Give Pot a Shot, Health and Economic Benefits May Trump Any Public Concerns

By SAMUEL VERZINO
STAFF WRITER

2013 was a landmark year for proponents of more lenient drug policies in the United States. In late 2012, both Colorado and Washington state passed measures that legalized recreational cannabis use.

Both Colorado Amendment 64 and Washington Initiative 502 each has its fair share of dissenters, but their importance in the marijuana legalization movement is paramount. Not only has state legislation given the drug a legal status, but it has also spurred conversations about marijuana policy everywhere from Congress to our dinner tables. Regardless of whether one is a supporter or an opponent of cannabis, one cannot deny that the changing tide against over 100 years of restrictions is fascinating.

Since 1996, 20 states and Washington D.C. have legalized cannabis for medical use, while 28 states have decriminalized the drug, with varying policies for punishment.

However, with the first recreational “pot shops” opening in Colorado in January, United States citizens and politicians alike are keeping an eye on the state. Proponents of the measure are hoping that nothing burns to the ground, while special interest groups wait for the apocalypse so that the drug war can continue unhindered, with a key and profitable target tightly restricted. The purpose of this article, however, is not to discuss the inner workings of the legal system, but to contemplate the benefits and problems that can potentially arise from a full-scale federal legalization of recreational marijuana. Should the federal government step in and legalize? My answer is yes.

I bet half of the readers who began to skim through this piece just put it down, writing me off as a strung-out, jaded college kid. For those still with me, let me explain why the pros outweigh the cons. A recent online poll that ABC News conducted found that 81 percent of Americans believe marijuana has significant medicinal benefits and should be medically regulated nationwide. This is no insignificant figure, and is evidence of a shift in the national mindset. However, it requires hard evidence to justify recreational legality when the argument for it becomes fighting the negative stigmas rather than showcasing positive effects. Scientifically speaking, there are not many arguments outlining the health benefits of recreational use.

Drug use is subjective. It is not for everyone, and those who shy away tend to develop a superiority complex, as they live in a society that rewards those who focus on stimulating the economy and running the rat race without question. Consider the outdated but still accepted, stereotype of a “pothead” – lazy, stupid and working a low-income job. These characteristics do not coincide with a successful lifestyle in a capitalist society.

Opponents of recreational legalization have nightmares of America falling to third-world status, with the future leaders of the country sinking into their couches, becoming more brain dead by the second. This is not to say that the country is divided into fierce proponents and extreme dissenters. Rather, in this time of transition and discussion, many are on the fence or at least questioning their old beliefs. President and former marijuana user Barack Obama’s recent statement that he views pot as about “as harmful as cigarettes” and “less dangerous than alcohol” has surely reached the ears and minds of many contemplating their views on the drug.

Likening marijuana to two other fully legal and regulated drugs is surely important for those who believe it to be too harmful to legalize, and it certainly does not hurt that the most powerful leader in the world used to use it.

Too many citizens, however, believe that introducing the legality of another intoxicating agent to the country just comes down to a general safety concern, and they have a point. I can tell someone all day that marijuana does not have a recorded fatal overdose or increase one’s desire to harm themselves or others, yet a young father or mother who does not want to be driving on the freeway with their young child in the backseat next to an intoxicated driver holds a valid argument.

Therefore, the legalizationmovement should begin to base itself primarily on its economic benefits and on the principles of freedom, because as the disagreements about marijuana’s physical effects are too varied to be a foundation for legality. Currently, marijuana prohibition costs the United States about $20 billion per year – a shockingly high amount. A 2013 study by Harvard University economists estimates that state and federal governments spend $8.7 billion per year on the enforcement of marijuana-related crimes due to policing and imprisonment, while another $8.7 billion in revenue can be generated every year by legalization, taxation and regulation of marijuana. I do not need to do the math for you; that extra accumulation of revenue for the country every year could never be a bad thing, and figures estimate this number will only rise with time. While the fiscal benefits are obvious, the benefits for freedom are less tangible but should incite more passion in the American people. I for one have been completely perplexed by this country’s insistence on making drug use an issue of right versus wrong.

I have heard this sentiment expressed by several different Fordham students. “My biggest question is when it became a moral issue to choose to engage in or not engage in drugs” said Ryan Scanlon, FCRH ’15.

At its core, the concept of using a naturally occurring plant to attain a feeling of elation sounds like a ridiculous thing to outlaw. Was this country not founded on the desire to escape tyranny? Was it not built on the idea that private freedoms and passions should not be trampled by outdated ideals? Do we no longer believe in the democratic notion that majority rules and the people decide, especially at a time when a Gallup poll shows that 58 percent of Americans are in favor of marijuana legalization?

Admittedly, there is no easy way to appease everyone in this situation, and persuasive viewpoints can indeed come from both sides of the argument. Still, antiquated biases must be dropped in favor of giving marijuana its deserved chance.

Samuel Verzino, FCRH ’14, is a biology major from Waterbury, Conn.