Call/WhatsApp: +1 914 416 5343

Legalization of Marijuana

Legalization of Marijuana

This essay is divided into two Parts: Assignment 1.1 is past due, I have an extension which is due August 1. –
Assignment 1.1: Conflicting Viewpoints Essay – Part I – Prewriting
When looking for information about a particular issue, how often do you try to resist biases toward your own point of view? This assignment asks you to engage in this aspect of critical thinking by playing the “Believing Game.” The Believing Game is about making the effort to “believe” – or at least consider – the reasons for an opposing view on an issue.
The assignment is divided into two (2) parts.
In Part I of the assignment Saturday, , you will first read a book excerpt about critical thinking processes: “The Believing Game and How to Make Conflicting Opinions More Fruitful” by Peter Elbow. Next, you will review the Procon.org Website in order to gather information. Then, you will engage in prewriting to examine your thoughts.
Note: In Part II of the assignment (due Week 5), you will write an essay geared towards synthesizing your ideas.
Part I – Prewriting: Follow the instructions below for this prewriting activity. Use complete sentences and adhere to standard rules of English grammar, punctuation, mechanics, and spelling.
1. Select one (1) of the approved topics from the www.procon.org Website and state your position on the issue.
2. From the Procon.org Website, identify three (3) premises (reasons) listed under either the Pro or Con section – whichever section opposes your position.
3. For each of the three (3) premises (reasons) that oppose your position on the issue, answer these
“believing” questions suggested by Elbow:
a. What’s interesting or helpful about this view?
b. What would I notice if I believed this view?
c. In what sense or under what conditions might this idea be true?”
The paper should follow guidelines for clear and organized writing:
• Include an introductory paragraph and concluding paragraph.
• Address main ideas in body paragraphs with a topic sentence and supporting sentences.
• Adhere to standard rules of English grammar, punctuation, mechanics, and spelling.
Your assignment must follow these formatting requirements:
• This course requires use of Strayer Writing Standards (SWS).
• This prewriting assignment has no page requirement. There is no requirement at this time to include references in the assignment.
The specific course learning outcomes associated with this assignment are:
• Identify the informal fallacies, assumptions, and biases involved in manipulative appeals and abuses of language. Create written work utilizing the concepts of critical thinking.
• Use technology and information resources to research issues in critical thinking skills and informal logic

Assignment 1.2: Conflicting Viewpoints Essay – Part II Synthesizing and Writing
When looking for information about a particular issue, how often do you try to resist biases toward your own point of view? This assignment asks you to engage in this aspect of critical thinking.
The assignment is divided into two (2) parts.
For Part I of the assignment (due Week 3), you read a critical thinking process: “The Believing Game and How to Make Conflicting Opinions More Fruitful” by Peter Elbow. , reviewed the Procon.org Website in order to gather information, and engaged in prewriting to examine your thoughts.
* Remember that in the Week 2 Discussion, you examined the biases discussed in Chapter 2 of the webtext.
In Part II of the assignment (due Week 5), you will write a paper to synthesize your ideas.
Part II – Writing
Write at three to four (3-4) page paper in which you:
1. State your position on the topic you selected for Assignment 1.1.
2. Identify (3) three premises (reasons) from the Procon.org website that support your position and explain why you selected these specific reasons.
3. Explain your answers to the “believing” questions about the three (3) premises opposing your position from the Procon.org website.
4. Examine at least two (2) types of biases that you likely experienced as you evaluated the premises for and against your position.
5. Discuss the effects of your own enculturation or group identification that may have influenced your biases.
6. Discuss whether or not your thinking about the topic has changed after playing the
“Believing Game,” even if your position on the issue has stayed the same. 
The paper should follow guidelines for clear and organized writing:
• Include an introductory paragraph and concluding paragraph.
• Address main ideas in body paragraphs with a topic sentence and supporting sentences.
• Adhere to standard rules of English grammar, punctuation, mechanics, and spelling.
• Based on the guidelines in SWS, “A well-researched assignment has at least as many sources as pages.”
Since this assignment requires you to write at least 3-4 pages, you should include at least 3-4 references.

While the government law has prohibited the use and submission of weed in the usa since 1937, over the past five ages states have been experimenting with marijuana liberalization polices. Status decriminalization insurance policies have been very first passed on in the 70s, affected individual health care accessibility laws and regulations started to get implemented from the 1990s, and a lot more recently claims have already been trying out legalization of leisure marketplaces. This has ended in a variety of marijuana liberalization plans across the usa that is often not fully identified or deemed when conducting assessments of latest coverage modifications. Look at as an example the state of marijuana guidelines in america at a single reason for time. As demonstrated in Shape 1, at the time of January 1, 2016, 21 states1 have decriminalized particular marijuana thing offenses (NCSL 2016a), 26 states have legalized health care cannabis use, and another 16 claims have adopted cannabidiol (CBD)-only laws (NCSL 2016b) that protect only certain strains of cannabis to use for medical purposes. Nevertheless, there is incredible overlap because some claims have carried out mixtures of all these guidelines, as proven by the fact that the 5 says currently legalizing recreational weed use (Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, Washington, along with the Area of Columbia) all initially decriminalized marijuana then passed on healthcare weed allowances before passing their legalization plans. As a result, the vast majority of US states have moved from a strict prohibition place toward weed well before they started contemplating in full legalization. A variety of elements have motivated the insurance plan changes noticed within the last several ages, which include increasing state budgetary expenses related to arresting and incarcerating nonviolent drug offenders (Raphael & Stoll 2013, Reuter et al. 2001), developing scientific evidence of the restorative advantages of cannabinoids in the weed grow (Mountain 2015, Koppel et al. 2014), and strained condition budgets which have triggered legislatures to look for new resources for taxation earnings (Caulkins et al. 2015, Kilmer et al. 2010).

The tremendous insurance policy variation with time and across states would seem to give research workers ample opportunities to quantitatively look at the outcome of marijuana liberalization policies on various health insurance and sociable results. Nonetheless, the clinical literature continues to be sluggish to produce, and what exists within the literature provides generally mixed and largely insignificant conclusions. This has directed a lot of to conclude how the earlier liberalization guidelines must be undamaging and that continuing legalization would similarly generate very little injury to society. In fact, recent online surveys of people’s behaviours about marijuana demonstrate a specific transfer in favor of legalization (Caulkins et al. 2015).

As we will argue throughout this post, nonetheless, at the very least three good reasons claim that we exercise caution in drawing findings in the merged empirical facts or, moreover, in providing which a switch to legally guarded industrial marketplaces would bring about outcomes much like those of the earlier tests. Very first, the literature has largely handled both decriminalization and health care weed guidelines just as if they were straightforward dichotomous options, applied similarly across claims. Such a remedy ignores the substantial heterogeneity within these guidelines that can differentially influence harms and positive aspects and in addition leads to what look like mixed is a result of reviews. Second, nearly all coverage evaluations conducted thus far examine the outcome from the insurance policy when it comes to changes in prevalence costs within the standard population, which assumes how the amount of everyday and heavy users, that are pooled together in these simple prevalence rates, stays steady even as the policy changes. Lastly, studies have been sluggish to consider the extent in which these variations in guidelines impact the process where the normal customer utilizes marijuana. The possibility extreme hurt connected with using tobacco a joint differs from that associated with taking in an edible or dabbing wax tart, specifically considering the fact that the standard potency from the product or service typically can vary and the body’s amount of intake of THC may differ by strategy (Huestis 2007).

In this article, we look at the pre-existing literature on the outcomes of decriminalization and medical marijuana legal guidelines on weed use and marijuana use conditions in light of these limitations. Unlike other evaluations, our goal is not really to sum up all the existing literature on the negative effects of decriminalization and medicalization. Rather, the purpose of this review is to supply a greater understanding of exactly what can be gleaned from the literature when more thing to consider is provided to the difficulties of those policies, the communities analyzed, along with the procedures of use deemed. The process allows us to show the requirement for more investigation, when it comes to dimension and evaluation, just before we are able to truly comprehend the impacts of weed liberalization policies. It is recommended for any conversation in the literature to start by identifying the policies being deemed. For the purpose of this review, we determine four certain cannabis policies (prohibition, decriminalization, healthcare marijuana, and legalization) regarding their lawful definitions as opposed to their setup in local residential areas, as being the latter is generally a purpose of the quantity of enforcement, which is difficult to measure inside a methodical and analytic way. Prohibition, therefore, can be defined as a rules that maintains the illegal status associated with a measures associated with marijuana possession, use, cultivation, transaction, or distribution. The amount of criminal activity can be statutorily considered either a misdemeanor (incurring relatively lower felony penalty charges that may or may not include prison time) or perhaps a felony (entailing a lot more significant fees, more challenging sanctions, and certain prison time), and the demand can be a function of the amount of cannabis engaged or perhaps of your the outdoors in the action (e.g., purchase to kids). No matter, the focus is about the legal position in the relevant offenses, not the level that community police force chooses to impose it. America authorities, by way of example, keeps its prohibition on all weed actions (ownership, use, cultivation, distribution, digesting, and selling) as do places like San Francisco, although San Francisco has used a plan of lower-top priority enforcement (Ross & Walker 2017).

Decriminalization is a insurance policy that was first based on the 1972 Shaffer Payment (also referred to as the Federal Commission payment on Marihuana and Substance Mistreatment), and it also identifies plans which do not define thing for private use or relaxed (nonmonetary) submission as a legal offense. The Shaffer Payment clearly stated that plans that simply minimized the fees and penalties without taking out the felony position from the offense had been not technically decriminalized, since they managed the large interpersonal harm of the linked criminal convictions (Natl. Comm. Marihuana Substance Abus. 1972). This distinction between guidelines that simply reduce penalties and those that actually affect the lawful status of the offense is very important, but it is not necessarily widely realized by a lot of researchers checking even the earlier policies. At the very least 2 in the 11 widely acknowledged decriminalized suggests in the 1970s and 1980s, Cal and North Carolina, failed to remove the legal position from the offense (Pacula et al. 2003, Reuter & MacCoun 1995). Rather, these suggests merely lessened the fees and penalties related to possession and/or utilization of marijuana, an insurance plan generally generally known as depenalization (MacCoun & Reuter 2001, Pacula et al. 2005). But, individuals in depenalization jurisdictions can continue to encounter considerable barriers gain access to function, student education loans, and public help if found in possession of marijuana, even when they are only involved in a tiny good, simply because they can continue to have a legal fee on their own report.