Like most arguments against the legalization of cannabis, Shaeffer Bannigan’s was erroneous and deluded (“The Case Against Legalizing Marijuana,” Daily Nexus, April 27). First things first, I have some refuting to do:
Citing continued underage use of weed as a potential crisis is hardly valid, as the demand from underage users will be satiated through people who can obtain it legally, the gravity of which is not the same as through wholly illegal means.
Obtaining cannabis from the government and growing one’s own supply can take mass manufacturing interference out of the equation.
Hundreds of economists, including Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman, do in fact think that the financial benefits from cannabis and hemp (which wasn’t even mentioned) outweigh the costs.
While cannabis acts as an analgesic just like Vicodin and morphine, it can’t render you physically addicted or result in an overdose.
It couldn’t be more fitting for this steaming pile of misinformation to be wrapped up with negative stereotypes purporting the falsehoods of “amotivational syndrome.”
Almost all arguments against legalization can be dismantled in the previous fashion, because the evidence is largely unsubstantiated. Their claims are usually based on myths, speculation, moral views and fear.
The real problems with legalization will stem from the transition from a nation that has stigmatized the substance to one accepting of responsible use. Our country has seen a decline in cancer deaths since efforts to educate the masses about tobacco use, and the same type of improvement can occur for cannabis abuse.
In a cost-benefit analysis of legalization, when considering only substantiated evidence, the truth is painfully obvious.