At the same time, the effectiveness of the current federal policy of total prohibition falls far short of its objective of preventing consumption. An estimated 55 million Americans have tried marijuana, federal enforcement is virtually non-existent, and 11 states have waived criminal penalties for private possession of small amounts and for private use. It can no longer be argued that consumption is much more widespread and that the problematic effects would be greater today in the absence of the total prohibition policy: existing evidence on the partial ban policy suggests that partial ban has been as effective in controlling consumption as total prohibition and that socio-legal and economic costs are much lower. Overall, therefore, we believe that a partial ban policy is clearly preferable to a total ban on supply and use. At present, the shape of specific alternatives to current policies and their likely impact on consumption patterns cannot be determined with certainty. It is possible that after careful consideration, it turns out that all solutions have so many drawbacks that no public approval could satisfy. However, in order to maximize the likelihood of healthy policies in the long term, more research should be conducted on the biological, behavioural, developmental and social consequences of marijuana use, on the structure and functioning of drug markets, and on the relationships between different conditions of availability and patterns of use. On the other hand, opponents of marijuana`s legal status have clear and solid reasons to highlight its toxic and harmful effects. They argue that marijuana is less curative than addictive. Opponents also deny its medical power on the grounds that it is toxic to some patients. In addition, they believe that it impairs the ability to think clearly and positively. Its long-term use may be susceptible to chronic diseases such as hepatitis. Marijuana`s association with narcotics makes its status a drug that should be banned, critics say.
Pot sellers also offer economic arguments for their cause. Taxes levied on marijuana sales will easily outweigh the social costs of legalization, they say. Legalizing marijuana is not the answer. Rather, sound national drug policies include international cooperation, research, law enforcement, treatment, prevention and education. When President Ronald Reagan adopted a similar strategy, illicit drug use by young adults dropped by more than 50 percent. After various stages of its use in hems, ropes and medicines, marijuana has now reached the point of discussion where its legality and illegality have sparked debates across the country. In America, recreational marijuana use is now legal in many states, and in others, efforts are being made to maintain its legal status for recreational purposes. The debate itself seems fascinating and leads to the question of the effectiveness of the phenomenon. We wonder why so many people support legality and whether it is really useful to the extent that others do not appreciate it. Finally, regardless of state law, marijuana remains illegal under federal law, states do not have the power to allow their citizens to violate it. We also believe that the current policy of controlling the supply of marijuana should be seriously reconsidered.
The proven ineffectiveness of controlling consumption through a supply ban and the high cost of implementing such a policy make it very unlikely that a partial ban policy would be effective in reducing marijuana use well below current levels. In addition, it seems likely to us that the lifting of criminal sanctions will be seriously considered by the Federal Government and the Länder in the foreseeable future. Various alternative policies should therefore be considered. This brings us to the fragile and fragile ethical conditions that prevail in society. U.S. states want to legalize the recreational use of marijuana one by one, given its negative physical and moral effects. The situation becomes deplorable when viewed in the face of the general deterioration of religious conditions that are pervasive throughout the country. Religious resuscitation can alleviate the traumatic conditions of marijuana use. No state is likely to be allowed to legalize marijuana itself because of the negative spillover between states.
Yet even if a state could do it, legalizing marijuana would serve no purpose other than exacerbate the drug problem. But think about the benefits to society, say pot proponents. Legalizing marijuana would reduce drug-related crime, they say. But as states legalize marijuana, local demand will increase.