Emma Carpenter, Staff Writer
Ideology: Liberal | Writing In: Vienna, Austria
In the 2010 election, decriminalization of marijuana will be on the ballot of several states, such as California. This is a sensitive issue, sparking much controversy and strong opinions from both sides. Personally, I find it a vile substance, but despite my negative feelings towards Marijuana, I do find benefits in decriminalizing it and/or legalizing it.
One of the main arguments cited for is the potential tax revenue that could be reaped through sales tax. It was calculated that if marijuana was legalized, it could potentially become a cash crop, bringing in more than a billion dollars a year (estimated for California alone).
The extra tax revenue would be extremely helpful in this faltering economy – amid falling state revenues. Also, the money used for War on Drugs programs would be subsequently saved. Currently, we spend over $19 billion dollars a year on the so-called War on Drugs, yet have we seen any results? Decriminalization and/or legalization would mean saving money by not prosecuting suspects, not imprisoning offenders, and simultaneously earning money from the taxes the government could impose on it. On top of all this, legalization would create more jobs in every community. Small businesses would take off and there would be new competition with tobacco and liquor companies, forcing them to spend billions more on advertising. The financial benefits are hard to deny. It certainly wouldn’t solve our economic problems, but decriminalizing marijuana has the potential to bring a small amount of prosperity.
But it is illegal for a reason right? Marijuana is potentially hazardous to your health, so in keeping it illegal isn’t the government just trying to protect you? I don’t think it’s that simple. If you want to smoke, who is the government to say that cannot? Again, I think it’s stupid, but I’m not in favor of the government limiting the choices that we have. After all, the government allow us to drink and to smoke cigarettes, which are equally as dangerous, if not more harmful – so why is marijuana illegal?
Individuals have the right to make their own decisions. The government has the right to step in only when that individual harms someone else. Smoking a joint isn’t going to harm anyone but the person that’s actually smoking. Of course, there should be regulations to prevent those who want to smoke from harming those who don’t – just as citizens are allowed to drink, but they aren’t allowed to drive aftwards. It would be irresponsible for legalization not to come with some regulations, but that doesn’t mean the government would be over stepping its control. The government controls (or attempt to control) alcohol consumption to a degree, so the same rule and regulations should apply.
Clearly, prohibiting it is not an effective tactic. Over half of the drug busts every year involve marijuana. That means wasted time and money in courtrooms, wasted space in prisons for a minor crime. Its not the best thing to do, but I hardly think that time behind bars is an appropriate punishment for getting high. Over half of the people in jail for drug related crimes, committed a crime involving marijuana. This is a little disturbing for a drug that is less harmful than alcohol. This time and money and space could be used to prosecute real criminals instead of petty offenders. Legalization would also help eliminate organized crime.
Let’s face it: Marijuana is available. Once you reach high school, it’s easy for anyone to get and there is little evidence that keeping marijuana illegal will actually keep people from smoking. In fact some studies say that usage will go up at first, but then drop dramatically as it loses its appeal. It will no longer be forbidden, meaning it will no longer be as tempting, especially for young people. Prohibition of alcohol failed miserably, so why can’t we see that perhaps the prohibition of marijuana is just as pointless and part of the problem? If we want to keep the drug problem at bay, focusing on education, rather than banning it is a better use of time and resources. To say that just because you can get it means that you should be allowed to would be a logical fallacy. But I am saying that its wide availability is evidence of the failure of prohibiting it. The law doesn’t stop anyone, so maybe its time we adjust the law so that it works to regulate and lessen incidents involving marijuana, rather than banning it so it becomes more appealing.
Again, not a fan, but I’m also not a proponent of trying to control other people’s lives.If you want to smoke a joint, that’s your business. The government can stay out of it and stop wasting resources and money on a lost cause.
Emma,
I agree with your article/thesis entirely. Though I think I should point out that decriminalization, as I advocated in my “War on Drugs: An Exit Strategy” article, doesn’t help bring in revenue – it simply stops funding the futile ‘War on Drugs.’ Under decriminalization, drugs are still technically illegal.
I think my favorite ad I saw in California goes, “Headache? Talk to your doctor about prescription marijuana.”
I agree that marijuana-related offenders are unnecessarily clogging our judicial and prison systems, and that decriminalization would be a much better way to deal with this issue.
However, were marijuana to be legalized (decriminalization, as Kathleen said, usually makes possession of small amounts a misdemeanor) we would still need to fight “the War on Drugs” in a way: internationally. Marijuana is still illegal in many countries, and allowing unregulated black-market, crime-ridden marijuana to enter the United States legally would be a huge foreign policy issue. I do think that the “war on drugs” has been largely a failure; however, if marijuana were to be legalized, I would be in favor of a program that stepped up border and port security and really cracked down on the illegal importation of all drugs. Additionally, such a program would insure that all marijuana-related production and trade were benefiting the American economy almost exclusively.
Michele, you’re right. The US shouldn’t allow itself to be a market for illegal drugs from other countries. But if we could regulate the legal trade of marijuana, it would take a huge stress off of the legal system, law enforcement, and would give the government another source of revenue.
Ian, I could not agree more.
The question is: how exactly would we prevent marijuana from being imported (especially from Canada)? The drug runners have become very efficient at their trade, as evidenced by the proliferation of drugs in this country. We’d need a truly visionary head of the DEA in order for it to work.
I agree with Michele. Decriminalization of marijuana is a good first step towards disengaging from the War on Drugs.
The War on Drugs has largely been a failure. We invaded a sovereign nation (Panama) and threw its leader in prison, and we also sent some Special Forces soldiers to help the Colombian police track down and kill Pablo Escobar. Those actions (two of our few successes, if you can even call them that) have barely made a dent in the drug trade.
Russell Crowe’s character in American Gangster (a New Jersey narcotics detective) remarked that the drug trade employs people:
“Judges, lawyers, cops, politicians. They stop bringing dope into this country, about a hundred thousand people are gonna be out of a job.”
He was wrong. The number is probably much higher.
Debaters debate the two wars as if Nixon’s civil war on Woodstock Nation didn’t yet run amok. One need not travel to China to find indigenous cultures lacking human rights or to Cuba for political prisoners. America leads the world in percentile behind bars, thanks to ongoing persecution of hippies, radicals, and non-whites under banner of the war on drugs. If we are all about spreading liberty abroad, then why mix the message at home? Peace on the home front would enhance credibility.
The witch-hunt doctor’s Rx for prison fodder costs dearly, as lives are flushed down expensive tubes. My shaman’s second opinion is that psychoactive plants are God’s gift. As God witnesses (Gen.1:12), its all good. The administration claims it wants to reduce demand for cartel product, but extraditing Marc Emery increases demand. His seeds enable American farmers to steal cartel customers with better product at lower price.
The constitutionality of the CSA (Controlled Substances Act of 1970) is derived from an interstate commerce clause. This clause is invoked to authorize funding outlaws, endangering homeland security, avoiding tax revenue, and throwing good money after bad. Official policy is to eradicate, not tax, the number-one cash crop in the land. America rejected prohibition, but its back. Apparently, SWAT teams don’t need no stinking amendment.
Nixon promised the Schafer Commission would support the criminalization of his enemies, but it didn’t. No matter, the witch-hunt was on. No amendments can assure due process under an anti-science law without due process itself. Psychology hailed the breakthrough potential of LSD, until the CSA halted all research. Marijuana has no medical use, period.
The RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993) allows Native American Church members to eat peyote, which functions like LSD. A specific church membership should not be prerequisite for Americans to obtain their birthright freedom of religion. Denial of entheogen sacrament to any American, for mediation of communion with his or her maker, precludes the free exercise of religious liberty.
Freedom of speech presupposes freedom of thought. The Constitution doesn’t enumerate any governmental power to embargo diverse states of mind. How and when did government usurp this power to coerce conformity? The Puritans came here to escape coerced conformity. Legislators who would limit cognitive liberty lack jurisdiction.
Common-law must hold that adults own their bodies. Socrates said to know your self. Statutes should not presume to thwart the intelligent design that molecular keys unlock spiritual doors. Persons who appreciate their own free choice of path in life should tolerate self-exploration for seekers. Americans’ right to the pursuit of happiness is supposed to be inalienable.
Simple majorities in each house could put repeal of the CSA on the president’s desk. The books have ample law on them without the CSA. The usual caveats remain in effect. You are liable for damages when you screw up. Strong medicine requires prescription. Employees can be fired for poor job performance. No harm, no foul; and no excuse, either. Replace the war on drugs with a frugal, constitutional, science-based drugs policy.
Emma, great article. Even though decriminalizing marijuana will technically not make it legal, I think it is the first step to get people comfortable with the idea of an illegal drug being legal. There is such a stigma surrounding marijuana, so slowly changing a few laws at a time will make it easier in the long run to eventually sell it legally and to tax it.