The hot topic right now as far as domestic policy in our country is the legality of marijuana. As with most topics on the political spectrum, I've given the topic a lot of thought, and I have formed a stance on whether or not it should be an illegal substance.
Before I go into my stance, though, I did a little light research as to why it is illegal in the first place. I had to look some things over because I haven't been a long term advocate to either side of the argument at any point of my life prior to the last few months. Skimming over a couple of websites, and my memories of books like "The Autobiography of Malcolm X", among other sources, there were a few legislative reasons I came up with that will support the views of political advocates on both sides of the aisle. Now, the majority of things I saw circled around poison control and controlling medicinal substances, similar to laws surrounding other hard prescription narcotics. I even found literature claiming criminalization for medicinal uses being a phenomenal legislative typo. Essentially, though, it boiled down to possession without a prescription, which is still the law in most places. Looking over some state and federal laws surrounding use of marijuana, most things I saw used the word possession. That tells me that in most places, you can be walking around, eyes glowing red, with Cheech Marin on your left singing up in smoke, and Tommy Chong on your right playing guitar for him, and as long as you have no marijuana or paraphernelia on your person, there is nothing the authorities can do to you. But if you have a little grain of hemp on your clothing, you're going to jail. What I draw from this is that Brian Griffin may be right. This could possibly be nothing more than a lobby by lumber companies to keep hemp from being used for paper. Admittedly, though, most everything I'm finding surrounding this is propaganda and speculation. I didn't really find anything concrete surrounding the reasons for it's outlaw.
Now, after some careful thought and consideration to both sides of the argument, I drew one solution that would benefit all. I say let's de-criminalize, BUT, let's do it the right way.
Now, if we make weed legal, the first thing we need to do is find an effective test to fairly find out if people driving or operating machinery are under the influence. Some research on this will need to be performed since habitual marijuana users can keep residual traces in their bloodstreams for up to 3 months. If you are at work or driving under the influence, just like alcohol, you get fines and jail time. The advocates will try to tell you that marijuana doesn't alter your perception, but as a former user, I can tell you firsthand, that if you get stoned enough, your perception of time becomes completely altered, and therefore, your reaction times are also altered.
The other thing we need to do is to let the FDA and ATF take over the production and distribution, and tax it, just like we do with alcohol and cigarettes. The private sector can grow weed, just like private distillers can distill and brew alcoholic beverages. But the distribution of marijuana needs to be regulated and taxed exactly the same as well. If you get caught growing weed in your basement and selling it without the taxes, you go to jail, just like the moonshiners.
Marijuana decriminalization will raise a big fad for about 10 years. Everyone who has been bragging about weed to be an outlaw or a gangster will want to run out and smoke as much as they can because it's legal, and we will generate a very large amount of tax revenue over it. And not everyone is going to smoke it. People like me will continue to prefer booze. Once the thrill has worn off, I think marijuana use will fade into the background.
So, in closing, I think the idea has potential. I don't think we, as Americans, are quite ready for it yet. But after we cross the last couple hurdles, the benefits will help everyone, stoner and non stoner alike.
