Essay About Marijuana Abraham Lincoln And Illegal Use Of Marijuana

Legalizing Marijuana
Essay Preview: Legalizing Marijuana
Report this essay
Legalizing Marijuana Abraham Lincoln once stated that, “Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a mans appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimesÐ A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded.” In todays society, this statement still applies in reference to the illegal use of marijuana. Marijuana prohibition causes far more harm than marijuana itself. Keeping marijuana illegal is expensive and causes crime. Out of four possible connections between drugs and crime, at least three would not exist if drug prohibition laws were repealed. First, crimes which occur billions of times a year are producing, selling, buying, and consuming strictly controlled and banned substances. If drug prohibition laws were repealed, these activities would obviously cease to be crimes. Next, many users commit crimes, such as robbery, dealing, prostitution, and running numbers to earn money to support their habits. If marijuana was less expensive and easier to obtain, which would be the case if it were legalized, the crimes committed under these circumstances would dramatically decline. The third drug-crime link I drug trafficking. Without prohibition laws, those people trying to make a living by selling and distribution would not be thrown in jail. Support for legalizing marijuana is at its highest level in 30 years, according to the USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll. Since 1996, voters in eight states have passed initiatives supporting marijuana for medical purposes at least. Polls show more than 70% of voters support medical marijuana. Polls in Canada and England show half the population now supports legalization. The USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll found support for legalization “highest among 18 to 49 year olds, people in the West, and independent voters. Opposition was greatest among the elderly, those who attend church weekly, and Republicans.” Those people generally do not accept change or want anything to be different. Marijuana should be legalized, if not completely then at least for medicinal purposes. Many argue that legalizing marijuana allows anyone to grow, smoke, and use the herb. The Lakeland Police Department calls marijuana “a psychoactive drug which increases anxiety, depression, paranoia, delusion, lack of motivation, aggression, risky behavior, and depersonalization” (Marijuana Legalization Issues 1). Opposers of legalization say that marijuana can cause physical harm if ingested in great amounts for a long enough time. They argue that passing an amendment to legalize marijuana under the pretense of medicinal purposes gives all people, including children, felons, and prison inmates, a constitutional right to grow and smoke it for a headache, cold, or any other common ailment. Another argument is that unlike other drug addicts, the marijuana addict is slow to recognize his addiction. The gateway effect is well established in research. Use of alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana are major factor for addiction and harder drug use. Yes, marijuana users are more likely to try and to use harder drugs than those who never smoked in the first place. Does that mean marijuana should not be decriminalized? Of course not. Like alcohol, marijuana use is only unhealthy if ingested irresponsibly or in mass amounts. An idea to ban marijuana based on addictive properties would hardly be consistent with allowing tobacco to be legal. By using dosage and quality controls, safety guidelines, and an age limit, marijuana can be regulated for medicinal or other beneficial usage. By letting others know of the conditions associated with marijuana use, such as any prescription drugs side effects, people can choose whether they want to use marijuana and they maybe more careful. Marijuana should be legalized, but with caution. The cost for prohibition is high, regarding money and peoples lives. Since 1981, federal expenditures on drug enforcement have more than tripled from less than 1 billion dollars a year to 3 billion (Nadelman 8). According to the Drug Enforcement Board (DEA) and the Coast Guard have risen during the past 7 years from about $220 million to roughly $500 million. During the same period, FBI resources devoted to drug enforcement increased from $8 million a year to over $100 million; U.S. Marshals resources from $26 million to about $80 million; U.S. Attorney resources from $20 million to about $100 million; U.S. Customs resources from $180 million to about $400 million; and Bureau of Prison resources from $77 million to about $300 million. Expenditures on drug control by the military and the intelligence agents are more difficult to calculate, although by all amounts they have increased by at least the same magnitude and total hundreds of millions of dollars per year (8-9). Federal, state, and local government spend about $75 billion a year on law enforcement and criminal justice programs. About $20 billion of that is directly related to drug law enforcement. Roughly another $15 billion is related to crimes committed to obtain drug money or is systematically related in some way to drug commerce. This means about $35 billion per year is spent on drug law enforcement and lost by crimes committed to obtain drug money. The $35 billion along with money squandered on the ineffective drug suppression activities of the government, and the money lost as a result of the unnaturally high price of drugs, creates a $100 billion total (Duke 354-355). Benson Roe believes, “It is time to recognize that the problem is not the drugs but the enormous amounts of untaxed money diverted from the economy to criminals.” The economic incentive for dealers to push their product aggressively is a multi-billion dollar return, which has much more power to increase substance abuse than any enforcement program could possibly do to constrain that usage. Roe said to, “Look at the fact that a relatively low budget public education campaign has resulted in a significant decline in the U.S. consumption of alcohol and tobacco during a period when a costly and intensive campaign to curtail illegal drugs only resulted in their increased usage.” Scrap the nonsense of trying to obliterate drugs and acknowledge their presence in our society as we have with alcohol and tobacco. Legalization would result in purity assurance under FDA regulation, labeled concentration of the product (to avoid overdose), obliteration of vigorous marketing (pushers), savings in expensive enforcement, and significant tax revenues. Efforts and funds can then be directed to educating the public on the hazards of all drugs (110-111). Legalization would save our government mass amounts of money. In the U.S., all levels of government now participate in the war on drugs. Society currently spends billion every year to hunt down fairly peaceful citizens who just happen to