My vote would be to legalize it.
The most pressing question, though, is, 'why is it not legal?' Theoretically, if you can determine why it is not legal and then subvert those forces, then legalization should be a foregone conclusion.
Now, after much thinking about this issue, I am decidedly unsure. Originally, pot was made illegal for a couple reasons. In the 1930's when States first began criminalizing marijuana middle America did not fully understand the drug. To them marijuana was just another in a list of readily available mind-altering substances like cocaine, opium and alcohol. The importance of the national prohibition on alcohol is important. The first state laws criminalizing marijuana were passed during the prohibition on alcohol. Without much scientific inquiry to prove to disprove potential benefits of marijuana, the campaign to ban it essentially became a propaganda war.
There were many big business interests that supported the ban on marijuana. These included a variety of pharmaceutical, textile, and cigarette companies. Most notable amongst those siding with a ban was William Randolph Hearst, who had significant interests in several lumber companies and was afraid of competition from Hemp-producing firms in the manufacture of paper. In fact, most of the support for the ban amongst big businesses revolved around the competitive threat that hemp presented, and had nothing to do with the effects of smoking the drug for recreational purposes.
The propaganda was presented in print, radio and even motion picture form (someone previously mentioned the near unwatchable "Reefer Madness"). For the government this dovetailed nicely with the campaign against cocaine and opium which was perpetrated only a decade or two earlier.
At first, the war against marijuana was conducted with taxes. After several rounds of judiciary haggling, this eventually morphed into state propagated criminalization before the Supreme Court finally approved it as a Schedule I drug in the 1970's and a formal federal ban was enacted.
However, many objective studies in recent years have shown marijuana use to be significantly less debilitating than alcohol use, and medically less harmful than both tobacco and alcohol.
Along with these studies and the resurging popularity of the drug have come significant (sometimes successful) attempts to legalize or at least decriminalize pot. A multitude of physicians have come forward saying that marijuana can be used medically to help treat pain, especially with diseases such as cancer, glaucoma, etc. Even law enforcement officers and the justice department have acknowledged that decriminalizing pot would help lessen their load by drastically decreasing ancillary crime associated with underground pot use, allow them to work on more serious matters, and free up jail space.
However, virtually all large firms in the United States have blanched against supporting such measures. Many directly oppose decriminalization. The reason is easy to deduce. Firms fear a loss in productivity if marijuana is legalized. Surely, many would prohibit pot smoking on and around firm property, but there would be little recourse against someone that smoked before coming to the office. For accomplished smokers, it is not hard to disguise the effects of marijuana use. At best, they could implement drug tests as a condition of employment. At the very best, these firms would be reimbursed or gain a tax break for imposing mandatory drug testing. Regardless, there would be a definite cost to big business to implement the tests. Furthermore, the currently employed methods of testing can be circumvented without much cost or effort.
The problem is complicated when combined with a myriad of pharmaceutical companies that vehemently oppose decriminalizing measures because of the competitive threat marijuana would present to many OTC and prescription drugs.
Finally, if you throw in the social do-gooders, and those who present the legitimate fears of users driving while stoned and the difficulties presented in detecting such use, the support against decriminalization is overwhelming.
In essence, the fight to legalize marijuana is about money (as are most things). Those who support legalization are a rag-tag group of growing cooperatives from Western states and grass roots support from around the country. Very simply, marijuana legalization does not have enough big businesses in its favor.
Of course, the government would undoubtedly make more money through the taxation of marijuana, but that argument is misleading. Legislators don't care about how much money the government makes. The government already makes enough money to support their endeavors. Legislators only care about being reelected. And while a marijuana tax would help the federal reserve, it would not help legislators get reelected. The campaigns and salaries of our legislators are paid for by the Mercks, Pfizers, and Bayers.
In the end, marijuana legalization needs more influential forces on its side. I am particularly curious about the silence from the tobacco companies on this issue. I would assume that with their competitive and economies of scale advantages in terms of brand placement, distribution and packaging (specifically rolling), they would be more in favor of the proposition. However, perhaps the beat-down the government gave them in the not so distant past is still echoed by their silence. On the other hand, people hate the big tobacco companies for some reason so it might be best for them not to be so vocal on this issue.
Ultimately, without more financial support and at least a few influential power brokers on their side, the legalization campaign still has a long way to go.
Damnit...just missed 4:20.
Sorry for the book...
