Could you tell me if there's any gross mistakes, and if you agree, I'm not asking for a proof read, just some suggestions to make it better or gross grammer mistakes ect. I think it's an interesting read...
"New Jersey Vote Backs Marijuana for Severely Ill"
Medical Marijuana has and always will be a hot button issue amongst the public as well as elected officials. Both sides have compelling arguments albeit its adversaries have nearly a 75 year prohibition in their favor. I use the term prohibition referring to an era of American history whereby majorities actions were mass criminalized. During 1920-1933, the consumption of alcohol was deemed illegal. When the prohibition was overturned, the primarily rationale behind this decision was that it was criminalizing innocent citizens affording a pleasure they were legally given in the past. I believe the use of marijuana could be compared to the alcohol prohibition, assuming its illegality criminalizes a large mass of American citizens who otherwise would abide by the laws of our land. Throughout history marijuana has come very close to being decriminalized at the federal level, particularly in the 70's. The primary reason it remains illegal, as an elected official you should always be concerned with the popular vote. In history, proponents of marijuana's legalization/decriminalization automatically could kiss the popular vote goodbye, logic aside. Here we are today facing a relevant yet separate matter concerning legalizing marijuana strictly for medical use.
New Jersey will be the 14th state legalizing medicinal marijuana although there will be some unique limitations. It is no secret states such as California are undergoing some serious problems with the abuse of medical marijuana. Their laws are extremely vague, allowing individuals with anxiety or those who suffer from panic attacks to be qualified candidates. There is a huge problem with this, the above mentioned symptoms can be simulated or falsely created for the sheer purpose for gaining legal access to the drug. New Jersey with those issues in mind, decided to take a more stringent approach and only make serious medical conditions eligible for the "protected status". Conditions such as; Aids, Lou Gehrig's disease, muscular dystrophy, and multiple sclerosis which are nearly impossible fake given testing can positively confirm the aforementioned conditions. In the past there has been great divide among Democrats and Republicans concerning the legalization of medical marijuana. It is interesting how this divide among parties has turned into quasi uniform agreement that medicinal marijuana should In fact be legalized, political views aside. Governor Corzine signed the bill prior to leaving office and it's expected to be in full effect within the next 6 to 12 months.
This decision shows signs of logic and compassion for those who need marijuana in mitigating their ailments. There have been concrete multiple sclerosis studies showing the use of medicinal marijuana will slow the progression of the disease, these studies have been dismissed in the past. I whole heartedly agree with New Jersey's decision in giving qualified patients immunity status from being prosecuted. One of the primary issues I don't agree with, the FDA's refusal to recognize this prescribed drug. Federal law states that all prescription drugs must be approved by the FDA for them to be sold. This issue is being skirted, officials assert, medical marijuana is a "recommendation" not a prescription thus it does not have to be FDA approved. The FDA refuses to see any medical benefit in marijuana and their testing conditions in making this decision, show extreme bias. A quick look in history and knowing all the horrible products the FDA has approved, almost dismisses the validity of their research given you cannot overdose on marijuana. The dilemma here is that if FDA approved, it automatically would be legal on the federal level, thus the reservations via the FDA.
In sum, I firmly believe New Jersey has made the right decision in legalizing medicinal marijuana. This is a decision that shows compassion and logic, given all the legal alternatives. I do believe this is the tip of the iceberg in terms marijuana being legalized as a whole, a decision that California may be the first to make. Lastly, I find it highly troubling that regardless of its legal/illegal status, the government will find a way to profit via tax or through its criminalization. I find it highly hypocritical creating a 75 year prohibition, in turn legalizing marijuana not for logic or compassion, rather economical benefit being the most compelling argument.
Just asking, thanks anyway.
Joe
No.
The Sugarloaf Crafts Broad
Neither will I
rookie35m
Get a job.
Zardoz
Some awkward sentence structure:
"I use the term prohibition referring to an era of American history whereby majorities actions were mass criminalized."
"The primary reason it remains illegal, as an elected official you should always be concerned with the popular vote."
"One of the primary issues I don't agree with, the FDA's refusal to recognize this prescribed drug."
"I do believe this is the tip of the iceberg in terms marijuana being legalized as a whole, a decision that California may be the first to make."
"I find it highly hypocritical creating a 75 year prohibition, in turn legalizing marijuana not for logic or compassion, rather economical benefit being the most compelling argument."
Write out seventy five, don't use the number.
The first time you use FDA you should write out Food and Drug Adminstration.
porhtronranie2
I live here in Colorado, where we have possibly the best medical marijuana law in the nation. This is partly because its author was genius enough to make it a state constitutional amendment. By way of history I can offer you some interesting facts. Cannabis has been cultivated for human consumption since at least 6000 B.C. Contrary to the opponents Marijuana is extremely difficult to overdose on, and the ONLY REAL instances of death by marijuana have occurred when people have injected hash oil into their bloodstream, something I had never even heard of prior to my own research. Regardless of the problems you mentioned in your question, California is actually considering total legalization for adults, most likely due to the fact that they have seen money flow from the medical system in such abundance that they just can't ignore the fiscal potential.
Boogymouse
When writing a professional paper of any kind you must list your sources of information. You can not simply make a statement about something without explaining where that information came from. Some of your paper is strictly based on opinion. It's okay to have opinions in your paper, but you need some reference to back it up.
"The primary reason it remains illegal, as an elected official you should always be concerned with the popular vote. In history, proponents of marijuana's legalization/decriminalization automatically could kiss the popular vote goodbye, logic aside."
This is NOT a fact and should be removed from your paper. Marijuana is an abused substance. Wars are faught between gangs over the sale of illegal narcotics and even those who grow it for medicinal puposes abuse the privilege. Legalizing marijuana is not going to change this. Criminal groups (like gangs) will still continue to fight over territory to sell the stuff. The difference in legalizing it is that gang members and other criminals can no longer be arrested for their profiteering of that product. This issue goes far beyond what you might be familiar with in your neighborhood. It goes beyond being a relaxed smoke between friends. How many people died to made your smoke available to you? That's the issue. Often those who grow it for medicianal purposes will grow more than allowed and sell in or share it with those who don't require it for medical reasons.
This is a very big issue with a lot of components. I would recommend finding sources to support your statements and quote them in the paper. Then list your sources in a separate section at the bottom.
Orignal From: Will you read my 1 page medical marijuana position paper?
Post a Comment