In this paper, the debates on the legalization of marijuana nationwide and universal healthcare funded by taxpayers will be explored and debated. The pros and cons of each topic will be analyzed and then a conclusion will be drawn over which holds the better argument. Then each of the topics will be applied to the philosophy of Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mills.
Legalization of Marijuana Nationwide:
The legalization of marijuana has been a highly debated issue for several decades. Marijuana has been known to have many medicinal benefits, but at the same time has quite a few drawbacks. Marijuana is known to be able to relieve and even help treat diseases that have no known cure. Diseases that are known to be controlled by marijuana are Epilepsy, Migraines, Cancer, and AIDs to name a few. Marijuana is used in these cases to alleviate pain and even control symptoms such as nausea and loss of appetite (Franciosi). Another benefit of legalizing marijuana would be the fact that it would diminish criminal activity associated with this drug. If marijuana production was monitored by companies, it would lessen the chance for it to possibly be laced with potentially lethal drugs (Franciosi). Examples of such drugs would be, fentanyl and heroin, which results in extremely dire consequences. This would also decrease the use of the black market as well as gang-related violence in regard to the dealing of marijuana (Franciosi). Then there are cons when it comes to the use of marijuana. Heavy use of marijuana and having a predisposition to mental illness is a bad combination. In recent studies, it has been shown that prolonged use at a young age can trigger mental illnesses such as schizophrenia and depression (Garey). Another reason that it should not be legalized is car related deaths would increase. It has been proven that in a lot of states where marijuana is legalized that over half of car accidents have been the result of being under the influence of marijuana (Morrow). It alters people’s perceptions therefore it should not be used while people are driving. The better argument in terms of legalizing marijuana is that it should be legalized. There is not sufficient evidence to prove that the use of marijuana can trigger psychological problems. There have been incidents of this happening, but no clear indicator if that is what triggered it and how much marijuana was used. In terms of car accidents, there are already laws against being influenced by marijuana in place for the states where it is legalized in. It brings more benefits in the long run than there are disadvantages. It would benefit a lot of people who are having medical issues that can not easily be treated and it would help to decline criminal activity related to marijuana use. Philosopher Immanuel Kant would be for legalizing marijuana for medicinal uses, but not for recreational use. Kant believes in doing one’s duty, and alleviating chronic pain would help someone get through day-to-day life so they could accomplish their duty. Using marijuana recreationally would not be essentially doing one’s duty, they would be more focused on pleasure than their own duty. Using marijuana alters perception and can cause depression which would prevent someone from doing their own duty. On the other hand, John Stuart Mills would endorse the legalization of marijuana as he is a Utilitarian. He believes that actions are morally right if they cause happiness or pleasure. People who use marijuana claim that it makes them less stressed and have a sense of calm, which causes them to be happy. Therefore John Stuart Mills would be all for the legalization of marijuana as long as it does not cause any harm to anyone involved.
Universal Healthcare:
The debate over having universal healthcare has been becoming increasingly talked about in the news and in political debates. This is because so many people in the United States are without health insurance because it is too expensive. With universal healthcare, there would be fewer medical-related bankruptcies. They would not have to be huge amounts of money for medical fees, because the government would be the ones regulating the prices of medical care. Also, there would not be a bunch of private companies involved that all have to be paid for their services, it would completely cut out privately owned middleman companies (Regoli). That means there would only be one bill to be paid and not several. Another benefit to having universal healthcare is that it would lower competition in the medical field. It would allow doctors to give the same type of care to all patients (Amadeo). In the competitive world we live in today doctors are more interested in treating wealthier patients because they will get paid more for their services. Doctors feel the need to provide more services to higher-class people as that is how they make their income (Krugman). With universal healthcare, doctors will be more focused on the level of care they are giving their patients and not focused on how much money they are making off of giving treatments. Prices for care will not be out of the average person’s income in this case. As for disadvantages, there might be a longer period of time before someone can receive care. Since health care is available to everyone it can create long wait times to see a doctor which means people can be stuck with their conditions for months at a time (Amadeo). Only emergencies that can be life-threatening will be treated right away. Another disadvantage is that this type of health care will be a type of tax. Someone might only go to the doctor once or twice a year, maybe even never, but they are still expected to pay the same amount as other taxpayers (Regoli). They might not even use the service at all but are still expected to pay for it. It is almost made out to seem that people who are healthy have to pay for the treatment of sick people. Essentially people are paying for other people’s healthcare regardless if they want to or not. Universal healthcare is a good idea for people who are dealing with poverty as it does help them get proper healthcare and it lowers the chance of bankruptcy. In the case of wealthier people, it seems more of a disadvantage because they are basically paying for other people’s health care and not their own. People who can pay for special and better care should be able to if they want to. In simplest terms, universal healthcare seems like a great idea, but in the long run, not so great. The better argument is against universal healthcare. The waiting times for basic healthcare are a little absurd, only being able to get treatment right away if it is life-threatening. The quality of care would probably decrease because doctors would not be making as much money as they did previously. It also seems a little far-fetched for people to pay for the healthcare of others and not ever have to use it themselves if they are perfectly healthy. Immanuel Kant would be for universal healthcare as it is the government’s duty to provide basic human rights to society. A person cannot do their duty if they do not have proper access to health care. If they are sick and debilitated all the time then they cannot accomplish their duty. John Stuart Mills would be in favor of universal health care, as he considered what is good for society. More people would have access to affordable healthcare and would have fewer opportunities to become bankrupt. People would be more happy with the quality of life they are having if they had access to doctors that they previously did not have.
This paper has gone through debates over the legalization of marijuana and taxpayer-funded universal health care. After going through several pros and cons a conclusion was drawn over which had the most convincing argument. Finally, each argument was applied to the philosophical ideologies of both Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mills.
#heathcare #medical #medicalcare #pharmaceuticals #healthcareprofessional #nurses #healthprofessionals
