Legalize It!

     One issue I've seen talked about a lot recently is medicinal marijuana. Tuesday California is to vote on whether to broadly legalize marijuana. Should we? I don't see why not. Marijuana helps many ailments ranging from headaches to curbing nausea caused by cancer. On the other hand, marijuana use supposedly leads to greater drug usage.
     By legalizing this wonderful plant God gave us, the U.S. could generate billions of dollars in profit. If California legalizes it on Tuesday, they have an opportunity to raise approximately $1 billion in taxes. Money that could be used towards education by improving schools. Not to mention the much appreciated jobs to be created by allowing this business to be brought to light from the black market, which would decrease the resources exhausted by the police and prison systems. People who have been charged with crimes related to petty possession and growing medicinally are being viewed as criminals.
     In a much needed change of pace the Justice Department stated on Monday that they were dedicated to the efficient and rational use of resources and clearly complying with state laws. “It will not be a priority to use federal resources to prosecute patients with serious illnesses or their caregivers who are complying with state laws on medical marijuana,” Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. said in a statement, which accompanied a memo sent to federal prosecutors in the 14 states where medicinal marijuana has been legalized, “but we will not tolerate drug traffickers who hide behind claims of compliance with state law to mask activities that are clearly illegal.”
     I feel as though any law disobeyed by millions of Americans, shouldn't be a law in the first place. As far as marijuana use leading to harder drugs, I don't think that will be as big as it is blown up to be. Just like alcohol produces alcoholics, there will be those who take mariuana use to an extreme. Potency is a cause of that very concern. Hate to be the bearer of bad news but there are already stronger strands of marijuana out there that are not being regulated. Responsible consumers should know their limit, consuming less of the more powerful strains. With a little help from the government people will know exactly what the contents are of their marijuana. For example, we have acces to the alcoholic content of whatever we are drinking. 
     Regulation would allow the government to provide medical treatment, counseling, and prevention programs for those who abuse it; as well as assure that citizens were purchasing what they wanted, as opposed to whatever is available on the street. It is possible that use and abuse would decrease with public education, following in the footsteps of tobacco.

1st Amendment Protects Protests

     Recently a case has gone to court because a man by the name of Albert Snyder is sueing a group led by Reverend Fred Phelps for "invasion of privacy, defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress," due to the fact that picketers from Kansas waved insensitive signs at his son's funeral, who had died as a U.S. marine in Iraq. The small group of followers from the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka believes that the 9/11 attack and soldiers dying are God's way of punishing the U.S. for tolerating homosexuality. They claim they're waving their distasteful signs around to draw attention to their cause. How does this attract public support? I couldn't tell you.
      At first Snyder was awarded $10 million later dropped to $5 million before a federal appeals court ruled that "notwithstanding the distasteful and repugnant nature of the words," our freedom of speech protects the Westboro group's right to protest and say whatever they want. However, this freedom can reach a level of harrassment, leaving the court to decide on an acceptable buffer zone to allow families to grieve, and protesters to protest. Allowing Snyder's lawsuit would have been dangerous, and raised quite a few questions. Should women seeking an abortion win damages for emotional distress from anti-abortion protestors outside of an abortion clinic at a distance required by law? I don't think so.
      As long as adjustments are made to prevent harrassment, then the courts are obligated to protect our freedoms. Most don't agree with how the Westboro group went about getting their point across, but the fact is it was NOT illegal, only inconsiderate. In conclusion, the first amendment protects protests at military funerals, just from a distance.