Is Marijuana Morally Permissible to Smoke | Quick Homework Help

Name:
Unit:
Lecturer:
Date Due:
Is Marijuana Morally Permissible to Smoke
There are social issues that every conventionalist or cultural relativist must cultivate in order to hold an argument consistent. From a philosophical perspective, there is no universal rule that applies in all societies in all time periods. For example, the question of whether it is morally permissible to smoke marijuana or cannabis has been for many decades subject to the controversial scientific and rational arguments surrounding it. Ethical arguments are insignificant on conventionalist. To decide whether smoking or not smoking marijuana is morally permissible is not solved by rational debates but by a majority vote. Rationality has nothing to do with this subject. If any entity decided to institute prohibitive laws against the use of marijuana by a majority vote, then this line of action would not be considered as immoral. This is complemented by the argument that there is only moral change and not moral progress.
Proponents of smoking marijuana identify themselves as pro-choice. They argue that smoking marijuana is morally permissible and should not be constrained by either governmental or social entities given that it outweighs the principle or ethical relativism. On the other hand, the opponents contend that smoking marijuana is immoral because it plays a role in the moral degradation of individuals and the society as a whole. Although there are some medical circumstances where smoking marijuana has been widely advocated, marijuana is generally not acceptable due to the numerous negative effects linked to it.
When the subject of marijuana is debated or mentioned on any platform, it is highly probable to come across numerous moral and health reasons for not using marijuana. In the same perspective, the reasons for using marijuana are also discussed.
The philosophical arguments justifying the morality of smoking marijuana
In “The Principles of Morals and Legislation,” Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), pointed out that ethics begin with psychological hedonism. “Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure” (Keller 21). Based on this foundation, Bentham established an ethical outline of consequentialism. That is, pain and pleasure can direct us on what to do. On the other hand or morality (right or wrong), there is a series of cause and effects. In Bentham’s perspective, an act is considered to be morally correct if it produces the greatest pleasure or at least it mitigates the pain suffered (Keller 21). However, the pleasure from the pain suffered by an individual must be collective. While Bentham considered pleasure quantitatively, his successor, John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), considered pleasure qualitatively (Keller 21). Under Utilitarianism, Stuart Mill noted that we should recognize that some kinds of pleasure are more valuable or desirable than others. This is compatible with the principle of utility. In this context, smoking marijuana is motivated by both pain and pleasure. The therapeutic benefits of marijuana give patients relief. This relief is collective to the whole society. When a family member gets sick, the whole family suffers. In the event that marijuana is administered medically to alleviate the pain suffered, the family is also relieved. In other words, it is morally permissible to smoke marijuana, especially in medical grounds. Mill identifies the moral good of an act by the consequence it produced (Keller 22). Subjecting the effect of medicinal marijuana to this framework, smoking cannabis is morally permissible.
Conventionalism or cultural relativism can be stated as the rightness of an action, and it is dependent on the society or the jurisdiction in which it is performed. This implies that the rightness of smoking marijuana is dependent on the culture or society in which the action is taken. Immanuel Kant asserted that morality and respect for human life is a basic mindset for any human being at all times (Keller 2). Moral conventionalists are often out of synchrony with the idea of moral progress because it assumes moral objectivism. People who argue that is no real disagreement over a moral permission of smoking marijuana often explain their moral standpoint by arguing that morality is a matter of personal choice.
For the medieval and ancients, given that we are going to explain our ethical standpoint on the moral permissibility of smoking marijuana, we will be discussing vices and virtues of character and values (the good). In aIDition, we will discuss out position on what is supposed to be done and how people should act with respect to others. Immanuel Kant is renowned for coming up with categorical (universal) laws of morality, and as of consequence, placing ethics in an analogous sphere to physics. The first form of Kant’s first test for categorical rules that all humans should adhere to is that people should act according to the truism by which they can and simultaneously resolve that it will become a universal rule (Keller 15). Subjecting the argument in question to Kant’s first categorical imperative, it is evidence that smoking marijuana may be permissible in certain cultures and not in others. This argument does not take a universal standpoint. Plato outlined morality largely in the perspective of character development. Cultural relativism or conventionalism is by itself unable to develop the truth of ethical relativism. The process of establishing a universal standpoint on smoking marijuana that is either right or wrong morally at all times shows that ethical relativism is false. This includes both cultural/conventional and subjective/individual forms. The opposition from sub-groups against ethical (cultural relativism) is subject to the difficulty in defining the boundaries of a society or culture (Keller 25). For example, it is challenging to define the cultural or societal boundaries of an individual under medical marijuana subject to the fact that he or she is may be linked to a specific religion, gender, race and political realm. Other questions that arise include whether to include North America and Western Europe, or whether to include the state boundaries. Moreover, some neighborhoods might be repulsive and want their own autonomy regarding the issue. Even if boundaries are created around neighborhoods, certain individuals might want to justify smoking marijuana within their property. The point is that the argument of whether it is morally permissible to smoke marijuana will always take various shapes. Therefore, smoking marijuana is justified in cultures or societies that the majority vote (collective desire and duty) prevails (Keller 26). If more than 50 percent of a panel of doctors agree to medically introduce marijuana in a patient’s treatment, then it is morally permissible to use it in that context.
By a matter of fact, morality is fictitious given that there is no a valid moral principle in existence. One of the effects of ethical relativism is that moral supporters of medical marijuana are from the position of this point of view. Conventional ethical relativism on the subject of marijuana also entails disturbing judgments about the law. In this context, ethical relativism is concept that holds that there is no a universally moral principle regarding marijuana, but rather all moral standpoints are valid relative to society or culture and individual choice.
The effects of marijuana are often fundamentally different from each other to an extent that we cannot accurately deduce observations from one person to another. Therefore, the indeterminacy of deducing the negative effects of marijuana points out that it is morally permissible to smoke marijuana. There is variability in the metabolism and effects cannabis. However, individuals who use the drug more than often are more vulnerable than infrequent users. This is subject to the fact that THC is slowly released from the body. Consider a scenario where opponents of smoking marijuana take over the world and every individual in the world submits to the viewpoint of no marijuana. Consequently, the world praises those who enacted the prohibitive laws as honorable and just.
One of the central arguments among the opponents of marijuana takes a religious or ethical perspective. That is, it is morally permissible to smoke marijuana, especially in a medical context being that all human beings have a fundamental right to life that must be protected at all costs. People in pain as a result of diseases such as asthma, cancer pain, chronic bowel inflammation, headache, menstrual pain, neuralgias and HIV/AID deserve to be treated humanely because they are human beings (NORML Foundation, para 2). It is the moral responsibility of state legislatures to change the laws with the intention of exempting patients that are seriously ill from state-level prosecution. Moreover, doctors who recommend medical marijuana should also be exempted from denial of any privilege or right, and persecution. Although science is essential, compassion and mercy are important. Even in the absence of scientific evidence supporting the medical use of marijuana, it would be unethical to punish patients for smoking or using marijuana with the intent of treating their pain (NORML Foundation, para 3). Luckily, there is considerable scientific evidence pointing out marijuana’s therapeutic benefits. In aIDition, there is no peer reviewed research that indicates that prison is better than marijuana. Further, there is no a scientific basis for apprehending medical marijuana users. Given that we are living in a free world, authorities should carry the burden of proof to prove that smoking marijuana is dangerous that medical users should be criminalized for smoking it.
The opponents of smoking marijuana argue that it plays a role in the moral degradation of the society. The other argument takes a health perspective. According to resources from different medical fronts, long term smoking of marijuana is linked to some respiratory diseases such as throat and lung cancer. Marijuana can result in the damage of the reproductive system and lungs. Other conditions include memory loss and aIDiction. Central to these side effects is the damage to cognitive functioning. The brain is in charge of the body. It is also the main substratum of will, memory, emotion, and intelligence.
Marijuana, like nicotine, is inhaled; consequently, it has a rapid access to the blood stream. It is easily able to pass through the blood-brain barrier because its metabolites are fat soluble. Most antibiotics or drugs are not easily passing this barrier, yet marijuana is capable of breaking the barrier that makes the blood-brain barrier. This implies that cannabis is much more efficient in relieving pain. It is also dose dependent. Some of the feelings reported by most users includes euphoria, a loosening of associations, and release of stress.
Conclusion
Although there are some scenarios where smoking marijuana has illustrated various negative effects, it should be widely supported in medical circumstances. At the core of the debate is the immoral usage of marijuana which is against most social and religious values. Moreover, immoral use of marijuana leads to moral decay. Smoking marijuana also has numerous health effects including the increase in potential risks associated to miscarriages and breast cancer, as well as maternal deaths. Therefore, social institutions and governments should come up with more structures and awareness campaigns. This ethical or moral standpoint is determined by the author’s metaphysics of human beings. The central challenge in the process of supporting the morality of smoking marijuana was to overcome the universal rules of duty or morality. However, to clarify the nature of universal duty, we illustrated the reasons and actions taken out of inclination to the issue. Similarly to classical liberals including Immanuel Kant, Jeremy Bentham, and John Stuart Mill, we grounded our arguments and illustrations of the moral permissibility to smoke marijuana on reason.
In general, it is not only morally wrong to prohibit medicinal use of marijuana but also widely unjust to deny millions of patients who would enjoy life from the therapeutic benefits of marijuana. One of the certain ethics pertaining to smoking marijuana in medical grounds is that good outcomes surpass bad outcomes. In fact, the critics of the morality in smoking marijuana accept the importance of the drug.

References
Cannabis Med Organisation. Medical Uses of Cannabis and THC. 2013. 21 October 2013

.

Keller, David. An Introduction to Ethics for Teaching. 2010. 21 October 2013

.

NORML Foundation. Medical Use. 2013. 2013 October 2013

.