Alas, there has been another bust of marijuana at the Mexico-California border. U.S. Customs and Border Patrol officers arrested a 39-year-old Tijuana resident who was caught trying to smuggle 2,330 pounds of marijuana--a "street value of $1.4 million"--in boxes of hot sauce.
Possession and distribution of the cannabis under California law is punishable by a hefty fine and under Federal law, is considered illegal like other drugs such as cocaine and heroin.
However, there are a few people, as we saw watching the video in class today, who believe that this crack down of pot should no longer be troubling local police. Why, might you ask? It could give more money to the cities and state from the taxes, makes it easier to access for those who need the marijuana for medical purposes, and some think that having it accessible to the public will lower the desire to abuse the drug.
Of course, there are some who have other ideas. The idea of turning California into a "Green State" does not sound pleasant to people against the idea of legalizing marijuana, and there is no proven fact that having it legal will reduce the use of marijuana. In fact, the use of marijuana may increase due to accessibility. And who can guarantee that all people who are buying the cannabis truly need it for medical reasons?
I think the Federal government should handle how to classify drugs, not the state governments.
Just Got Home – Slow News Day?
2 hours ago
4 comments:
I agree completely that the federal government should be the only ones able to handle what drug is legal in our country. There is something about some states having it legal and some states not that doesn't sound ... right. I don't really know how else to phrase it. I will concede that if it were to be taxed, marijuana has the potential to greatly raise revenue and there is certainly enough taste in the population for it. I just don't like the idea of having to put up with the fumes of people smoking it and being resigned to the fact that I can't call the police or do something about it. I am not a big fan of smoking in general so my bias isn't much different here. Besides, I like the idea of knowing that my chances of getting lung cancer from marijuana smoke are reduced as of now. I say reduced because I know that there is already smoke in the air so I am not totally safe, but right now, I am safer than I would be if marijuana were to be made legal because I am one of those people who believe that more people would start to smoke it if it were made legal.
Last year I both wrote my AP US History research paper and did the English debate about this topic. Those in favor of legalization believe that most of the crime associated with marijuana-dealing is due to the fact that it's illegal - if it weren't illegal, it wouldn't be crime but rather business activity. And not only this, but (like you mentioned here) enforcement officers could better spend their efforts countering other types of crime that are more worthy of their time.
However, my personal viewpoint is that it ought not to be legal in California. Some advocates predict billions of dollars in marijuana tax revenue - but that's using current pot prices. They forget that according to the Law of Supply, because of its currently high price, supply will increase dramatically once it's legalized (as more producers will enter the market in hopes of making a sweet profit). However, all this supply will significantly, not necessarily extremely, drive down the price, thus decreasing the number of tax dollars it yields. The two questions to be asked are: will it indeed increase usage because of increased availability? And if so, will the resulting healthcare costs from increased usage outweigh these new tax revenues? The answers are yet to be agreed upon.
In regards to your point about the federal government classifying drugs, I think standardizing these drug laws throughout the entire country would be a good idea - I just don't think it's totally realistic. Not only would this significantly heat this already heated issue even further, but it would also widely upset conservatives who firmly advocate for states' rights and a limitation of the power of the federal government. As the legalization of marijuana might benefit some states (maybe such as California) more than others (I'm thinking about the conservative states in the Bible Belt), I actually believe it should be up to the states to decide how to classify drugs.
To be blunt, this issue really is an interesting one - both sides are rolling with excellent points. The key to solving this problem is to make a joint effort and weed out solutions that favor only one side of the issue
Nice, Jeremy. The marijuana issue has been recurring for years. For arguments sake, it does have some similarities to the prohibition era, where the whole country tried to observe the end to alcohol. I agree with Patrick to some extent. The federal government should have control over the legality of marijuana because of the whole medical argument for it. In general, I feel that the whole marijuana scandal is just a recent blowup of the recession, where people are looking to all sorts of factors that could contribute or detract to the success of the market. However, I believe Patrick's comment is a little dramatic, seeing as even the legal option of smoking cigarettes doesn't pose the threat of fumes and lung cancer to passersby. Marijuana should just be an aspect of the federal government's power. It's too much of a headache to deal with year after year in state's policies. I feel we have bigger things to worry about; maybe the education cuts that seem never-ending?
Post a Comment