The above-mentioned substance is a pro-active compound derived from the Cannabis plant that can be used for either medicinal or recreational purposes. The editorial teams that focused their articles on the dig have expanded a narrative question in regards to the societal, political, and legal consequences that medical marijuana legalization could have. The op-ed pages of some of the writers’ publications present realistic implications that aim to restrict the framing techniques employed by the aforementioned journalists. As a result, half of the op-ed articles concentrate on the drug’s medical consequences (Ferguson, 2014). The event turns out involving the marijuana sparked off after the immediate approval of Proposition 215 by the voters of the state of California which took place in 1996 (Monte et al., 2015). What followed thereafter was the legalization of marijuana in the country. However, the motive of this move was to ensure that the drug is used for medical purpose and not the recreational goal that most of its users wanted the drug to be used for in the first place. On most cases, the Proposition was referred to as the Compassionate Act which is due to the fact that the drug was permitted to be used despite it not having undergone the prerequisite Food and Drug Administration testing to ascertain its efficacy and safety (Campbell et al., 2017). The move that the concerned leaders made pertaining to this issue just helps explain the extent of the pressure under which they were as the decision seems somewhat irrational.
The drug was allowed to be used in medical processes which are meant to save the lives of individuals who are hanging on a threat in between staying alive and passing-on which shows how critical the issue seems. Therefore, before making any rash decisions that would endanger patients in hospitals it is crucial to take time to test the efficacy and safety levels of the drug. Under the proposition, patients in medical conditions were permitted to use the drug after obtaining it to relieve themselves from the agony that is inflicted on them by their status (Ferguson, 2014). However, the latter was only made possible after the individuals have been recommended to do so by the physicians who attended to their medical needs.
The legalization that was dome in California caused a lot of controversies in other American states as their occupants felt that they were not supposed to be left behind as far as the issue at hand is concerned. By so saying, twelve more legalizations followed subsequently after that which took place in California (Ferguson, 2014). In the same context, the legalization of marijuana has continued to be a public issue that has been highly contested, and it has also been fueled by the imminent contradictions between provisions of drug laws in federal and state contexts. On the same note, there are religious and moral objections that seem to be against the legalization of the drug as it is contrary to what they stand for and make the people believe.
Consequently, controversies have also been presented by scientists who believe that the there are no medically proven clear-cut interventions that are in line with the legalization of marijuana. Since the patients involved in this category procure the drug themselves after they have been recommended to them by the physicists, there is no guarantee that they would use the drug in the context for which they have procured it (Monte et al., 2015). Also, some of them would not use it within the dosage the medical practitioner who prescribes it to them stated it should be taken which only attributes to the rise of even more controversies regarding the procurement and use of the drug.
In the sections of both the national and local daily newspapers in the United States (US) there is an ongoing medical debate regarding the same issue, and as it turns out, a vast majority of the people are torn between both sides. While some of them are for the fact that the legalization would help to relieve the pain of individuals suffering due to lack of the drug in a medical intervention, there are those who feel the process was a mistake and should not have been legalized in the first place. The latter believe that even those who are not recommended to use the drug would now procure the drug with the scapegoat that it was a recommendation by their physicists.
The leeway in which addicts trick the concerned people in order that they may get the drug would only play a pivotal role in ensuring that they use the drug freely without any restrictions. If the event turn out ends up as I have mentioned, then it only means that the state has made it their duty to increase the consumption of the drug in the streets and premises without the laws chipping in to salvage the situation. Luckily, the mainstream media has come in handy in playing a significant role to steer the debate on platforms in which the concerned citizens can easily give their views without any fear or coercion whatsoever. Also, the discussion has since mentioned the long terms effects that the drug has its consumers and the real-life consequences (Monte et al., 2015).
The pages in print media that are highly subjective have provided readers with essential information that serves them as critical benchmarks to the situation at hand and some of the salient issues for which they can contribute their personal opinions regarding the same matter. Legalizing the drug in all the thirteen states does not mean that it would go easy on them as it is merely objected that is unaware of the effects it possesses on its users. The duty to ensure the citizens have a healthy lifestyle is pegged on the citizens themselves and the concerned state. The latter is mandated to work hard to ensure they guarantee the citizens that well-being is not in jeopardy and that the state is working on their welfare.
Since the drug has effects that may be quite dire to its users, it is crucial first to sensitize the people of the effects ad risk that the drug possesses to their lives. Creating awareness plays an integral part in helping the victims make informed decisions regarding whether or not they want to continue using the drugs either in their hidings on in public. Conclusively, the states may have legalized the drugs to quell the pressure that medical practitioners were making them undergo, but they need to pay keen attention to the welfare of those who would end up suffering even more from addiction of the drug.
Campbell, W., Twenge, J., & Carter, N. (2017). Support for Marijuana (Cannabis) Legalization: Untangling Age, Period, and Cohort Effects. Collabra: Psychology, 3(1).
Ferguson, B. (2014). Introduction: Legalization of Marijuana in Washington State. Gonz. L. Rev., 50, 239.
Monte, A. A., Zane, R. D., & Heard, K. J. (2015). The implications of marijuana legalization in Colorado. Jama, 313(3), 241-242.