For years the United States of America has been told that the illegal substance, Marijuana, is one of the biggest problems facing the public today; but perhaps the real problem, contrary to what good ole Nixon said, is the fact that Marijuana is still federally illegal. One may ask themselves while on their last sip of a mind altering cocktail, "should Marijuana be legal?" With no recorded deaths and a booming market surrounding the product, one that is state levelly legal, one might be persuaded to think so. There are so many positives that can come from reform as well as the release of negative draw backs. I have seen far too many experimenting teenagers indulge in Marijuana and have the college of their dreams torn away from them, because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. No competitive college wants a student with a record, even for a victimless crime. Like minded people see nothing morally corrupt about smoking a plant that naturally grows from the earth, why should anyone tell them or I any different? Looking at the situation, it astounds me that with all the benefits to be had, the government lets criminals to the reaping.

Iflscience's article "New Study Finds Marijuana Safer than Alcohol or Tobacco" under Health and Medicine suggests that instead of spending all our energy fighting the war on illegal drugs, we should focus some toward the management of alcohol and tobacco. In addition, they articulate that for such low risk drugs, like Marijuana regulation contrary to prohibition is the recommended approach. Although it may be alarming to think of an illegal substance as less risky than a drug that's available at any restaurant, bar, and gas station, scientists accessed the risks involved and have found it to be such. Of course these scientists aren't trying to put a higher value on Marijuana; they have simply conducted a new technique for assessment called "Margin of Exposure" (MOE). This creates a ratio between the usual dose people take and the dosage that causes harmful effects; marijuana proved to be the only low risk drug out of the five tested, including alcohol and tobacco. Using an unbiased system of assessment makes these findings more credible than any individual opinion. 

On the Huffington Post Website under "Huff Post Politics" the article "2016 Will Be the Biggest Year Yet for Marijuana Reform" articulates the legislation of reform that is plausible to occur in this coming year. Although not nearly as credible as the first article, it does create a picture of how Marijuana reform could be on the horizon. The interests lie within the states supposedly on the verge of approving this legislation. The Huffington Post claims to have some "strong allies" within the State Senate so that statement may as well be as credible as far as you can throw it; no one knows. The Huffington Post is a well respected and read news provider so their credibility may have some weight; however, when you have so many readers, you want to keep them reading right? 

Business Politics' article under "Politics" titled "America's Drug Companies Are Bankrolling the Crusade Against Legal Weed" highlights the truths behind the major supporters of harsher Marijuana laws. They allude to an article written by The Nation that compared lobbyists and supporters; two of the biggest players in the game happened to be Pharmaceutical companies and Police Unions. They elaborate on the motives of each such as the billions made of of painkillers that Marijuana would significantly decrease as a less addictive replacement for lower level pain. Also how the Police Unions are now dependent on the money they receive as a result of the War on Drug's funding. They would also lose money in the form of fines. Engel also points out the suspicion in large drug companies funding the fight of Marijuana laws, yet do nothing to make their extremely addictive drugs less obtainable. This source seems to be semi-credible because their arguments are logical. 

Some may argue downsides to legalizing Marijuana like brain cell damage, increased criminal activity, and increased drug use. I can agree that Marijuana may in fact affect brain cells in the long term; this was an effect not tested in the assessment in article one. However, in article three, it states that the police are dependent on Marijuana crimes to maintain their cash flow, therefore crime rates would be decreased. As stated in article one, Marijuana is the least risky of most common drugs, therefore if it could supersede other drugs it would be a plus. Reading the other perspectives is insightful to obtain a larger view however I still agree with my own. I also feel that my exigence is valid enough to create a ten-page research paper. 

