Legalization of Pot for Economic Gain?

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.

Now before I proceed any further, it is good to “rehash” what can already be known. There are a few dominant groups at play here on the pro-side of the debate. There are the potheads, who want to get baked, and do it without worries. Then there are the doctors and users, who desire the drug’s calming ability to soothe their pain, ability to think, etc. Lastly, there are those who realize the danger of both marijuana abuse and the trafficking involved, and desire a policy that will cause both to eventually dissipate. A long time naysayer of any kind of legalization, I now stand on the fence, though still tilted to the naysaying side, but with an open mind to the last kind of aforementioned activists.

The legalization of marijuana certainly has some promising aspects. With the private enterprises of weed competing and being distributed through bulks, the cost of growing and selling the substance would drop significantly, and ideally, eliminate the high-cost practice of black market and illicit drug dealing that is currently rampant. Concurrently, the government’s health department would do everything within its power to actively educate, warn, and steer away potential users of the drug. The money saved from battling violent and nasty underground hash dealers could be used for advertising and teaching in the exact fashion that has assisted the country in turning around tobacco abuse.

In exploring the options surrounding this sticky situation, it is vital that participants do not succumb to the wayward and delusional visions of the extreme Bob Marley t-shirt toting pot activists that manipulate every argument for their own goal to abuse substances without reprimands. As one continues to read the article, it devolves from a discussion into what seems like a celebration.

The author goes on in great lengths to illuminate all of the fun, fascinating, creative facets of marijuana culture: the cool edible pot products (including gelato, olive oil, and soft drinks), using bat guano as fertilizer (guano = feces), the comfy community feeling created by working at a weed farm, the fact that chunks of money often reek of the plant, and a THC expo where models prance around covered up by only giant pot leaves. Sounds to me like a good idea for a third Ace Ventura.

Also, the miracle leaf has incredible healing powers: “He believes passionately in marijuana’s purported ability to treat the symptoms of diseases ranging from cancer to Alzheimer’s.” I have enough faith in the historical genius of our Nation’s doctors and physicians to believe that if toking up was as good of a method as chemotherapy, then they would have spilled the beans by now. Alzheimer’s has the infinitesimal possibility of having more relevance, as it is a mental condition, and most people are aware of the mental affects caused by weed. But let’s investigate this situation further and see how logical it seems. “Hi grandma, it’s me, Billy. You don’t remember me? That’s a shame, have a doobie. What’s that? You don’t remember how? Sure, I’ll do one, too.”

I remain skeptical. But, wait – the author does in fact point out the mal-effects of heavy marijuana usage:

“The plant’s prominence does not come without costs, say some critics. Marijuana plantations in remote forests cause severe environmental damage. Indoor grow houses in some towns put rentals beyond the reach of students and young families. Rural counties with declining economies cannot attract new businesses because the available work force is caught up in the pot industry. Authorities link the drug to violent crime in otherwise quiet small towns.”

Really? Environmental problems? It is amazing what kind of sidetracking people will do to create the façade of weed being a harmless, fun pastime. Saying the worst part about serious weed usage is environmental problems, is like saying the worst part about the Salem witch burnings was that it took up too much gasoline, and it scared off newlywed couples from wanting to settle in the quaint little family town. What’s next? The worst part about human trafficking being the gaseous fumes emitted by trucks big enough to transport those obnoxious abductees?

What’s better though is the advocates mentioned in the article take care to point out that legalization would create many fields in which revenue would be created – like advertising, tourism, and smoking paraphernalia. Advertising? One of the primary points of legitimate arguments to legalize pot, as mentioned before, is the fact that the government would then do all it can to launch an effective campaign against the use of the drug. Apparently the advocates mentioned here are on an entirely separate page – a page that wants to celebrate and popularize a drug culture rather than minimize it.

Seeing people’s motives when discussing this subject can be very easy with a keen eye. Unfortunately, it is often the case that these so called ‘green-rush’ advocates are in fact no more than marijuana users manipulating and twisting every situation into a scheme to freely use the drug. The problem with this is that it inhibits and slows down much-needed progress to be made in developing a solution to a pandemic.

So whether it is the author selectively choosing interviewees, or the entire state of California being a clown show, it is articles like these that insult me as a reader and a progressive looking for a resolution to a very serious issue that is endangering many regions of our great country, both mentally and physically. I’m not entirely sure what was going on in the author’s mind while writing the article, but it seems he was a little caught up with the weed olive oil and sugar pot fairies prancing around in their cannabis bikinis.

In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if he were testing out a little of the sticky green himself to make sure his assessments were “accurate.” I could easily see him reciting some Afroman lyrics to his editor: “I was gonna write an article…but then I got highh…” Lah dee dee da daa…