Below is a comprehensive overview of the advantages commonly cited in favor of maintaining marijuana (cannabis) as an illegal substance within the Philippine legal framework. While policy discussions surrounding the legalization or decriminalization of marijuana are ongoing in many countries, Philippine law still classifies marijuana as an illegal and dangerous drug under Republic Act No. 9165 (the “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002”). This article focuses on the rationales, benefits, and legal underpinnings of its continued prohibition, viewed through the Philippine context.

1. Legal Framework and Background

Republic Act No. 9165 (“Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002”)
- Primary statute criminalizing the cultivation, possession, sale, administration, dispensation, and use of marijuana in the Philippines.
- Establishes the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) as the lead agency in combating illegal drugs.
- Classifies marijuana as a “dangerous drug,” penalizing even small-scale possession with possible imprisonment and monetary fines.
Complementary Regulations
- The Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) issues regulations supporting RA 9165, including scheduling substances and setting guidelines for enforcement.
- Local government units (LGUs) often adopt programs that align with national policy, reinforcing the national prohibition.
International Obligations
- The Philippines is a signatory to various United Nations drug control treaties, such as the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (1961), which historically encourage strict regulation of cannabis.
- Prohibition helps the country remain in compliance with international commitments aimed at controlling and preventing drug abuse worldwide.

By situating marijuana within this legal framework, proponents of prohibition argue that continued illegality is grounded in both domestic and international legal norms.

2. Public Health and Safety Arguments

2.1. Prevention of Widespread Drug Use

Discouraging experimentation and recreational use.
Prohibiting marijuana through criminal penalties is seen as a way to discourage people—especially the youth—from experimenting with the drug. Proponents maintain that fear of legal consequences deters initiation into marijuana use.
Barrier against normalization.
Criminalization helps maintain a stance that marijuana use is harmful or socially unacceptable, slowing efforts that might inadvertently normalize or trivialize its consumption.

2.2. Mitigating Potential Health Risks

Unregulated potency and composition.
Illegal marijuana is often supplied through unregulated channels, which can contain unknown chemicals, pesticides, or contaminants. Strict prohibition aims to limit access to these potentially harmful products.
Psychological and physical health concerns.
Although scientific consensus on marijuana’s harms versus benefits continues to evolve, certain studies link heavy or chronic cannabis use with mental health risks (e.g., potential contributions to anxiety, depression, or psychosis). Keeping the drug illegal is believed, by some, to reduce the incidence of such adverse health outcomes.

2.3. Reduced Strain on Healthcare System

Less demand for treatment services.
A lower incidence of marijuana use, in theory, means fewer cases requiring treatment for substance use disorders, thus reducing the strain on an already burdened healthcare system.
Focus on drug rehabilitation for existing users.
With marijuana remaining illegal, government intervention (through the health sector and law enforcement) can direct resources specifically to known users via court-ordered rehabilitation, rather than accommodating a broader population of new users.

3. Law Enforcement and Crime Reduction

3.1. Deterrence of Broader Criminal Activities

Criminal networks.
Illegal drugs, including marijuana, are often linked to larger criminal enterprises involved in trafficking other controlled substances. Prohibiting cannabis may help curtail funding channels for these groups.
Reduction of associated crimes.
Some argue that certain drug-related offenses—like theft, property crimes, or violence connected to territorial disputes—are better managed through a strict stance on marijuana and other illicit drugs.

3.2. Reinforcing the Rule of Law

Consistency in enforcement.
The Philippines maintains comprehensive drug laws that classify multiple substances as illegal. Uniformly applying prohibitions to marijuana underscores the government’s commitment to a consistent stance on dangerous drugs.
Community policing benefits.
Active enforcement against marijuana operations can enhance police presence in vulnerable communities. In principle, this increased presence can help deter other forms of criminal activity as well.

4. Socioeconomic Considerations

4.1. Protecting Vulnerable Populations

Youth and marginalized communities.
Advocates of prohibition often highlight that young people and socioeconomically disadvantaged groups are more prone to addiction cycles. Keeping marijuana illegal is intended to limit exposure and protect these segments from further marginalization.
Maintaining social order.
In regions already grappling with poverty, unemployment, or other social challenges, some policy-makers assert that illegalization helps mitigate an additional layer of drug-related social problems.

4.2. Reducing the Potential for Exploitation

Workplace productivity and employability.
Marijuana use can factor into employment disputes or workplace accidents if employees are intoxicated. By enforcing illegalization, companies and institutions argue they can more readily maintain strict anti-drug policies, protecting business interests and operational safety.
Tourism and national image.
The Philippine government has a strong interest in promoting the country’s image as a safe and law-abiding destination. Prohibition on marijuana usage is, in some proponents’ view, part of a broader “zero tolerance” approach that appeals to certain international visitors and investors.

5. Alignment with Cultural and Moral Norms

5.1. Moral Perspective Against Recreational Drug Use

Religious and cultural factors.
The Philippines is predominantly Catholic and maintains various religious traditions that often highlight conservative views on illicit drugs. Keeping marijuana illegal resonates with these moral perspectives in many communities.
Community acceptance.
Despite debates on medicinal marijuana, there is generally strong community support—especially in more conservative regions—for upholding laws that restrict substances viewed as harmful or immoral.

5.2. Upholding “Family Values” and Discouraging Drug Culture

Focus on family-centric policies.
Many Philippine policies emphasize family welfare. In the eyes of prohibition advocates, criminalizing marijuana helps safeguard familial relationships from the strains and conflicts that can be associated with drug use.
Public education campaigns.
Government agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) conduct anti-drug information drives in schools and communities, reinforcing the stigma against cannabis and other illegal substances.

6. Counterarguments and Considerations

Although the focus here is on the advantages of illegalization, it is important to note counterarguments for a well-rounded understanding:

Potential medical applications. Many advocates push for regulated medical cannabis programs to address chronic pain, epilepsy, and other conditions.
Economic benefits from legalization. Some argue that taxation and regulated sales could generate government revenue and lessen black-market influence.
Overburdened legal system. Critics say strict laws penalize non-violent offenders and exacerbate prison overcrowding.

Still, from the perspective of Philippine policy-makers who prioritize public health, social order, and moral concerns, keeping marijuana illegal remains a strong—and thus far upheld—position. These ongoing debates underscore the complexities inherent in drug policy.

7. Conclusion

In the Philippine context, the advantages cited for maintaining marijuana’s illegal status are intertwined with concerns about public health, safety, moral values, and compliance with international drug control treaties. Proponents argue that illegalization:

Deters recreational use and minimizes drug normalization,
Helps reduce potential health risks and protects vulnerable populations,
Restrains criminal networks linked to drug trade and associated crimes,
Aligns with strong religious and cultural aversions to substance abuse, and
Upholds local and international commitments to drug prohibition.

While the global conversation about marijuana’s legal status evolves—and while some Philippine lawmakers periodically introduce measures for medical cannabis—official policy still underscores the importance of prohibition. As of this writing, there is no comprehensive legislative shift toward decriminalization or legalization, illustrating the enduring influence of these perceived advantages in shaping national drug policy.