THE CASE OF LEGALIZING MARIJUANA

Justin Guiffre's column "Put the poor before pot" (April 20, p. 4)
raises a unique and interesting argument against the legalization of
marijuana. However, it is a bit misguided.

The author's assertion that a cash crop like marijuana would crowd
out production of edible crops is simply not applicable to U.S.
agriculture. He cites the troubles created by cash crop proliferation
in countries like Eritrea and Ethiopia. However, this is only a issue
in countries where subsistence farming is more prevalent and food
supply varies seasonally. Commercial agriculture in the U.S. actually
produces a massive surplus of edible crops (the product of large U.S.
farm subsidies) and world hunger is arguably the result of resource
misallocation, not shortage.

Secondly, in a recent letter to the editor a reader made the weak
argument that marijuana legalization would increase reckless driving.
Likening the effects of marijuana to alcohol is a classic tactic
employed against its legalization, but it is scientifically
unfounded. The study the reader cites is critically flawed in that
the applicants would test positive for marijuana if they had used it
at all approximately 30 days prior (hence drivers that tested
positive were likely not "high" at the time).

Regardless of the above, both opinions pieces miss the true case for
marijuana legalization: cost. The U.S. spends billions of dollars
every year combating marijuana growing, dealing and trafficking, and
billions more on imprisoning millions of people for minor drug
offenses (not to mention the cost to the economy from keeping these
people out of work). Even if marijuana production is untaxed if
legalized, the costs of prohibition are tremendous enough. Look no
farther than California or the Netherlands to see that marijuana is
not as socially destructive as some would have us believe.

Sammy Lopez, Junior