Marijuana: Gateway Drug or Bringer of Benefits?

Many arguments have been made in favor of legalizing marijuana, so I was curious which direction Roxanne Cottell would take in her article If God Didn't Want it Here, It Would be Gone Like the Dinosaurs; Marijuana is Here to Stay. In my opinion, she has a valid point - or several - if one takes the time to read her article with an open mind. Though I feel ill-prepared to (and also not interested to) make an argument in favor of the legalization of marijuana, I would like to add a little something to the points that Roxanne has made, and possibly fuel a little more thought before people come to a conclusion.

Marijuana is Not a Gateway Drug…

Excuse my cynicism, please, as I suggest that Americans could use a little more personal responsibility, and instead the government is giving them an excuse to show less. If 'the Devil made me do it' just is not working for you anymore, blame that marijuana. It certainly is not drug addicts' fault that they became what they are, right? Please.

I just do not see it; I have never had an interest in trying heroin, for example, and I do not believe that smoking marijuana would change that. I also know some people who smoke marijuana, including a few who do so quite regularly. Some of them do other illegal drugs, some of them do not. Those who do have never credited marijuana as their reason and those who do not have not tried other drugs just because they smoke marijuana.

In short, it all comes down to predisposition. For someone who has no interest in (other) drugs, marijuana is not going to automatically create an interest. If there is already a curiosity or inclination, then yes, marijuana may help pave the way. Unfortunately, that is not evidence to support marijuana being a gateway drug as it does nothing to prove that someone with such a curiosity would not act on it if they did not try marijuana. In fact, why would they even try marijuana without that curiosity?

…Or, at Least, Marijuana is Not the Only Gateway Drug.

Let us stop looking at marijuana as the chosen enemy for a moment, and consider the other data that we may be missing. How many people try marijuana without having had another drug experience first, either legal or illegal? How many have used - or abused - tobacco, alcohol, prescription painkillers, or illegal drugs? Is there a gateway to the gateway drug? After all, considering someone who has never touched any sort of drug, what would make them feel comfortable trying marijuana?

Peer pressure alone may not always do it; look into the issue and you will find that many people have at the very least smoked a cigarette or drank some alcohol before their first experience with marijuana. Also, how many people move directly to the "worse" or "harder" drugs - the ones to which marijuana is supposed to provide a gateway - without trying marijuana? There are people who never needed this supposed "gateway".

Save the Taxpayers Some Money

I have heard the anti-marijuana argument about the expenses involved in legalizing and regulating marijuana, and I honestly find this to be a bit of a smokescreen. The government is already spending money on marijuana; can it really be that much more expensive to regulate it as a legal drug than to fight it as an illegal drug? Even if it is, once it was legalized and regulated, the government would undoubtedly tax and/or license (for a fee, of course) marijuana, its growers, its distributors and its users, just as it does with currently legal drugs. The government could, I am sure, generate sufficient revenue to reduce the burden on the taxpayers.

Put American Citizens Ahead of Special Interest Groups

Lobbyists are fabulously effective things, aren't they, and money certainly does talk. It is terribly unfortunate, though, when this means that America's citizens go unrepresented or underrepresented in favor of special interests. There are already medically approved drugs that cause unpleasant and extreme side effects, and there are plenty that are abused, misused and used illegally. I am not denying the point that legalization of marijuana, for medical use only, would make it much more available to those wishing to use it illegally, without medical need. However, the same can be said for almost all prescription painkillers currently on the market, as well as various other prescription medications. This has not been enough reason to make them illegal and remove them from medical use; it is therefore an invalid argument against the medical use of marijuana.

If there is enough evidence of medicinal benefits to convince some states to make the medical use of marijuana legal, why is there not enough evidence for the federal government to make it legal for medical use? How seriously are they taking the possibility, and how much effort are they making to investigate the potential benefits and the ways that they could help people who are suffering? Whose pockets are more important than the health, quality of life, and lives of America's citizens?

I am clearly not, as I said, making an argument for the legalization of marijuana. Roxanne's article make some valid points and raised some serious curiosity in me. Hopefully, others will also have questions, and maybe someday America can move forward and find out exactly what medicinal uses and benefits marijuana provides, and how the public can receive those benefits.