SHOULD MARIJUANA BE LEGALIZED?

Should marijuana be legalized? That is a question that has been asked a lot lately in our country. It is a very important question to many and a dangerous question to many others. The only way to answer it, is to look at the 4 major elements; health, financial, economical and criminal, and decide for ourselves.

Lets start with the health aspect first. In his report entitled Why We Should Legalize Drugs, on a website called DrugLibrary.Org, Benson B. Roe, MD, a Professor Emeritus and former Chair of Cardiothoracic Surgery at the University of California at San Francisco says,"And 'poison' is also a misleading shibboleth. The widespread propaganda that illegal drugs are "deadly poisons" is a hoax. There is little or no medical evidence of long term ill effects from sustained, moderate consumption of uncontaminated marijuana, cocaine or heroin. If these substances - most of them have been consumed in large quantities for centuries - were responsible for any chronic, progressive or disabling diseases, they certainly would have shown up in clinical practice and/or on the autopsy table. But they simply have not!"

Dr. Roe goes on to state that, "Media focus on the 'junkie' has generated a mistaken impression that all uses of illegal drugs are devastated by their habit. Simple arithmetic demonstrates that the small population of visible addicts must constitute only a fraction of the $150 billion per year illegal drug market. This industry is so huge that it necessarily encompasses a very large portion of the ordinary population who are typically employed, productive, responsible and not significantly impaired from leading conventional lives. These drug users are not 'addicts' just as the vast majority of alcohol users are not 'alcoholics.'" and that legalization would result in, "purity assurance under Food and Drug Administration regulation" and "labeled concentration of the product " among other things. Click Here to read Dr. Roe's entire report, Why we should legalize drugs.

 Lets look at some of the effects marijuana has and decide if they are pros or cons:

1. Marijuana has been used effectively to enhance the appetite of  patients undergoing chemotherapy. (PRO)
2. Studies show that marijuana is helpful in relieving a person from the uneasy feeling of nausea. (PRO)
3. Short-term effects can sometimes include distorted sensory perception, problems with memory and learning, lack of  coordination and trouble with problem-solving. (CON)
4. Marijuana can relieve chronic pain and suffering of people with diseases like cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, chronic pain syndrome, etc. (PRO)
5. Increased heart rate and reduced blood pressure are also some of the short-term effects of marijuana. (CON)
6. Doctors have used marijuana to successfully treat of neurogenic pain.  (PRO)
7. Marijuana contains delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol. THC influences the activities of the nerve cells, like pleasure, memory, thought, concentration, sensory, time perception and coordinated movement. (YOU MAKE THE CALL)
8.  High doses of marijuana, when consumed through food, has been known to cause hallucinations, delusions, impaired memory and disorientation (YOU MAKE THE CALL)
9. Marijuana can cause respiratory problems in smokers, like daily cough and phlegm production, more frequent acute chest illness, higher risk of lung infections and obstructed airways. (CON)
10. People who have glaucoma, asthma and spasticity have been found to have benefited from using marijuana. (PRO)
11. Studies found that mothers who used marijuana during pregnancy have given birth to children who may exhibit problems with neurological developments. Prenatal exposure can cause altered responses to visual stimuli, increased tremulousness, problems with sustained attention and memory and poor problem-solving skills. So don't use marijuana while pregnant.(CON)
12. Marijuana is regarded to be a "mind opener", it can help people broaden their outlook and think creatively.  (PRO)

 The pros and cons are about even. However, if you were to make the same type of list about alcohol and cigarettes, it would be as long or longer and they're legal. Marijuana is not even close to as addictive as alcohol and cigarettes are either.

But I digress...

Next, lets take a look at the financial, economical and criminal sides of legalizing marijuana. The reason we will be looking at all three of these together is that they go hand in hand as you will see. There are many financial reasons for legalizing marijuana, both in what we could save and in what new revenues it could bring in. The economics of it are the jobs it could create. The criminal side is obvious, much less crime due to the fact that possessing marijuana would be legal and there would be no more need of the drug cartels because you would be able to walk into a store and buy it. That's really simplifying it. Let's get into it, shall we?

Whitehousedrugpolicy.gov reports that "According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reporting Program, there were an estimated 1,663,582 state and local arrests for drug abuse violations in the United States during 2009. Of these drug abuse violation arrests, 6.0% were for the sale/manufacture of marijuana and 45.6% were for marijuana possession.". So according to our own government, there were 758,593 people arrested for marijuana possession and 99,813 people arrested for growing and/or selling marijuana just last year alone. Imagine the amount of money we spent on that.

Wait, we don't really need to speculate to much, because we have a June 2005 report by Dr. Jeffrey Miron, visiting professor of economics at Harvard University. According to prohibitioncosts.org "The report has been endorsed by more than 530 distinguished economists, who have signed an open letter to President Bush and other public officials calling for 'an open and honest debate about marijuana prohibition,' adding, 'We believe such a debate will favor a regime in which marijuana is legal but taxed and regulated like other goods.'

Chief among the endorsing economists are three Nobel Laureates in economics: Dr. Milton Friedman of the Hoover Institute, Dr. George Akerlof of the University of California at Berkeley, and Dr. Vernon Smith of George Mason University."

Dr. Miron's paper, "The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition," concludes:**Replacing marijuana prohibition with a system of legal regulation would save approximately $7.7 billion in government expenditures on prohibition enforcement -- $2.4 billion at the federal level and $5.3 billion at the state and local levels"

Wow, OK, so just not having to pay for the enforcement of marijuana crimes would save $7.7 billion and those are 2005 numbers. I'm sure if they were putting this report together now it would be an even higher number.

Now, what does Dr. Miron and crew say about revenues? "**Revenue from taxation of marijuana sales would range from $2.4 billion per year if marijuana were taxed like ordinary consumer goods to $6.2 billion if it were taxed like alcohol or tobacco."

Do you think America could use an extra $14 billion per year? Yes we can! The kicker is that these figures are conservative. The real numbers are probably much higher and if you add in the cost of housing, food and heath care of these prison inmates, the number becomes astronomical.

Let's talk now about how this all could effect the overall economy. For one thing, it would create jobs. If we packaged it like cigarettes, regulated it like alcohol, and allowed stores to get a cannabis license like we do with beer and wine licences now, all of those "criminals" who are growing marijuana could register as a grower for a company that packages/manufactures who in turn sell to the stores that would now be selling to the public. The best part is, that even with all that, the "Sin Tax" and the sales tax marijuana would be cheaper to purchase that it is now.

Another revenue source for the government would be the taxes on imports. "Companies" that want to import their "product" could do so just like the manufacturers of whiskey, etc., do now. All of their products would have to meet FDA standards and US Packaging standards to be allowed to be imported. Those big bad guys we fear might just have to become real, legitimate businessmen if they want to keep making money in America with their marijuana crops.

The criminal element that comes with illegal/illicit drugs, the pushers, the evil drug cartels, etc. will be gone. Just like during prohibition, when the crooks/mobsters ran the booze rackets, crime was high and there was a bad element surrounding alcohol sales and consumption. When they finally over turned prohibition and made alcohol legal again, the bad element moved on. We will have no need of the back ally bad guys or the drug kings from South America, we can just go to the store.

In closing, Benson B. Roe, MD, in his report Why We Should Legalize Drugs, says,"We should look at the fact that a relatively low budget public education campaign has resulted in a significant decline in US consumption of both alcohol and tobacco during a period when a costly and intensive campaign to curtail illegal drugs only resulted in their increased usage. Is there a lesson to be heeded?

Of course there is. Scrap the nonsense of trying to obliterate drugs and acknowledge their presence in our society as we have with alcohol and tobacco. Legalization would result in:

1. purity assurance under Food and Drug Administration regulation;
2. labeled concentration of the product (to avoid overdose);
3. obliteration of vigorous marketing ("pushers");
4. obliteration of drug crime and reduction of theft crime
5. savings in expensive enforcement and
6. significant tax revenues.

Effort and funds can then be directed to educating the public about the hazards of all drugs.

Can such a change of attitude happen? Probably not, because the huge illegal drug industry has mountains of money for a media blitz and for buying politicians to sing the songs of "evil" and "danger" which is certain to kill any legislative attempt at legalization. Perhaps it will take some time before reality can prevail, but meanwhile we should at least do more to expose deception and to disseminate the truth."

What do you think? What are some more of the positives and negatives? Should we legalize marijuana? Why or Why not?

TSA. When are they going to get a clue?

Do you remember back when, if you had to fly, it wasn't so bad? You showed up an hour before your flight, checked your bags, went through the metal detector and waited for your plane to load.

Then 9/11 happened. Understandably, the country went crazy with grief, anger and fear. We mourned our dead, raised the heroes up and decided we had to do something to make sure that kind of horror never happened again. Just over 2 months later, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act was signed into law by President George W. Bush and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) was created.

While on the surface, it seemed to be a good idea. The only problem is that they don't actually prevent anything but the most obvious attempts to bring weapons on an airplane. The government then had another brainstorm and came up with the No Fly List. The only problem with that is that innocent Americans ended up on the list simply because they had a name that was the same or similar to one that could possibly be an alias for a terrorist. Or because they pissed off someone in a position of power in the TSA. All in all it was a little more inconvenient, but not intolerantly so. And if it gave the public an illusion of safety(and really, that's all it did), what's the harm?

Skip ahead a few years. The "Underwear Bomber" tried to smuggle a bomb onto a plane and blow it up. He was able to get on the plane without a problem and thankfully when he tried to detonate the bomb, it failed.

So because of the "Underwear Bomber" we needed to do something to prevent that from happening again. Insert "Full Body Scanners" here. Radiation and violation of our right to privacy. But it will prevent another "Underwear Bomber", right? Wrong. The very people who created and sold these horrible machines to us have said that these monstrosities would not have prevented the "Underwear Bobmer".

So what are your choices? You can either subject yourself to the radiation and humiliation of the full body scanner, or you can be groped by TSA agents. And the topper, even if you choose to go through the scanner, you can still be pulled aside for a game of touchy feely by the TSA. There seems to be no ryme or reason to how they decide who gets their special attention. You have TSA agents feeling up 80 year old grandmas and little kids.

Here is a thought for you, how about doing a little profiling? I know it's not PC to say something like that, but if we truely want to do something to make us safe, profiling is really the only way to do it. The government has profilers whos jobs it is to profile criminals. They come up with a profile off the murderer or rapist or kidnapper, etc. How about we put some of them to work comming up with a few profiles of people who would be the most likely to try and blow up an airplane and have the TSA pull those folks out of line for their special touching. That way, we can go back to metal detectors and the occational pat downs, except for the people who fit the profile. Right now, the TSA is so affraid of being acussed of profiling that the people most likely to be terrorists walk right through the check points while Grandma Peterson is being groped.

When is the government going to get a clue and stop worrying about being PC and do what they really need to do. Benjamin Franklin said it best when he said, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

What more can I say?

More importantly, what do you have to say about it?