The Legalization of Marijuana and the War on Drugs

As part of this past Tuesday’s polls in the 2012 presidential election, residents in the states of Washington and Colorado had an important matter on their ballots concerning the current War on Drugs — the legalization of marijuana for recreational use.

In the state of Colorado this was known as Amendment 64.  In Washington this was Initiative 502 on the ballot.

And in both states, the legalization of marijuana was approved by a majority of the voters.

Of course, many details need to be worked out by the state legislatures before people can safely enjoy a joint without worry of being hauled off to jail.  Following the approval of marijuana for medicinal use, this passing of marijuana for recreational use is a major step in finally ending the War on Drugs.

Wait a minute!

Ending the War on Drugs?  Aren’t drugs evil?  Aren’t all of us conservatives supposed to be supporting the War on Drugs because we need to protect society and tell people what’s good and bad for them to put in their body?

Before I go any further, let me tell you that I’m NOT a marijuana smoker.  I don’t smoke anything for that matter, but certainly not marijuana.  Some of my college days involved living next door to a marijuana dealer, and my neighbors today enjoy the occasional joint or two when they host social events.  But I have not tried marijuana, and nor do I want to in the future.

Nor am I in favor of using any other drug such as cocaine, heroin, PCP, barbiturates, steroids, methamphetamines, or anything of that nature.  I am a social drinker and enjoy my beer like the next guy, but that’s pretty much it when it comes to me using controlled substances outside of medical prescriptions.

Since I’m against using drugs, does that mean I’m for the abolishment of it for everybody else?  Certainly not.

What people want to drink/sniff/inhale/inject into their bodies is their business, not mine.  If my neighbors have an occasional joint while hosting a small party, and everybody stays quiet and respectable over there, then there’s no reason to make a federal case about the exact legality of what they’re doing.  Why should I send the cops onto their private property when nobody is being harmed, children are not accessing the drugs, and people are not trying to drive home while being intoxicated?  I’m more concerned about the people committing robberies and home invasions versus the guy down the street who smokes weed in his house.

It’s just crazy.

One of the problems with the War on Drugs is where are you supposed to draw the line?

Millions of people suffer from alcohol-related deaths and illnesses each year, yet it’s perfectly legal for a person at least twenty-one years of age or older (or at least eighteen years old on a military base) to purchase and consume a container of alcohol.  Of course, there are limitations as to where a person can consume the beverage, but a person of age is allowed to purchase and consume the alcohol.

The government tried banning the production, transportation and sale of alcohol back in the 1920s.  The Prohibition era for the United States began when the Eighteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified on January 19, 1919.  Did this stop people from producing, selling and drinking alcohol?  Not by a long shot.  The Prohibition fuelled the black market for alcohol and just required the people to access their drinks via secretive (and more expensive) methods.  This black market also saw a rise in organized crime as criminals sought to protect this incredibly valuable commodity.

The Twenty-first Amendment to the U.S. Constitution effectively ended Prohibition on December 5, 1933.  Since then, companies that produced alcoholic drinks have had productivity skyrocket and allowed the government to collect what is estimated to be billions of dollars in taxes on the products.

So if the sale and usage of tobacco is legal, along with the sale and consumption of alcohol, then what about marijuana and other recreational drugs?  Where exactly do you draw the line?  What about harder drugs such as cocaine and even heroin?  Cocaine is considered a luxury drug popular with celebrities, movie stars and even athletes.  How exactly does one justify the legal usage of one drug versus another?

Another problem with the War on Drugs is that by driving the products underground, doing so only increases their prices and sends more of that money back to the cartels that manufactured and shipped the products to the U.S. from places like Mexico and Central America.  Many of the cartels continue to make news headlines as mass shootings and executions continue taking place in areas that they control.  The reach of the cartels can go as high as the highest levels of government, corrupting them and having the effect trickle down through the chain of command.

It’s next to impossible to fight the cartels as killing or imprisoning a few of the leaders will only make room for other people to take their positions in the organization.  Sure, production may temporarily slow, but it’ll be humming again in no time.  Reducing the size or strength of one cartel can easily lead to a neighboring one to take over its turf, leading to a bloody and brutal battle between soldiers in the cartels.  A problem is that this often kills innocent people, from innocent bystanders to distant family members barely related to cartel members.  The best weapon to fight against the cartels is by removing their products from customers, cutting off their profits and funding for future operations.

The bottom line is that people desperate enough for the drugs will access them anyway.  From cocaine to heroin to marijuana and beyond, if you start asking a few of your friends, somebody you probably know (or within the first degree or two of friends) will be able to put you in contact with a supplier.  The drugs are out there.  But if you make it legal for U.S. corporations to manufacture and sell the products, making it significantly cheaper (and safer!) than purchasing it off the streets, keeping the products regulated with government control of the standards (need to help protect the consumers like the FDA), then the cartels will experience a significant decrease in their profits and funding.

And what happens once production of certain narcotics is legal in the U.S., and virtually anybody of age can purchase them in the store?  The state and federal governments will receive SIGNIFICANT boosts in tax revenue.

Remember, people are spending big bucks on the drugs anyway.  A great percentage of that money is ultimately sent south of the border and beyond to the cartels that make it happen.  But if the production and consumption of the same drugs were legal here, then that very same money is instead sent to the state and federal governments, money that could be turned around and spent on rehabilitation and medical facilities for drug abusers.

But as long as drugs continue to be illegal, then that money is going to be headed instead to the cartels, those cartels that frequently use excessive violence to protect their interests and spread fear for people not to mess with them.

The legalization of marijuana is a big victory for scaling down and ultimately eliminating the War on Drugs.

I may have a beer tonight to celebrate this step towards personal freedom and future economic prosperity.

U-S-A!  U-S-A!  U-S-A!  U-S-A!