One of the more controversial propositions that will be in California's November 2010 ballot is Prop 19. Prop 19 is an initiative statute that would legalize marijuana in California and allow local governments to regulate and tax commercial production, distribution, and sale of marijuana. The New York Times reported that Prop 19 gained support from "some former law enforcement officials, including police officers, judges, and prosecutors."
Although there are some viable arguments for Prop 19, Prop 19 also has many weaknesses and consequences. Those in favor of Prop 19 argue that millions of dollars that are paid by taxpayers go toward enforcing the prohibition of marijuana, the taxpayer's money can be better spent catching violent criminals, California can profit from marijuana sales because, under Prop 19, marijuana can be regulated and taxed, there are penalties for driving under the influence, only adults 21 and older can purchase it, there will be safety controls on marijuana, and the drug cartels that deal marijuana would be cut from its funding. On the other hand, the money made from marijuana taxes would probably have to go to repairing the damages caused by people driving under the influence. Even though there would be penalties for driving under the influence of marijuana, the consequences don't stop people from driving under the influence of alcohol. Although Prop 19 would only allow individuals age 21 and over to buy marijuana, I doubt that would prevent teenagers from finding access to marijuana. In addition, Prop 19 isn't specific enough about what is considered driving under the influence. While there is the DUI test and other tests to see if someone is driving under the influence of alcohol, there isn't any description about driving under the influence of marijuana. Furthermore, as opposed to the current law that a worker can be removed from a job if he or she smells of alcohol or marijuana, if Prop 19 is passed a worker who is under the influence of marijuana can't be removed from the job until an accident occurs. Even if I were in favor of legalizing marijuana, Prop 19 isn't specific enough.
For more information on Prop 19 check out:
13 comments:
If marijuana were to be legalized, I would be very nervous with the oncoming of drug tourism. In the Netherlands, were marijuana use is tolerated by the government, cities like Amsterdam and Maastricht are having trouble with rowdy tourists who solely visit these cities with the intent of using marijuana. After binging on dutch beer and weed, tourists have become violent, vandalized property, and have therefore tainted these beautiful cities. Imagine cities like San Fransisco and Los Angles, cities that deal with enough ruckus, being filled drug hungry tourists. Living in a state with legal marijuana may sound like a party, but in reality, marijuana just might end up being the party pooper.
@Sandy -- You raise a valid point I hadn't thought of. However, Vancouver/British Colombia has all but legalized marijuana without making it easy for tourists to obtain and I have to think violence and vandalism are much more about alcohol than marijuana. If prop 19 passes, I think the CA legislature will have to follow up with additional legislation about this and also the potentially large issue of organized crime using CA as a base of production for export.
@ Andrea -- millions of people already smoke pot and DUI doesn't seem to be a big problem. But, as you say, it is much harder to test for on the spot and the data might be unreliable.
In addition to Mr. Silton's excellent points, one must considered the LARGE, and POSITIVE impacts that the passage of Proposition 19 will have on California's budgets.
Also let's recall the disaster called Prohibition, where the restriction of a pseudo-drug only lead to increased criminal activity, something that is happening now. In fact, legalizing Marijuana would actually damage drug cartels and improve safety.
To say more, the new law is also very specific in its terms, and marijuana may not pose as big a problem as you think.
We meed proposition 19, it is a beacon of hope which helps us glimpse the bright, green future of California.
Ryan, you're up
To expound on Daniel's assertion that the passing of Proposition 19 would positively impact California's budget, consider the following:
California now has the greatest budget deficit of any state in the country. The proposed tax on marijuana would generate about $1.4 billion in revenue for the state each year; furthermore, the large amount of money that is being spent right now to house marijuana offenders in prison & to try marijuana offenders in court could be saved & used for other, more beneficial programs for the people.
@Andrea:
You state that "although Prop 19 would only allow individuals age 21 and over to buy marijuana, I doubt that would prevent teenagers from finding access to marijuana." The problem is, marijuana is already easily accessible to teenagers & multitudes of other people. To this fact, the Office of National Drug Control Policy states that "an estimated 102 million Americans aged 12 or older have tried marijuana at least once in their lifetimes, representing 41% of the U.S. population in that age group." This statistic is overwhelming, to say the least. As a means of comparison, the American Heart Association estimates that 45.9 million Americans (only 15% of the American population!) smoke cigarettes, a legal drug.
I'll let Jesvin explain another central point:
@Andrea:
You mentioned that one negative effect of legalized marijuana would be the number of motorists driving under its influence. However, according to scientific research, the fatality of driving while intoxicated with cannabis is only a third of that of drunk driving. Although driving after smoking marijuana has been shown to mildly impair psychomotor skills, its effects are minimal and short-lasting. The effects are usually a slower reaction time, minor impairments in tracking (eye movement), and slower speed, which are much less severe than those of alcohol. Also, one who drives under marijuana is aware of his or her impairment, unlike drivers who have consumed alcohol. Consequently, they tend to take steps such as driving more cautiously.
It is obvious driving while under the influence of marijuana is far less severe than driving with alcohol. The money garnered by taxing marijuana will far outweigh any road damage repair costs caused by drivers intoxicated with marijuana. Instead, as Daniel and Ryan have said, this money is very much needed to California.
I personally think that the legalization of marijuana is not prudent at all. For one thing, marijuana is considered a stepping-stone drug that can lead to addiction to worse drugs such as cocaine, heroin, and the like, making our drug problem even worse. If we find it okay to legalize marijuana, what's to stop us from legitimizing various other hard drugs? Also, health-related problems in California will definitely increase, leading to the necessity for increases in health care spending on our already cash-strapped state. There will be more health problems for both those who smoke the marijuana, and those suffering from second-hand smoke exposure. Any tax on marijuana most likely will not be able to outweigh the long-term costs of the problems of marijuana, such as the damages from driving under the influence, as Andrea mentioned, and health care costs.
@Rashmi
I understand where you're coming from, but you have to understand that a majority of what you're saying encapsulates a view of cannabis that is not entirely accurate:
Marijuana is commonly seen by the public as this sort of "gateway drug" where use of marijuana leads to the use of harder, more detrimental substances. You have also stated that "If we find it okay to legalize marijuana, what's to stop us from legitimizing various other hard drugs? This, indeed, is the very thing that I'm referring to. Public perception of marijuana is extremely misguided. In fact, although there remains competing evidence from both sides, it is commonly recognized that cannabis is not a hard drug, is not more addictive than say, cigarettes or alcohol (which are LEGAL, by the way), and is not more life threatening than any other drugs we see on the streets, including these same cigarettes & alcohol.
These findings have been cited in innumerable different sources. “The Lancet,” one of the world's most recognized and respected medical journals, found that cannabis is actually LESS detrimental than tobacco & alcohol, as shown in the following graph:
http://img697.imageshack.us/img697/2482/380pxrationalscaletoass.png
(original source, needs subscription: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2807%2960464-4/fulltext)
And as for the "gateway" theory, there is still no clear-cut, firmly established link between using marijuana and using "harder" drugs such as heroin & cocaine in the future. Sure, you can cite evidence on both sides, but the sheer amount of studies that support one side or the other presents no CLEAR correlation.
In this sense, how can one argue that marijuana MUST do more harm to an individual than, say, tobacco or alcohol? Cannabis doesn't even have to be smoked. In fact, users frequently take marijuana in a "bong", or with a vaporizer, which is generally taken to eliminate the side effects of smoke inhalation and second-hand smoke. Innumerable studies have confirmed this:
One such study found vaporizers to be "a safe and effective cannabinoid delivery system." (source: http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17821306)
Another such study found a significant decrease in respiratory problems among cannabis users who vaporize the drug as opposed to smoke it. (source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1853086/?tool=pmcentrez)
Taking all of this into consideration, marijuana is something that the state of California would find EXTREMELY beneficial, given its current financial situation, and is something that our state needs. Marijuana is NOT as "damaging" as everyone thinks it is. Anything further that is to be asserted about the so-called "damaging effects of marijuana" is speculation, and ought to be treated with a few grains of salt.
That is all.
First of all, sorry about all the deleted posts. Site wouldn't let me hit reply.
(1/2)
@Rashmi
I understand where you're coming from, but you have to understand that a majority of what you're saying encapsulates a view of cannabis that is not entirely accurate:
Marijuana is commonly seen by the public as this sort of "gateway drug" where use of marijuana leads to the use of harder, more detrimental substances. You have also stated that "If we find it okay to legalize marijuana, what's to stop us from legitimizing various other hard drugs? This, indeed, is the very thing that I'm referring to. Public perception of marijuana is extremely misguided. In fact, although there remains competing evidence from both sides, it is commonly recognized that cannabis is not a hard drug, is not more addictive than say, cigarettes or alcohol (which are LEGAL, by the way), and is not more life threatening than any other drugs we see on the streets, including these same cigarettes & alcohol.
These findings have been cited in innumerable different sources. “The Lancet,” one of the world's most recognized and respected medical journals, found that cannabis is actually LESS detrimental than tobacco & alcohol, as shown in the following graph:
http://img697.imageshack.us/img697/2482/380pxrationalscaletoass.png
(original source, needs subscription: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2807%2960464-4/fulltext)
(2/2)
And as for the "gateway" theory, there is still no clear-cut, firmly established link between using marijuana and using "harder" drugs such as heroin & cocaine in the future. Sure, you can cite evidence on both sides, but the sheer amount of studies that support one side or the other presents no CLEAR correlation.
In this sense, how can one argue that marijuana MUST do more harm to an individual than, say, tobacco or alcohol? Cannabis doesn't even have to be smoked. In fact, users frequently take marijuana in a "bong", or with a vaporizer, which is generally taken to eliminate the side effects of smoke inhalation and second-hand smoke. Innumerable studies have confirmed this:
One such study found vaporizers to be "a safe and effective cannabinoid delivery system." (source: http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17821306)
Another such study found a significant decrease in respiratory problems among cannabis users who vaporize the drug as opposed to smoke it. (source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1853086/?tool=pmcentrez)
Taking all of this into consideration, marijuana is something that the state of California would find EXTREMELY beneficial, given its current financial situation, and is something that our state needs. Marijuana is NOT as "damaging" as everyone thinks it is. Anything further that is to be asserted about the so-called "damaging effects of marijuana" is speculation, and ought to be treated with a few grains of salt.
That is all.
To add on to Ryan’s excellent points, moderate marijuana usage might be less dangerous than tobacco. While marijuana does have carcinogens in it, marijuana smokers don’t do it as much and inhale much less smoke as a result. An American Thoracic Society study in 2006, in fact, found little risk associated with serious lung cancer and marijuana, and that marijuana does not cause emphysema development, which leads to lung obstructions.
Post a Comment