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.
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.
' 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:
- Marijuana has been used effectively to enhance the appetite of patients undergoing chemotherapy
. (PRO)
- Studies show that marijuana is helpful in relieving a person from the uneasy feeling of nausea. (PRO)
- Short-term effects can sometimes include distorted sensory perception, problems with memory and learning, lack of coordination and trouble with problem-solving. (CON)
- Marijuana can relieve chronic pain
and suffering of people with diseases like cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, chronic pain syndrome, etc. (PRO)
- Increased heart rate and reduced blood pressure are also some of the short-term effects of marijuana. (CON)
- 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)
- High doses of marijuana, when consumed through food, has been known to cause hallucinations, delusions, impaired memory and disorientation (YOU MAKE THE CALL)
- 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)
- People who have glaucoma, asthma and spasticity have been found to have benefited from using marijuana. (PRO)
- 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)
- 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.
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?
. 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.
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."
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.
! 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:
- purity assurance under Food and Drug Administration regulation;
- labeled concentration of the product (to avoid overdose);
- obliteration of vigorous marketing ("pushers");
- obliteration of drug crime and reduction of theft crime
- savings in expensive enforcement and
- 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?
I think it's unfair to those who voted against legalization for you to discount their moral/social arguments and accuse them of buying into anything politicians say without further explanation.
ReplyDeleteHi Jenny,
ReplyDeleteThe comment at the very top of the page is a quick commentary about a majority of people buying the party line, instead of thinking for themselves. It's the description of this blog, The Independent Thinker and not part of the legalizing marijuana post.
I fully understand that some people have moral arguments about legalizing marijuana, I am not discounting that at all. The fact is we should not be legislating morals. The government should not be able to tell people what they can and cannot put in their bodies. Laws are supposed to protect people from others, not from themselves.
Prohibition was the perfect example of people trying to legislate their morals. We saw how well that worked.
As for social, Alcohol and tobacco are both leagal and they are worse for society than marijuana. It's not as addictive as either one, it doesn't cause the amount of health issues that alcohol and tobacco do, nor do you see people getting high and then getting in their car and killing innocent people. Marijuana has many medicinal uses as well, both mental and physical, the same cannot be said of eiher alcohol or tobbaco.
I can appreciate that some people do not want to use marijuana and don't want their kids to use it either. The fact is, if you don't want to use it, don't. Legalzing and regulating it would actually make it harder for kid to get because you wouldn't have the pushers on the street anymore. Kids would have to convince someone who is 21 to buy it for them, just like they do alcohol. Now all they need to do is ask a friend who their dealer is.
I'm not taking issue with how well legislating morals works or doesn't work. The issue is that people do make their decisions based on morality. Besides, saying that we shouldn't legislate morals is in and of itself a moral statement. Saying that things were "worse" with Prohibition is a value judgment. That's the big problem. We can address these four elements, but it all comes down to how each person will weight them.
ReplyDeleteJenny,
ReplyDeleteOf course people make decisions based on their morals. Everything a person does or doesn't do is according to their morals or lack of morals.
I disagree however with your statement that "saying that we shouldn't legislate morals is in and of itself a moral statement." It's actually not a moral statement, it is a Constitutional statement.
Why Do you think the government had to pass a Constitutional Amendment in order to prohibit the drug alcohol? And, while you are thinking about that: how is it possible to prohibit other drugs without going through the formal amendment process? I think, in order to answer these questions, it's necessary to take a look at what the Constitution is supposed to be.
Our system recognizes the existence of "inalienable" natural rights and that government exists to "secure" those rights for its citizens.The architects of our system of government, in fact, had that principle in mind, and they viewed the Constitution as being a blueprint for a limited government in which those powers that were to be made available to the federal government would be listed. If a power is not listed in the Constitution, it is not supposed to be available to the Federal government.
The 9th Amendment states,"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
And then there's the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The 10th Amendment has to do with delegation of powers and the idea of limited government.
I think the answer to the first question - Why Do you think the government had to pass a Constitutional Amendment in order to prohibit the drug alcohol? - is fairly straightforward . We were talking about a new power that was being acquired -- surrendered by the people and the states - and so the 18th Amendment was passed to give that power to the Federal government.
As to our second question -- prohibiting other drugs -- I would argue that we are talking about new powers being granted to the Federal government that have never been surrendered by the people and the states. So, the drug war, prohibition laws, the DEA, all of it, are all unconstitutional. I think what we have here is a prime example of the illegal acquisition of powers by a central government through a process of slow accretion.
No scientific evidence has ever been introduced that would support the idea that marijuana leads to violent, anti-social behavior. So, by no stretch of the imagination is there a rational or scientific justification for marijuana prohibition and because that is the case, there is no marijuana prohibition law that passes Constitutional muster.
What it really boils down to though, is that the framers of the constitution purposely limited the power of the federal government. The governments job is to protect Americans from others(foreign or domestic) not to protect us from ourselves.
A far as saying that things were "worse" with Prohibition is a value judgment? Crime was higher during prohibition than any time in the 10 years before or after. If that isn't the definition of "worse" in this context, I don't know what is.
You said,"We can address these four elements, but it all comes down to how each person will weight them". I do agree with that notion, the only problem is it shouldn't matter how anyone weighs it, other than to themselves. What I mean is this, If you don't want to do drugs, don't, believe it or not, I don't. But just because you don't like it doesn't mean that you should be able to tell other adults what they can or can not put into their own bodies.