U.S. enforcement officials said they will not change how they treat marijuana under federal drug control laws, turning aside a bid from Democratic governors to loosen restrictions on the substance.

The interesting factor of the marijuana debate is that while with most debates one side tends to be more favorable than the other, with marijuana the debate is more neutral.

On the one hand, science has not truly provided positive medical results with the use of marijuana. It is used as a pain reliever of sorts but it hasn’t had any impact at the level where rejecting its legalization would be considered counterproductive. The science isn’t there yet.

On the other hand, there is precedent in legalizing a substance previously considered very dangerous, yet currently  widespread. Alcohol. Prohibition banned alcohol making it illegal, but alcohol today, while still having the same effects on people, is legal and controlled. Plus, alcohol has no medical merit either.

Marijuana, if created legal, could be controlled by the government. Looking at it in an economic perspective, it will open up another legal section of consumerism and aid economic growth. Plus the government can tax it. Maybe even tax heavily just to create a disincentive for people.

The government can’t control the distribution and production of an illegal substance past busting the people behind it. In a legal landscape, they can control the narrative more thoroughly and in earnest, probably profit (tax wise) off of it.

 

Source: DEA Rejects Attempt to Loosen Federal Restrictions on Marijuana