Did Someone Say, Controvesy?
I am about to embark on an editorial of a controversial subject; so please bear with me. Also, bear in mind that I am writing of my own opinion and am not motivated to sway your views in any way.
The subject:
The Legalization of Marijuana: Not to be confused with the decriminalization of it. More specifically, why I support the notion. Not just medical marijuana either, but hemp as well. Of course, I believe that legal medical marijuana should be the law of the land; it works for what it is intended for and it is natural. I don't understand the government denying a person the right to the pursuit of happiness, when that happiness comes in the form of lifesaving drugs. I mean, a cancer patient cannot eat because of the life saving treatment they must endure to remain alive, yet their inability to eat is going to kill them first. The options provided by the law are these:
Stop your cancer treatment and go home and die, or starve to death instead. When all the while there is a third option. Go home and smoke a joint and have something to eat that will stay down. Gain strength to fight this thing. Live!
God made marijuana, man makes pills; who do you trust?
Furthermore, most of the pills that man makes carry some ridiculously serious side-effects; some that can kill ya.
Why is it that alcohol is more acceptable to the public than marijuana? Alcohol is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people every year. There are no statistics for marijuana related deaths - because there are none. I have never heard of a single case where some person smoked a joint and got in their car and wrecked, much less killed someone else.
Marijuana as a cash crop would be the shot in the arm our economy needs. Just think of all the money that could be made exporting hemp, and using hemp for domestic product consumption. There is even research suggesting that it could possibly be used as a bio-fuel.
In the 40's, hemp production reached its peak in this country. It was used for all sorts of things required for the war effort. The production of hemp in America would mean billions of dollars stimulating the economy annually.
Why continue polluting the planet, producing plastic crap, when many items can be made, more naturally and safely with hemp? Go green, anyone?
Then we can get back to its medical use... The money that could be made through the use of it for medical purposes is staggering.
This is how it works: People make money through all stages of the production of marijuana, people spend the money they make buying products from others. Cancer patients stop dying of starvation and purchase food. People can afford their medical treatments again, because they have money again. Everybody wins! Even the insurance companies win - they are no longer paying as many claims, and they have more customers because people have the money to spend on insurance.
Another thing to consider: If all the cigarette smokers could smoke pot instead, the lung cancer rate would probably drop, because they'd quit smoking cigarettes and smoke pot instead. Marijuana has not been proven to cause lung cancer. The tobacco companies even win, since they're all ready set up for mass production of rolled joints. The government taxes them and everyone is happy!
Perhaps if everyone smoked pot, they'd all learn to relax a little and the human race could stop being such a blood thirsty lot.
As far as paranoia is concerned, the only thing that I've ever been aware of that pot smokers are paranoid of is that those who do not approve will notice that they're stoned.
Favorite Bud
Trina L.C. Sonnenberg
Author, publisher, freelance writer
Comments
Leo brings up some interesting points. I am not a conservative, but I respect consistency. Leo is consistent in his conservative views. So many "conservatives" are selective in their political positions -- they want the government to leave business alone but they are perfectly happy to try to control how others live.
While it's true that the use/abuse of _some_ drugs (legal and illegal) can cause all sorts of health problems, marijuana has been shown to be relatively benign. Increased health care costs should not be an issue.
Although I consider myself to be liberal/progressive on most issues I agree with the following statement by Leo: "I don't think that I have any right to tell you what you do with your body, but the flip side is that you have no right to tell me to pay for taking care of you when you screw your life up, whether it's through pot, alcohol, crack, becoming dangerously obese, having more children than you can afford, or deciding to plant a tattoo on your neck (causing you to not be employable)."
Of course the problem is there often are not enough charities to take care of all of the people with the above problems. While it would be _preferable_ to have the government stay out of it, the fact is that as a civilized society we aren't going to let people starve to death in the streets if we can prevent it. One of my main concerns is overpopulation, so I am well aware of the problem of couples (or single women) having more children than they can afford. As much as it bothers me, we have to keep in mind that the children are innocent and must be cared for. Therein lies the dilemma -- couples/women know (even if it is subconsciously) that no mater how many children they have, they will be taken care of. Norplant anyone?
I would just add that I agree with Trina and I would go even further -- I think all drugs should be legalized. Making something illegal (alcohol, guns, prostitution, tobacco, various drugs,etc) generally causes more problems than it solves. In keeping with what Leo said ("I don't think that I have any right to tell you what you do with your body...) it seems to me that all drugs should be legal. Their sale should be regulated and taxed, just like alcohol -- but any taxes should be used to cover the costs to society -- health care, education, prevention, etc. If people want something bad enough they'll get it. If it's illegal the price will be much higher and the user may be forced to commit crimes to pay for their habit. Then there is all of the violent crime and corruption associated with the illegal drug trade. All of that would be eliminated overnight if all drugs were legalized.
Legalizing hemp is a no-brainer. Hemp has so many good uses. The only reason it is still illegal is that the authorities are concerned that it could be used to disguise a crop of marijuana.
I'll close before I get more off-topic. Good opinion piece!
Smoking marijuana does not, statistically, cause health problems. It is non addictive. I'm not asking anyone to pay for the health problems of others at all. That is a topic of another day. I am just saying that the budgetary issues in this country would be well served by the reintroduction of hemp farming, and that medical marijuana should be legal.
Unlike legal cigarettes, marijuana does not reduce a person's quality of life, it in most cases enhances it. Other drugs legal and not, including alcohol cannot say the same. Most prescription drugs carry life threatening risks theses days.
Marijuana does not cause lung cancer, but cigarettes do, and they are legal. Marijuana does not cause fatal car accidents; alcohol does and it's legal.
I do not, nor will I ever, smoke pot (whether legal or not), but I am in full support of the legalization of marijuana, just like I am a supporter of alcohol not being illegal even though I don't drink. My conservative ideals mean that I believe that the government should be limited in scope, and that includes dictating what somebody does to their body, either through using drugs or taking whatever actions they choose. As long as someone's actions don't infringe on my freedoms I have no say in what they do. I don't really care about the taxes issue of it, because I already think that the government takes in far too many taxes in order to spend them on programs that are not authorized by the Constitution, but I understand the argument.
I know that the big objection would be that people who take drugs tend to have higher medical needs, and often do not have the means to pay for medical services. My response is that we should not take care of them, at least from a governmental level. There are planty of charities that will help someone, and in my mind, while I may choose to help them charitably, I have no legal responsibility to care for someone that will not (not cannot - that is another issue) take care of themselves and be accountable for their actions. Again, it goes back to my conservative values - I don't think that I have any right to tell you what you do with your body, but the flip side is that you have no right to tell me to pay for taking care of you when you screw your life up, whether it's through pot, alcohol, crack, becoming dangerously obese, having more children than you can afford, or deciding to plant a tattoo on your neck (causing you to not be employable). Choices have consequences.
What do you think? Have I succeeded in making what you worded as a controversial topic even a little more controversial?
Add Comment