#5 Scholarly Resource Web
Bloomquist, Edward R. “Marijuana: Social Benefit or Social Detriment?” California Medicine 106.5 (May 1967): 346-353. Web. 6 Nov 2014. In article is a classic representation of the sort of literature which informed initial impressions of marijuana consumption to the American public of the 1960s. It is essentially a primer on marijuana as a recreational drug with regards to what the author sees as its role in contemporary social problems (Bloomquist 1). Its scope and purpose rest entirely on a platform of demonizing marijuana and glossing over the absence of hard empirical evidence for much of the assertions made in the text. Bloomquist's evidence consists largely of anecdotal, perceived cliches and mantras from within the section of society which feared and opposed the growing national habit of marijuana consumption. Though acknowledging the raw diversity of psychological effects and personal responses, he also asserts, among other things, that marijuana has a sexualizing effect on people (Bloomquist 3), that the so-called 'upper' and 'lower' castes of society flock to the drug for different, though similarly superficial reasons (Bloomquist 3), and that marijuana induces violent behavior (Bloomquist 6). For Bloomquist, marijuana is an inherent scourge to society.
Joffe, Alain; and Yancey, Samuel W. “Legalization of Marijuana: Potential Impact on Youth.” Pediatrics: Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics 113 (2004): 632 638. AAPPublications.org. 6 Nov 2014. This text represents an effort to collate and report on historical technical perspectives on the impacts of experiments in marijuana policy on the well-being of adolescents. That is, it disinterestedly examines the historical flow of discourse and the varying trends in opinion concerning marijuana consumption and its impact on youth life outcomes with regards to the historical interpretation of drug law (Joffe & Yancy 2), law enforcement, pharmacological actions on the brains of adolescents (Joffe & Yancy 2), and current trends in public perspective including medicinal marijuana decriminalization. They also, in conducting a longitudinal survey of the affects of marijuana on the brains of adolescents seem to uncover potential risks of long-term cognitive deficits worth averting by limiting access of marijuana to adolescents. Moreover, seemingly in contrast to their initial aims, Joffe and Yancy infer from evidence in their conclusion that legalization may result in cheaper marijuana and a reduction in perceived danger due to its changed legal status, resulting in detrimental affects on youth health.
Miron, Jeffrey in Earleywine, Mitchell. "The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition." Pot Politics: Marijuana and the Costs of Prohibition. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2007. Print. In this report, visiting Boston University economist Jeffrey Miron conducts a cost-effect analysis of current marijuana criminalization versus the change expected by a federal level legalization effort. Namely, he forwards the case that the cost of prohibition enforcement and its preclusion of taxation wreaks havoc on the federal and state budgets, costing a nation-wide total of $7.7 billion per year in enfocement costs (Miron 10) and an additional loss of $6.3 billion annually by not taxing marijuana on a scale similar to alcohol and tobacco (Miron 11). Miron concludes that from a fiscal perspective, marijuana should be legalized, also noting several other studies which suggest that the enforcement of marijuana prohibition is an uphill battle that cannot be won but through a Pyrrhic expenditure of exhorbitant tax dollars on suppressing the 'pursuit of freedom' of marijuana-smokers.
Pacula, Rosalie Liccardo; Chriqui, Jamie F; and King, Joanna. “Marijuana Decriminalization: What Does it Mean in the United States?” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 9690 (May 2003). Web. 6 Nov 2014. The authors of this article apply themselves to the task of isolating the common denominators in the statutes concerning marijuana decriminalization in eleven states during the 1970s in an attempt to identify the influence of such legislation on trends in marijuana consumption (Pacula, Chriqui, & King 3). They assert that empirical data hitherto gathered has been diverse and inconclusive in identifying the impact of legislation (Pacula, Chriqui, & King 4). Furthermore, they conclude that the language of 'decriminalization' is often arbitrary in these statutes to the extent that it may simply mean a minor reduction in what still amounts to harsh criminal penalties (Pacula, Chriqui, & King 26), further conflating our ability to determine the effects of decriminalization on rates of abuse, which is a key point of contention and potentially the deciding factor in many people's minds in legalizing marijuana.
Shalala, Donna E. “Say 'No' to Legalization of Marijuana.” Wall Street Journal 18 Aug 1995, 10: A10. ProQuest LLC. Web. 6 Nov 2014. This argumentative article is staunchly opposed to marijuana decriminalization, citing research suggesting the long-term cognitive deficits that may result from marijuana consumption, including during pregnancy (Shalala 2) and the surge in marijuana abuse among teenagers in the previous three years (Shalala 2). Notwithstanding the effects of legalization on consumption rates, the author concludes that marijuana abuse must be suppressed in any way possible, be it through legal measures or a social revolution against drug abuse. She, however, forwards this argument without offering a strategy for successful prohibition and marijuana-smoking reduction among teenagers.
Joffe, Alain; and Yancey, Samuel W. “Legalization of Marijuana: Potential Impact on Youth.” Pediatrics: Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics 113 (2004): 632 638. AAPPublications.org. 6 Nov 2014. This text represents an effort to collate and report on historical technical perspectives on the impacts of experiments in marijuana policy on the well-being of adolescents. That is, it disinterestedly examines the historical flow of discourse and the varying trends in opinion concerning marijuana consumption and its impact on youth life outcomes with regards to the historical interpretation of drug law (Joffe & Yancy 2), law enforcement, pharmacological actions on the brains of adolescents (Joffe & Yancy 2), and current trends in public perspective including medicinal marijuana decriminalization. They also, in conducting a longitudinal survey of the affects of marijuana on the brains of adolescents seem to uncover potential risks of long-term cognitive deficits worth averting by limiting access of marijuana to adolescents. Moreover, seemingly in contrast to their initial aims, Joffe and Yancy infer from evidence in their conclusion that legalization may result in cheaper marijuana and a reduction in perceived danger due to its changed legal status, resulting in detrimental affects on youth health.
Miron, Jeffrey in Earleywine, Mitchell. "The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition." Pot Politics: Marijuana and the Costs of Prohibition. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2007. Print. In this report, visiting Boston University economist Jeffrey Miron conducts a cost-effect analysis of current marijuana criminalization versus the change expected by a federal level legalization effort. Namely, he forwards the case that the cost of prohibition enforcement and its preclusion of taxation wreaks havoc on the federal and state budgets, costing a nation-wide total of $7.7 billion per year in enfocement costs (Miron 10) and an additional loss of $6.3 billion annually by not taxing marijuana on a scale similar to alcohol and tobacco (Miron 11). Miron concludes that from a fiscal perspective, marijuana should be legalized, also noting several other studies which suggest that the enforcement of marijuana prohibition is an uphill battle that cannot be won but through a Pyrrhic expenditure of exhorbitant tax dollars on suppressing the 'pursuit of freedom' of marijuana-smokers.
Pacula, Rosalie Liccardo; Chriqui, Jamie F; and King, Joanna. “Marijuana Decriminalization: What Does it Mean in the United States?” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 9690 (May 2003). Web. 6 Nov 2014. The authors of this article apply themselves to the task of isolating the common denominators in the statutes concerning marijuana decriminalization in eleven states during the 1970s in an attempt to identify the influence of such legislation on trends in marijuana consumption (Pacula, Chriqui, & King 3). They assert that empirical data hitherto gathered has been diverse and inconclusive in identifying the impact of legislation (Pacula, Chriqui, & King 4). Furthermore, they conclude that the language of 'decriminalization' is often arbitrary in these statutes to the extent that it may simply mean a minor reduction in what still amounts to harsh criminal penalties (Pacula, Chriqui, & King 26), further conflating our ability to determine the effects of decriminalization on rates of abuse, which is a key point of contention and potentially the deciding factor in many people's minds in legalizing marijuana.
Shalala, Donna E. “Say 'No' to Legalization of Marijuana.” Wall Street Journal 18 Aug 1995, 10: A10. ProQuest LLC. Web. 6 Nov 2014. This argumentative article is staunchly opposed to marijuana decriminalization, citing research suggesting the long-term cognitive deficits that may result from marijuana consumption, including during pregnancy (Shalala 2) and the surge in marijuana abuse among teenagers in the previous three years (Shalala 2). Notwithstanding the effects of legalization on consumption rates, the author concludes that marijuana abuse must be suppressed in any way possible, be it through legal measures or a social revolution against drug abuse. She, however, forwards this argument without offering a strategy for successful prohibition and marijuana-smoking reduction among teenagers.