Legalization of Recreational Use of Marijuana

A range of laws and regulations have shaped the the use of marijuana over the past few decades (Benmaamar, 2014). However, when it comes to defining the that redefined the very approach towards marijuana use, one must mention theJenks v. State of Florida(1991).

As it has been stressed above, the law has been modified significantly since its adoption in 1991; the changes that occurred to the specified regulation can be described as moving towards a more democratic interpretation of the subject matter, as the use of marijuana has been allowed in 23 states so far (23 legal medical marijuana states and DC, 2015). Moreover, the tendency in reinforcing the democratic concept in question seems to have been growing consistently; therefore, it is expected that the consumption of marijuana will be allowed in other states as well (Becker, 2015).

The role of the Supreme Court in the specified case boils down to stating the conditions, in which the prescription and the following use of marijuana by the patient, can be deemed as legitimate (Benmaamar, 2014). Particularly, the the line between the lawful use of marijuana and the illegal consumption thereof. In other words, the Supreme Court practically defines the very content of the regulation to be passed and affects the rights of the citizens in a direct way, either providing the residents of the United States with the corresponding rights or restricting their actions by setting specific limitations.

Needless to say, the specified regulation has brought a significant change to the current criminal justice policy regarding the use of marijuana. First and most obvious, the limitations for marijuana use were finally set, and tracking the instances of marijuana abuse became much easier. Additionally, the necessity to provide a prescription for purchasing the above-mentioned drug helped reduce the instances of drug abuse among the residents of the United States.

The ruling passed by the jury did not reflect the significance of technology in peoples lives at the time. The fact that medicinal marijuana will be provided to patients as long as they have the corresponding prescription was not shaped by technological advances of the time in any possible way. It would be wrong to assume, though, that the issue has been resolved completely. The changes in the way, in which people communicate, as well as the technology that they use in order to acquire the necessary information, may provide additional options for the people, who are willing to break the law. Thus, further reinforcement of the existing regulations will have to be carried out. Particularly, the issue of drones use as the means of stealing from cannabis farms (Withnall, 2014) will have to be addressed.

The changes made to the U.S. legal system in terms of marijuana use have clearly affected the social justice. Particularly, the fact that the rights of the people, who and, therefore, have no other options but to use marijuana as a painkiller, finally were recognized deserves to be mentioned. Additionally, the specified legislation helped reduce the number of possible instances of drug peddling and drug abuse by some of the representatives of the U.S. healthcare services should also be brought up. In other words, the legislation described above created premises for representing the rights of patients along with the reinforcement of preventing measures against drug peddling.