termpaper2

Besides marijuana smoking being a victimless crime, it is also a personal liberty. Many people, like the libertarian political party, believe that in America, people have the right to do what they choose as long as it does not interfere with someone else's rights. Since smoking is choice and harms no one but the user, it should not be illegal. It is not the government's job to keep people sober. The Constitution says nothing about the government having the right to dote over its people like an overbearing mother. Laws against marijuana violate basic American rights. But politicians disagree. Their copy of the Bill of Rights may look something like this, excerpts from " The Drug Exception to the Bill of Rights" by Roger Pilon:

I.     Freedom of religion - except if you religion involves peyote.
II.    Right to keep and bear arms - except when you point one at ninja-dressed members of a SWAT team            that breaks through the wrong door at 3 a.m.
III. Quartering of soldiers in our houses - to be fair, I haven't noticed any soldiers actually in the house, but          some National Guard helicopters have been hovering over my back yard marijuana patch.
IV.   No unreasonable searches or seizures - except manditory random urine tests.
V.    No self-incrimination - except that urine in the bottle.
VI.   Right to counsel - except if the government suspects your lawyer is being paid with drug money.

         Yes, it's comical, but thought-provoking.

Many ask why the government fights the drug war so ferociously. Nobody knows for sure, but one reason might be that they have too much hubris to go against what they said in the past (If this were 1984, marijuana would be legalized and fully endorsed by the government. Then they would have us believe that marijuana had always been legal, and the government had always been right about it.). Drug legislation began in the '70s, then got a bick kick from Regan's "zero tolerance" policy. The politictians then were from a different generation and had had no personal experiences with marijuana. They didn't understand it. They knew the counter culture used it, and they were trouble makers, so they figured it was bad and began the war on drugs. But starting with the Clinton administration was a new generation of politicians, the ones who smoked weed back in law school. The older politicians could almost be excused from their actions because of their ignorance, but the politicians of today have no excuse, especially in the case of Bush and Gore. When trying to lure in voters, they promised zero-tolerance and tougher punishment for marijuana users. But everyone knows that they both got drunk and stoned many times at college parties way back when. They should know how harmless it is. Their "tough on drugs" policies are also a first-class example of hypocricy on the grand scale. A publicity quote from the Libertarian party says it best: "George W. Bush and Al Gore, would you be better off today if you had spent ten years in prison for you 'youthful indiscretions?"

There is still no reason why the politicians of today still enforce such hypocritical laws. It may be because they are afraid that if they stand up for a "radical" cause, they will lose voters. Liberal philanthropist George Soros puts it this way, "Soros often says politicians avoid the issiues . . . or criticize them, because they fear 'touching the third rail' and suffering political damage."(Carter 3). Those who have been brave enough to come forward are usually met with harch criticism and even harsher reactions at the polls.

Yet another reason the government is so stubborn could be that they are merely misinformed. Government-run and funded research programs on marijuana have mostly come up with the same answers over and over again: 'inconclusive, more testing is needed.' Take this into consideration, these scientists are being paid big government bucks to research this. After they come to a final result, funding stops and they need to find new jobs. Also, the politicians paying them are the ones who preach against marijuana as if it were sin itself. These scientists have two choices, keep taking in a steady paycheck, or finally contradicting what their employers say and start a new search for a job. For all they care, they can keep "testing" until they have a permanent case fo the munchies for the rest of their lives. But again, this is just a theory.