Illinois is one House vote away from becoming the 15th state to legalize medical marijuana.

But Rep. Lou Lang, the sponsor of the measure that would enact legalization, is playing it safe. With a subject as sensitive as medical marijuana, he realizes that timing is everything.

“Many members will vote for this,” Lang told the Chicago Reader, “but they’ll only do it once. They’ll go out on a limb once.”

A new report from WBBM shows how tantalizingly close the state truly is to passing the bill. It squeaked out of the Illinois Senate almost a year ago; now, Lang says, more than 90 of the 118 members of the House of Representatives have told him they support the bill. And “he has been promised a vote by Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago) if he can muster the needed votes,” the report reads.

The trouble for Lang is that private statements of support may not translate into votes. Nearly 40 of the representatives who support the bill in private say they fear the political fallout of casting an “aye” vote for it in the harsh light of day.

And the clock is ticking on passage of the bill. On January 12, 2011, a new General Assembly will be sworn in. If by that time the bill hasn’t passed the House, the Senate’s vote won’t matter any more; it will be back to square one.

The Chicago Reader’s feature on the issue points out that medical marijuana has been technically legal in Illinois since 1978. But the law passed over 30 years ago, the Cannabis Control Act, required the Department of Human Services and the Illinois State Police to enact new policies on pot before it could be legally distributed. Neither agency has.

The Compassionate Use of Medical Cannabis Pilot Program Act, the bill Lang is bringing to the House, would change all that. From the Reader:

It says that with a physician’s written permission, someone diagnosed with a “debilitating medical condition,” and also his or her primary caregiver, can have up to six cannabis plants, only three of which can be “mature,” or in the budding stage, when the levels of active chemicals are highest. The Illinois Department of Public Health would determine procedural specifics, and the law would expire three years after taking effect unless renewed by the legislature.

Marijuana would be used for the treatment of chronic pain. It would serve as a replacement for drugs like Vicodin and Oxycontin, both of which are addictive and can be lethal if overdosed. No tests have shown that either is the case for marijuana.

“The medical profession has no controversy on this, to speak of,” Illinois Public Health Advocate Dr. Quentin Young told WBBM.

The political profession, however, is a different matter. In that line of work, Lou Lang is still operating behind the scenes, trying to put controversy to bed before he calls for the decisive vote.

           

If they aren’t already, elected officials in the District should be keeping close tabs on this year’s election in California.

On Wednesday, advocates for legalizing marijuana officially secured enough signatures to put a referendum on the California ballot this November asking voters to legalize and tax pot.

And, judging by recent legislation in the District, what starts in California often eventually makes it way to the left-leaning District.

San Francisco’s decision in 2007 to ban plastic bags, for example, was one impetus for the District’s recently enacted bag tax. And San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome launched the modern same-sex marriage movement when he issued marriage licenses to gay couples in 2004 — long before the District took up the issue.

And California voters approved a referendum allowing for the medical use of marijuana in 1996 - two years before voters in the District approved a similar referendum. The District’s medical marijuana law is only now being implemented because it was tied up for years on Capitol Hill.

But if California voters approve the legalization of marijuana - which remains an if, because polls show a potentially close election - how long will it be before pro-pot advocates seek to petition a similar measure onto the ballot in the District?

Allen St. Pierre, executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, estimates it would be six years or less before the marijuana legalization debate makes its way to the District.

“California, like it or not, really pushes American politics and business in one direction or another,” said St. Pierre, noting the issue is also expected to soon land on the ballot in Nevada and Oregon. “I am going to guess four to six years after the citizens of California pass something like this, there is either an initiative here or the city council takes it up.”

Already, D.C. Council member Marion Barry (D-Ward has been grumbling publicly that some of the District’s drug laws need to be reformed because too many residents are being locked up for drug possession. But Council member David A. Catania (I-At large), the chairman of the Committee on Health, and other council members have made it clear they do not want the medical marijuana legislation pending before the council to spiral into a debate over outright legalization.

A Washington Post poll conducted in January found District residents were split on whether they supported legalizing small amounts of marijuana for personal use. Forty-six percent of residents favored the idea, but 48 percent opposed.

But while 60 percent of whites supported legalizing marijuana, only 37 percent of African-Americans felt that way, largely due to strong opposition among older black women.

A debate over marijuana legalization wouldn’t be entirely new terrain for the District. In 1977, the city council approved legislation to decriminalize possession of one ounce or less of the drug. But then Mayor Walter E. Washington vetoed the measure, citing the possible effects the law would have on city youths.

And even if legalization advocates won a referendum over the issue in the District, Congress would ultimately have the power to block it from taking place.

It’s hard to see Congress staying out of that debate. But who would have guessed six years ago that the debate over whether to legalize same-sex marriage in the District would have been such a snooze this year on Capitol Hill?

           

The American Medical Association recently reversed its long-standing position and urged the federal government to loosen the classification of Marijuana and clear the path for more medical marijuana use and clinical research.

OK–great–but for real: why isn’t pot entirely legal already?

Likely because of a Puritanical law-and-order ethos that pervades the generations of policymakers who have curried favor with frightened and uninteresting voters by creating a make-believe issue out of cannabis, is my theory.

Lumping pot in with other Schedule I drugs (the highest classification for a controlled substance)  like heroin and LSD is so completely absurd that it’s like lumping alcohol in with setting your face on fire.

Setting your face on fire is clearly the more dangerous high between the two.

In fact, based on my completely anecdotal observations, I would posit that alcohol is absolutely, positively a worse drug than marijuana.

In my line of work (i.e. writer), I’ve known a ton of potheads (i.e. writers) and alcoholics (i.e. other writers). No one gets in fights when they’re high. They don’t hurt anyone, they don’t do anything. They sit on the couch, eat Ben & Jerry’s ice cream and giggle at infomercials for four hours. “Normal” people like tax accountants and nurses are more dangerous.

The Obama administration has already said that it will not concern the justice department with chasing down potheads, which makes it that much easier in states where weed is quickly becoming de facto legal.

The next step will likely come from California, which is drawing ever closer to legalization and taxation of pot–cutting it out of the business portfolio of Mexican drug cartels and raising $1.4 billion for the cash-strapped state in the bargain.

The entire ill-conceived war on drugs is an experiment in legislating morality that borders on outright farce. As Chris Rock–probably one of the great thinkers of our time if you get right down to it–once pointed out, people will do anything to get high.

You wanna make drugs illegal? Well, people will just let their excrement ferment in the sun and then take a big whiff.

I am not making that up.

And what are parents or the government or the D.A.R.E. officers supposed to tell kids now?

That if you smoke weed, you’ll never amount to anything? You’ll never be a record-breaking Olympic swimmer? The President of the United States (”I inhaled. That was the point.”)? A published author?

Please. Somebody get me some Ben & Jerry’s.

http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/off-the-markley/2009/11/how-is-marijuana-still-illegal.html

           

The British came to DePauw Wednesday night. They weren’t opposing independence - just the legalization of marijuana.

DePauw’s Debate Society took on the British National Debate team at the public debate in Watson Forum. DePauw senior Aaron Dicker and junior Kevin Milne supported the resolution to legalize marijuana. Graduate students from the British team, Dan Bradley from the University of Manchester and Andrew Tuffin of King’s College London, took the opposition. Geoff Klinger, professor of communication and theatre, moderated the debate.

Dicker began by stating legalizing marijuana would contribute to ending the war on drugs.

“If legalized, it would be easier to focus on hard drugs, not just marijuana,” he said. “Brands could safely regulate marijuana and gangs and drug cartels will not be able to operate as much, because marijuana is the greatest cash flow.”

Bradley spoke next on the dangers of marijuana, saying its legalization would be detrimental to the health of the nation.

“Marijuana is more dangerous these days as compared to the 1960s,” he said. “Marijuana legalization could cause an increase in cancer. Being stoned is not a good state of mind to be in, and it would increase drug use and involvement in drug culture.”

DePauw’s representatives responded by arguing the legalization of prostitution, which is prohibited in Britain and the United States, has been successful in places like Holland. They also maintained people can keep a drug use a secret even if marijuana is legalized.

“Holland has legalized prostitution and prostitutes are living a better life,” Milne said. “It does not necessarily mean that executives’ secret lifestyles will be discovered.”

Milne and Dicker also said the use of marijuana is less dangerous than hard drugs, making it easier to regulate.

The British debaters countered, saying marijuana users typically don’t have the means of escaping the cycle they are caught in.

“Marijuana is less bad than heroin, but so is jaywalking,” Tuffin said. “People use drugs, alcohol and the like to escape. Many drug users are not lucky enough to have the opportunity to escape their life.”

After audience members asked questions of both teams, Bradley delivered the opposition’s closing argument, directly addressing a point made by DePauw’s team.

He said the legalization of marijuana would “not make drug empires collapse. Instead, they will take advantage by selling dangerous drugs. We don’t make dangerous things legal, do we?”

DePauw closed with a strong argument by Dicker, but in the end, a standing vote declared the British National Debate Team the winner, with 35 voting in favor of the British National Debate team and 15 in favor of DePauw’s team.

Bradley said the British team defeated Wabash Tuesday night in a landslide vote.

“We beat Wabash 55 to nil last night,” he said.

The four participants said, regardless of the outcome, the debate went well. Bradley said he thought the debate members from DePauw did a good job, and the audience was fully engaged.

“The competition was very good. The audience was watching and thinking at the same time,” he said.

Government arguments

Legalizing marijuana will not increase the number of people smoking because the U.S. already has one of the highest percentages of pot use

It will refocus the drug war to harder drugs like cocaine and heroin.

Legalizing marijuana will eliminate the drug cartels who traffic it.

Opposition arguments

Legalizing marijuana will increase the number of people using it, which has been shown to either make them non-productive or increase risks of paranoid schizophrenia.

It won’t stop the drug trade (just switch to more drugs).

It leads to dangerous, high doses of tetrahydrocannabinol.

http://media.www.thedepauw.com/media/storage/paper912/news/2009/11/20/News/Legalization.Of.Marijuana.Debated.Across.Cultures-3838516.shtml

           

No tie-dye was on display at a standing-room only hearing held by a California lawmaker on Wednesday in a bid to get his marijuana legalization bill taken seriously.

Instead, suits and sober discussion were the rule at the state Capitol as Assemblyman Tom Ammiano presided over what his office said was the first legislative consideration of the issue since California banned the drug in 1913.

Both sides of the debate were heard, but Ammiano has long had his mind made up.

Before the hearing, the San Francisco Democrat and former comedian called the criminalization of marijuana a failed policy that denies the state significant revenue. He said the bill could put the state in a position to set the national agenda on pot.

“I think we have a real shot at it, particularly in the context of it being in some ways bigger than California,” Ammiano said.

His bill would tax and regulate marijuana in the state much like alcohol. Adults 21 and older could legally possess, grow and sell marijuana. The state would charge a $50-per-ounce fee and a 9 percent tax on retail sales.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has said he does not support legalization but caused a stir in May when he said he was open to debate on the issue.

At least one poll showed a slight majority of Californians would support a tax-and-regulate scheme for pot, but the bill’s chances remain unclear. Skeptics have questioned whether the state could truly enforce a tax on marijuana and whether users and sellers would want to expose themselves to possible federal prosecution.

“You’re going to create a record of some sort,” said Assemblyman Curt Hagman, a San Bernardino County Republican. “You can’t force me to self-incriminate myself.”

Supporters of Ammiano’s bill noted the state already collects taxes from medical marijuana dispensaries with little federal interference.

Legal experts on both sides also agreed at the informational hearing that nothing in current federal law can prevent California from stripping criminal penalties for marijuana from its own books.

“If California decides to legalize marijuana, there’s nothing in the Constitution that stands in its way,” said Tamar Todd, a staff attorney for the pro-legalization Drug Policy Alliance.

Speakers at the hearing argued a number of issues, including whether legalization would increase or decrease crime and help or hurt children.

State tax collectors presented an estimate that Ammiano’s bill could generate nearly $1.4 billion in tax revenue. They cautioned, however, that the figure depended on several untested assumptions about how rates of use and prices would change following possible legalization.

Rosalie Pacula, director of drug policy research at the nonpartisan Rand Corp., said data on the economics of marijuana were “insufficient on which to base any sound policy.”

Pacula said a failed effort in Canada to increase taxes on cigarettes showed that unless taxes had a minimal effect on prevailing prices, “you create the economic incentive for the black market to remain.”

As the legalization movement has gained momentum, organized opposition outside law enforcement groups has been sparse. Still, several anti-pot protesters spoke passionately during and after the hearing.

Marijuana use is commonplace among young people in his Sacramento neighborhood, said Bishop Ron Allen, president of the International Faith Based Coalition, an anti-drug religious group.

Legalizing marijuana to tax it would help fill state coffers at the expense of its kids, he said.

“It’s blood money, that’s it,” he said.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jXqaCr8mSHC5wPjTJgCgnHv18Z3gD9BKQROG1

           

A new poll from Gallup shows that 44 percent of Americans now support legalizing marijuana, with 54 percent opposed. This is the highest-ever support for legalization in the Gallup poll.

The poll comes on the heels of the announcement by the Obama administration yesterday telling federal prosecutors not to focus on medical marijuana users and suppliers in states where medical marijuana is legal.

Gallup reports that support for pot legalization was in the 25 percent range during the 1970s through the 1990s, but jumped to 31 percent in 2001 and has been rising throughout this decade. In the most recent CBS News poll on the subject, conducted in July, 41 percent said they thought marijuana should be made legal.

CBSNews.com Special Report: Marijuana Nation
Medical Marijuana Arrest Guidelines Eased
Cannabis Shops Still Fear Long Arm of Law
Andrew Cohen: New Pot Policy Is Not Yet a Turning Point

The Gallup poll also reveals some interesting statistics on attitudes about marijuana legalization based on regional and demographic information. In the West, a majority (53 percent) say they would support legalization in their state as a way to generate revenue through taxing marijuana. Support for such a plan is only in the 30s in the South and Midwest, however, with the East coming in at 44 percent on the question.

When it comes to age, younger people, not surprisingly, are more likely to support pot legalization. According to the poll, 50 percent of those 18 to 49 support legalization, which represents an 11 percent jump since 2005. But just 28 percent over the age of 65 do, with 45 percent support by those between 50 and 64.

When it comes to ideology, the poll finds that liberals are overwhelmingly in favor of legalization (78 percent) and conservatives are overwhelmingly opposed (72 percent). Moderates as a group are just slightly opposed, with 46 in favor and 51 percent opposed.

Read more on the poll here from Gallup

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/10/20/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5403028.shtml

           

Whenever matters of marijuana policy make their way into the national spotlight, you can count on coming across some really ridiculous analysis from folks who haven’t exactly been paying attention. There are many ways to misunderstand the marijuana debate, my favorite of which might be the theory that — even though it’s all over the news — it’s actually part of a secret conspiracy.

Here, we have the editorial board of The Washington Post speculating that Obama’s recent medical marijuana announcement could be part of a plan to legalize marijuana without anyone noticing:

Yet this policy shift leaves significant questions unaddressed, including whether the Justice Department’s decision essentially constitutes a first step toward legalizing marijuana. Such an immense policy decision should not be ushered in surreptitiously, but should be tackled head-on, with a full-throated public debate about the possible benefits and consequences.

This is just completely delusional on multiple levels:

1. The administration leaked the story to the AP on a Sunday night, which is the opposite of secretive. That’s what you do when you want a week’s worth of intensive media coverage.
2. Telling the DEA not to arrest sick people is a far cry from supporting legalization for everyone. It’s very possible – and very common – for people to support the former and not the latter. For example…
3. The Obama Administration is opposed to legalization. They’ve said so before and after last week’s medical marijuana announcement. That question is not “unaddressed” even remotely.
4. There’s a “full-throated public debate” about marijuana legalization going on right now. And The Washington Post has been participating in it with numerous recent stories and editorials. You want us to send more op-eds?

I can’t even begin to fathom how The Post came up with this craziness, but if they want more debate, I’m ready to rock. I’ll show up at your office tomorrow morning with 15 awesome ideas for marijuana stories that I guarantee you The New York Times hasn’t thought of yet. And I ask for nothing in return, except some acknowledgement that marijuana legalization is not a secret conspiracy, but rather a defining issue at this moment in American politics.

Update: Pete Guither has more.

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle_blog/2009/oct/27/obama_isnt_plotting_to_legalize_

           

Marijuana smokers might be breathing a little easier thanks to a policy switch by the U.S. Justice Department. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that federal prosecutors would not spend limited time and resources on people who use or sell medical marijuana “in strict compliance with state law.” Thirteen states have medical marijuana laws, which are controversial because federal narcotics laws trump state statutes.

Of course, the new federal policy doesn’t prevent local prosecutors from cracking down on medical marijuana dispensaries. Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley has vowed to shutter the city’s dispensaries, which he says cater to people who do not have legitimate medical reasons for using marijuana.

Is the Justice Department paving the way for legalizing marijuana? And is it crazy to think the Obama administration is more federalist — that is, respectful of state and local government decision-making — than the supposedly federalism-loving Republicans? Joel Mathis and Ben Boychuk, the RedBlueAmerica columnists, attempt to cut through the haze.

BEN BOYCHUK

All things being equal, the states are probably better arbiters than federal officials of whether marijuana should be illegal. The fact that the Obama Justice Department believes federal resources are better spent elsewhere speaks volumes. But marijuana remains outlawed under the federal Narcotics Act, .

But whether marijuana should be legalized raises a whole host of questions. Here’s one: Should medical marijuana use be protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act? The ADA requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for workers with disabilities, including ailments such as alcoholism and drug addiction. (See the U.S. government’s frequently asked questions about the ADA here: http://www.ada.gov/employmt.htm)

The ADA has been a boon for trial lawyers and irresponsible users and abusers. A former sheriff’s deputy in Sarasota, Fla., last month sued his employer for discrimination under the ADA because he was let go for excessive alcohol use. Earlier this year, former NBA player Ray Tarpley settled an ADA lawsuit against the pro basketball league and the Dallas Mavericks that stemmed from his cocaine addiction. Two alcoholic NFL players filed similar lawsuits in 2007.

Without question, marijuana helps thousands of people suffering chronic illnesses. The rub is that many critics of medical marijuana, including most district attorneys, say the laws are widely abused; that it’s too easy for stoners to get a doctor’s note for pot; and that many of the “illnesses” that marijuana treats are bogus. It isn’t hard to imagine a raft of lawsuits against employers by potheads claiming phony disabilities.

If Americans want to ease the prohibitions on marijuana, Congress will need to act and legislators will need to debate what’s right for their states. But if the trend is toward decriminalization, it should come with a hefty dose of personal responsibility and protections for employers from unscrupulous users.

JOEL MATHIS

Actually, Americans do want ease prohibitions on medical marijuana. They’ve wanted it for a long time.

The website of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws has a page featuring a slew of polls — going back to 1995 — showing that clear majorities of Americans believe it should be legal for doctors to prescribe and patients to use marijuana for medicinal purposes. NORML admittedly has a bias, but the polls come from a variety of outlets: Gallup, AARP, CBS, ABC, Time magazine and more.

Yet Congress has refused to act; despite those clear majorities, politicians at the federal level are too fearful about their re-election prospects to ever support legislation that might later be used to portray them as “soft on crime” or “soft on drugs.”

So activists took their case to the state level — and that’s entirely appropriate. The states have long been considered “laboratories of democracy” where different approaches to similar issues could be tried. And that’s exactly what happened: Thirteen states now permit medical marijuana. That means, of course, that 37 states do not. Nothing in the Obama administration’s new approach will force those more restrictive states to take the relaxed approach.

You can argue the Obama administration should continue to rigorously enforce federal drug laws. But given that citizens in those 13 states have made their preferences clear, the administration is probably wise to give them deference.

“What about the ADA?” my conservative friend asks. Well, what about it? The Americans with Disabilities Act is a federal law; as long as actual legalization of medical marijuana is done at the state level, federal lawsuits by a few stoned chuckleheads seeking to enrich themselves through the legal system are unlikely to be successful. When weighing the balance between real freedom and a hypothetical fear of lawsuits, freedom should win.

Ben Boychuk and Joel Mathis blog at http://www.infinitemonkeysblog.com and http://politics.pwblogs.com.

(Ben Boychuk and Joel Mathis blog daily at www.infinitemonkeysblog.com and joelmathis.blogspot.com.)

           

Activists have launched a campaign to legalize marijuana in California, but the path could provide difficult.

An Oakland-based group filed papers with the state and now has to collect more than 430,000 signatures to get its measure on the November 2010 ballot. The campaign is being spearheaded by legalization activist Richard Lee. It’s one of several efforts to legalize pot in California, including legislation being proposed in Sacramento.

According to the Lee’s group, the proposal would allow people 21 and over to possess up to an ounce of the drug and also would allow property owners to grow a certain amount of pot.

There has been much talk in recent months of legalizing marijuana and perhaps taxing it as a way of generating needed revenues for the cash-strapped state. But it’s unclear how much support there is for the issue, and there’s debate about how much money such a move would actually raise. Some law enforcement organizations believe legalization would cause more crime and drug trafficking.

–Shelby Grad - LA Times

           

EVERY YEAR around the 20th of April, the press is infiltrated with a surge of pot-related stories, complete with as many tongue-in-cheek headlines as editors will allow. This year’s coverage was somehow different, mostly in that it didn’t evaporate into thin air (now even I’m doing it) after the “holiday.” Rather, it seems, the coverage around marijuana picked up steam over the week of April 20 and is carrying on even now, well into the summer.

One explanation is that in the midst of a recession, America is willing to consider hitting the pipe, toking the spliff, bonging the, um, bong. Mainstream politicians like California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger are actually considering the legalization of marijuana (though it won’t happen this year). Congressmen like Barney Frank from my home state of Massachusetts and Ron Paul from Texas are also on board. Reversing the Bush administration’s policy, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that Federal law enforcement will not pursue medical marijuana users in California, where the drug is legalized for medicinal purposes.

American culture seems to have moved on a long time ago. References to marijuana use are so breezily tossed around that one might assume that the stigma related to this still illegal drug has gone the way of lava lamps. In the Christian world, weed legalization is mostly absent from the conversation, but there, the silent assumption about marijuana’s legality probably goes the other way.

But younger Christians might be a different story. This week, 21 people were arrested for marijuana possession at a Christian concert in Mount Pleasant, Pennsylvania. In late April, the evangelical blog Burnside Writer’s Collective quizzed its young-ish readers on a series of pot-related questions. Should marijuana be legalized? Fifty percent of responders thought so, and the next largest percentage said it should at least be decriminalized. Have you ever smoked marijuana? Fifty percent said yes, 40 said no. The 10 percent in the middle respond, in uniquely young evangelical fashion, that they have smoked once or twice. (Doesn’t that just mean “Yes?”) Finally, an overwhelming majority claim that even if weed was legal, they still wouldn’t smoke it.

Like many other Western political dilemmas, Scripture doesn’t have an entry on cannabis—not even general statements on hallucinogens. Without the comfort of “the Bible tells me so,” it seems that Christians take an array of positions on their consumption, from “it’s awesome” to “it’s illegal” to “it’s witchcraft.” With so little on the subject in our texts, Christians must consider the same questions as any public official: would the legalization of marijuana be good for our economy? Would it be bad for the youth? Are the hurt it might cause drug cartels and the lessened burden on the penal system more convincing arguments than the claims that it is a gateway drug or will drastically increase drug use?

Perhaps the two most convincing arguments for marijuana legalization are the fiscal benefits of legalizing and taxing the sale of marijuana, and the impact that decriminalization would have on the overrun justice system. Just as the government slaps a tremendous tax on the sale of tobacco products (it’s over $5 in New York City), taxes on marijuana products could create a much-needed stream of income for all levels of government. Additionally, if marijuana use became legal, the resources, monetary and otherwise, spent on arrests, prosecutions and incarcerations of minor drug offenders could be redistributed to other, arguably more pressing endeavors.

Rather than admitting defeat in the never-ending War on Drugs, legalization could in many ways, be a means for the United States to score a major victory. The blow to drug dealers, gangs and cartels that are substantially fueled by illegal marijuana sales could be nearly incalculable and, again, the government could focus its energies on stopping the flow of harder drugs. Finally, by legalizing the production and sale of marijuana, the Federal Drug Administration and other government agencies would have the opportunity to regulate it, ensuring that users don’t become seriously ill due to tainted or laced pot.

For the time being, however, the seemingly more influential arguments are those in favor of marijuana’s continued illegality. Without a doubt, the most common argument against legalization is the assertion that marijuana is a “gateway drug.” The gateway drug theory postulates that those who use pot eventually find their way into other, more serious drugs. Though it is often pointed out that this is nearly impossible to measure, it still remains the most influential line of reasoning against marijuana use, both legally and illegaly. It is also argued that legalization would make it easier for children and teenagers, for whom the drug would presumably be illegal, to gain access to pot.

There is one other argument for legalization that may tip the scales: the fact that the marijuana’s illegality is a major inconsistency in government policy. Selling or smoking weed is a criminal offense, while alcohol and tobacco products are freely produced, sold and consumed by Americans. Sure, we need the FDA to regulate and restrict drugs that have been proven far more harmful than beneficial, but marijuana is no more harmful than alcohol when both are used in moderation, and when given the choice, I’d prefer to be around someone who smoked too much pot rather than drank too much. Of course people will abuse marijuana as they do alcohol, but we don’t accept that as an argument for prohibition.

No one should be surprised when, sooner rather than later, the real possibility of legal marijuana becomes even more ubiquitous in the news and in everyday conversations. Changes like this don’t come quickly, nor should they. The fact that this debate has been going on for decades and continues with no end in sight is not necessarily a bad thing. Let us consider all points of view and, in the end, make the choice that is best not only for our economy and government, but, indeed, for our citizens as well. With no easy answers in sight, perhaps this is what it means to work out our faith with fear and trembling. And you know what they say is good for calming that trembling don’t you …

Patrol.com