THE CASE AGAINST LEGALIZING MARIJUANA

Many people blame the government for the war on drugs because the
government refuses to legalize the drug. But the war on drugs isn't as
shortsighted as proponents of legalization would like to think.
Legalizing marijuana will not solve all of our drug war problems and
certainly won't make our country a better place to live.

Advocates of legalization propositions say that a federally regulated
marijuana market will drive the cost of marijuana down, decrease the
crime rate and thus decrease the wasted efforts put forth by the Drug
Enforcement Administration. The federal government spends billions of
dollars each year in an effort to undermine drug distribution
throughout the country.

According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, in 2006,
about 6,000 people a day used marijuana for the first time, a total of
2.2 million Americans. Of these, 63.3 percent were under age 18. So
when the government legalizes pot for people over 21, as any of its
attempted legislation has stated, it won't suddenly eliminate the
demand for marijuana of those underage users. The war on drugs will
continue.

The concept that marijuana is less harmful than cigarettes or alcohol
may be a true statement to some degree but isn't a cause for
legalization. Standards should not be set on degree of harmfulness,
but degree of helpfulness. Also, let's not forget that the tobacco
industry won't just step aside to let a brand new business take over
the market.

Should marijuana become legal, who do you think will first start the
mass manufacturing? My guess of Marlboro is a good one. But Camel is a
decent choice, too. And if Marlboro wants to keep people smoking pot
just like it does with tobacco, it may start putting a couple
"harmless ingredients" into the mixture to help a little. After that,
it's anyone's guess as to which of the three drugs is the worst for
you.

While the revenue stream may be helpful to the economy from a monetary
standpoint, at what cost do we seek out this fortune? Juxtapose
thinking only with a monetary mindset, why shouldn't California lower
the drinking age to 18? Our tourism industry will increase tenfold,
with millions of 18 year olds trekking across our border in search of
their state's forbidden fruit.

Besides the fact that the federal government would revoke several of
our subsidiaries, the reason we don't do this is because of the health
impact it would have on the general public and state-to-state relations.

Having a bunch of 18 year olds driving across the border to get drunk
and then driving back home isn't a good thing.

The cost outweighs the benefits, just like with marijuana.

The cost is far worse than the potential monetary benefits.

I'm all for medical marijuana.

If you're in pain, it's no different to be prescribed marijuana rather
than morphine or Vicodin. But I'm not about to push for the full
legalization of the latter two drugs either. Legalization is
incentivizing, and the costs of incentivizing weed among our nation's
youth are scary, at best. While there may be some four million people
smoking weed in our country now, imagine encouraging it among the
rest. I can't think of a better way to stimulate our economy than to
inject into it a tool that entirely destroys ambition and motivation.
Excuse the language, but nothing says "fuck it" like a big dose of THC
in the morning.

Instead of mandatory 15 minute "smoking breaks" for cigarette-smoking
workers, employers will have to implement new hours for pot-smoking
workers: 4 p.m. to 6 p.m., Tuesday through Wednesday. Nike may have to
change their slogan from "Just Do It" to "Just Don't." I can see the
potential now.