in second place

 It'll be on the ballot here in Maryland. The "legalization" of recreational marijuana. I put legal in italics because it can't be legal. I've brought this inconvenient truth up many times before; a state may not make any law that is in contradiction to federal law. All you need to do is read the supremacy clause of the Constitution to understand that; no law degree required. Still the legal beagles have somehow convinced many of just the opposite. As long as Marijuana remains on the Schedule One list of Controlled Dangerous Substances it is a federal crime to possess or use it. This "legalization" is really a misnomer, it is "ignoring" federal law and I consider it a breach of ethics. All law enforcement personnel take an oath to uphold the law, all the laws, not just the ones they feel they should. You can't make a law saying ignore the law! 

 But I 've written about all that numerous times. It'll be on the ballot, more than likely passed and recreational use and possession will be tolerated although still not legal. All the while the government, including state government insists I should be vaccinated, wear face masks, and stay socially distant to "protect" myself, to protect my health and for the safety of others, they are now going to allow the inhalation of a substance known to cause cancer. Yes, if you inhale that stuff into your lungs it causes damage. And yes, that's what is being "legalized" the smoking of that substance. So why would the government endorse that? It's simple really, money.

 That is my real issue with the whole deal. As I listened to the politicians on the television that support this bit of legislation, as I listened to their reasoning, it became crystal clear, it will provide a new tax revenue. They were citing how many millions other states have generated by the sale of this product. Of course, they were explaining how the revenue will benefit the children, the poor people, and keep the minorities out of jail! Well, because only the minorities get arrested for pot use anyway! In addition to that, when it is passed everyone that is in jail for breaking the law, when it was a law, will be released because now it isn't a law! That makes sense doesn't it? Just because you broke the law yesterday and the law gets changed a month later, doesn't mean you broke the law, it just means you were ahead of the curve, anticipating the changes, a leader, and progressive, why you were a trailblazer! You probably should be compensated. Perhaps a bit of the revenue generated could be used for that.

 The bottom line is simple enough to understand. Money before morality. Obeying the law is a moral choice. Many think that morals are simply religious beliefs but that isn't strictly true. Morals are what make us do the right thing. Obeying the law in society is the right thing to do. It is why we have a "justice" system in the first place. The justice system exists to provide civil penalties for immoral actions! Did you know that during the Civil war those drafted could simply pay someone else to take their place. It was perfectly legal. Was it a moral thing to do? It kept you from being prosecuted as a draft dodger. If you didn't pay or didn't go that's what happened. Morality was for sale. Now I don't think that was right any way you look at it. Still it was the law, a federal law. Each state didn't get to decide about that. My point is simply this; if the federal government wants to legalize pot, the federal government should legalize pot.

 The DEA and the FDA have the authority to place or remove items from that list. Why haven't they done so? That's the question to be asked here. I don't have an answer to that. I haven't heard anyone from either of those agencies hold any big discussion about that. All I hear from are those that want to use it for fun and those that want to tax it. In fact, anyone attempting to offer any reasonable explanation for why it should remain controlled is shouted down immediately! The cries of "it's no worse than" will echo out! But for me the argument should be, It's better than. Isn't that what we should be striving for, something better? Or is it, well it isn't any worse good enough? If there is money to be made, I guess no worse than is good enough. 

 The consumption of alcohol is often cited as the reason pot should be allowed. It's interesting if you read about the history of alcohol in the United States, even before we were the United States. Alcohol has always been the subject of taxes and tariffs. Yes, from the earliest days it was realized that people will pay for vice. To be fair early on many times alcohol was safer to drink than the water, so it was for "medicinal" purposes. But my point is simply people want to drink, for the effect it has on them, not so much for the taste. Contrary to what every advertiser will claim, taste isn't what sells the product. Yes, the more you can afford to spend the more likely you are to buy the "good" stuff that has a more pleasant taste, but you still want that "mood" changing effect. If you don't have much to spend a bottle of Mad Dog 20/20 will do the trick! People want to smoke pot for the same reason. So, the answer is tax it! Hey alcohol doesn't cause any problems, right? We just taxed it, placed tariffs on the importation of those "spirits" and all is well. Pot isn't any worse than that. Yup, just tax it and placed high tariffs on the importation of the product. Could set up a regulatory commission to label and define the various "strengths" of the product as well, in case you only want to be a little high or have it take you longer to get there. The good stuff would of course have to cost a lot more than that skunk weed. Still, both will get the job done, one is no worse than the other. Really, it's all about the money; morality and legality are secondary to that.