argument top image

Should recreational marijuana be legal?
Back to question

Access to medicinal cannabis is restricted

Currently, medicinal cannabis is only prescribed through the NHS is a child or adult has a rare form of epilepsy, or if an individual experiences vomiting or nausea as a result of chemotherapy. However, there are many other instances in which the use of cannabis is beneficial in alleviating certain side effects, such is the case for Lyme disease.
(1 of 6) Next argument >

The Argument

The legalisation of medical marijuana is only in certain situations set out by the government, for medical purposes they dictate. The medicinal properties of marijuana are far reaching. It can be used for pain relief, to relieve nausea, and to stimulate appetite, among other things.[1] As the government dictates who can and cannot access marijuana, many people who would gain health benefits are unable to do so, or are made to jump through hoops and suffer needlessly before they can access it. By legalising marijuana, people could elect to medicate with marijuana and suffer far less.

Counter arguments

The very purpose of medical, rather than recreational, marijuana legalisation is so that people do not self-medicate. People should not be self-managing their medical conditions through drugs, which is what legalisation of recreational marijuana would encourage.


[P1] Under medical legalisation, only a select amount of people are able to use marijuana for health problems. [P2] This means that many people suffer due to delays in approval or not being covered by the government. [P3] Legalising marijuana would mean far less people had to suffer.

Rejecting the premises


This page was last edited on Friday, 17 Apr 2020 at 09:21 UTC

Explore related arguments