TEA PARTIERS SHOULD ENDORSE LEGALIZATION OF MARIJUANA

Fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and
economic freedom. That is the tea party's mission statement - so why
don't they endorse marijuana legalization?

Harvard professor of economics, Jeffrey Miron, and Nobel Prize winner,
Dr. Milton Friedman, estimate the annual cost of enforcing marijuana
prohibition to be $7.7 billion. In the same report, they estimate that
taxing marijuana similarly to alcohol and tobacco, while ending costs
of prohibition enforcement, would yield a combined $14 billion annually.

Contrary to alcohol prohibition (18th Amendment), marijuana
prohibition came into full effect in 1970, when President Nixon signed
into law the Controlled Substances Act. This placed marijuana
alongside heroin as a Schedule 1 drug - the most "dangerous and
addictive" of classes. Because marijuana was never constitutionally
banned, the federal government's prohibition on consumption,
production, etc., of marijuana is unlawful due to constitutional
limitations. In the words of the tea party, "our current government's
interference distorts the free market and inhibits the pursuit of
individual and economic liberty."

Last year, 858,000 otherwise law-abiding Americans were arrested for
possessing small amounts of marijuana. Around 100 million snuck away
from arrest. Is it fiscally responsible to spend $7.7 billion annually
on a marijuana policy that hasn't worked for 70 years? Are we limiting
government by arresting owners/producers of a plant, which poses much
less danger than legal drugs like alcohol? Is economic freedom
embraced by arresting contributing members of society for
purchasing/supplying a commodity that others want/need? These are
serious questions that should be addressed by the tea party
immediately. After 70 years of trying failed marijuana policies, the
tea party should embrace their mission statement and endorse
regulating, taxing and legalizing recreational use of marijuana for
all adults.

Nicholas J. Miles

Bozeman