Medical Marijuana Case Study

According to the United Nations, “158.8 million people around the world use marijuana—more than 3.8% of the planet’s population” (Marijuana). Marijuana has become a crucial topic throughout the world in recent years. Marijuana has been legalized medically throughout many countries, such as Australia, Chile, Spain, and Uruguay. Within the United States of America, twenty-eight states have legalized marijuana for medicinal use, the most recent legalization passed was in the state of Florida. Therefore, one can assert that medical marijuana is a controversial topic locally and globally. Medical marijuana portrays many advantages and disadvantages within society. Medical marijuana portrays many benefits to victims of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder,

They assume that moral principles can be objectively true and that morality is not meaningless or relative. The decision- making procedure of a consequentialist is to identify what is worth having for its own sake, next, identify what is intrinsically bad, then, determine your options. The last two steps are to ask what is the value of the results of all of your options, and to pick the one that produces the most value.

“Drug offenses include the possession, sale, or manufacture of illicit drugs. Many drug offenses are felonies and are punishable by at least one year in prison. Some drug offenses—particularly the possession of small amounts of marijuana—are misdemeanors. People convicted of misdemeanor drug crimes may receive a fine and/or a sentence of less than one year in a local jail. Some jurisdictions treat the possession of very small amounts of marijuana (e.g., less than 1 ounce [28 g]) as an infraction, rather than as a misdemeanor. Infractions are minor offenses, such as traffic violations, that are punishable only with fines, not with incarceration. Drug laws are complex and can differ between jurisdictions. In general, the seriousness of an

Marijuana has destroyed and transformed the lives and futures of many people. It was friday night when Alejandro 19 year-old and his friend Joe 22, both college students were arrested by the possession of 3 cigarettes marijuana. Their plan was to go to the house of their group of friends to practice music after a long week of work at school. they were about to get to their destiny when a police officer pull them over because one of car lights was not working. The police officer perceived the smell of marijuana of some cigarettes that alejandro and joe had in the car, he noticed that they possessed marijuana. They did not were arrested but they had to go to court to pay a fine by the possession of marijuana. Three months later Alejandro

Morality, thus, should not be contingent upon conditions or expectations of reciprocity nor should it exclude personal feelings such as love, as it is particularly this characteristic that prevents one from alienation. Railton believes that subjective consequentialism, which requires one to perform before-action deliberate to yield the best consequence, is what produces alienation causing not only “psychological affliction” on oneself, but also to others (137). So, when moral actions become the means for yet another end, one is not acting for the good as an end in itself. Acknowledging the misconception–utilitarian understanding–of consequentialism, Railton expounds upon “sophisticated consequentialism,” which is objective consequentialism in form, but does not endorse subjective consequentialism, leaving space for other forms of decision-making such as love (153). In essence, sophisticated consequentialism is developing dispositions that, ultimately, lead to good, so that one can “allocate” time efficiently, and at the same time able to justify or judge one’s action based on universal morality

Consequentialist: Focuses on the result of an action. The act is considered a good act if the result is good, likewise and act is considered bad if the result produced is bad. Under the consequentialist theory, we have Egoism and Utilitarianism.

Over the past decade, the legalization of marijuana has been a controversial topic. The drug has been legalized for medical use in 23 states and the District of Columbia. Medical marijuana laws have caused people to believe the drug is more beneficial than it is harmful. Medicinal marijuana is abused like many other prescription drugs. The medical marijuana system is also heavily regulated. The drug may not cause a rise in crime among users, but it can cause manufacturers and distributers to clog up the criminal justice system if they violate certain regulations. Right now the federal government classifies marijuana as a Schedule I drug. According to the Drug Enforcement Administration, there are three criteria that are used to categorize

How does medicinal marijuana help those who need it you may ask? There was a huge case back in 2013 about a young eight-year old girl name Charlotte Figi who suffers from Dravet’s Syndrome or better known as myoclonic epilepsy in infants. (Stubblefield 345). This disease made Charlotte have over 300 seizures a week. After she started using marijuana her condition improved so well that her seizures dropped down to two to three times a month. Just like Twoquala Stevens, who had a mastectomy on her right breast after being diagnosed with Stage Two breast cancer in July 2011, she said, “I would still smoke marijuana even if it wasn’t legalized, because it helped relieve pain, alleviate nausea and increase my appetite.”(Hayes). Medicinal marijuana

However, if morality is so important, are the motives behind acting morally really all that significant? According to psychological egoism “every human action is motivated by self interest” (Rachels 64). As humans we are incapable of acting unselfishly. So what makes anyone think we could behave morally for altruistic reasons?

This could include such crimes as theft or prostitution. It is also a crime to use, possess, and partake in drug trafficking, manufacture or distribution of illegal drugs.

“The moral is that the shape of a society must depend on the ethical nature of the individual and not on any political system however apparently logical or respectable.”

1. Consequentialist moral theories see the moral rightness or wrongness of actions as a function of their results. If the consequences are sufficiently good, the action is right; if they are sufficiently bad, the action is wrong. However, nonconsequentialist theories see other factors as also relevant to the determination of right and wrong.

Teens are consequently affected by marijuana if the illegal substance is found in their possession or if a teen is under the influence of the drug. Teens that use marijuana or other highly used drugs could face up to 1 year in prison and a minimum fine of $1,000 dollars for first conviction, even if it’s a small amount of marijuana it will still be treated as a possession. Selling or using marijuana for profitable reasons will reflect harsh punishment by serving up to 3 years in prison, most to all teens who have an illegal drug such as marijuana in their possession at the age of 17 or older will

There are three main terms I will be referencing in this paper. The first is consequentialism. Consequentialism is, at heart, a framework

In “Should law improve morality?” Leslie Green argues, firstly, that law is capable of having causal impact on the nature of social morality and, secondly, that one of the functions of law should be the betterment of morality. In maintaining that the law ought to be intimately connected to morality, it appears as though Green is advocating for a modern version of the natural law perspective. After first giving an account of natural law, this paper will explicate Green 's distinction between “ideal” and “social” morality. This distinction allows him to assert that morality can be changed without violating basic intuitions about the metaphysics of moral principles, and allows him to escape the objection to natural law which refers to the diversity in moral rules found across societies. An objection to Green 's argument for the causal efficacy of law on morality and his response will then be examined. Finally, his argument for why law ought to be used to improve morality, regardless of how slow or indirect these changes might be, will be expounded and analyzed. Ultimately, it will be argued that Green is correct to assert that the law can (and should) influence morality, but that he overestimates the amount of choice involved when a society accomplishes this feat.