Coming Soon America: Legalization

Legalising marijuana
Joint effort
California leads again

Mar 31st 2010 | LOS ANGELES | From The Economist print edition

RICHARD LEE, a marijuana entrepreneur, has in recent years turned part of Oakland into the cannabis capital of California and perhaps the world. Among his businesses is Oaksterdam University (a play on Amsterdam, where he got the idea), which teaches students all aspects of the weed, from the horticultural to the medical and legal, and has since spawned copycats elsewhere.

But this year Mr Lee wants to do more. He has sponsored a voter initiative, which has just been cleared for the November ballot, for the legalisation of marijuana in California. Adults would be allowed to own up to an ounce (28.5 grams) at a time for recreational use and could grow some in their homes. The state, its cities and its counties would be able to regulate and tax it.

If the measure passes—a poll last year found 56% in favour—California may once again lead the nation not only in usage but also in policy. Californian voters were the first, in 1996, to allow medical use of marijuana. Since then, 13 states and the District of Columbia have followed, and several more are considering it, including Arizona and South Dakota, both of which will also vote on the matter this year.

California’s ballot measure would mark a new phase in decriminalisation, says Ethan Nadelmann, the founder of the Drug Policy Alliance, which lobbies for more enlightened drug laws. Why vilify or even lock up adults who wish simply to enjoy in moderation a substance no more toxic than alcohol, when you could instead tax and regulate the trade? It would help state budgets, which are in crisis. A tax-collecting agency in California, which confronts a $20 billion deficit, has estimated the potential revenues at more than $1 billion, plus savings from not locking people up.

That said, there would be legal hurdles. Since 1961 an international treaty has banned non-medical use of narcotic drugs, and America’s federal law considers even medical use of cannabis a crime. But Eric Holder, America’s attorney-general, last year signalled that cracking down on cannabis would not be one of his priorities. This suggests that marijuana could follow the path that alcohol took in the 1930s. Then, also during an economic crisis, the federal government stood back as the states relaxed Prohibition, until the 21st amendment officially ended it.

Marajana - Not a bad thing.

We let people smoke. THey walk around and kill themselves and others and nobody cares so whats wrong with fucking yourself over with Marajuana?

I for one would prefer the marijuana business to be in the hands of upstanding citizens as opposed to some dumb niggers on the streets.

>>3
^* African Americans

>>3
I for one would prefer the business of this forum to be in the hands of rational people of all colors and creeds as opposed to ignorant fuckheads who think that racism is a legitimate answer to society's problems and offers any kind of real solution.
 If they had any sense they would realize that their predecessors, the KKK for instance, achieved no real progress on this front, unless you consider the social stigma their ilk invoked as progress. In the end racism just seems to be anger stemming from it's host own impotence.

and back to the topic at hand:
I think that in ten years time marijuana will have achieved legalization throughout the entire country. It's one of those things that will only continue to proliferate leaving the government with only two options:
1. continue to keep it illegal and risk creating an environment which encourages its citizen's disobedience, because there is simply no way that our government can continue to pay for a war on drugs, especially one as prevalent and harmless as marijuana
2. legalize it and take control of the substance out of the hands of criminals, regulate it to ensure more public safety, tax it like tobacco to generate sorely needed tax revenue, help to relax the strain on the prison system, and restore people's compliance with the rule of law

>>5
Spoken like a rich high-school kid whose parents sweat blood to send him to an all-white private school.

>>7
Don't you have a Klan meeting to attend to or something? This is /newpol/, and it's assigned topic of discussion is politics, not a board to post your nutjob conspiracies. Also, sounds like you didn't put in the effort to achieve success in academia, and instead ended up as a cart pusher for the local Piggly Wiggly. Sucks to be you, bro. Eh, but best of luck to you. :/