The main focus of my argument is that the United States needs to decriminalize marijuana. Currently marijuana is a schedule 1 narcotic and is in the same category as much more dangerous drugs such as Heroin, Cocaine and Ecstasy. Given this status marijuana has no current medical value use. A recent study by Sanjay Gupta a neurosurgeon and chief medical correspondent for CNN published a essay where he apologizes for his firm stance against cannabis. His article entitled "Why I changed my mind on Weed" he goes to say that cannabis has very legitimate medical value and is sometimes the only thing that works.
Yet Federal Legislation outlaws any form of herb that comes from cannabis. No matter how much they want to keep it banned, the growing number in support for legalizing marijuana shows in Gallup's poll published October 22, 2012 showed that 58% of americans are for legalizing and 39% are opposed. With the support of the people now in favor for legalization, the steps that have been made in many of the current states are great examples of how decriminalizing marijuana would help the economy. California saved nearly $1 billion dollars from 1976 to 1985 by decriminalizing the personal possession of small amounts of marijuana. Colorado and Washington just last year made huge steps in making it legal for adults to possess marijuana if over the age of 21. These states are the proving ground of how decriminalizing at the national level will bring in millions. Saving money that would be spent to prosecute users and put them in prison. If we decriminalized marijuana American taxpayers would save more than $1 billion dollars that is used to incarcerate citizens for pot possessions. Also law enforcement resources could be redirected toward crimes that are much more serious.
Further more the decriminalization of cannabis would give life to many other business's that can make the more that 25,000 products that are made from the cannabis. We need to not look to far into the past and see that the Prohibition of Alcohol was a failure. With the prohibition of alcohol came increased violence and crime. The same circumstances apply to the prohibition of marijuana, the sooner we decriminalize marijuana, the sooner the we see the senseless laws thrown out, the sooner we will have the interests of the American people heard.
Amen!!!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe following is for Stage 6 of the Blog Assignment:
ReplyDeleteWhat do a can of bees and cannabis have in common? Aside from the syllabic similarity that derives from mispronunciation (#LamePunIsLame), both are currently restricted – the bees by the walls of the can, and the plant by federal legislation. In their Stage 5 blog posts, Logan Haworth of America, the Beautiful and the unknown author of A Citizens Legislature argue to lift the restrictions on cannabis – though each promotes a different variation.
Haworth promotes the decriminalization of marijuana, essentially saying that attempts to restrict it are causing more trouble than they are preventing. According to the Gallup poll data he presents, about 19% more Americans agree with him than disagree – which is why, as the article he links to tells us, the federal administration has recently imposed limits on (rather than completely striking down) state-level contradictory rulings. Haworth also claims that decriminalization would reduce prosecution/incarceration spending, allowing such funds to be utilized elsewhere. His final point compares the current marijuana issue to Prohibition in the 1920s, once again stating that less restriction would prevent a replay of the increase in crime.
The author of Legislature, on the other hand, suggests that the ‘hemp’ variation no longer be outlawed, following Haworth’s general claim (causing more trouble than preventing) quite closely. According to this writer, the hemp ban (allegedly for being a “harmful drug”) is harming America by restricting the agricultural, commercial, and environmental benefits that this “useless as an intoxicant” strain of cannabis supplies. (s)He attempts to support this claim by listing several ways that hemp outperforms paper and cotton, also pointing out that it “is impossible to exterminate,” and so it would be better to actually utilize it than pretend it’s not there.
Both writers’ positions hold merit; however, I cannot say at this point that I completely agree with either. This may be in part due to a reluctance to take a stand on issues until I have seen both sides of it, but there are other reasons as well. In regards to Haworth’s article, the main obstacle is my dislike of the ‘recreational’ use of stimulants (i.e. smoking cigarettes, drinking beer/wine, etc.) – but if the substance in question is to be properly used for legitimate medical reasons, I do support some relaxation of the restrictions in order to permit such usage.
Based on that information, I would have no reason to withhold support for Legislature’s piece on the “useless as an intoxicant” variant – but in that and similar phrases lies the root of my skepticism. The author provides absolutely one specific source(s) at the very end, giving little to no hard data (such as official studies/statements) to support their spiel. And if the statement that “283÷(π.9) % of statistics received secondhand are made up on the spot” is true, then how am I supposed to believe the numbers they give? If supported by outside documentation, then this would be a very convincing piece; however, as it is I remain unconvinced.
If anyone seeks to convince me further of the trustworthiness or imprudence of either proposition, I heartily welcome the opportunity to increase my awareness. (Or, in layman-speak, if you wanna convince me that they’re either right or wrong, tell me why so I can get a better idea of the whole picture.)