INTRODUCTION & CONTEXT
Legalizing marijuana is a need to enable the effective and relevant use of drugs in different states. People went to pot due to impaired legalization or some privileges. The most important thing is to eliminate the discriminatory element in this legalization process and regulate different state institutions. Health and production concerns in countries, especially in the United States are in the limelight. Therefore, legalizing marijuana is an immediate need. So far, the legalization of marijuana has become controversial in different states. Concerning the impact on people, both positive and negative, it is imperative to depict effective legalization. In the context of the workplace, legalizing marijuana has become a healthy debate, Government and health departments are intending to come up with a final call now.
THESIS
“Legalizing marijuana in the workplace is a great risk in preserving the safety and health of workers, and it opens ways for organizations to maintain productivity and develop an effective and pertinent anti-drug policy.”
SUPPORTING REASON 1
Specific Context for Supporting Reason 1
Marijuana is legal, and employees seem unproductive and depict the work impairment. Employees have been seen high all the time in the company, and it is just due to the increased legalization of marijuana (Schroth, Hody and Chaffin 36).
Explanation of or reasons for this supporting reason
In many state organizations, workers have taken the benefits of legalized marijuana. They usually take it in medicine to stay fit and productive. People suffering from different diseases cannot sustain workability and productivity in the workplace without this legalized prescription. The increasing legalization of marijuana is a huge threat due to increasing drug addiction in the workplace. Organizations have to come up with the pertinent anti-drug policy to regulate their employees (Schroth, Hody and Chaffin 37).
SUPPORTING REASON 2
Specific Context for Supporting Reason 2
Legalization of marijuana is a major concern of the management of the company, especially in the United States, when creating accommodation strategies. For Instance, legalization fosters an effective medical workplace accommodation policy.
Explanation of or reasons for this supporting reason
Effective medical workplace accommodation policy is good for both employees and organizations to regulate the use of marijuana. For instance, the policy may include physician documentation, the rationale of using marijuana, and the responsibility of the employee. It is necessary to implement this legalization to foster productivity (Schroth, Hody and Chaffin 38).
COUNTER ARGUMENT 1
Specific Context for counter argument 1
Legalizing marijuana is a good approach because it contains a limited scope. The government legalized marijuana to treat glaucoma or chemotherapy. People are using marijuana as prescribed medicine to get better treatment. It has been revealed that a worker at the workplace usually benefits from this legalization to get better treatment and contribute to productivity and success. Employees want to be fit in the company to sustain the work. On the other hand, the firm does not have to change the anti-drug policy repeatedly, as it can impose the same federal law on employees in the workplace.
Response to Counter Argument 1
Health benefits for people in the company, especially people suffering from glaucoma or chemotherapy, are effective to increase efficiency. It is the right way to talk about the benefits of this legalization to facilitate employees instead of altering anti-drug policy and considering it a threat to the employee safety, health, and productivity (Ludlum and Ford 94).
COUNTER ARGUMENT 2
Specific Context for counter argument 2
Legalizing marijuana is not a threat to employee health and productivity. Legal marijuana is only a threat for people, which depicts non-medical use. In an organization, if the management is examining the rationale of using marijuana along with the physician documentation, the threat can be eliminated. No doubt, legalizing is increasing suicide attempts of people. However, it seems rare in an organization (Anderson, Rees and Sabia 2369).
Response to counter argument 2
Removing criminal penalties for using and cultivating medical marijuana is a sign of positivity. The States department does not want to ban marijuana production due to health concerns and medical prescriptions. The risk of perverting safety and health is not associated with legalization. Some awareness programs are needed to guide people on social and personal issues to reduce suicide attempts.
RESPONSES
These counterarguments are right, and these can be the main concerns of state or health departments. Legalizing is a good move by state departments to facilitate people and improve the healthcare systems. An increase in the legalization process is a step to eliminate threats to people ‘s health and safety in both society and organizations. Instead of considering the increasing legalization a threat, organizations or workplaces have to navigate several perspectives. The intention is to facilitate people to improve the health quality and the production process for a long run (Chemerinsky 860).
CONCLUSION
In the end, it is to conclude that legalization of marijuana is a big debate. It is a fact that people in companies can take it negatively to get on the pot. However, several counterarguments have been elaborated along with several responses and insights. The most important thing is to examine legalization in different contexts. The context of the workplace seems interesting to evaluate the use of marijuana. These counterarguments can also change the perception about the negativity of legalization. In this well-structured argumentative report, key insights are illustrated to understand the purpose of the legalization of marijuana and impact.
Work Cited
Anderson, D Mark, Daniel I Rees and Joseph J Sabia. “Medical Marijuana Laws and Suicides by Gender and Age.” American Journal of Public Health 104.12 (2014): 2369-2376.
Chemerinsky, Erwin. “Introduction: Marijuana Laws and Federalism.” Boston College. Law School. Boston College Law Review 58.3 (2017): 857-862.
Ludlum, Marty and Darrell Ford. “Start Spreading the News: New York Has Gone To Pot.” Southern Journal of Business and Ethics 9 (2017): 89-106.
Schroth, Lori A, et al. “Medical Marijuana: Addressing Impairment in the Workplace.” Professional Safety 63.8 (2018): 36-40.
+447462439809