While marijuana remains illegal both medically and recreationally at a federal level in the United States, it has been legal in the state of Colorado for almost sixteen years now. The United States has reached a predicament much like that of gay marriage, we can call it somewhat of a domino effect. One state legalizes something that is illegal on a federal level, it works, so other states follow suite. The problem lies in enforcing the federal law. How can something be legal in a state but illegal for the country as a whole, it just does not make since. With solid evidence to show how Colorado has benefited from the legalization of both medicinal and recreational marijuana, I have decided to advocate for the legalization of recreational marijuana on a federal level. Medical marijuana has been at the forefront of the news as I was growing from middle to high school and it's mysteriousness has always intrigued me. I find it fascinating that prohibition does quiet the opposite of it's intended purpose. If the government would repeal the prohibition of marijuana, the enigma behind pots mysteriousness would disappear. I, personally, have no bias towards medical or recreational marijuana, however my mom explained to me that through her research on the topic, she believes if my grandparents had had the opportunity to use medical marijuana in their final months battling cancer, it would have been a lot easier for my grandparents. Once I have completed my research, both for and against my exigence, I believe I will be able to draft an insightful researched argumentative essay in ten pages.

Colorado has been the focused state on marijuana legalization, while more than 20 states have actually passed laws to legalize marijuana. Because of this, many reports have been focused on the effect of legalizing marijuana in Colorado. In an article entitled, "How is Colorado Doing Since Marijuana Legalization" by the WSPA Staff, they explain this a more informational, non biased way. The staff at WSPA explain that Colorado has started a new industry that has created jobs, helps real estate, and generates tax revenue, however there are still some skeptics. Many opponents to the legalization of marijuana claim that marijuana will be much more available to those under the age of 21. It is still hard for dispensaries because the marijuana industry solely relies on cash, due to the federally insured banks. Since marijuana is illegal on a federal level, it would be illegal for banks to handle this money. In order for this multimillion dollar industry to really start rolling, the government must legalize marijuana on a federal level. The WSPA staff attempted to stay unbiased throughout their recent article, however they were leaning more on the side of legalizing marijuana. Although the authors showed an opinion, they were able to bring to light some of the ways that the marijuana industry needs to move toward.

Teen pot use is a major worry in legalizing recreational marijuana. Critics claim that if making marijuana legal for purchase at the age of 21, then it will be too easy for teenagers to get their hands on it. With data starting in 1995 and stretching until 2015, Christopher Ingraham shows that since about the year 2002, both teen marijuana and other illicit drug use has been on a steady decline. This is relevant because even with the little to no marijuana laws in certain states, teen use does not go up. This can be the related to two options, the first being able marijuana users are not enabling teens to use their marijuana, or teens are becoming less likely to experiment with marijuana and other drugs. This survey allowed for over 40,000 high school students to respond across the United States, allowing for accurate data. Ingraham is an author for the Washington Post, and previously work at both the Brookings Institution and the Pew Research Center, and he claims that legalizing marijuana will not adversely affect teen marijuana and drug use overall.

While there are many articles for marijuana legalization, there are just as many against legalization. Marty Nemko, a Times Magazine author and holder of a Ph.D. in educational psychology from UC Berkely, writes one of those articles against legalization. His main claims include children, work, and cost. Nemko explains of the potential health risks of children abusing marijuana citing brain damage and heart attacks. Moving on to the workforce, Nemko explains that unemployment would increase due to the unmotivated and dumb citizens that are using marijuana. Finally Nemko explains the cost of treating mental illness and car accidents due to marijuana, far outweigh the jobs and tex revenue the industry creates. Marty Nemko is completely against marijuana and recreational drugs such as alcohol and tobacco, however he does not deny having a drink every once in a while. I believe these claims make him hypocritical and lessen his credibility as an author and doctor. Fortunately, I am able to handle the rebuttal against Nemko with the research I have compiled for the legalization of marijuana and will use his article to further my argument.

With all of the research I have gathered agreeing with my exigence, I believe I can credibly argue for the legalization of marijuana on a federal level. Over twenty states have some sort of marijuana legalization and I believe over the next ten years, all fifty states will have legalized marijuana. Studies and surveys have proven that marijuana use has not increased among teens in the years following legalization and an influx of tax dollars and job opportunities have increased. I need to work on finding articles that argue my topic, however, with the ones that I have found, I can offer a convincing counter argument. While my exigence may be broad, I believe if I can make a major claim of medical marijuana as a whole and have two sub claims of recreational marijuana, I will be able to argue for both points effictively.

