Pt. 2: National Treasure

In America the thought of a policy issue which all, even the majority, of politicians could agree on is just comical. There is no pleasing everybody, and that I must accept. Or do I? Is policy-making really so black and white, always having a very clear right and a very clear wrong? Do not all issues present both losses and gains, depending on the individual? Despite an endless supply of subjects to disagree on, it seems natural that goals of national welfare, safety, and happiness would be shared. If both parties compared the ways they thought an issue could or could not achieve these goals, they would inevitably create a broader image of its national impact. A policy found to have the greatest aggregate benefit for the public would seem to trump any politician's individual complaint with it. Then, there is an opportunity for the government to implement successful, cohesive legislation. Now- 

let's talk marijuana.

Its legalization has recently become an issue of great controversy, with 18 states and Washington D.C. legalizing its various uses. Opinions on marijuana are quite often unforgiving on both sides of the debate. Widespread concerns that marijuana is harmful to health, is related to criminal activity, and the fear of it becoming more accessible to children have thus far been  unifying elements in support of its prohibition. But I argue that these are actually the same reasons for which we should legalize. Instead of viewing this little plant as a societal menace, it should be seen as a powerful, National Treasure.

According to the DEA, marijuana is illegal due to "evidence that smoked marijuana has a high potential for abuse, has no accepted medicinal value in treatment in the United States, and evidence that there is a general lack of accepted safety for its use even under medical supervision." Unfortunately, this explanation does not give a very accurate depiction of the expansive marijuana debate. When smoked, like any other combustible fume, it is damaging to one’s health. Its frequent use has been linked to respiratory disease and a weakened immune system. To be clear, smoking requires one to light the plant and inhale fumes. Fortunately, developments in vaporization have made it possible to heat the plant and only inhale water vapors consisting of up to 95% pure cannabinoids. That means no fumes and no carcinogens. As far as addictiveness, it has been deemed by a member of the National Institute on Drug Abuse to be less addictive than nicotine, caffeine, alcohol, cocaine, and heroin. Undoubtedly there are those who can find a way to abuse any psychoactive substance. But as the government has knowingly exposed the public to harmful and addictive substances such as alcohol, tobacco, and in some cases pharmaceuticals, this argument out of concern for public health seems hardly valid. As a medical treatment, non-smoked marijuana administrations have shown therapeutic benefits in those suffering from glaucoma, opioid use, and the painful side-effects of chemotherapy. More empirical support for the medical value and risks of marijuana are necessary, but can only be obtained through standardized, clinical research. Unfortunately, this process is currently impeded by the federal government’s strict drug laws. Applications to gain access to the government supply of research grade marijuana are hand-selected by the DEA, and frequently denied. A common reason given for this denial is that such research "would not be in the interest of the public."

After health, the safety of citizens, especially children, is of primary concern. Marijuana use is often claimed to be in strong relation to criminal activity. From a rhetorical perspective, this is also true. As long as marijuana remains illegal, anyone possessing it for recreational, medical, or research purposes (outside of those approved by the DEA) can be prosecuted by the federal government, even if it is legal in their state. All in possession are criminals, regardless of intent. As long as it remains illegal, organized crime, drug cartels, and gangs, will have a functioning market in America. Harnessing this market with proper taxation and regulatory laws would weaken this criminal power while making marijuana vastly less accessible to minors. Legalization would free up federal eradication costs, $3.4 billion in 2008, which could then be allocated to public education about the risks of marijuana use, rehabilitation programs for those convicted of drug charges, or the apprehension of violent criminals. Opponents are often wary of a world in which marijuana would be available at any gas station to those 21 and older. To them the increase in volume and accessibility this would cause is simply not worth the risk. In reality, prohibition now makes marijuana available to any person, of any age, in any increment, at any time. To protect our nation and its children, we must take control of this substance and its trade.

Even more tangible than the social benefits of marijuana legalization will be its fiscal impacts. It is currently estimated that Americans spend between $45-$110 million every year on illegal marijuana. A study performed  by the Cato Institute estimated that legalization could generate $8.7 billion in annual tax revenues. No, that amount is not enough to offset the nation's deficit, but it is nothing to sneeze at. Legalization would make available to Americans a brand new cash-crop and all of its potential job opportunities. Industrial-grade marijuana, or hemp, can be used to manufacture numerous commodities, including paper, textiles, fiberglass, and automotive parts. It is a resilient plant that can be grown and harvested almost anywhere in the United States. A testament to the ease with which the plant can be grown was seen in 2005, when the DEA reported that 98% of all marijuana seized that year was industrial grade, non-psychoactive "ditchweed." More specifically, the government had collected 219 million pounds of untended, wild-growing weeds. Legalization would not only reduce federal spending, it would generate tax revenues and put Americans to work in a booming industry.

The days of old in which marijuana was viewed as a sinister threat to society are well behind our country. In 2013, a study by the Pew Research Center showed that 52% of Americans felt its use should be legalized. It seems clear that with proper restrictions and guidance, Americans can only benefit from the ending of this prohibition. By disallowing the legal choice to use or to not use marijuana, the standing government policy does not allow the people to think, ask questions, and develop moral character on their own. Fortunately, the government now has a prime opportunity to adapt to the needs of its nation. Legislators can take control, reform the country's relationship with marijuana, and demonstrate the ability to cooperate for the sake of the people. This is the public-serving government that I would find ideal. 

"What more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous  people? Still one thing more, fellow citizens--

a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."

--Thomas Jefferson, Inaugural Speech, 1801

Pt. 1: National Championship

Any college football fan can attest to the fact that spunk and heart, though enormous assets as an athlete, do not win games alone. A quarterback must possess technical skill to make successful passes. He must be able to think quickly and calmly as he scans the field to find an opening, then prepared to run the ball against a 260 lb. lineman if not one. On the contrary, too much bravado about him and he may become rash; making foolish plays and ignoring the advice of team mates for the sake of doing it his way. The delicate combination of skill, reason, and courage are all dynamic traits of a successful athlete- but most importantly a team (one might even say a 1997 & 1998 SEC National Championship team –ahem).

…back to America. If the American government were a football team, it would be facing a major crossroads in its legacy. Continuous losing seasons, an incompetent coaching staff, and the failure to recruit skilled athletes are factors that have demoralized not only the team, but the fans (Familiar to a die-hard Vol?). The American economy has slowly but steadily improved since the recession, but the recently enacted Sequester and its across-the-board budget cuts are projected to reduce economic growth from 2.0% to 1.4% in 2013. Or, as I prefer, $90 billion USD. Harder to accept than this gut-wrenching figure is the fact that it is the by-product of an in-cooperative Congress. The Sequester has caused me to doubt the adequacy of my elected powers, as I interpret the role of government to include citizens’ fiscal interests when protecting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. No, money does not make me happy. But not having to work at least 30 hours a week to afford full-time college tuition probably would! Hey, entering a strong, productive economy after graduation probably would, too. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, “The purpose of government is to enable the people of a nation to live in safety and happiness. Government exists for the interests of the governed, not for the governors.” Were I a fan of football-team-America, I just spent a large amount of my yearly wages on a ticket to the team's first bowl game appearance-
Only to find out the players had gotten in a fight on the bus and decided to go home.

If current happiness is any reflection of a competent government at work, the public has sent a rather bleak message. In 2012, a Gallup poll reported overall public happiness with the government was a mere 30%. The only positive I can find is that this is an improvement from the record- low 7% happiness following the market failure of 2008. The poll did show a discrepancy in happiness across political parties, with 52% of Democrats reporting satisfaction with the government’s workings. This is in comparison to 25% of Independents and 7% of Republicans. Despite this remarkable level of satisfaction among Democrats, it is clear that the majority of Americans feel the performance of the government is lacking, especially with concern to the almighty dollar. According to the international Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), “While factors such as ageing populations and increasing health care and pension costs add to budgetary pressures, citizens are demanding that governments be made more accountable for what they achieve with taxpayers’ money.” To the fiscally aware, this should be no great revelation. When spending the public's tax dollars for the public good, seeing is believing.

What we can see are the long-term effects this dissatisfaction with government policy can have on public morale and performance. According to an OECD study, “The relatively unattractive image that the public service is considered to have in the United States encourages many talented students to pursue careers in the private sector.” The government’s unpopularity alone is capable of repelling some of the most capable minds entering the workforce. This logically creates the self-feeding disparity between public and private sector efficiency that we are so familiar with today. Personally, I would like the greatest innovative minds of my time to be employed by my country, not being contracted for services by it. As a football team, America's fan support has plummeted- no one is buying team merchandise or showing up to games. The most talented recruits don't want to play for a school with a lengthy losing record, fans with no spirit, or a team with poor leadership. It is extremely discouraging to think that our government, intended to be of, for, and by the people, will always be incapable of effective service. Even worse, that this tradition has become generally accepted and will likely be preserved for posterity.

But doesn't everybody love a good comeback story? With its storied spunk, heart, and courage, the United States can easily win back public support. The government just needs some good old-fashioned PR. It is necessary that the government make an observable, tangible gain in the interests of the public. It must demonstrate an awareness of public needs and the ability to meet them efficiently. Political and ideological differences can no longer be an excuse for failed policy. The previously mentioned OECD report suggests that public sector efficiency can be improved by implementing performance-emphasizing programs which sharply focus the prioritization of goals, require effective planning for goal achievements, and implement greater transparency in reporting it all to the public. It also suggests a shift in political power from central to state governments, in which case stewards are better able to assess and allocate funds per the local need. A greater expectation of performance from the government insures that the public interests are enlarged, while greater accountability increases public trust. Government spending and goal-setting are more effective and noticeable when decision-makers are placed closer to those they directly affect. This not only restores faith in, but proves governmental competence.

Given one policy issue on which politicians could find some type of common ground, it seems this performance-model could invoke bi-partisan cooperation, increase national utility, and ultimately boost public morale. Unfortunately, as a deeply partisan America has repeatedly demonstrated, differences in political ideologies often prevent any real type of communication, compromise, or success in the debate of such issues. I believe this common ground lies undiscovered in several policy issues, but one most of all. Were this one issue to cease being a point of great political and ethical divide, it could instead spark vast social, economic, and academic growth. Hell, maybe even other unified, government efforts!

Now, that is a National Championship I would pay to see.