I'm opposed to this type of legislation because I think it sends the wrong message, but I realize I'm probably in the minority there these days. I also appreciate TAG's willingness to engage on an issue that typically is a partisan one.
Personally, I am not a user, though I have experimented with the drug, and a few others, but I have many friends who use marijuana on an occasional social basis. I believe that it should be decriminalized or, preferably, legalized for the following reasons:
1.When you look at the drug as an alternative to alcohol, there is no doubt that it is the better choice (assuming you ingest it in edible or drinkable form). The New York Times in an article approximately two or three years ago cited a study over a 12-18 month period revealing that about 252,000 people died during that period from alcohol use not including those who died from car accidents. During the same period, they could not cite even one example of a person dying from the use of marijuana.
2. Prosecutors and law enforcement officers for the most part do not want the use of marijuana to continue to be a crime. I suspect that judges feel the same. They realize that it is a losing battle. They realize that most teens use it at one time or another and they think it unfair to mar their record and place a stigma in the way of future employment because of an unwise choice as a teen or very young adult. Law enforcement wants to devote their time to more important issues. This is one of the main reasons that TAG is behind it though reason #3, in part, is also an important justification to him.
3. We need to accept that we will never bar the use of marijuana in this country. We have been trying for 50 plus years with great cost and without any success. To the contrary, it is more available today than it has ever been. Yet, we spend over 10 billion dollars per year in resources to just to keep it off the street and penalize those who use it through the legal system. If we were to legalize its use, (which TAG has not at this point suggested) we would not only prevent countries from ceaseless attempts of smuggling it into this country (the cost of prevention was not included in the 10 billion dollar figure I referenced) because we could produce it here cheaper and of a higher quality. With legalization, we could grow it here, tax it as we do alcohol, regulate its use and distribution, make certain if conforms to certain standards, and create numerous jobs for growers and dispensers, thereby not only eliminating most of the 10 billion dollar expense in enforcing laws against it but also creating thousands of new jobs, and a multi-million dollar source of revenue for each state. The net financial benefit would be remarkable.
4. Many drugs were legal at the beginning of the last century. In fact, cocaine was an ingredient in Coca Cola. In the 1930s and through the 1950s there was a huge effort to ban what were then perceived as addictive drug substances, much like the prohibition effort of the 1920s in relation to alcohol. Pretty much any drug which provided an altered state of awareness, a buzz, was considered addictive and therefore bad. Marijuana got lumped into the banned substances during this war on drugs. It is pretty much recognized now that it shouldn't have been. Though some still argue that it is a gateway drug, most recognize that it is not any more a gateway drug than alcohol and that it is much less addictive, if, indeed, it is addictive at all. However, the process of removing marijuana from the scheduled drug classification to which it had been labeled has continued. In large part, the initial reason was that we had treaties or pacts with many other countries in which we included marijuana with drugs such as opium and through which we agreed to ban their production or use. The treaties and pacts were entered into largely to deter those countries who grew poppy or other plants that produced opioids and other heavy drugs in an effort to cut down on the production of truly harmful drugs. However, those treaties and pacts have over time been globally watered down and relaxed, and they no longer present a sufficient reason for the ban of marijuana as they once did.
I have an uncle (actually, an uncle-in-law) who attended UR during the late 1960s, early 1970s. He swears that when he was in school as an undergraduate that a student would be expelled for having alcohol on campus (in their dorm), yet it was perfectly fine to have amphetamines in one's possession. He says that "black beauties" ( an amphetamine widely used by tractor trailer truck drivers in that era) were often shipped back from the MCV pharmacy school by former UR students, fraternity brothers in many cases, to students still at UR during exam times. (Apparently, at that time a student had to attend a regular college for two years before they could be admitted as a pharmacy student at MCV so a bunch of UR students only went to UR for 2 years). It was a common practice. No problem.
But things change. Now alcohol, provided you are 21, is accepted. However, possession of amphetamines is a serious felony.
My uncle also says that during this time, or perhaps a few years later, a W & L student was kicked out of school and given twenty years in prison for possession of about an ounce of marijuana. I do not know his name even though the matter was a big deal and made it rounds through the newspapers. After serving a year or two, the student was pardoned by the governor. He ended up obtaining his degree at W&L and then attended UR Law School, He finished first or second in his class. He later became a Federal Judge in the Virgin Islands. He may still be. While I cannot personally verify either of the stories, I know that they are true because my uncle is a very successful man and a man of extremely high integrity. He is not a proponent of legalizing marijuana and did not share these stories to bolster any argument.
I know many on this board do not agree and I respect their position. I just wanted to list what I consider the legitimate reasons for the legalization of marijuana which in my opinion far outweigh the objections.
) not necessarily endorsing a point of view. Yes, I believe some here have suggested that state law re: pot should trump federal law and I have suggested that contradicts settled law. 
