Marijuana is a very controversial
substance when it comes to legalization. D Mark Anderson and Daniel I. Rees did
a study on what can be the worst possible outcome of the legalization of
marijuana for recreational use rather than medical use. Many different ideas
came about throughout the study.
Some findings that
were noticed are that Marijuana and alcohol are not actually complements. They
are more as substitutes. Marijuana was seen more in young adults around the age
18 – 21. At the age of 21 there was a decrease in marijuana intake because of
the fact that the legal age to drink is 21. Another Finding is that if
recreational legalization does occur than marijuana farms will not be around.
Rather Marijuana will continue to be grown in small locations under lamps.
There will be an increase of small locations, but by people who know how to
grow marijuana rather than workers who have no idea. Anderson and Rees also
found that after recreational legalization in Colorado and Washington the price
of high quality marijuana fell. The intake of marijuana was stable for youth
consumption, there did not seem to be huge differences from when it was illegal
to when it was legal. Scientists also found that with the increase in marijuana
intake the less traffic injuries happened. People who were under the influence
of the substance tended to drive a lot more slowly and took fewer risks. Social
harm also decreased as the intake of marijuana increased. 
In this study there was the implication that
it can only be different in different states. Each state is different with
taxes for alcohol and marijuana. Also the legalization of marijuana has only
happened in a few states, the results may have been generalized and not true to
validity. For example, if a state that has yet to medically legalize marijuana
and just jumps ahead to legalizing recreational, that stats can be extremely
different.
Anderson, D. M.
and Rees, D. I. (2014), The Legalization of Recreational Marijuana: How Likely
Is the Worst-Case Scenario?. J. Pol. Anal. Manage., 33: 221–232. doi:
10.1002/pam.21727
No comments:
Post a Comment