Discuss the removal of cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act.
Topic: I’d like you to select a very specific controversial public policy and evaluate it in ethical terms. Your analysis will thus seek to determine the acceptability of the policy with regard to such factors as efficiency, effectiveness, and fairness in serving the public interest. Again, when you choose a policy, it should be quite specific, since a large, complex policy can’t receive an adequate moral analysis in a few pages. Also, you may—but need not—select a local government policy. In general, the narrower the scope of the policy, the better.
Please organize your paper into the following sections (listing the heading—e.g., “The Policy,”—for each section). Don’t re-type the questions—just address them.
1. The Policy
– What is the policy?
– Who are the decision-makers conducting the policy?
2. The Problem
– What is the general problem the policy is intended to address? – What are the most relevant facts framing the problem?
– Who are the (main) stakeholders?
– What are the policy’s (likely or actual) consequences and risks for the various stakeholders?
4. Normative Considerations (Note: This is the most important section of the paper.)
– Are the policy’s benefits likely to exceed its costs—including both social and economic costs?
– Does the policy discriminate against any stakeholders unfairly or infringe on their rights?
– Is the policy consistent with the demands of public integrity (as expounded by Dobel) in the
– On balance, is the policy morally acceptable?
– If not, why not?
– What should the decision-makers do now, if anything, in light of your assessment? (E.g.,
should certain changes be made to the policy—or should it be abandoned altogether?
There has been a growing movement in recent years to remove cannabis from Schedule I of the CSA, and some states have already legalized cannabis for medical and/or recreational use. Proponents of removing cannabis from Schedule I argue that it is unjustifiably classified and that it should be treated more like alcohol or tobacco, which are legal but regulated.
One of the main arguments for removing cannabis from Schedule I is that there is increasing evidence of its medical benefits. Many
Looking for a similar assignment?
Let Us write for you! We offer custom paper writing services
Another argument for removing cannabis from Schedule I is that it would help reduce the harms associated with its criminalization. Criminalization of cannabis has led to high rates of arrest and incarceration, particularly among communities of color, and has also created a black market for cannabis that is often associated with violence and other criminal activity. Removing cannabis from Schedule I could help reduce these harms by allowing for regulation and taxation of cannabis, similar to alcohol and tobacco.
Opponents of removing cannabis from Schedule I argue that it is a dangerous drug that can lead to addiction and other negative health effects. They also argue that legalizing cannabis would lead to increased use, particularly among young people. However, proponents of removing cannabis from Schedule I argue that regulation and education can help mitigate these risks, just as they have with alcohol and tobacco.
In conclusion, the removal of cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act is a complex issue with arguments on both sides. While there are concerns about the potential harms of cannabis, there is also growing evidence of its medical benefits and the harms associated with its criminalization. Ultimately, any decision about the scheduling of cannabis should be based on scientific evidence and public health considerations.