Legalization Discussion

            My paper went pretty smoothly. I had enough information from my sources to form my arguments and learned a great deal in the process. I think my arguments are pretty strong. My main issue was having too much information. The legalization debate is pretty broad so I could have focused on many different aspects of it. Health issues, for example, are a huge point that I wanted to discuss, but I’m already way over the twenty-four hundred word count. Cigarettes and alcohol are way more harmful to the body than marijuana and cause millions of deaths every year plus multiple cancers are associate with each. Marijuana does none of that. But as I was saying, each of my original sources gave expertise on several different topics associated. I had to narrow it down to just the history of narcotic laws being based on fallacies for corrupt leaders and their selfish motives. Because of all the detail I felt necessary to discuss, I didn’t use much of my other sources and ended up changing them. Because most of the paper was presenting facts from history, basically every paragraph involved some sort of citation and most of them came from one of two sources. I wish that I could have found more of the same information on separate sources to triangulate the facts and give it more validity, but I already had so much information to work with that I was afraid of getting too much more.  

            I am very proud of the paper in general though. I think the fallacies in the governmental process are very interesting. Let’s face it; everyone loves a good ole’ government conspiracy! The intense effort they put into demonize marijuana for their own personal gain astounds me. They killed the possibility of having a very prosperous crop that could have shaped American industry by lying to the public and slandering the foreign minorities.  This is documented truth! It isn’t my opinion. This is what happened.  I wish I had longer to incorporate all that I found. There were several documented conversations in congress where decisions were made totally based off what Anslinger said. Many of the members had never heard of marijuana and were forced to make a decision right there on the spot. What kind of due process is that? I believe this was a very successful paper and I really enjoyed the research. It is definitely a hot issue right now and I do not think it will be long before public opinion forces a federal change.