The Florida Supreme Court’s new ruling has turned over to the state’s voters the decision on whether or not to legalize recreational marijuana. Recreational Cannabis Legalization (RCL) is already a major topic of contention within the United States. The proposed amendment is set to allow anyone above 21 years of age to possess, purchase, or use marijuana and marijuana products for non-medical purposes. How much foresight is there behind placing this on the ballot in Florida?
Justice Jamie R. Grosshans has elucidated in an advisory opinion that the court’s role in giving the nod for a proposed amendment to be placed on the ballot is limited to assessing if it meets the requirements of constitutionality and clarity. Marijuana is currently legal in nine countries worldwide, including Canada and Mexico from the American continent. In the US, it has been legalized in 24 out of 50 states and three US territories. In 38 states, cannabis is legal for medical use in light of evidence that the active ingredient in the drug may be useful as an analgesic for chronic pain, an antiemetic, and an antispasmodic.
Public vs Policymakers: Different Views On Recreational Pot
Arguments have been raised over the years both for and against making marijuana accessible for recreational use. The pro-legalization arguments mainly focus on better regulation of cannabis production and distribution. They propose that it may help regulate the potency and quality of cannabis products. It can potentially reduce the rate of organized crime, and decriminalization will mean less burden on the justice system and less inequality in criminal penalization. The possibility of generating tax revenues and commercial activities is also on the table.
However, it is interesting to note that a nationally representative survey found pro-legalization arguments to be perceived as more persuasive in the US than public health anti-legalization arguments. This is an indication that policymaker concerns regarding recreational use do not seem to hold as much weight as with health implications in the general public.
The main arguments of the anti-cannabis legalization group lean towards the risks of cannabis-impaired driving and increased use among youth. Legal access that translates to easier access among young adults can lead to potential abuse by adolescents. This poses a greater risk as marijuana use among teens has been linked to mental health problems and brain function impairment. Cannabis is known to trigger psychosis in some and we have seen a recent case of a fatal crime involving cannabis-induced psychosis.
Though countries around the world have been moving towards cannabis freedom in the past couple of decades, the scientific community hasn’t yet reached a consensus regarding the long-term consequences of this move. Findings from various studies regarding its effects are widely inconsistent, partly contradictory, and overall inconclusive. Most studies are also limited to household participants and have excluded the homeless, who constitute a significant percentage of the population in many US states. So the data and findings we have are largely incomplete. In countries where the legalization is already in effect, it is too early to know the true impacts in the long term.
Read more: Florida First State to Prohibit Social Media Use for Under 14
There needs to be more study and assessment of the impact of cannabis legalization for recreational use on the sociocultural dynamics of a society before it is put to vote. The Politicization of the issue and other political agendas should be set aside in favor of concern for the coming generations and the country’s future when it comes to overarching legislation like this one. What governing policies are to entail the legislation? Is it a question of personal freedom or the safety and future of society and our coming generations? It is in the interest of democracy that the citizens get to make choices for themselves. But it’s only after weighing the benefits and risks of weed and providing citizens with the information to make an informed decision that any country should entrust decisions where the future of an entire country is at stake.