Anyone curious about the effects of legalizing marijuana should read Norman H. Clark’s “Deliver us from Evil,” a history of the prohibition of alcohol and narcotics.

Alcohol was legalized — in part — in order to deprive organized crime of money. Over time, the war on drugs has had little impact on drug use.

By abolishing the war we would not only save billions of dollars in expenses, we could earn billions through taxing marijuana. Every scientific study shows that on-demand and court-ordered drug-treatment programs cut drug use more cost-effectively than programs attempting to cut access to drugs.

– Susan McKeehan, La Conner

Will marijuana users really pay taxes?

There is a flaw in the thinking of legalizing marijuana. First, if we tax pot, what says the drug pushers will pay the taxes. Who will pay the cost of enforcement? Next, the so-called savings on the cost of enforcement doesn’t take into account the illegal driving that will occur and need for police involvement. The taxing will not make the drug healthy; lung disease and brain damage is still possible. Finally, taxation will not stem users’ need for more stimulation with more potent and deadly drugs. It is ironic to compare pot’s taxation as used on alcohol and cigarettes, both of which cost us dearly medically and legally.

– Jim Morris, Renton

Effective marijuana test comes before legalization

Your front-page article on marijuana may merit serious consideration subject to just one question: Is there a court-accepted test for measuring the level of marijuana in blood?

I have generally been against the legalization of drugs because of their addictive characteristics and tendency to cause damage to the user. Also, I believe one of the most serious crimes that goes underpenalized is driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs, a criminal undertaking that seriously endangers innocent members of society.

Hence, I do not believe that pot should be legalized unless there is an accepted test for the level of marijuana in the blood that the politically correct liberals and civil libertarians will be unable to get tossed out of court.

I disagree with the “me” generation and defense lawyers in that I do not believe individual rights should be placed before the rights and well-being of society. If police officers can test for the influence of pot and drivers can be prosecuted for a DUI, then perhaps it may be time to legalize pot.

– Harvey Gillis, Bellevue

The Seattle Times Company

           

The argument to legalize marijuana is back in the news, after rock legend and Obama supporter Carlos Santana said that marijuana needs to be legalized, while also taking a hard swipe at California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

In a recent interview with the Associated Press, the Grammy-winning guitarist said, “I really believe that as soon as we legalize and decriminalize marijuana, we can actually afford a really good governor who won’t keep taking money away from education and from teachers and send him back to Hollywood where he can do ‘D’ movies and we can get an ‘A’ governor.” 

Santana went on to give a heart-felt plea to President Obama, saying,  “Bring the brothers home, and sisters home now. Legalize marijuana and take all that money and invest it in teachers and in education. You will see a transformation in America.”

Last week, President Obama acknowledged that the issue is a popular subject of debate at a town hall meeting at the White House, saying that many questions from his online audience came in about whether legalizing marijuana to stimulate the economy is a good idea.

Obama answered, “The answer is, no, I don’t think that is a good strategy — (laughter) — to grow our economy.” 

But there are some lawmakers who disagree with him.  California Assemblyman Tom Ammiano recently proposed a measure that would regulate marijuana in the state of California like alcohol - with people over the age of 21 allowed to grow, buy, sell, and possess cannabis.  If passed, he claims that the legalization of marijuana would be worth billions to the state. 

My question is, if our country can legalize alcohol and cigarettes, why not marijuana?  

Of course, one should not be able to drive or operate machinery while under the influence, government should regulate its quality and safety, and there should be age requirements and health warnings on packaging, but why is marijuana being held to a different standard than cigarettes and alcohol?

Cigarette smoking is highly addictive, can lead to cancer, most commonly lung cancer, but also cancer of the lips, mouth, throat, and voice box. Smokers also have a higher risk of getting esophagus, stomach, kidney, pancreas, cervix, bladder, and skin cancer.  Cigarette smoking can also lead to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, high blood pressure, cataracts, and fertility problems, not to mention stained gums and teeth.

Excessive drinking can cause liver disease and cirrhosis, which rank among the top 10 leading causes of death in the nation, high cholesterol, cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure, heart failure and increased calorie intake (leading to obesity and a higher risk of diabetes). It can also lead to stroke and cardiomyopathy, a disease in which the heart muscle becomes inflamed and doesn’t work efficiently, cardiac arrhythmia, (abnormal, irregular heartbeat) and sudden cardiac death.

Marijuana smoking, while thought to affect the brain and body many times long after one has stopped using the drug, is generally not any more harmful than alcohol or tobacco if used in moderation.

So what’s the problem?

Legalization of marijuana would likely mean a lower price of the drug, reducing related crimes like theft.  Street justice related to drug disputes would also be diminished.  As with most bootleggers from the 1920’s, marijuana dealers would lose most or all of their business.  Police and court resources would be freed up for more serious crimes.  And legalization would also be a source of additional tax revenues.

The problem is that people are used to thinking that marijuana smoking is “bad.”  We have forgotten that drinking used to be “bad.”  In 1933, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt and congress ended prohibition, many people were shocked and alarmed.  Then they got used to it.  Now, there is very little crime, in comparison, related to the manufacturing, distribution, and sale of alcohol.  

In contrast, cigarette smoking used to be “cool.”  In the fifties, most movie stars, on screen and off, were rarely without a cigarette.  Then in the early 1970’s, the harmful effects of cigarette smoking became widely publicized and we realized that cigarette smoking was very “uncool,” in fact, actually “bad.”  Some people still smoke despite.  Many do not.

I don’t expect that the legalization of marijuana would be much different. 

Elyce Strong - Examiner.com