For some time now, there has been a debate about whether and to what extent cannabis should be legalized or decriminalized. Although the laws in Germany and other countries have been relaxed, further steps towards legalization are needed.

Over the last few years, more and more countries or federal states (USA) have legalized or decriminalized the use of marijuana. In Germany, too, marijuana can be prescribed as a medicine since 2017. A further gradual decriminalization, such as in Portugal, is nevertheless needed. That is why, in addition to parties such as Die Linke and Bündnis 90/Die Grünen, the SPD is now also in favor of a change in cannabis policy

Over the last few years, more and more countries or federal states (USA) have legalized or decriminalized the use of marijuana. In Germany, too, marijuana can be prescribed as a medicine since 2017. A further gradual decriminalization, such as in Portugal, is nevertheless needed. That is why, in addition to parties such as Die Linke and Bündnis 90/Die Grünen, the SPD is now also in favor of a change in cannabis policy.

The previous cannabis regulations can be considered a failure – at least if their aim is to reduce consumption. After all, while only 17 percent of Germans had experience with cannabis in 1979, today the figure is more than 30 percent. In Germany, several million people regularly consume marijuana. According to the law, many of these people are committing criminal offenses.

In court cases, it is often consumers and not dealers who are sentenced. While the penalties in Germany may not be as draconian as in the U.S., they can destroy entire futures here as well. “More than 100,000 proceedings initiated against consumers each year result in a high number of fines and imprisonment, and in particular also in problems at school, in training and at work, and often in the loss of the driver’s license,” according to the German Central Office for Addiction Issues.

The liberalist argument

Although marijuana is an addictive drug with potentially harmful health effects, according to the liberalist argument, a state should not presume to decide what drugs one puts into one’s body.

However, this right to personal responsibility is forfeited if the freedom of personal drug use becomes a danger to other individuals. The slippery-slope or dam-break argument attempts to address this very point by claiming that decriminalizing the “gateway drug” marijuana would lead many (including minors) to use harder drugs.

The dam-breaking argument

The individuals’ (facilitated) use is thus linked to general societal decline. However, there is no clear empirical evidence to support the dam-breaking argument with respect to marijuana. Moreover, decriminalization accompanied by education (which can be financed by tax revenues received from cannabis sales) could, on the contrary, contribute to a reduction in consumption or at least a responsible use of the drug.

This also invalidates the view that society would suffer financial damage from decriminalization due to the resulting health problems. If personal responsibility for one’s own body (and mind) is always taken away as soon as one’s behavior causes potential damage to it, the costs of which are borne by society, one would also have to prohibit the consumption of cigarettes, alcohol and sugar.

The parity argument

Thus, from a liberal perspective, upholding the ban cannot be justified. A parity argument can also be added to the liberalist argument. According to this argument, permits or prohibitions would have to apply equally to similar circumstances.

This means that if alcohol is permitted, all drugs that are equally or less dangerous or harmful should also be permitted. Conversely, drugs that are just as or even more risky than marijuana should also be prohibited.

Obviously, this is not the case. Although alcohol is probably more harmful, makes people more dependent, and leads to more aggression and problems in road traffic, its consumption is permitted. The parity principle is also the reason why even judge Andreas Müller, considers the criminalization of cannabis unconstitutional.

The cultural argument

Defenders of this grievance usually invoke a cultural argument, stating that marijuana, unlike alcohol, is not part of our culture. On the one hand, this is incorrect, because marijuana is part of the local culture in one way or another throughout history.

On the other hand, this cultural relativist argument is at the same time a conservative one, which – although it would be true – leaves no room for necessary changes. On the logical level, it functions similarly to the statement that a certain religion or ethnicity does not belong to “ours” because it has not done so up to now.

The moral argument

Furthermore, a moral argument can be made: To the extent that we consider global justice to be right, we have an obligation to ensure that our actions do not hurt people beyond our rule of law. However, through our drug policies, including marijuana, we are doing just that, so much so that reputable journals such as The Economist have long argued for legalization.

Controlled cultivation could weaken foreign drug cartels, which are responsible for murders, human trafficking and similar crimes, especially in the countries there. At the same time, decriminalization would debilitate domestic black markets. This would not only have positive consequences in terms of organized crime, but would also protect consumers, since quality assurance is not possible with illegal drugs.

This is the case with heroin, which caused few, if any, victims before it was made illegal. Just as Prohibition, the U.S. ban on alcohol from 1920 to 1930, resulted in thousands of poisonings and deaths. This is no different with marijuana. Here, for example, one can often detect harmful amounts of heavy metals and pesticides.

Further arguments

Decriminalization could also relieve the state. On the one hand, by allowing police officers to be deployed elsewhere. For another, because the taxes collected from legally sold marijuana would probably still generate surpluses after spending on prevention and addiction treatment.

Decriminalization would then also enable those addicts to seek help who need it but do not dare because of the accompanying stigmatization. Similarly, the helpful drug marijuana would also find more acceptance among the population.

As clear as the arguments may be, due to the conservative forces in Germany and Austria, a further decriminalization is not foreseeable for the time being. However, this does not affect Trees’ products, which contain less than 0.2% THC and thus do not develop a psychoactive effect. Trees is aware that the drug marijuana must not be trivialized, but takes the position that decriminalization is inevitable, based on the legal, moral, liberal and other arguments cited here.

Cart

Why we should legalize cannabis

Sign up for our Newsletter