Should Marijuana Be Legalized or Not?

For decades, the legalization of marijuana has been a major topic of controversy in the United States. The focus intensified recently when a legislative bill was passed which legalizes the “medical” use of marijuana. Still, many people strongly oppose the general use of the drug, claiming that the level of impairment it induces is dangerous. However, those in favor of marijuana, point out that in some cases there are positive results of marijuana use. There are no positive results associated with the use of alcohol and tobacco. Could this be an indication that the determining factor in the legalization of marijuana has very little to do with the assumed negative effects?

Alcohol is one of the most life-threatening, mind-altering, motor-skill impairing substances in existence. Alcohol abuse destroys a person’s liver and wreaks havoc on the entire body. In many cases, it takes very little alcohol to impair a driver’s ability to operate a vehicle and threaten the lives of other people on the road. It seems to me that alcoholics are a much bigger threat to society than “pot heads” will ever be, regardless of the legalization of marijuana; yet alcohol is still legal.

Cigarettes are another readily available substance that yield absolutely no positive effects. Cigarettes not only kill the people who smoke them, but they also kill the people around those who smoke them. They also contribute to the depletion of oxygen from our air. There is only one possible explanation for the fact that these deadly poisons have not been banned. The government is making a fortune on the sales and tax revenues of cigarettes. The tobacco industry clearly values the American dollar more than a human life. How does the government justify the legalization of a deadly drug like tobacco, while at the same time they ban a less dangerous substance, such as marijuana?

There’s only one thing that could encourage such ridiculous regulations: the love of money. The court system makes a fortune in the accumulation of fines, bail amounts, and property (and drug) seizures. If marijuana were legal, this huge revenue would not exist. If marijuana were legal, people wouldn’t have to travel to “the hood” to get it, which would result in less crime-related deaths and less exposure to “harder” drugs. The police interpret this as less “bad guys” to chase, which would make it more difficult to meet their quotas (and get free pot).

The bottom line in the marijuana controversy depends on the angle from which one views it. The health risks involved with marijuana use are of a much smaller threat than those associated with alcohol or cigarettes. The motor impairment that may result from marijuana use is far less intense than that resulting from the consumption of alcohol, as well as some food preservatives. Historical documents illustrate that many of our nation’s most inspiring names, including Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and Thomas Edison, used marijuana regularly with no ill effect. It is obvious that the determining factor in the marijuana controversy is the almighty American dollar. After all, it has been confirmed that the earth no longer spins on an axis. Money is what makes the world turn.