thing about this sort of IELTS question is that you answer the question directly . In other words, you should state whether you agree , disagree , or neither agree nor disagree .

Some people wonder whether it is possible to give a balanced answer and others seem to think that you must always give a balanced answer, but the truth is simple:

You can agree, disagree, or neither agree nor disagree. Any of these is acceptable.

Just pay attention to the exact wording of the question. If it asks “to what extent…?” then you should clearly state the extent to which you agree/disagree:

• Completely agree
• Partially agree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Partially disagree
• Completely disagree

If it just says “Do you agree or disagree?” then you don’t necessarily need to give the degree and you could just say “I agree” or “I disagree.” However, it is better to provide more explanation and detail.

If you want a more in-depth discussion of the issue of balanced answers, you can read this article .

Structuring “Agree or Disagree” Essays

Some kinds of IELTS essay are easy to structure. For example, “ Discuss both views ” and “ Advantages and disadvantages ” questions can easily be answered with a predictable four-paragraph structure. However, “agree or disagree” questions require a little more thought. Sometimes it can be a little difficult to find the right structure.

Generally, I recommend writing four or five paragraphs and preferably just four. As such, here are two possibilities for structuring your “agree or disagree” essay:

As you can tell, the second structure is more complicated and thus there is more scope for mistakes in terms of Task Response or Coherence and Cohesion . However, if you do this right it can provide a more interesting and developed answer.

In any case, the important thing to know is that your structure should be coherent and logical. Your reader should never feel confused. If you make a plan before writing, this will really help you to stay on topic and deliver your views effectively.

Let’s look at an example:

Some people argue that the government should give every unemployed person a mobile phone and should make sure they have access to the Internet. They believe this is the best way of using public money to reduce the problem of unemployment. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

To answer this question, I would firstly decide the extent to which I agree or disagree. I disagree that it is the best use of public money, so I would structure my essay thusly:

Now let’s look at how I would write that essay:

Sample Band 9 Answer

It has been suggested that governments should give jobless people phones and internet access to alleviate the unemployment problem. This essay will argue that, whilst this may be a good idea, it is certainly not the best way of using public money to solve the problem.

To begin with, it could be seen as a positive step to give unemployed people phones and internet access. This would certainly help improve their lives in a small way and may give them the ability to hunt down job leads. However, it is not a guaranteed method of finding employment. For one thing, phones are severely limited in comparison with computers, which would be far more useful for jobseekers. A computer is more appropriate for writing CVs and scrolling through lists of adverts. As such, perhaps public funds would be better spent on computers rather than phones.

In addition, the idea of just giving unemployed people technology in order to solve their problems seems a little wishful. The fact is that most people have phones and internet access in 2021, suggesting that this is not what prevents them from finding work. Perhaps the money would be better spent on job fairs, counselling, benefits, or even investment in local businesses to spur the hiring process. Indeed, whilst none of these is a perfect solution, they all seem rather more realistic and preferential than buying thousands of phones and internet contracts.

In conclusion, while it may be a good idea to give all jobless people a phone and internet access, it is almost certainly not the best use of public funds in terms of tackling unemployment.

Language for Agreeing and Disagreeing

Once you have figured out the structure for your essay, you need to have the right language to accurately and effectively express your ideas. Most of the grammar and vocabulary you need will be dependent upon the topic , but there are some useful words and phrases to know for all “agree or disagree” essays.

Giving Purpose and Position

In your introduction, you need to clearly state your position vis-à-vis the question. You can also state what you will do in this essay.

Here are some great phrases:

This essay will…

To avoid being overly personal or informal, you can speak as though your essay is writing itself. This might seem a little strange, but it is perfectly normal. It is a great idea to use this for the overview section of your introduction to say “This essay will argue that…” or “This essay will agree with the idea that…”

Alternatively, you can include yourself:

In this essay, I will…

The use of the personal pronoun is a little informal but these questions are directly asking for your opinion and so there is nothing really wrong with it. This is a good way of stating your intentions clearly from the offset.

Just be careful to avoid redundant phrasing here, like “In my opinion, I think that…” It is not necessary to say both “In my opinion” and “I think” because they both express the same basic meaning.

It is also worth making sure that you completely understand how to use the words “agree” and “disagree.” This probably sounds very easy, but many people make mistakes. I have a full article on it here .

One of the biggest mistakes is saying, “I agree to the idea.” Instead, you need to say “I agree with the idea.” The preposition here is a huge difference and completely changes the meaning of “agree.”

Language for Structuring your Ideas

You can use some cohesive devices when explaining your ideas but be careful not to over-use them and make sure that each one is used accurately. For example, the phrases “On the one hand” and “On the other hand” are really useful here but many people make mistakes by saying “On one hand” or “One the other hand.”

You can also use words like “Firstly” and “Finally” to order your ideas but remember that having every sentence start with the same sort of word sounds repetitive, so don’t use these too much.

Some other useful phrases are:

The first reason why I think/believe that [summarise view] is…”

In this case, we are directly communicating to the reader that this is the first (and therefore most important) reason to support our opinion. To remove the personal pronoun, simply change to:

The first reason why [summarise view] is…

Here are two examples:

• The first reason why I think that families should take care of their elderly relatives is that it allows more freedom for the individual.
• The first reason why families should take care of their elderly relatives is that it allows more freedom for the individual.

Should You Totally Avoid Personal Pronouns?

For IELTS, some people say that you should always avoid personal pronouns but other people suggest that they are acceptable. It is true that they are acceptable because some questions directly ask for your opinion and experiences. However, it is also true that an advanced writer can answer these questions without personal pronouns, thereby increasing the level of formality .

Take a look at this question:

Rich countries often give money to poorer countries, but it does not solve poverty. Therefore, developed countries should give other types of help to the poor countries rather than financial aid. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

It is clearly asking for your personal opinion, so it would be fine to say “I think…” or “I believe…” However, we could definitely answer it in a more detached, formal sense.

To give my opinion, I will say:

this essay will argue that giving money is not simply enough and that more nuanced, long-term solutions are necessary

Later, in the conclusion, I will use similar language to affirm my view:

whilst it may seem reasonable to donate money to poor countries, it would be far better to help them through education

Here is the full essay:

The topic of international aid is incredibly controversial and there are no simple solutions. However, this essay will argue that giving money is not simply enough and that more nuanced, long-term solutions are necessary.

To begin with, it is important to acknowledge that poor countries need some form of aid and that money is better than nothing. Wealthy countries give vast sums of money, but there are numerous problems that emerge. Firstly, this money usually has strings attached, meaning that the poor countries often end up owing favours or debts, which exacerbates their problems. Secondly, poor countries are typically poor because of endemic corruption, and money donated is usually embezzled immediately after receipt. As such, giving money is understandable but problematic, and other forms of aid are thus preferable.

Nowadays, many people realise that it is better to provide poor countries with the means to help themselves. This can be done in various ways, including education. As such, perhaps the best way to help these nations is to provide them with teachers and educational facilities. This can allow them to raise a generation of intelligent, motivated people who will shape the future. It can clearly be seen that the education of women is of particular importance, as this lowers the fertility rate, further stopping other problems that contribute to poverty. Therefore, the education of young women should be made a top priority.

In conclusion, whilst it may seem reasonable to donate money to poor countries, it would be far better to help them through education.

Writing an essay for an IELTS “agree or disagree” question is probably a little more difficult than writing one for other question types. However, it is not much more difficult and if you follow the advice above, you can definitely create a wonderful essay that will get a high score. Just remember to answer the question directly and also to use appropriate language throughout.

About The Author

David S. Wills

David S. Wills is the author of Scientologist! William S. Burroughs and the 'Weird Cult' and the founder/editor of Beatdom literary journal. He lives and works in rural Cambodia and loves to travel. He has worked as an IELTS tutor since 2010, has completed both TEFL and CELTA courses, and has a certificate from Cambridge for Teaching Writing. David has worked in many different countries, and for several years designed a writing course for the University of Worcester. In 2018, he wrote the popular IELTS handbook, Grammar for IELTS Writing and he has since written two other books about IELTS. His other IELTS website is called IELTS Teaching.

Related Posts

With the Development of Technology…

May 5, 2023

The Road to IELTS Success

January 25, 2019

Age and Work [IELTS Speaking and Writing]

August 9, 2021

Describe an Interesting Person

October 5, 2021

thanks for such great help.

Leave a reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Download my IELTS Books

Recent Posts

• British vs American Spelling
• How to Improve your IELTS Writing Score
• Past Simple vs Past Perfect
• Complex Sentences
• How to Score Band 9 [Video Lesson]

Recent Comments

• Francisca on Adverb Clauses: A Comprehensive Guide
• Mariam on IELTS Writing Task 2: Two-Part Questions
• abdelhadi skini on Subordinating Conjunction vs Conjunctive Adverb
• David S. Wills on How to Describe Tables for IELTS Writing Task 1
• anonymous on How to Describe Tables for IELTS Writing Task 1
• Lesson Plans
• Model Essays
• TED Video Lessons
• Weekly Roundup

The Point Conversations and insights about the moment.

• Share full article

Jonathan Alter

Contributing Opinion Writer

Six of Trump’s Dumbest Trial Mistakes

In the avalanche of post-conviction coverage, we’ve all heard that if Donald Trump had just copped to a misdemeanor, or admitted to having sex with Stormy Daniels, or been allowed to have his expert witness testify fully, he wouldn’t be a felon.

Maybe so, but that’s beside the point. Trump could still have been Trumpy and possibly won the case if he and his lawyers had not made six critical mistakes:

Trump disrespected the judge. The last thing any defendant should do is tick off the judge. Trump and his team did so repeatedly. His 10 citations for contempt of court, which almost got him thrown in jail, were just the start of it. Trump’s lawyers made a series of frivolous and repetitive motions that did their case — and their own reputations — no good. The only explanation is that their volcanic client must have insisted on it.

Trump dozed for much of the trial. Jurors might have been fine with him falling asleep occasionally. But inside the courtroom we noticed on the monitors (which showed Trump from the front) that his eyes were closed every day and for large portions of the testimony. That’s a bad look for any defendant trying to win favor with the jury.

The defense blew its cross-examination of Stormy Daniels. Susan Necheles, one of the defense lawyers, had a tough assignment: Prove Stormy Daniels was lying about her sexual encounter with Trump when she clearly was not. But Necheles made it worse by seeming to shame Daniels for her career choices, falsely hinting she had records to disprove the account, and by failing to object more when Daniels got prurient, as the judge later pointed out.

The defense dropped its best anti-Michael Cohen argument. The lead defense attorney, Todd Blanche, elicited on cross-examination that Cohen thought William H. Pauley, a former federal judge, was in on some kind of crazy conspiracy with Cohen’s enemies to hurt him. But Blanche was so eager to catalog all of Cohen’s lies that he failed to focus on Cohen’s wildest charge later.

The defense insisted on putting on a case. If the defense had rested without calling witnesses, Trump’s refusal to testify would have made a certain sense, suggesting the prosecution’s case was so weak there was no need to rebut it. Instead, the defense called the thuggish Robert Costello, who was by far the worst, least credible witness in the entire trial and was destroyed on cross-examination. This ended the trial on a down note for the defense.

The defense lied about the “Access Hollywood” tape. “You heard that politicians reacted negatively to the ‘Access Hollywood’ tape,” Blanche said, in one of the biggest lies during his closing. “None of that is true.” Oh, yeah? So why was Trump nearly dumped from the 2016 ticket over it? This jury wasn’t born yesterday, and they had heard lots of testimony about the effect of that explosive tape.

Trump still doesn’t get that a court of law is not the same as the court of public opinion. Politicizing the trial might be good for donations and even polling but it will hurt him on July 11, when he will have to answer for his antics at sentencing.

Zeynep Tufekci

Opinion Columnist

Bird Flu Doesn’t Have to Become History’s Most Avoidable Disaster

The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services reported on Thursday that another farmworker has been infected with H5N1, an avian flu virus. Alarmingly, unlike earlier cases, he has respiratory symptoms. This means the virus is in his lungs, where it has a better chance to evolve into an airborne form that could easily infect others.

Viruses often hit a dead end when they cross from one species to another, getting stuck at their first victim. For example, H5N1 has been around since the 1990s, but most patients have had extensive, direct contact with sick poultry and almost never pass it on to other humans.

The pathogens that have the greatest potential to set off a pandemic often have a deadly combination of airborne transmission and frequent mild cases, allowing them to spread widely and stealthily. That’s a key reason there hasn’t yet been an Ebola pandemic. The disease causes severe illness and kills most victims, and it mainly spreads through close contact with infected bodily fluids. It has fewer chances to spread widely than another disease might.

The United States is certainly giving H5N1 many, many chances to adapt to spreading easily and quietly among humans.

Cows started getting sick with H5N1 last winter, but unlike birds with H5N1, they weren’t dying. It took dogged investigation by Dr. Barb Petersen, a veterinarian in Texas, to determine that they were afflicted with a form of avian influenza. When we spoke, she told me that whenever cows fell sick on farms she monitored, an unusual number of people also became ill.

In April, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported a farmworker in Texas had been infected with H5N1 . This month, state health officials in Michigan found two more human cases (including the one reported on Thursday). Even so, public health officials have largely been slow to establish the sort of widespread testing and data sharing that would give Americans the best chance at stopping an H5N1 pandemic.

This month, Dr. Mandy Cohen, the director of the C.D.C., told The New York Times there were no immediate plans to make testing mandatory. But if we don’t test for H5N1, we won’t find it.

As Rick Bright, an expert on the H5N1 virus who served on President Biden’s coronavirus advisory board, told me : “We are missing additional cases by not testing. We are missing evolutionary patterns of the virus by not sequencing more. We are also losing the trust of people by not being completely timely and transparent with data and information as it becomes available.”

This virus may never evolve to spread dangerously among humans, but if it does, this particular avian flu pandemic will go down as one of the most avoidable slow-motion disasters in history.

Advertisement

David Firestone

Deputy Editor, the Editorial Board

Trump Is ‘Honored’ by a Verdict That Should Shame Him

Donald Trump could have gone any number of directions on Friday morning in his first speech after becoming a felon. A better human being might have expressed some remorse or a modicum of respect for the jury’s verdict, but that’s not who he is. He might have at least acknowledged that the historic conviction was a significant defeat and urged his supporters to help him rise above it in pursuit of some larger goal. But he didn’t even do that.

In fact, what was remarkable about the speech at Trump Tower was how little effect the conviction seems to have had on his permanent vocabulary of grievance. To hear him tell it, it’s just another speed bump erected by what he called the “fascists” in the Democratic Party, no different from his two impeachments, or the devastating Jan. 6 investigation, or the judgments against his business, or the civil finding that he is a sexual abuser. To acknowledge that this moment is spectacularly different would be to give the verdict real power, and he was determined to rob the legal system of any ability to get in his way.

And so, even though he must have known that the audience for this speech would be unusually large, he tossed out the same jumbled shards of anger, lies and hyperbole that he dispenses every day on the trail. The usual journalistic cliché for speeches like this one is “rambling,” but at least on a ramble you actually go someplace, if slowly. Trump, on the other hand, had no apparent destination.

He insulted the district attorney, Alvin Bragg, and said Justice Juan Merchan “looks like an angel but he’s really a devil.” But those attacks were blended with fevered denunciations of President Biden for imaginary policies like banning cars, letting vast mobs of terrorists march unimpeded into the country and ruining the country with a politicized system of justice. “We are living in a fascist state,” he said.

Regarding the trial itself, he bashed Michael Cohen as a “sleazebag,” denied having a sexual affair and dismissed the crime of falsifying business records as some kind of bookkeeping hiccup. The jury didn’t believe any of this for a minute, of course, but Trump will never stop trying to litigate it, and he was even less effective than his inept lawyers.

The only real acknowledgment that something unusual had happened was when he called the conviction “a great, great honor” that he was willing to bear, as if he were Saint Sebastian, pierced by Democratic arrows for the country’s greater good. His wounds, however, are entirely self-inflicted.

Kathleen Kingsbury

Opinion Editor

What the Nation Needs to Hear From Trump (but Won’t)

Donald Trump has announced he plans to speak to the nation from Trump Tower on Friday morning. It made me pause and consider what I — and I suspect many voters, especially swing voters, and maybe even some of Trump’s supporters — want to hear less than 24 hours after the first conviction on felony charges of a former president.

What I want to hear — from a sober, humbled presidential candidate — is this: “Yesterday a jury of my peers rendered a verdict against me and my actions in 2016. I have believed, from the get-go, that this prosecution was politically motivated, and there is evidence that the district attorney always intended to bring it, despite a lack of any good evidence that I committed a crime. I continue to think the case rested on a bogus legal theory, and we will appeal. But until that appeal is ruled on, I will respect this verdict, as much as I disagree with it.”

In other words, I would like the former, and potentially future, president to rise to the seriousness of the occasion.

Of course, Trump will say no such words, and he will express no remorse in a way that might lighten his eventual sentence. He will declare the trial rigged, and he will rail against the judge, the court and the jury, despite the responsible and somber ways in which all parties conducted themselves. He will ask his supporters to join him in his outrage, and he will continue — as he has done time and time again — to undermine the law and democratic norms.

He will not rise to the occasion. And our country will be worse off for it.

‘Is That Your Verdict?’ As Trump Seethes, a Jury Says ‘Yes.’

The verdict might not have been a total surprise, but the timing sure was.

All Thursday afternoon, those of us in the courtroom watching the Donald Trump trial had been expecting a Friday verdict. This was validated when, a little before 4 p.m., Justice Juan Merchan came into the courtroom and told us that the jury would be excused at 4:30 and would resume deliberations on Friday.

Then crickets. For more than half an hour, we heard nothing — certainly not the buzzy bell we expected if the jury had a note to send or a verdict.

The judge had left the bench to tell jurors he was excusing them and hadn’t come back.

I had a nice whispered chat with Andrew Giuliani, a fervent Trump supporter who was sitting behind me. I told him I expected a conviction and asked him if he would blame his fellow New Yorkers who had spent many hours painstakingly examining the evidence. He said yes and took a shot at Matthew Colangelo, the federal prosecutor who came in from the Justice Department to help the D.A.’s office.

“That’s totally unprecedented!” Giuliani said, previewing some of the team’s damage-control spin. I reminded him that this had been done countless times in civil rights cases in the South and complex local prosecutions.

Around 4:30 p.m., Merchan mounted the bench and announced that he had received a note from the jury. I first thought it was another request for more evidence to be read back. This was a conscientious jury that had been deliberating since midday on Wednesday. But the note said that a verdict had been reached and jurors needed another half-hour before announcing it.

You could hear a collective gasp in the courtroom.

At 5:03 p.m., the jury entered. After the foreman, an Irish-born former waiter clad in a blue pullover, stood and confirmed that the jury had reached a verdict, he was asked about each count and said “guilty” 34 times.

The defense was asked if it wanted to waive its right to poll the jurors and, of course, said no. When asked, “Is that your verdict?” each of the other 11 jurors — their poker faces intact — calmly answered, “Yes.”

Trump had become a felon.

Merchan thanked the jurors for their service in a “very stressful and difficult task” and told them they are “free to discuss the case, but you are also free not to. The choice is yours.”

Then came what I have always viewed as the most moving part of the trial, a ritual of democracy performed eight times a day, as the jury moves back and forth for breaks and lunch and exits when court adjourns:

The jurors marched past Donald Trump without looking at him, soldiers for justice.

Trump’s lead attorney, Todd Blanche, moved for a “judgment of acquittal” because there’s “no way this jury could have reached a verdict without accepting the testimony of Michael Cohen.”

Merchan thought he heard Blanche say that even the judge knew Cohen had perjured himself on the stand. Blanche backtracked, and the motion was denied with dispatch.

At the request of Blanche, who has other Trump legal proceedings to deal with in June, Merchan set sentencing for July 11. It struck me that since Trump is guilty of 34 felonies in the first degree, he is unlikely to get off with a slap on the wrist. First he will have to undergo a probation interview, followed by a probation report.

This summer, will we be discussing ankle bracelets in the White House? Quite possibly.

Merchan asked for Trump’s current bail status.

In what may have been my favorite line of the day after “guilty,” the prosecution lawyer Joshua Steinglass said, “No bail, judge.”

In another trial, that might mean the felon had been denied bail. Here it was a simple recognition of the stark reality that a jury had just convicted a former president of the United States, who would not be sent to a holding cell.

As usual, Trump walked up the center aisle, swinging his right arm out in an exaggerated handshake with his son Eric. He looked more hunched than usual, with pain on his face.

In the elevator a photographer who has been shooting him for years said, “I have never seen him looking so tired.”

Trump’s Trial and Lincoln’s Example Make 2024 a Character Test

History hangs heavily over the Manhattan Criminal Courthouse this week. Everyone inside feels its weight. After the jury was sent to deliberate, things loosened up a bit and I chatted with a court police officer from Brooklyn who for weeks has been one of our hall monitors. She spoke of being able to someday tell her grandchildren that she witnessed a historic trial.

There has been other presidential history made in Lower Manhattan, of course. In 1860, little more than three months before Abraham Lincoln became the Republican nominee for president, he came to New York, where he bought a new suit at Brooks Brothers and a stovepipe hat. He also stopped by a home for desperately poor children, just two blocks south of where the courthouse now stands. The children’s faces, a witness reported, “would brighten into sunshine as he spoke cheerful words of promise.” When told he had inspired the children, Lincoln responded, “No, they inspired me.”

Lincoln’s address during that New York trip at the Cooper Union, a mile north of the current courthouse, would help catapult him to the presidency. He wrote the ending in all capital letters:

LET US HAVE FAITH THAT RIGHT MAKES MIGHT, AND IN THAT FAITH LET US, TO THE END, DARE TO DO OUR DUTY AS WE UNDERSTAND IT.

Donald Trump often compares himself to Lincoln, noting that they are both honest and Republicans. But he has inverted Lincoln’s motto of right making might, believing the opposite. He also castigated Lincoln for nearly losing to a bigger hero, the Confederate general Robert E. Lee. And the ultimate un-Lincoln constantly celebrates Jan. 6 insurrectionists who threatened to kill his vice president and flew a Confederate flag under the Capitol dome built by Lincoln.

The liar and cheat we’ve heard the most about in the courtroom for the past six weeks is not Michael Cohen but Trump, whose basic values deviate not only from Lincoln’s but also from those of any man who has ever held the office of president.

I understand why many voters might favor Trump under the mistaken impression that he has their back. But for any leaders or well-educated people in any realm — from Nikki Haley to the billionaire Stephen Schwarzman to your otherwise intelligent uncle — to support Trump now out of narrow self-interest raises deeper questions about their patriotism.

They know better, and as the evidence presented in this trial has shown, they are failing the character test of their generation.

Now we are engaged in our own cold civil war, and American voters must think harder about whether this nation — or any nation — can long endure the consequences of another Trump presidency.

Adam Sternbergh

Opinion Culture Editor

Ángel Hernández Made Baseball Great

The retirement of Ángel Hernández, long reputed to be the worst umpire in baseball, was greeted by many baseball fans with unfettered glee . In an age when the strike zone is constantly displayed on TV and each pitch can be instantly measured for speed, movement and location, the notion of a human consistently misjudging balls and strikes can seem not just outdated but absurd. The outsize antics of certain umpires — presumably intoxicated by their own power — has long been a subject of fan exasperation, inspiring the derisive phrase “ump show.”

I admit I reacted to the Hernández news by watching a series of his most questionable calls, many of which made me laugh out loud. I’m not here to debate whether he was a good umpire; the data clearly indicates he was one of the least accurate.

But Major League Baseball needs fallible humans like Ángel Hernández. The ump show is as much an essential part of baseball as bone-headed errors , egregious showmanship or players angrily tossing a glove into the stands . The alternative scenario — in which baseball is adjudicated, flawlessly and bloodlessly, by machines — would make the sport less meaningful.

The Automated Balls and Strikes system, or A.B.S., is already in use in Triple-A, and the argument for embracing so-called robo-umps boils down to their accuracy. Yet the element of human judgment, as displayed by human umps, is as intrinsic to baseball as is the element of human skill, as displayed by the players. Players drop balls. They lose fly balls in the lights. They overrun bases or run through stop signals. All of this is part of the game. Blown strike calls, idiosyncratic strike zones and even flamboyantly performative umps are, and should be, a part of the game as well.

You might counter: But bad officiating adversely affects the outcome of the game. Yes, but so does bad playing. Also, it’s a game. The argument that technological proficiency should supersede human fallibility in all arenas is pernicious enough elsewhere in society, but it seems especially wrongheaded when it comes to sports, an entertaining but meaningless forum for human excellence and human foibles. There is a reason the most enduring examination of baseball’s allure ends with a mythically talented player striking out .

Infallible robot brain surgeon? Honestly, I can see the argument. Infallible robot umpires? No, thanks — I’ll take the ump show .

Paul Krugman

Inflation and the Problem of McMisinformation

The United States, like many other countries, experienced a burst of inflation in 2021-22, which has since largely subsided. But prices haven’t gone down, so almost everything costs more than it did a few years ago.

Wages, however, have risen even more, so most Americans’ purchasing power is higher than before the pandemic. But anyone who points this out gets a huge amount of pushback from people saying “Get out of your office into the real world! The price of food (it’s usually food, although it’s sometimes other stuff) has doubled!”

As it turns out, such claims about the “real world” are almost always false. A few months ago I looked at some independent estimates of grocery prices and found that they closely match the official data. No, inflation isn’t much higher than the deep state wants you to know.

Well, I now have an unexpected ally in this argument. Management at McDonald’s is apparently irked by constant claims that its prices have doubled since before the pandemic. So the company has issued a special news release about what has really happened to its prices, which are up, but not by nearly as much as the inflation truthers claim:

The price of a Big Mac, in particular, is up 21 percent since 2019, not the 100 percent some are claiming. Over the same period average wages of nonsupervisory employees — that is, most workers — rose 28 percent:

So no, McDonald’s hasn’t become unaffordable, whatever your vibes may say.

The Best Move for the Trump Jury: A Split Decision

With the jury still deliberating, it’s time for those of us who have heard every minute of this trial to place our bets. My prediction is this: Donald Trump will be convicted on nine of 34 counts of falsifying business records. He’ll go down for the nine fraudulent checks he signed in the White House in 2017 — each a piece of a broader effort to falsify business records and, ultimately, to interfere unlawfully in the 2016 election.

I could easily be wrong, of course, but here’s my reasoning. To resolve differences with a split-the-baby approach, the jury might decide that Trump’s fingerprints are literally on those checks, while the 11 false invoices, 12 false ledger entries and two false checks signed by Donald Jr. and Eric are not as closely connected to Trump, though he was the one who caused the falsification of all of them.

Jurors are showing commendable signs of diligence. It would have hurt the credibility of their verdict had they returned with one too soon on Wednesday, the day they began deliberating. On Thursday morning they reheard portions of the judge’s instructions and many pages of important trial testimony. No one has any idea if they will ask to hear more.

I think Trump deserves to be convicted on all 34 counts. But reasonable jurors could legitimately conclude that they are more comfortable with nine.

And if they reach that outcome, it could have a political effect. A conviction on fewer counts would be the best possible outcome for the country, demonstrating that the jury was unbiased and carefully considered each count, dismissing most of them.

If convicted, Trump is unlikely to win on appeal. Justice Juan Merchan has dotted his i’s and crossed his t’s, making an immediate reversal a long shot. Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, probably won’t want to get involved, and if they did, it wouldn’t be until months or years after the election.

So Trump will spend the rest of his life attacking the verdict, the judge, the prosecutors and the fair-minded residents of his hometown who determined his fate.

But at least it will be a little harder for him to spew his venom if the jury thoughtfully studies the evidence and clears him on 25 counts. His base won’t care, but I have faith that at least some swing voters who respect our jury system will conclude that this man is a criminal who should not be returned to power. Will that be enough at the margins to tip the election? No one knows for sure.

But we do know that this would probably be the only conviction of Trump before November. A careful jury verdict could help build a constituency to keep a felon out of the White House.

Editorial Board Member

Time to Examine Why New York Fared Poorly Early in the Pandemic

In the coming days, House Republicans in Washington will hammer Andrew Cuomo, New York’s former governor, over his botched pandemic response, after issuing him a subpoena to appear.

That may be a political stunt, but it’s more than the Democrats who run New York State’s government have done to examine the deaths of approximately 23,000 New York City residents from Covid-19 in the first three months of the pandemic. According to an analysis by the Empire Center, a nonpartisan think tank, New York City had a higher population-adjusted Covid death rate than any state in 2020, and a rate that was 132 percent higher than the national death rate from the coronavirus.

But New York State has yet to conduct a thorough review of the actions by state, city and local officials that may have contributed to the deaths. An important bill under consideration in Albany would finally change this by creating a commission to study New York’s pandemic response. The legislation is sponsored by State Senator Julia Salazar of Brooklyn and Assemblywoman Jessica González-Rojas of Queens, whose districts were hard hit by the virus.

The commission they propose would have the authority to hold public hearings, review confidential state records and correspondence related to the pandemic, and, importantly, issue subpoenas. A review ordered by Gov. Kathy Hochul in 2022 is being conducted by a private firm, is delayed and has no such powers.

In the years since 2020, the disastrous handling of the pandemic by former President Donald Trump has been the dominant story on the issue. But New York’s early response to the virus is also worthy of scrutiny. Most widely known is a directive issued by the Cuomo administration in March 2020 ordering nursing homes to accept residents who had tested positive for the virus, leading the virus to spread even more rapidly among a vulnerable population. In 2022, a report from State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli found that Cuomo’s administration had underreported deaths in nursing homes related to Covid-19 by more than 4,000 people. Cuomo also directed state health officials that March to give his family members special access to Covid-19 tests.

New York officials made other critical missteps. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which is run by the state, barred workers until early March from wearing face coverings. Former Mayor Bill de Blasio waited too long to close the city’s school system, as cities such as San Francisco had lower case counts but shuttered their schools earlier. On March 5, de Blasio discouraged the use of masks among the general public, language that was similar to guidance then from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and downplayed the threat posed by the virus.

New Yorkers deserve as full an accounting as possible of how and why these decisions were made.

Michelle Cottle

Opinion Writer

Team Biden’s Urgent Pitch to Black Voters in Philadelphia

At the rollout of the Black Voters for Biden-Harris effort in Philadelphia on Wednesday, Team Biden’s basic message — what it desperately needed to convey — was summed up by Vice President Kamala Harris near the end of her brief remarks: “Who sits in the White House matters. It matters!”

This may seem obvious. But as Democratic strategists and officials will tell you, a lack of urgency about, or even interest in, the outcome of this year’s presidential election — especially among younger Black voters — is one of the scariest threats the party is facing.

At this rare joint appearance, in a city where they desperately need to do well in November, both Harris and President Biden spotlighted numerous “promises made, promises kept” that they figured would be of particular interest to Black Americans.

Harris ticked through specifics, such as capping the price of insulin, forgiving billions in student loan debt, making it so medical debt doesn’t affect a person’s credit score and strengthening background checks for gun purchases.

Biden ran through even more wins — pardoning people incarcerated on charges of marijuana possession, investing in historically Black colleges, appointing the first Black woman to the Supreme Court — along with some promises about what he would do with a second term.

And both leaders brought up some of the darker moments of the Trump years, from Donald Trump’s efforts to kill Obamacare to his musings about injecting bleach as a way to cure Covid-19.

The president was not playing around. He asserted that, after Trump lost in 2020, “something snapped” in the guy, who is now “clearly unhinged.” Noting the former president’s vow to pardon the Jan. 6 rioters, Biden asked: “What do you think would have happened if Black Americans had stormed the Capitol?”

Wrapping things up, the president urged the crowd to go forth and spread the word about the urgency of this race. “Talk to your families,” he pleaded.

Biden and his team are well aware of how hard it is to break through to people who have decided to tune out an election. All of us had best hope they find a way.

Is Trump Starting to Worry About a Conviction?

Donald Trump dozed on Wednesday through a good chunk of the judge’s all-important instructions to the jury, rousing himself once to ask one of his attorneys for a bottle of Poland Spring. (His favorite drink, Diet Coke, is not allowed in the courtroom.) After Justice Juan Merchan sent the jury to deliberate, Trump chatted with Don Jr. and Alina Habba, an incompetent lawyer from an earlier trial. Then he did a quick, lip-pursed intake of breath that indicated some anxiety.

In the hallway outside, he told reporters that “Mother Teresa could not beat the charges” because of the way the judge, whom he called “corrupt,” instructed the jury. He seemed to be hinting that he believes a conviction is likely.

In fact, Merchan’s hourlong charge to the jury was standard issue in New York State and incorporated unsurprising rulings that went back to pretrial motions in March. One difference is that he read the more complicated parts twice.

The judge sided with the defense by telling the jury that if it focuses on tax offenses, it must find that Trump “willfully” intended to commit unlawful acts. But if it finds that campaign finance violations are the underlying crime, he twice mentioned that corporate contributions are banned altogether and the maximum allowable individual donation is $2,700 — a lot less than the $130,000 in hush-money that Michael Cohen paid to Stormy Daniels with Trump’s approval.

Merchan essentially instructed the jury that it can think Cohen lied about many things but find him credible on other things. And he told the jurors, “You need not be unanimous on whether the defendant committed crimes personally, by acting in concert with another, or both.” Unanimity is required only for overall conviction on each of the 34 counts.

The state law on falsifying business records requires intent to commit other crimes, so the judge spent lots of time defining that term.

In the afternoon, after nearly five hours of deliberation, the jury sent notes to the judge asking to rehear at least some of the judge’s complex instructions, which is likely to happen on Thursday. Jurors would also like another look at testimony from five weeks ago by David Pecker, the former publisher of The National Enquirer, about one particular 2016 phone call with Trump (highlighted Tuesday by a prosecution lawyer, Joshua Steinglass, in his closing argument). And jurors want to hear again why Pecker backed out of the Karen McDougal deal and how Pecker and Cohen depicted the Trump Tower meeting in August of 2015 that prosecutors argue was the birth of the conspiracy.

Trump’s defense team also focused on that meeting, insisting that it was commonplace for candidates to “work with the media” to squelch sex stories, as Pecker said he did with Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rahm Emanuel. (It is not commonplace.)

Because the jurors are now practiced at poker faces, we aren’t learning which way they are moving, only that they are diligently examining the evidence.

Nikki Haley’s Valentine to Civilian Death

It was a sweet little heart, the kind you might draw on a Valentine’s Day card. “America 💜 Israel Always,” the author wrote, above her handwritten signature: “Nikki Haley.” How lovely.

Except it wasn’t written on a greeting card. Haley drew the heart in purple ink on a 155-millimeter artillery shell, the kind that the Israeli Army has routinely loaded into howitzers and fired on Gaza in the hopes of eradicating Hamas but resulting in the mass deaths of civilians. Tens of thousands of these shells have rained down on Gaza since the Oct. 7 massacre, and when they explode they send countless metal fragments in every direction, with a casualty range of between 100 and 300 meters . A coalition of human rights groups say that this particular artillery weapon is so indiscriminate that its use in heavily populated areas like Gaza violates international humanitarian law.

But that wasn’t all that Haley wrote. Above the little heart was a message of savage revenge: “Finish them!”

“Finish Them, America ♥️ Israel Always!” Message from @NikkiHaley , written on an Israeli missile intended for Hamas. pic.twitter.com/DgPQYNvkWM — Team Nikki Haley (@NikkiHaleyHQ) May 28, 2024

Haley, the former governor of South Carolina, made it clear on social media that both the inscription and the shells were intended for Hamas. But her scrawled fondness for bloodshed — with little apparent concern for whose blood will actually be shed — sends a more important message to American voters.

A huge number of progressive voters are furious at President Biden for not doing more to stop Israel’s assault on Gaza. And it’s true that many of those artillery shells were supplied by the United States. But if those voters think that the situation in Gaza will change if they sit out the election and allow Donald Trump and other Republicans to be elected, they don’t really understand what’s coming. Because it would be a lot worse.

Haley lost her bid to become the Republican nominee for president because she was seen as too moderate for a party that still prefers Trump’s recklessness. When it comes to issues like Israel, most of the party is further to the right than the author of “Finish them!”

Biden should have done much more to use American leverage on Israel to reduce the civilian toll in Gaza. But Republicans pound him every day for withholding an arms shipment to Israel to prevent it from being used to attack Rafah, in the Gaza Strip. He has never signed his name on a lethal explosive device and expressed a hope that it would kill. There’s a big difference.

Neel V. Patel

Opinion Staff Editor

The Stalled Pandemic Accords Offer an Opportunity for Vaccine Equity

For more than two years, the member states of the World Health Organization have been meeting to iron out an agreement on how to prevent and respond to future pandemics. The text of the accord was supposed to be finalized last Friday, for nations to formally approve it this week during the World Health Assembly in Geneva.

That deadline came and went, and negotiations on the accord have stalled because of disagreements about global vaccine availability. Countries cannot agree on whether to prioritize making new treatments more available to poor countries or certain intellectual property rights of vaccine manufacturers in wealthy countries instead. There’s a stark division between the haves and the have-nots of the global stage.

On the surface, the breakdown in talks is a familiar story of international diplomacy. But it also presents an opportunity. Wealthier nations could use this moment to reverse course on the agreement’s more rushed, toothless measures and turn it into something consequential and lifesaving.

Not even three years ago, richer countries like the United States bought enough Covid-19 vaccine stock for twice its population ; Canada, for five times its population. Poorer countries came last , relying on donated vaccines and Covax, the global vaccine-sharing scheme. Vaccine hoarding among wealthy nations probably led to more than a million deaths in 2021 alone . Many countries on the African continent suffered an especially slow rollout, causing their economic recoveries to lag those of the rest of the world .

Besides the moral argument that developed countries should do more to help developing ones, there’s a practical argument to make: Pandemics don’t care about national borders. If an infectious disease is allowed to thrive in one region, travel and migration ensure that it will inevitably threaten surrounding regions as well, putting the globe at further risk.

If our leaders want to avoid a fate similar to 2020, they need to guarantee that essential vaccines and treatments are available wherever they are needed.

Prosecutors Leave the Jury With a Mountain of Evidence Against Trump

Humor helps, especially if you are delivering a five-hour speech.

Joshua Steinglass of the prosecution team knew he was taking a risk by “trading brevity for thoroughness” in his closing argument in the Donald Trump felony trial in Manhattan; besides being exhausted after an 11-hour day, jurors might conclude “the people” (the formal name for the prosecution) were not sure enough about their case to avoid piling on.

So Steinglass copped to “beating a dead horse” and helped neutralize the defense’s best point with a little playacting.

In the morning Trump’s lead attorney, Todd Blanche, again called Michael Cohen a liar for claiming he phoned Trump on Oct. 24, 2016, to talk to him about hush money for Stormy Daniels when text chains showed he wanted to ask Keith Schiller, Trump’s bodyguard, about a 14-year-old prank caller who was harassing him.

To explain that Cohen could have talked about both , Steinglass assumed Cohen’s voice and cradled an imaginary phone:

“Hey, Keith, how’s it going?” he asked, imitating Cohen. “Hey, is the boss near you? Can you pass him the phone for a minute?”

Then Steinglass turned self-effacing — “Sorry if I didn’t do a good job” — before proving that was only one of about 20 times in October alone that Cohen updated Trump about his progress in hushing Daniels, thereby helping to save Trump’s sagging campaign.

Steinglass went to great lengths to show that his case did not rely entirely on Cohen. Steinglass returned again and again to the first-week testimony of David Pecker, a former publisher of The National Enquirer, who implicated Trump directly in a conspiracy to interfere in the 2016 election. And Steinglass assembled, disassembled and all but cleaned what he called “the smoking gun” — the handwritten notes detailing Trump’s scheme to disguise his reimbursement of Cohen as legal expenses.

The long faces in the Trump guest section reflected the sense in the courtroom that Trump’s story that the $420,000 he paid to Cohen was really a legal retainer will not fly. Steinglass showed that Trump himself admitted in court documents and other records that it was a reimbursement.

Steinglass also proved that “Michael Cohen is no rogue actor” and that in 2018 Trump, Rudy Giuliani and the lawyer Robert Costello treated Cohen like a mob rat as part of the cover-up. This was La Casa Blanca meets La Cosa Nostra.

The defense has a better shot at creating doubt that Trump intended to commit a crime, but even here, Steinglass had a heap of evidence to shovel in the jury’s direction.

The judge allowed most of it until the prosecutor overreached by urging jurors not to let Trump get away with shooting someone on Fifth Avenue, evoking his famous line about what he could get away with.

Just after the objection to that was sustained by the judge, Steinglass finally stood down, and we all dragged off to bed. The case finally goes to the jury on Wednesday.

Farah Stockman

Netanyahu Is Sorry/Not Sorry for the Killings in Rafah

I often tell my 8-year-old daughter that saying “sorry” doesn’t cut it if she continues the behavior that she’s apologizing for. It’s a basic lesson that kids learn. World leaders need to learn it, too, apparently.

After facing international blowback for the Israeli military strike that burned dozens of people alive in their tents in a refugee camp in Rafah on Sunday, the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, called the civilian deaths a “tragic mishap.” He also said that his government was making “utmost efforts not to harm innocent civilians” and that mistakes would be investigated.

It reminded me of the awfully similar statement he gave in April, after the Israeli military attacked a convoy of World Central Kitchen staff members who had just unloaded food aid at a warehouse in Gaza. Those deadly airstrikes took place even though the World Central Kitchen workers drove in a clearly marked convoy and had meticulously coordinated their movements with the Israeli military. After an international outcry, Netanyahu issued a statement calling the deaths “a tragic accident” that “happens in war.”

“We are conducting a thorough inquiry and are in contact with the governments,” the statement read. “We will do everything to prevent a recurrence.”

But by that time, the sheer number of attacks on aid workers and on Gaza civilians seeking aid raised real questions about whether we have been witnessing intentional killings or “reckless incompetence,” as Christopher Lockyear, an official with Doctors Without Borders, noted .

On the side of reckless incompetence, there was that time in December when Israeli soldiers fired on three unarmed men waving white flags — only to discover that they were Israeli hostages who had managed to break free of their captors. At that time, Netanyahu’s office released a statement that called the killings “an unbearable tragedy.” The statement pledged to “learn the lessons” to ensure that it wouldn’t happen again.

How many apologies will be issued and investigations pledged before this God-forsaken war ends? Netanyahu’s list of international apologies keeps growing. But the attacks on Rafah — and the unspeakable suffering of Palestinian civilians — continue .

Frank Bruni

Pope Francis’ Remarkable Act of Contrition

I’m not accustomed to apologies from popes. Aren’t they infallible?

Yes, I know, that term doesn’t have practical, colloquial application — it doesn’t mean that they never bungle math problems or lose track of where they hung their robes. But the general notion or mythology of infallibility reflects a kind of papal authority and aloofness that discourages any real-time revisiting of false steps, any open regret for errant syllables.

“I’m sorry” belongs to the political realm (or at least did until Donald Trump came along). Popes inhabit a higher plane.

So a Vatican statement on Tuesday that Pope Francis “extends his apologies” to anyone offended by something he recently said is a big and surprising deal. It’s all the bigger and more surprising because Francis was apologizing for insulting gay people, and for most of my 59 years, Roman Catholic leaders were more concerned with condemning or converting or chiding or hiding us than with making sure our feelings weren’t hurt.

In a closed-door meeting with Italian bishops last week, Francis reportedly responded to a question about whether openly gay men should be admitted to seminaries by saying that those training grounds for future priests were already too crowded with “frociaggine,” a crude Italian slur.

I’m disappointed that he used it, contradicting past statements of his that urged respect for gay people and his decision last year to allow priests to bless same-sex couples . I don’t know whether he was disclosing his own lingering bigotry or trying to curry favor with the conservatives around him.

But I know this: Another pope in a prior era wouldn’t have been so quick to do damage control. Another pope in a prior era mightn’t have felt that any damage was done.

And even Francis could have decided simply to ignore the media attention to his offensive language until it died down. Popes are expected to worry not about the news cycle but about eternity. What’s more, he would have pleased some of his sternest critics by moving on. They complain that he has done too much outreach to L.G.B.T.Q. people and been too indulgent of them.

His apology speaks to the kind of pope that he, at his best, has been: one who means to heal wounds. But it says even more about an altered church in a changed world, where gay people still endure taunts aplenty but also encounter unexpected moments of grace.

The Trump Team’s Inept Closing Argument Blew Up

If Donald Trump becomes a felon in the coming days, he and his defense team can partly blame themselves. Throughout the trial they offered implausible arguments against the prosecution’s case, and on Tuesday Trump’s lead attorney, Todd Blanche, slipped an I.E.D. into the end of his closing argument that blew up in his face.

“You cannot send someone to prison based on the words of Michael Cohen,” Blanche said, in a bid to make jurors think it was their role to decide if a president should be incarcerated.

“Saying that was outrageous,” Justice Juan Merchan told Blanche after the jury left for lunch. Mentioning sentencing to gain sympathy with jurors who have no say in punishment “is simply not allowed,” he said, and that it was “hard for me to imagine how that was not intentional.”

The defense got more than a tongue-lashing. After lunch, Merchan turned to the jurors and told them why they had to ignore this sneaky move — not a good final look for the defense.

In his three-hour closing argument, Blanche gave jurors a few places to explore reasonable doubt but mostly swung wildly and set up the prosecution for better arguments in the afternoon.

My favorite dumb moment: “Guess who else you did not hear from in this trial?” Blanche asked. “Don and Eric. Is there some allegation that they are part of a conspiracy?” No, counselor, but the jury will likely wonder why the defense called Robert Costello, who was destroyed on cross-examination, instead of Trump’s own sons.

Blanche huffed and puffed to discredit the two possible “smoking guns” offered by the prosecution. The first consists of the scrawled notes of Allen Weisselberg, former financial head of the Trump Organization, breaking down the $420,000 that Trump paid Cohen in 2017. Weisselberg wrote “gross it up” in reference to doubling the $130,000 in hush money for tax purposes. That “is a lie,” Blanche said, using a word he would employ more than 30 times in his closing argument, to diminishing effect.

But it wasn’t a lie. The former controller of the Trump Organization had confirmed on the stand that the numbers and “gross it up” were in Weisselberg’s own hand.

The other smoking gun involves a call Cohen taped, during which Trump said “150” in reference to the hush money for Karen McDougal. While trying and — to my mind — failing to establish that Cohen’s phone was tampered with, Blanche played the tape and challenged the idea that Trump even said “150” and that Trump saying “cash” on the tape had anything to do with hush money. Jurors will presumably listen to the tape and decide for themselves. Believe me, you can hear “150.”

Blanche ended his closing argument by telling jurors that if they focus on the evidence, “this is a very easy and quick not-guilty.” Insulting the jury’s intelligence? Not smart.

Michelle Goldberg

The Trump Team’s Big Lie About the ‘Access Hollywood’ Tape

In his closing argument on Tuesday, Donald Trump’s lead defense attorney, Todd Blanche, repeatedly tried to sell a revisionist history of the infamous “Access Hollywood” tape, in which Trump was recorded boasting of his penchant for sexual assault. In the felony case against Trump, the “Access Hollywood” tape is important because, in the story the prosecution is telling, it’s the reason Trump was desperate to quash Stormy Daniels’s story.

“The government wants you to believe that the release of that tape from 2005 was so catastrophic to that campaign that it provided a motive for President Trump to do something criminal,” he said.

Attempting to undercut that narrative, Blanche insisted that it really wasn’t that big of a deal. It caused, he said, a “couple days of frustration and consternation, but that happens all the time during campaigns.” He added: “The ‘Access Hollywood’ tape is being set up in this trial to be something that it is not.”

This is insultingly and obviously untrue. As the longtime Trump aide Hope Hicks testified about that moment in the 2016 campaign, “I think there was consensus among us all that the tape was damaging, and this was a crisis.”

We now know that a critical mass of voters doesn’t care about Trump’s misogyny and predation, but we didn’t know that then. One job of the prosecution, which begins closing arguments Tuesday afternoon, will be to take the jury back to a more innocent time before Trump’s election, when people still imagined there were Republicans with a capacity for shame.

There’s Nothing Simple or Obvious About Trump’s Trial Defense

During closing arguments in Donald Trump’s felony trial on Tuesday morning, his lawyer Todd Blanche said, “There’s a reason why, in life, usually the simplest answer is the right one.”

I found this an odd approach, because to believe his theory of the case requires accepting several improbable things. First, although it’s not legally germane, Blanche reiterated, perhaps at the insistence of his client, that Trump “has unequivocally and repeatedly denied” any encounter with Stormy Daniels. And rather than simply arguing that Trump didn’t know about the scheme to reimburse Michael Cohen for the payoff to Daniels, he appears to be arguing that no such scheme existed.

Cohen, said Blanche, had a verbal retainer agreement in 2017 to serve as Trump’s personal attorney, and that’s why he was paid $420,000. If that’s the case, it’s hard to imagine why Cohen pleaded guilty and served prison time in connection with the hush-money payment.

Blanche’s argument has been internally inconsistent. First, he insisted that Trump, being busy as president, didn’t always look at the checks he signed. Then, trying to discredit the idea that Trump would reimburse Cohen $420,000 for a $130,000 payment — which Cohen has claimed was grossed up to include taxes and a bonus — Blanche pointed to “all the evidence you heard about how closely President Trump watches his finances.”

During a long digression about the National Enquirer’s practice of “catching and killing” stories, he insisted that there had never been a “catch and kill” plot involving the Playboy model Karen McDougal, implying, I think, that her deal with the publication was on the level. “She wanted to be on the cover of magazines, she wanted to write articles,” Blanche, said and that’s what she did.

Obviously, I have no idea what the jury is thinking. But given the implausibility of the narrative that Trump’s defense is spinning, it just seems weird that Blanche is invoking Occam’s razor.

Patrick Healy

Deputy Opinion Editor

How Quickly Would a Trump Verdict Sink In for Voters?

Each week on The Point, we kick things off with a tipsheet on the latest in the presidential campaign. Here’s what we’re looking at this week:

The most consequential week of Donald Trump’s criminal trial in Manhattan has arrived: The jury could begin deliberating in the next two days. We’ll also get insight shortly about Justice Juan Merchan’s instructions to jurors — basically, a clearer picture of what options they have for a verdict. As for the political impact of any decision by the jury, I think that will take weeks to become clear as Americans learn and absorb the news — as suburban women outside Philadelphia, for instance, weigh the verdict and their feelings about Trump against their views on the economy or abortion rights.

It takes time for voters to process big news, and opinions can shift with time. Part of why James Comey’s Oct. 28, 2016, letter about Hillary Clinton’s classified email was so politically damaging to her was that it came as many people were casting early votes and others were making up their minds ahead of the Nov. 8 election. The Trump verdict will be historic, but the election is five months away. How voters feel about the verdict could surely change in that time.

We’ll also start getting a clearer picture this week about whether Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will qualify to join the June 27 debate between President Biden and Trump. There’s a good explainer here boiling down how Kennedy needs to make the November ballot in a bunch more states first to make the cut for the debate. Given the various rules, I don’t think there’s much time for him to make the June debate; he may have a better shot at the September debate. Either way, I can’t see the Biden and Trump campaigns eager to have him onstage — they don’t want anything distracting voters from seeing the flaws and fumbles in the other guy, and R.F.K. Jr. will be one big distraction.

I’m preoccupied with the Biden-Trump fight for Pennsylvania and whether Biden can borrow from the winning political playbook of Gov. Josh Shapiro, who won a 15-point landslide in 2022. Biden is trailing Trump by a couple of points in the state polling average. As in other swing states, Biden needs to do far better than he’s currently polling with young voters and nonwhite voters, and with voters in Philadelphia and its suburbs. So keep an eye on Biden’s campaign trip to Philadelphia on Wednesday and his pitch for why Americans should want another four years of his presidency.

Trips like Biden’s Philadelphia event are planned weeks in advance, but as it happens, this one will probably happen just as the Trump jury is deliberating on Trump’s fate (or returning with a verdict). The split screen of Biden heralding Ben Franklin and Trump attacking jurors is a news cycle the Biden campaign badly wants.

Bret Stephens

What’s Spanish for ‘Chutzpah’?

This week’s announcements by the governments of Ireland, Norway and Spain that they will recognize a Palestinian state are drawing predictable reactions from predictable quarters. Some see them as useful rebukes to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s war strategy in Gaza that will further isolate Israel. Others, including me, view them as feckless gestures that reward Hamas’s terrorism.

That’s a column for another day. For now, it’s enough to note the Spanish government’s sheer nerve.

Though Spanish public opinion overwhelmingly supports swift recognition of Palestinian statehood, it’s another story when it comes to Spain’s own independence movements. In 2017 the regional government of Catalonia held a referendum, declared illegal by Spain’s Constitutional Court , on the question of Catalan independence. Though turnout was low — in part because Spanish police forcibly blocked voting — the Catalan government said nearly 90 percent of voters favored independence.

The central government in Madrid responded by dismissing the Catalan government, imposing direct rule. Two years later, under the current left-wing government of Pedro Sánchez, Spain sentenced nine Catalan independence leaders to prison on charges of sedition, though they were later pardoned. This year the lower house of the Spanish Parliament voted to grant amnesty to those involved in the 2017 campaign as part of a deal to prop up Sánchez’s government, despite a Senate veto. Seventy percent of the Spanish public opposes the amnesty .

Catalans aren’t the only ethnic minority in Spain that has sought independence, only to encounter violent suppression. In the 1980s the Spanish Interior Ministry under a socialist government responded to the long-running Basque separatist movement with state-sponsored death squads, notoriously responsible for a string of kidnappings, tortures and assassinations. The Spanish government called the separatists terrorists — as indeed some were — though their tactics look tame compared with Hamas’s. By the time the conflict ended in 2011, it had claimed more than 1,000 lives.

Spain possesses two cities on the African continent, Ceuta and Melilla, both of which are claimed by Morocco and have been stormed by African migrants seeking entry into the European Union. They are protected by extensive border fences and fortifications strikingly reminiscent of Israel’s breached border fence with Gaza.

There are many other independence movements throughout Europe, from Scotland to Flanders to Corsica and the Balkans. Many of these movements tend to have affinities with Palestinians, for reasons that are obvious. More difficult to explain are governments that suppress independence seekers at home while applauding those abroad. Some might call it deflection. To others, it looks like hypocrisy.