Chronic debate
THE DRUG ISSUE: Marijuana decriminalization moves forward on several fronts
For decades, proponents of marijuana reform have argued that cannabis is less dangerous than alcohol or cigarettes, has legitimate medical uses, and should be decriminalized on the grounds that prohibition doesn't work.
In 1996, these arguments helped convince California voters to approve Proposition 215, which allows the use of marijuana for medical purposes. And in March, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder signaled a major change in federal drug policy when he said that the Justice Department does not plan to prosecute medical marijuana dispensaries that operate legally under California law.
But the federal government still classifies marijuana as a Schedule 1 controlled substance that has no medical value and a high abuse potential. As a result, cultivation, distribution, and sales of pot primarily occur on the black market, a shadowy mix of small-timers and powerful cartels.
Data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) suggests that U.
A D V E R T I S E M E N T
S. growers produced 22 million pounds of marijuana in 2006, worth $35.8 billion, and that California accounted for almost 39 percent of U.S. pot production.
Now, with California's economy in the crapper, the state budget a mess, and federal judges ordering substantial reductions in California's prison population, reform advocates are making an intriguing argument: if state or local governments legalize and tax even a fraction of marijuana sales in California, the state could see billions of dollars in new annual revenue and reduced enforcement costs.
Assembly Member Tom Ammiano recalls some laughter in February when he introduced Assembly Bill 390, state legislation to regulate marijuana much like alcohol. "But the budget fiasco has made some people who were dismissive take a harder look," Ammiano said.
A recent California Board of Equalization analysis of Ammiano's bill estimates that if the state charged $50 per ounce, California would generate $1.4 billion in marijuana taxes annually.
Voters in Oakland also advanced the marijuana policy discussion last month when they approved a special tax on the city's medical cannabis dispensaries. And in August, a three-judge federal court ruled that California must develop a plan to reduce its prison population by 44,000 over two years.
The public also seems to support making a change. In April, a Field Poll confirmed that for the first time a majority (56 percent) of California voters support legalizing pot.
Depite these advances, Ammiano says he wants to be strategic with his bill, gradually building support. "That's why we made it a two-year bill," Ammiano said. His bill is scheduled for its first hearing at the Public Safety Committee, which Ammiano now chairs, by year's end.
But some Bay Area activists aren't waiting on Ammiano. Last month, Richard Lee, who operates four medical marijuana dispensaries in Oakland, filed initiative paperwork with the state and hopes to gather enough signatures to qualify a Tax Cannabis initiative in 2010.
Ammiano's bill and Lee's initiative allow recreational use of marijuana, penalize driving under the influence, and charge a $50 fee per ounce. But they differ around regulation and how to deal with ...
( 10 comments | Comment on this article )
JackTheGrower on Wednesday, August 19, 2009 at 12:27 AM
High everyone.. pun intended.
Hey the article did not mention CaliforniaCannabisInitiative.org
That Initiative is not a decriminalizing initiative like Oaksterdam's but a Legalization initiative.
I know that may are not familiar with the difference because I wasn't and am for Cannabis liberty. Oaksterdam still sends people to prison for Cannabis CaliforniaCannabisInitiative.org 's doesn't and releases cannabis offenders to return to their families.
My point is that The Oaksterdam Initiative only allows people 25 sq ft of space for cultivation. For those who want to practice proper horticulture of heirloom variety and seed saving for our future generations Lee's make us criminals if we need more space then 5x5 and we sure will. Breeding alone may need over 100 plant to be grown out to find the ones with the traits we are breeding for. So the Oaksterdam initiative is an initiative that serves corporate interests IMO by purporting to be something for the people. Please volunteer to get CaliforniaCannabisInitiative.org 's initiative to the voters.. We don't have the deep pockets of Cannabis industry.
The choice is serve corporations or be free.. Marlboro Kush or Kool Skunk anyone?
Thanks
Hey the article did not mention CaliforniaCannabisInitiative.org
That Initiative is not a decriminalizing initiative like Oaksterdam's but a Legalization initiative.
I know that may are not familiar with the difference because I wasn't and am for Cannabis liberty. Oaksterdam still sends people to prison for Cannabis CaliforniaCannabisInitiative.org 's doesn't and releases cannabis offenders to return to their families.
My point is that The Oaksterdam Initiative only allows people 25 sq ft of space for cultivation. For those who want to practice proper horticulture of heirloom variety and seed saving for our future generations Lee's make us criminals if we need more space then 5x5 and we sure will. Breeding alone may need over 100 plant to be grown out to find the ones with the traits we are breeding for. So the Oaksterdam initiative is an initiative that serves corporate interests IMO by purporting to be something for the people. Please volunteer to get CaliforniaCannabisInitiative.org 's initiative to the voters.. We don't have the deep pockets of Cannabis industry.
The choice is serve corporations or be free.. Marlboro Kush or Kool Skunk anyone?
Thanks
AB390C on Wednesday, August 19, 2009 at 08:08 AM
Very nice article detailing the arguments on both sides!
Do your part to legalize marijuana in California. Visit [link]
Do your part to legalize marijuana in California. Visit [link]
palmspringsbum on Wednesday, August 19, 2009 at 08:14 AM
Well so far I'm on page 1.
Major error #1: "Ammiano's bill and Lee's initiative allow recreational use of marijuana, penalize driving under the influence, and charge a $50 fee per ounce."
WRONG. The Tax, Regulate, and Control Cannabis Act of 2010 imposes a $50/ounce fee, not the Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010.
Major error #1: "Ammiano's bill and Lee's initiative allow recreational use of marijuana, penalize driving under the influence, and charge a $50 fee per ounce."
WRONG. The Tax, Regulate, and Control Cannabis Act of 2010 imposes a $50/ounce fee, not the Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010.
palmspringsbum on Wednesday, August 19, 2009 at 08:46 AM
How does taxing medicine legitimize medical marijuana patients, dispensaries or the movement? How does it further the reclassification of cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule II?
Does anyone care that these initiatives could weaken or nullify Proposition 215? How could Oaksterdam U fail, through 14 drafts, to consider their initiative's potential impact on Prop 215?
See Oakland's marijuana legalization initiative is still a Trojan Horse: [link]
Does anyone care that these initiatives could weaken or nullify Proposition 215? How could Oaksterdam U fail, through 14 drafts, to consider their initiative's potential impact on Prop 215?
See Oakland's marijuana legalization initiative is still a Trojan Horse: [link]
palmspringsbum on Wednesday, August 19, 2009 at 08:58 AM
How does taxing medicine legitimize medical marijuana patients, dispensaries or the movement? How does it further the reclassification of cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule II?
Does anyone care that these initiatives could weaken or nullify Proposition 215? How could Oaksterdam U fail, through 14 drafts, to consider their initiative's potential impact on Prop 215?
See Oakland's marijuana legalization initiative is still a Trojan Horse: [link]
Does anyone care that these initiatives could weaken or nullify Proposition 215? How could Oaksterdam U fail, through 14 drafts, to consider their initiative's potential impact on Prop 215?
See Oakland's marijuana legalization initiative is still a Trojan Horse: [link]
GreenCrossSF on Thursday, August 20, 2009 at 07:43 AM
The Green Cross
[Email]
415.648.4420
Thegreencross.org
We deliver.
Contact: Kevin Reed
President, The Green Cross FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Phone: (415) 648-4420
Email: [Email]
OAKLAND CANNABIS TAX MEASURE BAD MODEL FOR MEDICAL
CANNABIS MOVEMENT, BAD FOR PATIENTS
The Green Cross San Francisco Weighs in: Steps Towards Cannabis Legalization in California will Adversely Affect Patients & Demean Medical Use July 25, 2009 -- Last week, voters in Oakland overwhelmingly passed Measure F, which created a new
business tax rate for “Cannabis Businesses” of $18 for each $1,000 in gross receipts from business activity,
an astronomical increase from the previous “Retail Sales” tax rate.
Proponents of this tax say that this is the
first step towards legalizing adult use of cannabis. The Green Cross in San Francisco says that this is the
first step towards pricing out patients and demeaning the medical movement.
Legislators from medical cannabis-friendly cities, from Los Angeles, to Santa Cruz, to San Francisco, have
heralded the Oakland initiative as a model for cities to use to increase revenue in hard economic times.
However, these officials are overlooking an important distinction: in 2004 voters in Oakland passed Measure
Z, which made adult cannabis use the lowest law enforcement priority. Although legislative bodies in other
cities, including San Francisco, have passed similar policies, the Oakland measure was more comprehensive
in that it both actively called for the lobbying of legalization and it led to the opening of private “Measure Z”
non-patient, adult-use cannabis clubs, which are licensed by the City of Oakland.
The Green Cross supports decriminalization, and approves and defends personal choice for all Californians.
In addition, The Green Cross opposes any legislation, rule or regulation that aims to limit or restrict, in any
way, an individual’s right to grow cannabis. However, The Green Cross has been, and continues to be,
adamant that cannabis is medicine, and should be used under a doctor’s supervision and with a doctor’s
recommendation. Cannabis must be used responsibly, and some in the medical community are concerned
that the recent push for adult-use legalization could adversely affect patients and demean medical use.
Medical Cannabis Dispensaries are taxed at the state and local level, through sales tax, payroll tax, and
income tax. Levying higher taxes, like those resulting from the Oakland measure, will result in higher prices
for patients. Proponents say these taxes are a way to legitimize and justify general adult use. However, such
a sin tax only works to punish patients, the only members of the California adult population who currently
are allowed to purchase cannabis legally.
Punishing patients to gain social acceptance of a rushed unproven experiment involving general adult use is
irresponsible and unfair. The medical community has worked hard to fight for the rights of patients and
caretakers. Kevin Reed, President of the The Green Cross may have said it best, when he commented that
“this frantic, ‘we need money, legalize now’ movement may totally derail what we have been tirelessly
working for during the last thirteen years. Proponents of legalization run the risk that people may not like
what they see, the legalization-for-all social experiment might fail, and bring the medical cannabis
movement down with it.”
California Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-SF) is currently working on a bill to legalize adult use of
cannabis in California. This bill would leave California medical cannabis law untouched, thereby protecting
the rights of patients and caregivers. Perhaps the citizens of California should allow for this process (one
which requires diligent research and investigation) to yield results before embarking on a completely
different route towards adult legalization. However, one thing is certain- any route by which Californians
use to get to the destination of general adult-use legalization cannot be one that runs over and intrudes on the
rights and privileges of patients and caregivers who use cannabis for medical purposes.
The Green Cross is a fully licensed and permitted medical cannabis collective that has been operating in San
Francisco since 2004. The Green Cross strives to keep prices low, and delivers quality medical cannabis to
qualified patients in the City and County of San Francisco.
For more information, please call Kevin Reed at
415-648-4420 or email him at [Email].
[Email]
415.648.4420
Thegreencross.org
We deliver.
Contact: Kevin Reed
President, The Green Cross FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Phone: (415) 648-4420
Email: [Email]
OAKLAND CANNABIS TAX MEASURE BAD MODEL FOR MEDICAL
CANNABIS MOVEMENT, BAD FOR PATIENTS
The Green Cross San Francisco Weighs in: Steps Towards Cannabis Legalization in California will Adversely Affect Patients & Demean Medical Use July 25, 2009 -- Last week, voters in Oakland overwhelmingly passed Measure F, which created a new
business tax rate for “Cannabis Businesses” of $18 for each $1,000 in gross receipts from business activity,
an astronomical increase from the previous “Retail Sales” tax rate.
Proponents of this tax say that this is the
first step towards legalizing adult use of cannabis. The Green Cross in San Francisco says that this is the
first step towards pricing out patients and demeaning the medical movement.
Legislators from medical cannabis-friendly cities, from Los Angeles, to Santa Cruz, to San Francisco, have
heralded the Oakland initiative as a model for cities to use to increase revenue in hard economic times.
However, these officials are overlooking an important distinction: in 2004 voters in Oakland passed Measure
Z, which made adult cannabis use the lowest law enforcement priority. Although legislative bodies in other
cities, including San Francisco, have passed similar policies, the Oakland measure was more comprehensive
in that it both actively called for the lobbying of legalization and it led to the opening of private “Measure Z”
non-patient, adult-use cannabis clubs, which are licensed by the City of Oakland.
The Green Cross supports decriminalization, and approves and defends personal choice for all Californians.
In addition, The Green Cross opposes any legislation, rule or regulation that aims to limit or restrict, in any
way, an individual’s right to grow cannabis. However, The Green Cross has been, and continues to be,
adamant that cannabis is medicine, and should be used under a doctor’s supervision and with a doctor’s
recommendation. Cannabis must be used responsibly, and some in the medical community are concerned
that the recent push for adult-use legalization could adversely affect patients and demean medical use.
Medical Cannabis Dispensaries are taxed at the state and local level, through sales tax, payroll tax, and
income tax. Levying higher taxes, like those resulting from the Oakland measure, will result in higher prices
for patients. Proponents say these taxes are a way to legitimize and justify general adult use. However, such
a sin tax only works to punish patients, the only members of the California adult population who currently
are allowed to purchase cannabis legally.
Punishing patients to gain social acceptance of a rushed unproven experiment involving general adult use is
irresponsible and unfair. The medical community has worked hard to fight for the rights of patients and
caretakers. Kevin Reed, President of the The Green Cross may have said it best, when he commented that
“this frantic, ‘we need money, legalize now’ movement may totally derail what we have been tirelessly
working for during the last thirteen years. Proponents of legalization run the risk that people may not like
what they see, the legalization-for-all social experiment might fail, and bring the medical cannabis
movement down with it.”
California Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-SF) is currently working on a bill to legalize adult use of
cannabis in California. This bill would leave California medical cannabis law untouched, thereby protecting
the rights of patients and caregivers. Perhaps the citizens of California should allow for this process (one
which requires diligent research and investigation) to yield results before embarking on a completely
different route towards adult legalization. However, one thing is certain- any route by which Californians
use to get to the destination of general adult-use legalization cannot be one that runs over and intrudes on the
rights and privileges of patients and caregivers who use cannabis for medical purposes.
The Green Cross is a fully licensed and permitted medical cannabis collective that has been operating in San
Francisco since 2004. The Green Cross strives to keep prices low, and delivers quality medical cannabis to
qualified patients in the City and County of San Francisco.
For more information, please call Kevin Reed at
415-648-4420 or email him at [Email].
GreenCrossSF on Thursday, August 20, 2009 at 08:02 AM
The Green Cross
[Email]
415.648.4420
Thegreencross.org
We deliver.
Contact: Kevin Reed
President, The Green Cross FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Phone: (415) 648-4420
Email: [Email]
OAKLAND CANNABIS TAX MEASURE BAD MODEL FOR MEDICAL
CANNABIS MOVEMENT, BAD FOR PATIENTS
The Green Cross San Francisco Weighs in: Steps Towards Cannabis Legalization in California will Adversely Affect Patients & Demean Medical Use July 25, 2009 -- Last week, voters in Oakland overwhelmingly passed Measure F, which created a new
business tax rate for “Cannabis Businesses” of $18 for each $1,000 in gross receipts from business activity,
an astronomical increase from the previous “Retail Sales” tax rate.
Proponents of this tax say that this is the
first step towards legalizing adult use of cannabis. The Green Cross in San Francisco says that this is the
first step towards pricing out patients and demeaning the medical movement.
Legislators from medical cannabis-friendly cities, from Los Angeles, to Santa Cruz, to San Francisco, have
heralded the Oakland initiative as a model for cities to use to increase revenue in hard economic times.
However, these officials are overlooking an important distinction: in 2004 voters in Oakland passed Measure
Z, which made adult cannabis use the lowest law enforcement priority. Although legislative bodies in other
cities, including San Francisco, have passed similar policies, the Oakland measure was more comprehensive
in that it both actively called for the lobbying of legalization and it led to the opening of private “Measure Z”
non-patient, adult-use cannabis clubs, which are licensed by the City of Oakland.
The Green Cross supports decriminalization, and approves and defends personal choice for all Californians.
In addition, The Green Cross opposes any legislation, rule or regulation that aims to limit or restrict, in any
way, an individual’s right to grow cannabis. However, The Green Cross has been, and continues to be,
adamant that cannabis is medicine, and should be used under a doctor’s supervision and with a doctor’s
recommendation. Cannabis must be used responsibly, and some in the medical community are concerned
that the recent push for adult-use legalization could adversely affect patients and demean medical use.
Medical Cannabis Dispensaries are taxed at the state and local level, through sales tax, payroll tax, and
income tax. Levying higher taxes, like those resulting from the Oakland measure, will result in higher prices
for patients. Proponents say these taxes are a way to legitimize and justify general adult use. However, such
a sin tax only works to punish patients, the only members of the California adult population who currently
are allowed to purchase cannabis legally.
Punishing patients to gain social acceptance of a rushed unproven experiment involving general adult use is
irresponsible and unfair. The medical community has worked hard to fight for the rights of patients and
caretakers. Kevin Reed, President of the The Green Cross may have said it best, when he commented that
“this frantic, ‘we need money, legalize now’ movement may totally derail what we have been tirelessly
working for during the last thirteen years. Proponents of legalization run the risk that people may not like
what they see, the legalization-for-all social experiment might fail, and bring the medical cannabis
movement down with it.”
California Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-SF) is currently working on a bill to legalize adult use of
cannabis in California. This bill would leave California medical cannabis law untouched, thereby protecting
the rights of patients and caregivers. Perhaps the citizens of California should allow for this process (one
which requires diligent research and investigation) to yield results before embarking on a completely
different route towards adult legalization. However, one thing is certain- any route by which Californians
use to get to the destination of general adult-use legalization cannot be one that runs over and intrudes on the
rights and privileges of patients and caregivers who use cannabis for medical purposes.
The Green Cross is a fully licensed and permitted medical cannabis collective that has been operating in San
Francisco since 2004. The Green Cross strives to keep prices low, and delivers quality medical cannabis to
qualified patients in the City and County of San Francisco.
For more information, please call Kevin Reed at
415-648-4420 or email him at [Email].
[Email]
415.648.4420
Thegreencross.org
We deliver.
Contact: Kevin Reed
President, The Green Cross FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Phone: (415) 648-4420
Email: [Email]
OAKLAND CANNABIS TAX MEASURE BAD MODEL FOR MEDICAL
CANNABIS MOVEMENT, BAD FOR PATIENTS
The Green Cross San Francisco Weighs in: Steps Towards Cannabis Legalization in California will Adversely Affect Patients & Demean Medical Use July 25, 2009 -- Last week, voters in Oakland overwhelmingly passed Measure F, which created a new
business tax rate for “Cannabis Businesses” of $18 for each $1,000 in gross receipts from business activity,
an astronomical increase from the previous “Retail Sales” tax rate.
Proponents of this tax say that this is the
first step towards legalizing adult use of cannabis. The Green Cross in San Francisco says that this is the
first step towards pricing out patients and demeaning the medical movement.
Legislators from medical cannabis-friendly cities, from Los Angeles, to Santa Cruz, to San Francisco, have
heralded the Oakland initiative as a model for cities to use to increase revenue in hard economic times.
However, these officials are overlooking an important distinction: in 2004 voters in Oakland passed Measure
Z, which made adult cannabis use the lowest law enforcement priority. Although legislative bodies in other
cities, including San Francisco, have passed similar policies, the Oakland measure was more comprehensive
in that it both actively called for the lobbying of legalization and it led to the opening of private “Measure Z”
non-patient, adult-use cannabis clubs, which are licensed by the City of Oakland.
The Green Cross supports decriminalization, and approves and defends personal choice for all Californians.
In addition, The Green Cross opposes any legislation, rule or regulation that aims to limit or restrict, in any
way, an individual’s right to grow cannabis. However, The Green Cross has been, and continues to be,
adamant that cannabis is medicine, and should be used under a doctor’s supervision and with a doctor’s
recommendation. Cannabis must be used responsibly, and some in the medical community are concerned
that the recent push for adult-use legalization could adversely affect patients and demean medical use.
Medical Cannabis Dispensaries are taxed at the state and local level, through sales tax, payroll tax, and
income tax. Levying higher taxes, like those resulting from the Oakland measure, will result in higher prices
for patients. Proponents say these taxes are a way to legitimize and justify general adult use. However, such
a sin tax only works to punish patients, the only members of the California adult population who currently
are allowed to purchase cannabis legally.
Punishing patients to gain social acceptance of a rushed unproven experiment involving general adult use is
irresponsible and unfair. The medical community has worked hard to fight for the rights of patients and
caretakers. Kevin Reed, President of the The Green Cross may have said it best, when he commented that
“this frantic, ‘we need money, legalize now’ movement may totally derail what we have been tirelessly
working for during the last thirteen years. Proponents of legalization run the risk that people may not like
what they see, the legalization-for-all social experiment might fail, and bring the medical cannabis
movement down with it.”
California Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-SF) is currently working on a bill to legalize adult use of
cannabis in California. This bill would leave California medical cannabis law untouched, thereby protecting
the rights of patients and caregivers. Perhaps the citizens of California should allow for this process (one
which requires diligent research and investigation) to yield results before embarking on a completely
different route towards adult legalization. However, one thing is certain- any route by which Californians
use to get to the destination of general adult-use legalization cannot be one that runs over and intrudes on the
rights and privileges of patients and caregivers who use cannabis for medical purposes.
The Green Cross is a fully licensed and permitted medical cannabis collective that has been operating in San
Francisco since 2004. The Green Cross strives to keep prices low, and delivers quality medical cannabis to
qualified patients in the City and County of San Francisco.
For more information, please call Kevin Reed at
415-648-4420 or email him at [Email].
TimCastleman on Thursday, August 20, 2009 at 01:02 PM
This article is missing a key part of the debate! Ignoring The Tax Regulate and Control Cannabis Act filed two weeks before Lee's will not make it go away. The California Cannabis Initiative ends prohibition, releases cannabis prisoners, funds California social programs and authorizes industrial hemp. The oaksterdam measure restricts adults to ounce, makes new crimes and provides no many for the state budget. Worst of all, people stay in prison and will continue to be prosecuted for cannabis crimes. Please study the issue and decide for yourself what cannabis law reform should look like. Visit CaliforniaCannabisInitiative.org
giff on Friday, August 21, 2009 at 05:44 AM
Kirkland is an idiot. Of course cartels won't go away if pot is legalized. "Organized" crime didn't go away when prohibition was lifted, they merely got out of the illegal alcohol trade and focused on other illegal drugs.
jdhlax on Saturday, August 22, 2009 at 09:10 AM
Pot and other plants that have mind altering qualities should be legalized for two reasons.
First, making a form of life illegal is psychotic and shows modern humans' hatred of nature. Only a society totally disconnected from the natural world could ever consider doing such a thing.
Second, it's every individual's right to do as (s)he pleases with his/her own body. PERIOD! Even if consumption increased, it's just not the government's or anyone else's business whether someone gets high, aside from whether they endanger others by doing things like operating machines in an impaired condition. There is no credible evidence that legalizing any drug would cause significantly more consumption -- do you really refrain from doing a drug because it's illegal? No, you do so because you either don't like the high or don't want the negative consequences. But even increased consumption does not provide a legitimate reason to punish people who want to get high. If you don't like drugs, don't do them. Leave everyone else alone!
There is also a very good and necessary reason to legalize marijuana. Gangs/cartels, mainly from Mexico, are wreaking havoc in our forests by killing trees to plant marijuana. In addition to killing the trees, they then poison the land with pesticides, supposedly in order to get a bigger crop. If pot were legal, this would stop because the distributors would buy from legitimate growers.
So it's clear that making marijuana illegal causes three serious problems: 1) it outlaws a form of life, 2) it tyrannically restricts individual freedom to do what we wish with our own bodies and minds without harming others, and 3) it is causing major destruction in our forests, much of it on public lands. Marijuana needs to be legalized in order to stop all this.
First, making a form of life illegal is psychotic and shows modern humans' hatred of nature. Only a society totally disconnected from the natural world could ever consider doing such a thing.
Second, it's every individual's right to do as (s)he pleases with his/her own body. PERIOD! Even if consumption increased, it's just not the government's or anyone else's business whether someone gets high, aside from whether they endanger others by doing things like operating machines in an impaired condition. There is no credible evidence that legalizing any drug would cause significantly more consumption -- do you really refrain from doing a drug because it's illegal? No, you do so because you either don't like the high or don't want the negative consequences. But even increased consumption does not provide a legitimate reason to punish people who want to get high. If you don't like drugs, don't do them. Leave everyone else alone!
There is also a very good and necessary reason to legalize marijuana. Gangs/cartels, mainly from Mexico, are wreaking havoc in our forests by killing trees to plant marijuana. In addition to killing the trees, they then poison the land with pesticides, supposedly in order to get a bigger crop. If pot were legal, this would stop because the distributors would buy from legitimate growers.
So it's clear that making marijuana illegal causes three serious problems: 1) it outlaws a form of life, 2) it tyrannically restricts individual freedom to do what we wish with our own bodies and minds without harming others, and 3) it is causing major destruction in our forests, much of it on public lands. Marijuana needs to be legalized in order to stop all this.
Comment on: Chronic debate
In order to comment on an article, you must Log In.
