Let's leave aside for a moment the genuine and valid questions many of us have about the Constitutionality of a law which outlaws a green plant and monopolizes that natural resource (cannabis) for the federal government's production -- which the current law assuredly does.
And to find our way to a productive discussion, we'll leave behind the extreme frustration many of us feel that the important issue of marijuana law seemingly ranks in priority somewhere below, say, a photo-op with Queen Elizabeth.
Let's cut to the chase: the financial aspect of prohibition vs. regulation. Legalization, regulation and taxation of the cannabis industry would result in a huge new source of revenue for federal, state and local governments. A substantial new revenue stream for government can only assist as we find ways to address the financial crisis which faces our nation.
This revenue stream could be established without substantially increasing the rate of marijuana use in the United States. In fact, if we look at the data from the Netherlands, there is reason to believe that legalization would result in reduced marijuana use, especially among young people.
Marijuana prohibition currently costs American taxpayers almost $42 billion a year. Compare this negative cash flow to the projected tax benefits of legalization -- between $2.4 and $6.2 billion annually -- and it becomes obvious why Milton Friedman and more than 500 other respected economists publicly support the legalization of marijuana.
In discussing government marijuana policy with fellow activists, we've wondered if the federal government can supply even one credible argument against legalization and regulation. And we've been unanimous in agreeing that we haven't seen one yet. What, exactly, are the benefits of marijuana remaining illegal? We'd really like to know.
The Question of Rescheduling
An excellent first step towards ameliorating the disaster that is federal marijuana policy (and has been for decades) would be to reschedule pot
Marijuana's current DEA classification as a "Schedule I" drug (right up there with heroin and PCP) means that, according to the federal government, pot has "a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use." Almost unbelievably, even cocaine is deemed less dangerous than marijuana, receiving a Schedule II ranking.
That pot has no medical value would certainly come as news to the thousands of doctors and scientists who've shown marijuana to be an effective medicine for many conditions, and to the hundreds of thousands of medical marijuana patients. Which is to say, marijuana is scheduled incorrectly to such an extent that it would be comical if the real-world effects weren't so tragic.
It's important not to lose sight of the fact that ill people are needlessly suffering because of federal marijuana policies. Policies like these are impossible to rationalize or justify.
Marijuana's unjustifiable Schedule I status has resulted in years of the DEA's misguided policy of raiding medical marijuana patients and providers, even in states that have legalized pot's medical use -- because the federal government officially doesn't recognize any legitimate uses.
That's rather schizophrenic, since the federal government has itself for 30 years been supplying a handful of patients with government-produced medical marijuana. Hypocrisy much?
The Tide Is Turning
We applaud the positive moves the Obama administration has already made in regard to drug policy. We are encouraged that Mr. Obama supported pot decriminalization during his 2004 Senate campaign. Especially laudable is the stated new policy of the DEA, as confirmed by Atty. Gen. Holder, that federal resources won't be used to raid medical marijuana patients and providers in states where medical pot is legal.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
3
3
2
