PFlynn
New Member
USA - The battle to legalize marijuana has always been an issue in American culture and politics. However, due to inherent hypocrisies and misconceptions in the American government and public at large, there has never been enough political capital to repeal the unjust laws governing the drug's use.
Legalization is the last step in a long process that would allow for unrestrained recreational use of a drug that would not, as many people fear, lead to the downfall of American society. When people sift through all the propaganda, they will find that the only people who benefit from marijuana prohibition is the government and big business, while the average American citizen is burdened with the negative effects.
From the first laws founded in racism against American immigrants, to the ignorance of scientific data that marijuana has legitimate medicinal uses, politicians and a drug prohibition lobby have been successful in perpetuating the fear of effects of marijuana, along with all other drugs, that the American public feeds on.
However, this stance does not benefit the American public one iota. Instead of doing what is right, politicians fear the backlash and the stigma that coincide with the accusations of being soft on crime.
Many states have begun to see the light and have passed laws allowing for medicinal marijuana uses, while others still seek to decriminalize its possession. This past week, Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts stated on the HBO show "Real Time with Bill Maher" that he would introduce a bill in Congress decriminalize small amounts of marijuana. Instead of being arrested people who were caught with marijuana would instead pay a fine much like a traffic ticket.
Unfortunately, there is not enough political capital to even pass this small bill in Congress. And even if it did pass, anything short of legalization is unjust. This recent attempt to decriminalize marijuana at the federal level demonstrates the first way legalization would benefit the average American citizen - it would save them money. There would no longer be a need to spend money on marijuana enforcement or related court fees associated with the victimless crime. Instead money could be reallocated so law enforcement could actually do some real police work by cutting down on violent crimes and ensuring the safety of residents, especially in the cities. Taxes could be decreased or possibly spent more efficiently.
More importantly, marijuana could be a large source of revenue for state governments who are experiencing financial woes during the current economic downturn. Sales tax generated from people who purchase marijuana could generate significant sums of money and could be similar in statute to taxes on alcohol, cigarettes and gas.
Yet again, despite the legitimate reasons for legalization, there are overriding forces at work that stifle this path, separate of scientific and moral inquiry (if it was scientific and moral inquiry in anything, American society would be much different). The first beneficiary of marijuana prohibition, whether people like to admit or not, is the federal government. The federal government employs thousands of people in agencies such as the FBI and DEA to enforce drug laws. The sole reason these jobs exist is because of the laws on the books. What happens to these jobs if marijuana or any other drugs are legalized or medicinalized? They go by the wayside. Fortunately for these people, the bureaucracy of the government saves their jobs.
Despite scholarly research and popular opinions, the higher ups in these organizations will do anything to save their agencies, even if it means needless spending on drug enforcement. One unfortunate byproduct of bureaucracies is that it is often more important to create and save jobs than to run the government efficiently. And in the case of U.S. government agencies, millions of dollars of funding are at stake.
By eliminating marijuana prohibition, there may be many people who would lose their jobs. However, despite their bad fortune, funding jobs at the expense of the American people is just unfair. If a company in the real world does not have a niche or a market they go out of business (except for farmers who get subsidies) and their employees have to find new jobs. In this case though, the agencies continue thrive, this time at the expense of the taxpayer, whose rights are being violated. The only reason these organizations exist is because the government has people's tax money and is the ultimate authority on how to spend it.
Another important beneficiary of marijuana prohibition is the alcohol industry. All things considered marijuana is less harmful, less addictive and less painful (for example, there are no hangovers) than alcohol. The reason alcohol is legal is because it has been America's drug of choice for hundreds of years. The alcohol industry stands to lose millions, maybe billions of dollars from the repeal of marijuana prohibition. The high cost of marijuana is tied up in the fact that it takes an immense amount of risk to farm and distribute a substance which is still, though unfairly, a Schedule I drug. The moment marijuana is legalized, the price would shoot down and the alcohol industry lose out. Motivation for alcohol companies to support continued marijuana prohibition remains high (that is unless they start to produce it themselves, but corporate control is another issue altogether).
Despite the unjustified moral qualms that people and the government have with regulating the substances that another person chooses to put in their body at their own expense, the one argument that has proven most effective at staving off a movement of marijuana legalization is that it is a "gateway drug." Yes, marijuana is a gateway drug in a sense, but not in the sense that is traditionally thought. Marijuana does not cause people to try other drugs. Instead an individual person's psychology is how their propensity to try other drugs should be evaluated. Yes, marijuana gets people comfortable with trying illegal substances, but that is it. Many people experiment with alcohol first, especially in high school yet, alcohol is not considered a gateway drug only for the reason that it is legal.
Proponents still point to the fact, after ignoring alcohol, that people start with marijuana and work their way up to harder drugs, such as heroin. Of course, this should make sense. It is analogous to running a marathon. People don't start running 26 miles, they train their way up to it. They only progress if they want to. However, there are still people that prefer to only run maybe two or three miles. A simple SAT analogy - running short distances is not a "gateway" to running marathons as marijuana is not a "gateway" to harder drugs.
In conclusion, supporting marijuana prohibition for the benefit of companies and the government at the expense of the people, literally and figuratively, is not right. As of this moment, people are forced to pay to taxes in the millions of dollars to fight a drug that is only considered harmful for many unjustified reasons. In a surprising twist, a conservative notion is that marijuana prohibition is not fiscally responsible. Americans should not have to pay to prohibit the actions of others for crimes which there are no victims. Once again, the American people lose out.
Source: Daily Campus, The (UConn, CT Edu)
Copyright: 2008 The Daily Campus
Contact: opinion@dailycampus.com
Website: The Daily Campus
Legalization is the last step in a long process that would allow for unrestrained recreational use of a drug that would not, as many people fear, lead to the downfall of American society. When people sift through all the propaganda, they will find that the only people who benefit from marijuana prohibition is the government and big business, while the average American citizen is burdened with the negative effects.
From the first laws founded in racism against American immigrants, to the ignorance of scientific data that marijuana has legitimate medicinal uses, politicians and a drug prohibition lobby have been successful in perpetuating the fear of effects of marijuana, along with all other drugs, that the American public feeds on.
However, this stance does not benefit the American public one iota. Instead of doing what is right, politicians fear the backlash and the stigma that coincide with the accusations of being soft on crime.
Many states have begun to see the light and have passed laws allowing for medicinal marijuana uses, while others still seek to decriminalize its possession. This past week, Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts stated on the HBO show "Real Time with Bill Maher" that he would introduce a bill in Congress decriminalize small amounts of marijuana. Instead of being arrested people who were caught with marijuana would instead pay a fine much like a traffic ticket.
Unfortunately, there is not enough political capital to even pass this small bill in Congress. And even if it did pass, anything short of legalization is unjust. This recent attempt to decriminalize marijuana at the federal level demonstrates the first way legalization would benefit the average American citizen - it would save them money. There would no longer be a need to spend money on marijuana enforcement or related court fees associated with the victimless crime. Instead money could be reallocated so law enforcement could actually do some real police work by cutting down on violent crimes and ensuring the safety of residents, especially in the cities. Taxes could be decreased or possibly spent more efficiently.
More importantly, marijuana could be a large source of revenue for state governments who are experiencing financial woes during the current economic downturn. Sales tax generated from people who purchase marijuana could generate significant sums of money and could be similar in statute to taxes on alcohol, cigarettes and gas.
Yet again, despite the legitimate reasons for legalization, there are overriding forces at work that stifle this path, separate of scientific and moral inquiry (if it was scientific and moral inquiry in anything, American society would be much different). The first beneficiary of marijuana prohibition, whether people like to admit or not, is the federal government. The federal government employs thousands of people in agencies such as the FBI and DEA to enforce drug laws. The sole reason these jobs exist is because of the laws on the books. What happens to these jobs if marijuana or any other drugs are legalized or medicinalized? They go by the wayside. Fortunately for these people, the bureaucracy of the government saves their jobs.
Despite scholarly research and popular opinions, the higher ups in these organizations will do anything to save their agencies, even if it means needless spending on drug enforcement. One unfortunate byproduct of bureaucracies is that it is often more important to create and save jobs than to run the government efficiently. And in the case of U.S. government agencies, millions of dollars of funding are at stake.
By eliminating marijuana prohibition, there may be many people who would lose their jobs. However, despite their bad fortune, funding jobs at the expense of the American people is just unfair. If a company in the real world does not have a niche or a market they go out of business (except for farmers who get subsidies) and their employees have to find new jobs. In this case though, the agencies continue thrive, this time at the expense of the taxpayer, whose rights are being violated. The only reason these organizations exist is because the government has people's tax money and is the ultimate authority on how to spend it.
Another important beneficiary of marijuana prohibition is the alcohol industry. All things considered marijuana is less harmful, less addictive and less painful (for example, there are no hangovers) than alcohol. The reason alcohol is legal is because it has been America's drug of choice for hundreds of years. The alcohol industry stands to lose millions, maybe billions of dollars from the repeal of marijuana prohibition. The high cost of marijuana is tied up in the fact that it takes an immense amount of risk to farm and distribute a substance which is still, though unfairly, a Schedule I drug. The moment marijuana is legalized, the price would shoot down and the alcohol industry lose out. Motivation for alcohol companies to support continued marijuana prohibition remains high (that is unless they start to produce it themselves, but corporate control is another issue altogether).
Despite the unjustified moral qualms that people and the government have with regulating the substances that another person chooses to put in their body at their own expense, the one argument that has proven most effective at staving off a movement of marijuana legalization is that it is a "gateway drug." Yes, marijuana is a gateway drug in a sense, but not in the sense that is traditionally thought. Marijuana does not cause people to try other drugs. Instead an individual person's psychology is how their propensity to try other drugs should be evaluated. Yes, marijuana gets people comfortable with trying illegal substances, but that is it. Many people experiment with alcohol first, especially in high school yet, alcohol is not considered a gateway drug only for the reason that it is legal.
Proponents still point to the fact, after ignoring alcohol, that people start with marijuana and work their way up to harder drugs, such as heroin. Of course, this should make sense. It is analogous to running a marathon. People don't start running 26 miles, they train their way up to it. They only progress if they want to. However, there are still people that prefer to only run maybe two or three miles. A simple SAT analogy - running short distances is not a "gateway" to running marathons as marijuana is not a "gateway" to harder drugs.
In conclusion, supporting marijuana prohibition for the benefit of companies and the government at the expense of the people, literally and figuratively, is not right. As of this moment, people are forced to pay to taxes in the millions of dollars to fight a drug that is only considered harmful for many unjustified reasons. In a surprising twist, a conservative notion is that marijuana prohibition is not fiscally responsible. Americans should not have to pay to prohibit the actions of others for crimes which there are no victims. Once again, the American people lose out.
Source: Daily Campus, The (UConn, CT Edu)
Copyright: 2008 The Daily Campus
Contact: opinion@dailycampus.com
Website: The Daily Campus
