Legalization of marijuana has been in the headlines for some time now. Why? What is the big idea? Who cares you might ask? Who is affected by these laws and how would it be different if pot was a legal narcotic? How would it be controlled? How does the illegalization of marijuana affect our constitutional rights? Are our constitution rights affecting the common good in a negative way? Many questions may come along with the plant. Many people are not informed on “weed”. It is time for some truth regarding the judicial aspects, economics, religious, facts and more about POT. Just Google “why marijuana should be legal?” you will find thousands of websites stating facts and opinions on this particular drug reform. There are a number of pot supporters that agree with this, some our just simply stoners that want to get a good high legally by many are political and economic scholars thinking of the positives and negatives for the government and nation. In my opinion the plant should be legalized for recreation and medical use for anyone over the age of 18 years old. Our for fathers made the constitution with intent to keep peace and support the common good; if that is true and our federal government can see various reasons for the legalization of pot that will benefit the public, why outlaw the substance? Is the pursuit of happiness not important to congress? Congress should not stop a person from using a “non-harmful” substance if it is what makes a person happy. I feel that it should be a decision of the adult on what things they put in their own body, especially if the substance does not cause people to be violent.
Throughout the years there has been many people that feel the same as I do about the legalization of marijuana, in the case of “Harrelson v Kentucky” Harrelson is a hemp merchant. Kentucky was moving to outlaw possession of any type of hemp (form of marijuana). Harrelson stated that “It was not only a major imposition on his rights to not let him grow hemp, but it was worse yet not to let him sell it.”
““Harrelson v Kentucky” Harrelson (or his lawyer) said they were arbitrary and overbroad laws. The idea is that even if the government can outlaw psychoactive use of marijuana it should not outlaw non-psychoactive use just because it is too lazy to tell the difference.” Harrelson won his case.
Source: "The Constitution and Marijuana." Author: Ed Denson. Civil Liberties Monitoring Project. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Dec. 2012. <http://www.civilliberties.org/spr97const.html”
The federal government obviously has a different view on the legalization of marijuana; they are the people who pushed and finalized the illegalization of the substance. The feds have specific policies and legalities on marijuana possession and use, the branch that controls the legality of marijuana is known as the Department of Justice.
The department of justice States on the government/Whitehouse website:
“The Department of Justice (DOJ) issued guidance for Federal prosecutors in states that have enacted laws authorizing the medical use of marijuana under state law. The guidelines explain that it is likely not an efficient use of federal resources to focus enforcement efforts on individuals with serious illnesses who use marijuana as part of a recommended treatment regimen consistent with applicable state law or their individual non-commercial caregiver. However, persons who are in the business of cultivating, selling, or distributing marijuana, and those who knowingly facilitate such activities, are in violation of Federal law, and are subject to Federal enforcement action, including potential prosecution.”
The federal government also claims that
“The drug has a high potential for abuse. The drug has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. There is a lack of