Many people blame the government for the war on drugs because the government refuses to legalize the drug. But the war on drugs isn’t as shortsighted as proponents of legalization would like to think. Legalizing marijuana will not solve all of our drug war problems and certainly won’t make our country a better place to live.
Advocates of legalization propositions say that a federally regulated marijuana market will drive the cost of marijuana down, decrease the crime rate and thus decrease the wasted efforts put forth by the Drug Enforcement Administration. The federal government spends billions of dollars each year in an effort to undermine drug distribution throughout the country. According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, in 2006, about 6,000 people a day used marijuana for the first time, a total of 2.2 million Americans. Of these, 63.3 percent were under age 18. So when the government legalizes pot for people over 21, as any of its attempted legislation has stated, it won’t suddenly eliminate the demand for marijuana of those underage users. The war on drugs will continue.
The concept that marijuana is less harmful than cigarettes or alcohol may be a true statement to some degree but isn’t a cause for legalization. Standards should not be set on degree of harmfulness, but degree of helpfulness. Also, let’s not forget that the tobacco industry won’t just step aside to let a brand new business take over the market. Should marijuana become legal, who do you think will first start the mass manufacturing? My guess of Marlboro is a good one. But Camel is a decent choice, too. And if Marlboro wants to keep people smoking pot just like it does with tobacco, it may start putting a couple “harmless ingredients” into the mixture to help a little. After that, it’s anyone’s guess as to which of the three drugs is the worst for you.
While the revenue stream may be helpful to the economy from a monetary standpoint, at what cost do we seek out this fortune? Juxtapose thinking only with a monetary mindset, why shouldn’t California lower the drinking age to 18? Our tourism industry will increase tenfold, with millions of 18 year olds trekking across our border in search of their state’s forbidden fruit. Besides the fact that the federal government would revoke several of our subsidiaries, the reason we don’t do this is because of the health impact it would have on the general public and state-to-state relations. Having a bunch of 18 year olds driving across the border to get drunk and then driving back home isn’t a good thing. The cost outweighs the benefits, just like with marijuana. The cost is far worse than the potential monetary benefits.
I’m all for medical marijuana. If you’re in pain, it’s no different to be prescribed marijuana rather than morphine or Vicodin. But I’m not about to push for the full legalization of the latter two drugs either. Legalization is incentivizing, and the costs of incentivizing weed among our nation’s youth are scary, at best. While there may be some four million people smoking weed in our country now, imagine encouraging it among the rest. I can’t think of a better way to stimulate our economy than to inject into it a tool that entirely destroys ambition and motivation. Excuse the language, but nothing says “fuck it” like a big dose of THC in the morning. Instead of mandatory 15 minute “smoking breaks” for cigarette-smoking workers, employers will have to implement new hours for pot-smoking workers: 4 p.m. to 6 p.m., Tuesday through Wednesday. Nike may have to change their slogan from “Just Do It” to “Just Don’t.” I can see the potential now.
This is further proof conservatives don’t support the free market. The criminalization of drugs like marijuana gives pharma industries an oligopoly on medicinal alternatives and creates cartels over the recreational use. That is the real reason it is illegal, because timber and textile industries came together with turn of the century temperance to try and formulate "what was best for us." Another irony since conservatives claim they don’t like government telling them what they can do. The timber and textile industries found it advantageous to have marijuana farming banned because it would cripple the appeal for hemp. Marlboro doesn’t have… Read more »
Who cares about what conservatives support or don’t support. People are going to pay for over-priced weed because it is cheaper then the alternative of acquiring and maintaining a plant. Also, if weed was legalized it would be regulated and the ownership of a plant would be illegal. You don’t see massive numbers college students under 21 with breweries in their bedrooms do you. Timber and Textiles have nothing to do with it. Anyone who has even a remote understanding of economics or commodities would know that timber land owners are making insane profits, profits that would not be diminished… Read more »
You have no remote understanding of history. In the 1930s Hearst (others included in timber and textile), who had a significant stake in the timber industry, ran repeated attacks on marijuana that lead to the first laws against marijuana in 1937. Why? Because hemp is a huge competitor to timber. The timber industry is huge and primarily dominated by Plum Creek who is the single largest holder of timber and land in the US. They are radically opposed to any industrial hemp legislation. So you are absolutely wrong when you claim they would be in favor of it because they… Read more »
Given that there will still be a sizable market for illegal smoking among the under-aged, legalized marijuana will still diminish that markets ability to support violent Mexican Drug cartels, as they will likely get their pot from illegally from legal sources, much the same way they get their hands on cigarettes and alcohol. IE Older siblings, shoplifting etc.
Obviously I am not saying that this is a good thing, but it’s still money not going to those drug cartels, which will probably help the War on Drugs more than anything else will.
Marijuana is about as legal as it will ever be in California. If it’s legalized, roughly the same amount of people are going to try pot, recreationally use pot, or burn out on pot. Legalizing marijuana won’t plunge us into a pit of unmotivated despair. Concerning evil corporations corrupting the market, that won’t happen either. Unlike tobacco, marijuana can be easily grown and cured in one’s home (or closet!). It’s pretty cheap now, even if you have spend a couple extra bucks on electricity since you’re growing indoors. Once you legalize pot, more people will be encouraged to grow outside,… Read more »
What is up with the Nexus running all these ridiculous anti-drug pieces? Its great, let them make a fool of themselves… Here’s the thing, it IS plenty easy to grow and cure your own tobacco. Its also plenty easy to brew or distill (though illegal) your own liquor. But for the most part, why bother? It takes a minor outlay in materials, but a not so insignificant amount of experience, time, and space. People who care about quality ales or tobacco hunt out reputable premium brands, of which there are many. Its usually a better bet to let the experts… Read more »
I was one of the older stoners who voted yes without doing the due diligence I normally do on a Proposition. After doing the due diligence I realized the bill was not just “badly written” but would criminalize smoking for everyone under 21. My daughter, who is not a “stoner” and is a senior in High School knows more than a few college freshmen who voted no because the law would have made them criminals whereas right now possession of under an ounce is the legal equivalent of a parking ticket. Under Prop 19, a college kid under 21 could… Read more »