Legalized Marijuana

According to public morality the concept of legalizing marijuana is not feasible due to fact that it has been outlawed. Though an individual can peacefully smoke marijuana within the confines of their own home and no one would ever know, according to the Idealist view on public morality this would still be prohibited because you are willingly breaking a law. Under the Pragmatists' view of private morality it is up to the discretion of the individual to decide whether or not their use of marijuana is morally wrong or right. The Pragmatist view seems more realistic in this situation, since it is only up to the user of marijuana whether or not they feel their actions are harming anyone or immoral in any fashion.

When considering the focal point of the law in terms of legalizing marijuana it is evident that if marijuana were legal then we would not need to spend countless amounts of money on simple court cases involving minor marijuana charges. Going through legal processes over the possession of a plant that grows naturally makes no sense. This relates to the pragmatist view, since they are concerned with due process being carried out. No funds would be spent, and a lot of good citizens would still have spotless records if marijuana were to be legalized. An idealist view would be more along the lines of if the growing, shipping ,and selling of marijuana were controlled than we would not have to worry as much about the costs of prosecuting hundreds of smaller dealers in court, because law enforcement would effectively eliminate them by targeting the large scale dealers. To the idealist the goal would be capturing the major movements, and arresting the individuals with the power to control heavy weight shipments, or mass productions of marijuana. Even to the idealist the legalization of marijuana should make sense in this case, seeing as how more time and money could be effectively put into other concentrations of the law.

The formation of the law provides a clear line of distinction as to where the two sides stand on the legalizing of marijuana. From a pragmatist view, and a considerably more rational view the legalizing of marijuana would make sense do to rational though processes. Rationally thinking it does not make sense for marijuana to be outlawed, seeing as how it is not a manufactured drug such as cocaine. This means that somewhere in time there were fields and land covered with this naturally growing plant. Furthermore, you are far less likely to cause any social disturbances while under the influence because it is a relaxing drug, and does not arouse feelings of anger as can alcohol. The rational thinking of the pragmatist also goes on to illustrate that, by putting more police on patrol more crime will not necessarily be prevented. This will more than likely lead to searches of innocent people who " fit the profile" of a drug user or dealer. More citizens would invest trust in their local law enforcement agencies if they were not constantly being harassed by them over the assumption that they may be in the possession of this drug. The idealist view on the formation of the law regarding marijuana would be on that more policing and stiffer punishments would reduce and deter others from obtaining marijuana. This is where the police run into the issue of profiling and discrimination. Police are more likely to pull certain types of cars and particular racial groups that they may associate with marijuana. A lot of unnecessary arrest of young black males would be prevented if the policing of minority housing complexes were minimized due to the legalization of marijuana. The Pragmatist view on the formation of the law involving the legalizing of marijuana would not only save money due to the lowered number of misdemeanor arrest, but also would help in producing better relations between particular racial groups and the police seeing as how young African Americans would not feel that the police were solely targeting them.

The application of the law in the legalization of marijuana would appeal more to the pragmatist who see the application of the law as irrational. There would be no need to send citizens to trial, which also helps in reducing the number of