Pro vs. Con: To Legalize Or Not?
the420times | Jul 22, 2010 | Comments 13
By LARRY LECHUGA
It comes as no surprise that the potential legalization of marijuana in California this November has stirred up considerable debate. In the United States, the use of marijuana for recreational purposes has been illegal for over 70 years. The reversal of this policy in the Golden State would surely be a memorable milestone in our nation’s history on par with the repeal of Prohibition in the early 1930s.
The initiative in question is the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010, also known as Proposition 19, which aims to have marijuana treated, under the eyes of the law, in the same manner as alcohol. If passed, it will legalize the use of marijuana — recreational or otherwise—for adults over the age of 21. For those over 21, it will be legal to possess up to an ounce of marijuana, and local governments will have the ability to tax its sale.
But this brings us to a highly controversial topic: exactly what will the consequences of legalizing marijuana be? While there’s no crystal ball that will magically reveal to us a California where the drug is legal, many have proposed potential scenarios.
Some fear that legalizing marijuana will lead to widespread, uncontrollable use of the drug. Others think that that it will result in large numbers of traffic accidents and increased crime rates. And of course, there are those who think that there are no real dire consequences of decriminalization; instead, it would be an opportunity to generate a significant amount of tax income for a state in desperate need of revenue.
To better understand what people are arguing with respect to these consequences, we’ve gathered quotes from both advocates and opponents of legalization. Read on to find out what they’re saying!
Will legalizing marijuana lead to widespread and excessive use of the drug?
Dale Gieringer: The studies really don’t bear out any relationship between legalization and use, surprisingly enough. Lots of studies looking at decriminalization laws in the United States are finding no relationship between decriminalization and usage. The most important finding has to do with the Netherlands, which is one country in the world where you have semi-legalization going on, and usage in the Netherlands is not really out of line. There are countries nearby with stricter laws that have considerably higher usage than the Netherlands.
John Redman: There are two indelible truths in prevention: one is that if you increase the availability of a drug, you increase its use. The second is if you lower the risk and perception of harm of that drug, you increase its use. Legalizing marijuana does both. And, therefore, how can kids say no when the adults around them are saying yes?
Will legalizing marijuana lead to huge social costs in terms of hospital visits, traffic safety, etc.?
Kathy Robi: It has been proven that, even in small doses, marijuana will impair a driver’s ability to safely operate a motor vehicle. By legalizing marijuana, it stands to reason that incidents of impaired driving from this drug would rise. In a recent report from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, it was concluded that drugs played a large role in impaired driving. That THC—marijuana—was the most largely detected drug. Make no mistake, all mind-altering drugs, whether it’s alcohol or marijuana, have a devastating impact on our roadways. If this legislation is passed, it will set traffic safety back years by the increased number of injuries and deaths caused by impaired drivers.
Mike Meno: When you look at marijuana’s social impact relative to a more popular substance that’s already legal—alcohol—it pales in comparison. Marijuana, unlike alcohol, does not create the type of violent or aggressive behavior that typically lands someone in the emergency room. And numerous studies have shown that marijuana’s impact on driving is relatively minimal, while alcohol’s is quite severe. In a regulated marijuana market, it would still be illegal for people to assault someone or drive under the influence of any intoxicating substance, but we can’t look at these issues in a vacuum. The point is that alcohol has far more harmful social costs, but that doesn’t lead anyone to honestly believe we should re-instate alcohol prohibition. So why should we continue to criminalize adults who make the safer choice to use marijuana? The solution in both cases is sensible regulation.
Will the legalization of marijuana lead to increased crime rates?
Lt. Jack Cole: The exact opposite of that is true. Once you legalize the commodity, you take it out of the hands of criminals and you put it in the hands of responsible adults. The fact of the matter is our children have told us for the last ten years that it’s easier for them to buy illegal drugs than it is to buy beer or cigarettes. We’ve spent over a trillion dollars in the last forty years on the war on drugs, and it seems kind of strange that it’s still easier for children to get illegal drugs.
Bishop Ron Allen: I can certainly tell you: if marijuana is legalized, it will be a dark day in the state of California. If marijuana is legalized in the state of California, crime will increase, murder will increase. If marijuana is legalized in my community, and is legalized in my world, and our youth have an opportunity to be able to use—we will see more dropouts, we will see an increase of crime, and we will see more individuals hanging out on the corner—and I am seriously afraid we will lose generations to come.
One of the leading arguments in favor of legalizing marijuana is that it would generate a significant amount of tax revenue for cash-strapped California. Is this a good source of income?
Dennis Peron: I’m against taxes on marijuana since no other medicine is taxed.
Tom Ammiano: The legalization of cannabis would not only address California’s growing economic crisis but, more importantly, it would begin a rational public policy discussion about how to best regulate the state’s largest cash crop, which is estimated to be worth roughly $14 billion annually. Placing marijuana under the same regulatory system that now applies to alcohol represents the natural evolution of California’s laws and is in line with recent polls indicating strong support for decriminalizing marijuana.
John Lovell: If this bill is enacted, California will lose at least $40 billion in federal funds that now go to different California businesses, governmental entities, and nonprofits. The other thing is that the taxes that are proposed to be levied are constitutionally uncollectible because you simply cannot require someone to pay a tax where paying that tax could subject them to prosecution by another governmental entity. Bottom line is you’re going to lose billions of dollars, and the taxes that are going to be proposed to be collected aren’t even collectible.
Recent polls show that opinion in California is divided roughly evenly. Will the initiative pass in November?
Dennis Peron: It will lose 60 – 40.
Mike Meno: I sure hope it does.
Filed Under: 420 Times Exclusives • Best Of The Best • Magazine Stories
Spread the word:
Dale Ogden 59, Southern California, Libertarian party governor candidate November 2010, is voting Yes on Prop 19… http://www.daleogden.org/
Start the grass roots movement for Dale now and let him be part of our October surprise.
As a Medical Marijuana user I am actually against the legalization of marijuana use. Hear me out. I use for medical purposes not to get high and share with my buddies. Even though I use marijuana medically I still don’t smoke it in front of my children. There are many people out there that take advantage of the system. If this passes I can 100% guarantee that people under 21 will be using it in front of children. In front of their homes as if they were smoking a cigarette. People will be injured at work, kids dropping out of school, parents neglecting their children because they are too relaxed and high. Medical Marijuana is for our medical purposes only. This is to legalize Recreational Marijuana and sorry I will not allow my children to be exposed to that. To parents: how do you explain to your child when they ask why jimmy’s mom and dad smoke that weird smelling cigarette in front of them? Teachers: how do you explain to your young students when they ask if marijuana is still a drug?
Jocelyn, I got news for you, your children already ARE exposed to marijuana and in an illegal, underground market at that. They can buy it anytime they want from anyone they want and they don’t even know the quality of what they’re getting most of the time.
I can’t understand why anyone with kids would favor a black market for ANY kind of drug, hard or soft.
It simply doesn’t make sense to let marijuana go unregulated.
[...] very odd “Pro vs. Con” by Larry Lechuga at the 420 Times: Pro vs. Con: To Legalize Or Not?. He gathers quotes from advocates and opponents of legalization on the following [...]
@Jocelyn: What you’re doing is supporting an extremely harmful, racist, counterproductive policy of prohibition. You can go ahead and point out potential problems we might see, but you can’t pretend that prohibition is without its own costs. An honest cost-benefit analysis of both alternatives is needed here.
In fact, more generally, this points to a major problem with the questions posed here. All of them place the burden of logic on those in favor of legalization. We’re making a choice between two policies here — those choosing prohibition should be forced to defend their stance. Each of the four questions could be as readily applied to prohibition:
1) Will maintaining prohibition lead to decreased use of the drug?
2) Will maintaining prohibition lead to huge social costs in terms of arrests, unsafe trafficking, black market problems, etc.?
3) Will maintaining prohibition lead to increased power for dangerous criminal drug gangs all over the world, and an attendant increase in violent crime?
4) One of the leading arguments in favor of maintaining prohibition is that it provides employment and public revenue for citizens in cash-strapped California. Is this a good source of income?
Jocelyn
“This is to legalize Recreational Marijuana and sorry I will not allow my children to be exposed to that. To parents: how do you explain to your child when they ask why jimmy’s mom and dad smoke that weird smelling cigarette in front of them? Teachers: how do you explain to your young students when they ask if marijuana is still a drug”
Guess what your kids are exposed to it you even smoke it. Yes medicaly but its still around. Students state its easier for them to atain marijuana than alchol and tobacco. WHy is this because they are regulated and restrict minors from getting them.
Responsible adults may drink a beer infront of children that doesn’t make them bad parents. Explaining why jimmies dad smokes a joint is no different than explainging why someoone drinks. Explaining to your kid that adults have the choice to do alchol, tobacco, or MJ is the same.
The teacher would say it is a drug similar to how alchol is. Legal for adults to use but illegal for children to use.
notice how mr. Bishop Ron Allen just gives out random “possibilities” without stating how or why they could happen?” why would more people get murdered, exactly? he says “our youth have an opportunity to use it”.. ahem. erm.. sir you may not be up to dizate with today’s youth, but I can make a quick phone call and have herb in a half hour. the same does not go for alcohol. much harder to get. if you have to be 21, only 21 year olds can buy it! that’s the magic! it’s really complicated *sarcasm* but believe it or not, criminals don’t ask for ID. the entire arguement against it makes me laugh. I just spent far to long typing this when he will never read it.. >_> I’m gunna go “educate” a few more people now!
[...] http://the420times.com/2010/07/pro-vs-con-to-legalize-or-not/ This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. ← A Youth Perspective on Marijuana [...]
STONER BEWARE: PROP 19 IS NOT WHAT YOU THINK IT IS.
it actually makes weed ILLEGAL if it’s purchased from anywhere other than a licensed dispensary. that means if you buy an ounce off your current dealer or at a party, you’d be acting illegally, and subject to punishment under prop. 19:
Section 3: Lawful Activities: Section 11301: Commercial Regulations and Controls: (g):
PROHIBIT AND PUNISH through civil fines or other remedies THE POSSESSION, sale, possession for sale, cultivation, processing, or transportation OF CANNABIS THAT WAS NOT OBTAINED LAWFULLY FROM A PERSON PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION OR SECTION 11300.
(The key words being, “[c]annabis that was not obtained lawfully…”)
That means that some cannbis will be lawful, and some cannabis will be unlawful–depending on who you “obtain” it from. According to the initiative itself, a person who can “lawfully” provide cannabis is “a person pursuant to this section or section 11300.” And who is “a person pursuant to section 11300?” Read on:
Section 11300: (i) …a person who is licensed or permitted to do so [sell marijuana] under the terms of an ordinance adopted pursuant to section 11301.
–Thus, the initiative’s exact words–”prohibit and punish… the possession… of cannabis that was not obtained lawfully… from a person who is licensed or permitted to do so”–mean exactly this: ***IT WILL BE ILLEGAL TO POSSESS MARIJUANA THAT WAS PURCHASED ANYWHERE OTHER THAN A LICENSED DISPENSARY.***
see more little-known prohibitions prop. 19 would enact at votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com
we can do better. we will do better. with the california cannabis hemp and health initiative–also known as the jack herer initative–in 2012.
VOTE NO ON PROP. 19 AND YES IN 2012!!!
I’m a bit saddened that with all the comments before this, there is very very little mention or thought about the real issue surrounding marijuana, Civil Rights. There are Hundreds of Thousands of Americans right this min. sitting in a Prison and wondering if they will live to see Freedom one more time.
It is nothing to hear of someone doing 5yrs in prison for having a few plants
or oz.s.. Knowing that and also knowing that our Prisons are so dangerous that Federal Judges in Ca. have declared that being in prison there is Cruel and Unusual Punishment because approx 1 inmate a day dies from lack of medical care. Add the lack of enough Drs. with the number of sexual and physical abuse cases that happen 24/7, is it even sane to endanger a persons life for 5 or 10 yrs by calling it punishment and that it is for the greater good ? I shouldn’t even need to explain that the marijuana laws are used more often and much harsher against Minorities but so often in these arguments so many miss the damage being done to those who can least afford a decent lawyer or even, to be able to defend themselves.
If Americans stepped back from the emotional, irrational, and stereotyped mime that those who make their living building the cages and making sure they stay full, we could then work off a real set of facts. If the traditional media were to show the public the entire damage that one pot bust can reek on the person and their family I believe if we had any room left for outrage that it might just surface. Americans aren’t stupid they just need a chance to vote their will and then have it followed. Californian Authorities made a real mistake when they started banning medical marijuana in damn near every little town, city or county. They are the ones responsible for pushing Prop.19 this election. I’m convinced it will pass if we can just get out enough young and middle aged voters. If it doesn’t pass, by 2012 we will have built up such momentum that it will be unstoppable. Support Prop.19.
[...] Pro vs. Con: To Legalize Or Not? [...]
Prop.19 basically could be our countries savior. We are so far in dept to other nations like china yet we continue to waste money on a pointless drug war. We could legalize regulate and tax it. Drug users will continue to use whether it be legal or not. Prohibition of alcohol didn’t work, all it did was increase the violent acts involved with alcohol trafficking. Legalizing it would mean there would be no reason to get involved in organized crime. If you wanted to sell Marijuana then you could simply work in a dispensary or start your own business(legally). This country will continue to sell a product(alcohol) that kills millions every year and destroys families but we cant let ADULTS choose to relax them selves with a natural herb that has never proven to kill anyone from smoking it. There are few actual instances where marijuana has killed, 1 being the protection of illegal pot farms by means of murder, which wouldn’t happen if people could just buy it in a dispensary. 2 when a person is sent to prison for a life sentence because they had marijuana on there persons. and yes I’ve seen it happen. and 3 when a man decided to swallow a bag of pot because he didn’t want the cops chasing him to catch him with it, the man choked to death because he would have faced unnecessary charges otherwise. Oh and 1 of the original studies they did that initiated the illegalization of it was they placed oxygen masks on chimpanzees and pumped the equivalent of 60 marijuana cigarettes into their lungs in a matter of 5 minutes, which gave the animal no chance to breath so they basically suffocated them to death(animal cruelty). And thats the basis that made them think marijuana kills, How about they do actual realistic studies. No person can physically do that. Hemp can be used for many other purposes such as clothing, paper, rope, and even shampoo just to name a few. The crop cycle for the plant is much faster than trees and can produce much more paper yearly than you can with trees. Paper industries know this and that is why they appose Prop.19 and fight against it, all in an attempt to rip off the american people so they can feed their greed. AND FYI our founding fathers were supporters of marijuana and hemp, in fact the declaration of independence was written on hemp paper.
Police to the darnedest things. While searching for a suspect in an unrelated crime, Memphis Police arrested a 65 year old grandmother when they discovered four marijuana plants she had was growing.
When officers went to her door to ask if she was aware of what kind of plants they were, she replied, “Yes, reefer. I planted it.”
Franklin was charged with Manufacturing Marijuana and is currently being held on $5,000 bond at the Shelby County Jail.
I bet those police feel great about themselves. The streets are SO much safer now that this dangerous criminal is off the streets. What would we do without police who waste time they could be using to arrest real criminals by arresting old ladies who probably have glaucoma or cancer or AIDS. nice fucking legal system huh.
and on a last note, can anyone say they have ever seen someone smoke pot and have something bad happen because of it? aside from being caught by the people who disprove without logical factual reasoning behind the disapproval.
wise up America. stop the dictating subjects you aren’t properly educated on.
if you want to learn more on the REAL history of marijuana check this link out.
http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/mj004.htm
I agree with Dragonfly,
upon close reading, you realize this prop 19 is thinly veiled prohibition.( yeah, just like Dennis Peron says). Also Jack Herer spoke out vehemently against prop 19 before his death.
Take from the guys that kNOw. kNOw on prop 19.
Legalization yes BUT NO NO NO on prop 19. it is special interest all the way. It will not decriminalize any jailable marijuana offenses, only making it legal to have under an ounce which you can’t be arrested for.