The following is a recent article I wrote for collegjolt.com (here) about the legalization of marijuana in response to an Associated Press write-up on Yahoo!

Pot. Legalization. If you are over the age of 17 and you have not heard of the debate over marijuana legalization, then you must be walking, talking, and engaging in politically stimulating discourse in your sleep. If you need help staying awake, please refer to my last article here on sleep deprivation and methods to stay conscious.

The subject of legalizing weed in the United States is a hot one. Unsurprisingly, many in the youth population are adamantly campaigning for the substance to be legal. Unsurprisingly, many in the adult population are doing the same. At very least, the sides are even; for all practical purposes, the opponents of legalization are obviously in the majority, as outlined pretty clearly by our existing laws. And these laws have created obstacles for many people. And to be honest, it is quite self-evident that it is in fact a “many people.” Just about any student in high school knows how surprisingly easy it can be to locate and obtain the drug. Every student in college knows how prevalent it is, even for those that do all they can in their power to avoid it. After most kids had left my dorm for a fall intermission break, I came back to find that my very neighbor had turned the building into, what smelled like, a well-harvested Sinaloan plantation.

So there it is – the elephant in the room is accepted. By no means, however, is the normality of getting high a reason for Dumbo to be legally stoned. The debate is much more multifaceted than that; it is a maze of economic, social, foreign policy, and humanitarian extrapolations, concerns, and maladies. Which is why when I read something as preposterously insulting as a recent Associated Press article on Yahoo covering the subject, I cringe in my seat and hope that our politicians have the discernment to think differently from Californian journalists and law-makers.

The article is quite long and anecdotal, so I will try to cover only the most hilarious and absurd parts. In essence, the piece centers on the idea that, in the wake of the economic crisis that is California, now is the time to legalize the green and start to cash in on the revenue. The idea here is that because the pot industry has been allowed to expand to its current size, the government should now accept it as a legal substance and begin to monitor and regulate its distribution, taxing wherever and whenever possible.

Stop.

The biggest problems with the stance taken by this article and the policy makers who advocate said stance appear within the first few paragraphs. Rather than nit-pick details or nuances, the problem here is primarily conceptual; a sort of conflict of interests. If there is one time that the pot debate needs to take the backburner, it is in the middle of a major economic crisis. President Obama even hinted at this idea when he was first elected to office; when faced with the question of legalization, he answered ‘no,’ but in a manner that conveyed “I have an economy and a war to work out first.” In desperate times, people take desperate measures. So, although there could possibly be an income source for the state of California through pot, it should certainly not be a conclusion leapt to as a hasty last resort to save a crumbling state.

A quote directly from the article:

“Local governments are malnourished and in need of revenue badly,” said Aaron Smith, state policy director for the Marijuana Policy Project, which advocates legalization. “There’s this multibillion-dollar industry that’s the elephant in the room that they’re not able to tap into.”

First issue: who wants to “tap into” an elephant? (see visual at right). Second issue: the very first sentence almost incidentally highlights the very problem of making this decision right now. The state is badly in need of money. Would it really be wise to take one side of a conflict at a very premature place and enact a history-making policy that could potentially be extremely detrimental to Americans, just to make a quick buck? The head of the legalization advocates said it himself: now they are doing everything they can to capitalize on the situation – stepping on a head when it’s drowning.

I promised hilarity; that wasn’t it. The funny part is that, even if this did occur, the state of California would then proceed to overload their people with MORE taxes. California’s taxes are already sky-high and at the same pace as New York’s. While obviously taxing the green would be the entire point, the irony here is rich.

A few paragraphs into the article, the author makes an excellent observation: “marijuana has transformed California.” So far so good. Continuing on, the discussion begins to revolve around the fact that the hash has become commonplace, is sold commonly in all kinds of dietary and thrift stores, and that anybody can get a prescription for medical marijuana as easy as they can a colonoscopy. Except that one of the procedures is a lot more popular, requires less paperwork, and does not involve a colonoscopy.

Read the rest of this entry »