I have smoked marijuana...

Monday, January 17, 2011

an introduction

Is Marijuana Legalization Beneficial to the United States?
 One of the most persistent arguments against marijuana prohibition is that it does not work. Despite education programs, thousands of marijuana arrests every year, heavy police enforcement, and every other instrument of prohibition, more than ten percent of Americans continue using marijuana every year (www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov). Despite the federal government’s ban on the sale and possession of marijuana, individual states and municipalities around the country enact laws that blatantly contradict congressional legislation. The government attempts to control marijuana use, yet an estimated one out of every hundred marijuana users is ever actually caught in the act (Single, 1989, p.458). A casual glance at these facts makes one wonder if the alternative is better. At least under legalization, the 10,000 people that smoke marijuana openly and with minimal reprisal from police at the University of Colorado on April 20th every year would not erode at our concept of the rule of law in the United States (Anas 2010). The law would finally be in accordance with what many people see as inevitable: marijuana is here to stay. Nevertheless, while marijuana use may remain widespread under prohibition, that is not reason enough for the government to change its policy. There are other considerations in making a decision to legalize marijuana. For instance, the health consequences of marijuana play a large role in determining the government’s position; if marijuana is dangerous enough, then the public ought to be discouraged from using it. Also, the budgetary impacts of legalization deserve consideration. How much of a burden would legalization really lift off the shoulders of taxpayers? What follows in this blog is an impartial discussion of these issues. I will discuss the health and capital creation issues of marijuana, then mention the budgetary effects of legalization, and bring to light the most important point of all: whether the law influences marijuana use at all.

3 comments:

  1. Have you seen this?
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130592638

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for pointing this out; I just read it now. Yes, very good stuff, this is a very even-handed treatment of the subject. Her biggest complaint is that Marijuana is Schedule I (an incredibly "dangerous" substance on par with heroin for example)...I couldn't agree more with her about how ridiculous that is.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It would seem that the medical implications are enough to at least drop it to a Schedule II, if not III (especially considering the other substances that are sold legally). She was very well spoken during the interview. It's a shame there aren't more advocates like Dr. Holland.

    ReplyDelete