The spending bill that was just passed by both houses included a provision to allow marijuana for medical use in Washington D.C. Many hope that an increase in medicinal marijuana use will lead to the de-criminalization of marijuana altogether.
I will not take this time to rant about the irresponsibility of a government that lumps many laws together to manipulate the passage of unfavored laws instead of transparently considering each law on its own merit. However, this is an issue that all American citizens should disapprove of.
There are many issues included in the question of the legalization of marijuana. Obviously, the health effects would be first on the list. For many years people thought that cigarettes were healthy; it turned out they are anything but. Some already decry the negative health effect of marijuana use, not to mention that many consider it to be a “gateway drug” that encourages users to try other harder drugs that have very serious health and societal implications. Another issue is the social impact that behavior modifiers have. Any substance that affects natural inhibitions should be given careful consideration for the impact that it can have on public actions.
An argument used for legalizing marijuana was that it would decrease crime because it would allow police to ignore such petty crimes as marijuana possession so they could focus on other problems. However, there have been several instances, and even some honest-to-goodness experiments, proving the Broken Window Theory. This theory asserts that when smaller crimes are cracked down on, the larger crimes decrease in response. This theory has held true in New York City under Rudy Giuliani's term. It has been proven in Albuquerque and the Netherlands as well.
The crux of the argument used is the economic boost that legalizing marijuana would give through the taxation the government would undoubtedly attach to the sale. Once marijuana was legalized, the price would drop as suppliers increased, raise a little as buyers grew and be artificially inflated by the taxes added to the product. The government would then use those taxes to start new programs or to supplement their failing programs. On the other hand, those who get rich dealing in the marijuana market spend their money, inspiring the age-old economic question: are free markets or regulated markets better?
Regulated markets prefer to give the money to the government and let them spend it, in hopes of boosting the economy. Free markets prefer to leave the money in the hands of the people to use to start businesses, invest, and buy products to stimulate the economy. The argument asks whether Senator Blank will use the funds wisely or if he will squander them. What about the average man? History demonstrates that our government squanders huge amounts of money (Do I need to remind you of the Bridge to Nowhere?) while the average man will do the best he knows how to use his money to boost his own finances, consequently stimulating the economy around him.
Both through taxation or the black market the money doesn't disappear; it is put back into the economy one way or the other. The difference is that the government just recycles that money back through while the regular man tries to increase that money. It is the increase in money that stimulates the economy, therefore it seems that leaving marijuana in the black market is a much better economic solution after all.
That being said, I will make the government a deal. If we legalize marijuana if we would need to legalize all possession of guns. Then everyone, both conservative and liberal, would have something to be happy about.
