High Time for a Change

The United States population has taken on the marijuana legalization debate for several years. There seems to be an equal amount of supporters and disputers, each with strong arguments as to why their particular stance on the issue is the way to go. The country has recently moved forward with this idea of legalized marijuana, as in the November Election, both Colorado and Washington voted to have recreational marijuana use dubbed as lawful. Now many citizens are wondering if this could possibly lead to a national revolution of legalized weed. Although a few people still stick to their guns claiming that letting down the prohibition on drugs could be detrimental to society, there are countless elements that propose a healthy marijuana-tolerating America. Considering all of these components, legalizing marijuana would certainly not be harmful to our society.

Marijuana, like tobacco and alcohol, is used recreationally; however, unlike the focal substance, the other two are far more harmful to one's body. The lone health risk that correlates with marijuana use is temporary respiratory problems. While smoking large amounts of marijuana may be dangerous, it does not lead to "fatal overdoses" (Kay). Alcoholism is at the top of the list of destructive addictions, causing "far more domestic and social misery than marijuana possibly could" (Kay), yet nobody resists the legalization of alcohol. Eighty years ago, it was alcohol that was prohibited and marijuana that was legal, and then a decade later their roles were switched. One might question the moral discrepancies that prompt such capricious decisions from the government (Caulkins). Along with the repercussions of alcohol consumption, there are numerous consequences from smoking tobacco. It leads to heart disease and cancer of the mouth and lungs, yet it is still openly available to the public. Looking at these explicit distinctions, it is relatively difficult to understand why marijuana is so exceedingly stigmatized while tobacco and alcohol remain socially acceptable.

With marijuana legalized, it would improve the legal system overall, with marijuana seeming like such a malicious substance in the crime force today. With the national "War on Drugs" being emphasized by the government and the media, police departments at state and local levels heed incredible attention to the minute non-violent act of drug use. According to a recent survey, at least fifty percent of Americans agree that marijuana should be legal (Wente). So if this is what our people want, then why is our crime force focusing so much on something that their communities do not even consider a crime? Anti-drug policies dissipate billions of taxpayer dollars trying to lock up drug addicts who only cause harm to themselves and no harm to the people they are supposedly trying to protect (Wente). However, one might say that this "war" is against the criminals who produce and sell the illegal drug and that putting a stop to their criminality is of the upmost importance. Considering this, if the crime fighting force would stop deeming these individuals as corrupt and dangerous then they might not seem as such after all. If the people being slandered by their own government were to be treated without disdain then they possibly would not feel the need to lash out. It could be said that they act the way they do because that is how they are expected to act. It seems as if their actions could be prevented if only they were not viewed or automatically characterized as criminals. After reflecting on all of this and taking into account that after more than forty years of this War on Drugs there are no advances to show for it, it might be about time to "declare that war unwinnable"(Farndale).

If the sales of marijuana were to be legalized and properly regulated by our government, it would allow our society to become comfortable with recreational marijuana use, then our country would have a major weight lifted off its shoulders. There are so many other issues that our government could focus their energy and finances on that are tremendously more important. This argument has been going on for over 40 years (Farndale), causing the entire country to stress over an insignificant issue. It has reached the point where a national consensus reported that the "war on drugs can't be won"(Wente) because nobody really feels that this issue deserves attention anymore. If the goal of the War on Drugs is to condense the level of harm caused by weed, then it "should be available to purchase safely and legally in a consumer-driven marketplace"(Farndale). If this were to be the case, then the government would have the ability to center many of their expenditures that are now spent on this issue on other matters that could actually develop a solution or settlement, which would ultimately create an advancement and improvement for society as a whole.

Not only would it relieve an unneeded hassle for the government, but it would also present the possibility of more tax revenue and income for the economy. Most gangs of today run the marijuana drug ring and they decide the cost and distribution of the drug. These gangs "pay for their drugs through crime" and this way of production costs "the taxpayer, $13.9 billion a year" (Farndale). There is also the fact that while marijuana is illegal it contributes "billions of dollars overseas" through "international criminal gangs" (Harris). Through "foreign cultivation and smuggling to the United States," these "international criminal gangs" (Harris) are contributing more to the loss of money that could be obtained if the sales of marijuana were to be in the hands of the government. If that were to be the case, the mass loss of money would not exist. A tax could be placed on sales and actually bring in income to the economy which would essentially benefit it greatly.

The street value of the cannabis industry in British Columbia is worth an estimated $30-billion a year; it would be worth double or triple that amount if it could legally attract tourists from the U.S. and other countries. Enforcement of our present laws is said to cost $1-billion a year; that money could be put to better use. (Kay)

This being the case, there is a great advantage in increasing the amount of money intake