Persuasive Essay On Proposition 19
Proposition 19: Denied.
California voters recently disapproved Proposition 19, also known as “Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010”, which would have legalized the recreational use of Marijuana, or Cannabis, to citizens of the state. November 2nd, 2010 not only marked the opening of the polls in California, but as a precedent in voting history, as the people voted either for or against this controversial proposition, though ultimately the bill was defeated. With the denial of this bill, it is apparent that the majority of people, 56% to be exact, in California still disapprove of the recreational usage of Marijuana, which is interesting, seeing as they approved the use of medical marijuana in 1996 with the passing of Proposition 215, oddly enough, with a 56% approval.
The consumption of Marijuana has had a very extensive part throughout history, with many cultures and societies having used Marijuana. Marijuana was popularly used in America in the 1960’s music culture and has become increasingly popular in recreational usage as the years have progressed. However it didn’t start there, Marijuana has been around for …show more content…
centuries. Marijuana has been, and still is, worshipped by some religions and recorded in many religious books as a holy plant. In India, for example, it is referred to as Sacred Grass. Even the founder of the New World, Christopher Columbus, brought Cannabis to America in 1492. From the 17th century to the late 19th century, American farmers regularly grew hemp for many purposes, including for use in making paper to be used in the production of book and maps. In fact, Hemp was second to tobacco as the crop to grow in early America. Hemp is from the Cannabis genus and has been proven to be a very useful material. The Constitution was written on hemp paper and the string on Benjamin Franklin’s kite was also made from hemp.
In Bernie Becker’s article on the legalization of Marijuana, he quotes Joseph D. McNamara, a former San Jose police chief, who recently said in a commercial for Proposition 19 that “the war against marijuana has failed.” I tend to agree with this assumption, since according to the National Institute of Drug Abuse, a subsidiary of the National Institutes of Health, the 2008 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) showed that 15.2 million Americans having consumed Cannabis in the last month. While more recently, a national survey by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration showed illegal drug use among Americans twelve and older is climbing, with much of the increase due to marijuana. This might show that many people would probably agree with Chief McNamara.
Proposition 19’s intentions were extremely straightforward and depicted in the State’s Initiative Statute; the state would regulate, tax and dispense Marijuana, as to take advantage of the drug users and make billions of dollars in revenue for the state. In other words, the users who purchase Marijuana illegally through dealers could then purchase their goods through taxed dispensaries and their money would be going to good use. As per the proposition guidelines, regulations for the sale of marijuana would be similar to those of alcohol restrictions. A buyer would have to be over the age of twenty-one and could not be under the influence while driving a moving vehicle or otherwise face a driving under the influence charge. The new law would also allow for the cultivation of personal marijuana on the individual’s private property, while at the same time prohibiting the sale of personally grown marijuana, especially to individuals between the ages of twenty and eighteen. The new law would not change current laws regarding the possession and sale to individuals under the age of eighteen. This seems to be the logical step in making sure that consumers are both safe and protected, considering the excessive amount of money spent to fight the war on drugs and the crime associated with illegal drugs, which was one aspect that this proposition hoped to remedy, the excessive amount of money spent on enforcing current drug laws.
According to Edward M. Shepard and Paul R. Blackley’s article entitled “The Impact of Marijuana Law Enforcement in an Economic Model of Crime,” the opportunity costs of enforcing marijuana laws in the United States are large; a statement that I easily see as rational and very obviously apparent. A recent study estimated the annual cost of marijuana law enforcement to be about $7.7 billion (404) and according to Dale Gieringer’s, PhD, report on marijuana, “The current cost of marijuana enforcement in California is estimated to be over $200 million per year”. In my opinion, it seems that legalizing the recreational use of Marijuana would be a significant way to both save money and at the same time be a means to produce new revenue for the indebted state.
California’s branch of NORML (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws) estimated $1.2 billion in tax revenue if Proposition 19 had passed. While this seems like a beneficial reason to have this law, anti-legalization proponent Charles D. Stimson disagrees with this figure. He states that these projections are highly speculative and riddled with unfounded assumptions (9). He cites Dr. Rosalie Liccardo Pacula, who says, “the only way California could effectively eliminate the black market for marijuana is to take away the substantial profits in the market and allow the price of marijuana to fall to an amount close to the cost of production. Doing so, however, will mean substantially smaller tax revenue than currently anticipated from this change in policy” (9). With such intimidating details about the possible revenue and the lack there of, it would seem logical that the American public would be pessimistic about legalizing Marijuana, especially if they are led to believe that the legalization would not lead to the proposed billions dollars of additional revenue.
Proponents of Proposition 19 had also wanted the passing of it in hopes that particular crimes and the negative social aspects of such would decrease, and thereby prisons and jails would have required less funding. Along with less funding, it also would have decreased overcrowding in state correctional facilities; thus opening up more space for actual violent offenders and allowing people to remain in prison who actually deserve to be there. As evidence of this, “someone is arrested for violating a cannabis law every 38 seconds” (Gleason 1). According to the Department of Justice, the average sentence for drug offenses was 75.6 months, while the average sentence for violent offenses was 63.0 months. I always believed that non-violent criminal offenders should not have to face jail time, but instead participate in community service and some additional educational classes.
Having legalized marijuana would allow law enforcement officers to focus on more violent crimes instead of harassing victimless offenders to meet a quota. This comes to show the arrests of such victimless crimes are also a waste of taxpayer’s dollars. Along with possible revenue, it would have opened many of job opportunities in dispensaries and the agricultural areas, when it comes to the government side of the production. It is amazing to me that after research showing the potential economic advantages of legalization, even in today’s gloomy economy and the staggering unemployment rate, which in California, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in September was 12.2 percent, people still chose to vote against the proposition.
Once again, Charles D.
Stimson strongly disagrees with the above-mentioned statements about the possible incentives gained from legalizing Marijuana and its possible benefits with the legal system. In his legal memorandum entitled “Legalizing Marijuana: Why Citizens Should Just Say No,” he states that marijuana trafficking is linked to a variety of crimes, from assault and murder to money laundering and smuggling. Legalization of marijuana would increase demand for the drug and almost certainly exacerbate drug-related crime, as well as cause a myriad of unintended but predictable consequences (5). Though there is no guarantee, or even possibility, that Stimson is correct, and I whole-heartedly believe that the legalization of Marijuana will undoubtedly have a positive effect in lowering crime and keeping good people out of
jail.
Stimson continues by stating that in Los Angeles, police report that areas surrounding cannabis clubs have experienced a 200 percent increase in robberies, a 52.2 percent increase in burglaries, a 57.1 percent increase in aggravated assault, and a 130.8 percent increase in burglaries from automobiles. Current law requires a doctor’s prescription to procure marijuana; full legalization would likely spark an even more acute increase in crime (6). I disagree that legalizing marijuana for recreational purposes would only lead to an increase of crime. We must remember that these facts, and where these crimes are committed, are in areas that allow medicinal Marijuana, and in my opinion, are carried out for the intention of obtaining the drug for recreational use.
Unfortunately, for those against Marijuana, the “drug” is not going anywhere. The NSDUH “estimated 97.5 million Americans aged 12 or older tried marijuana at least once in their lifetimes, representing 40.1% of the U.S. population in that age group”. With rising numbers of marijuana users annually, consumers will now continue to buy from drug dealers and the dealers will continue to profit. Saying no to Proposition 19 will not stop the purchasing of marijuana. While it is not entirely plausible that Proposition 19 would have helped the state financially, it would have made the use of Marijuana safer for the millions of people who consume the drug because illegally sold marijuana can be laced, meaning it can contain other, possibly dangerous drugs. Therefore, buyers are not always aware of what they are truly consuming.
However, had Proposition 19 passed, it would have allowed the buyer to be almost completely aware of what was in the product they were purchasing through regulated, government controlled and taxed dispensaries, which would make consuming cannabis much safer because the government would put restrictions on what it could be grown with or what goes into it; and as declared in the proposition, consumers would have the opportunity to grow their own crop of untainted Marijuana. But the safety of Marijuana goes well beyond just what chemicals, added or not, we must also take into account the overall effects the drug can have on the body.
In a review on Marijuana by Ed Friedlander, a medical doctor and board-certified pathologist, he believes smoking Marijuana is unhealthy, saying, “Users frequently report problems with short-term memory, both while using and between uses.” But many experts disagree with this and insist that the negative side effects of marijuana such as paranoia and short-term memory loss are temporary and only occur while under the influence. I think he ultimately fails to put into consideration the positives that come with the use of Marijuana, especially considering the harmful side effects alcohol, a legal but extremely dangerous drug, can produce on the body. It is amazing that alcohol is legal to people above the age of twenty-one while marijuana remains to be illegal for everyone. While its benefits are minimal and only come with nominal ingestion, it can still be highly addictive if abused and reports of memory loss problems are also contributed to it. Alcohol is also a drug that you can possibly die from if you abuse it heavily and try to quit without medical attention. Death cannot only occur from serious medical issues, but from regretful events while being intoxicated. Marijuana, unlike alcohol, has no forms of physical addiction and you cannot possibly have a lethal overdose or die from attempting to quit.
It is truly hard to discern which side of the argument makes the most sense, especially since they both present opposing facts and ideas, and this legal decision will always come down to one’s personal ideas, morals and feelings about Marijuana itself. Will the legalization of marijuana make billions for states or will the need to shut out the illegal options bring the profit to a minimum? Will the allowance to cultivate one’s own crop bring an increase to crime rates or will the stronger personal rights help to reduce criminal activities commonly associated with Marijuana? We will never know for sure which side is correct until a state ultimately passes such a law to legalize the use of marijuana for recreational use. Worse comes to worse, they can always repeal the law.
Works Cited
Blackley, E. M. (2007). The Impact of Marijuana Law Enforcement in an Economic Model of Crime. Journal of Drug Issues , 403-424.
Stimson, C. D. (2010). Legalizing Marijuana: Why Citizens Should Just Say No. Legal Memorandum .
National Institute of Drug Abuse. National Institutes of Health. 6 Dec 2010. <http://www.nida.nih.gov/researchreports/marijuana/marijuana2.html>
Ballotpedia. GNU Free Doc Licence , 12 Nov. 2010. Web. 19 Nov. 2010.
Buter Library. EBSCO, 26 Oct. 2010. Becker, Bernie. “On Legalizing Marijuana.” Web. 19 Nov. 2010. <http://web.ebscohost.com//?vid=1&hid=106&sid=721b6479-1512-4605-8500-07b4396025c0%40sessionmgr113&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=54599768>.
Deem, Rich. “Why Marijuana Initiative is Bad for California.” Rev. of Marijuana. God and Science. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Nov. 2010. <http://www.godandscience.org//_marijuana_review.htmlhttp://>.
Friedlander, Ed. “The Case Against Marijuana.” Path Guy. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Nov. 2010. <http://www.pathguy.com//.txt>. This was Ed’s letter to a large group of men. Coming from a doctor he explained his side on marijuana and the reasons why not to consume it. This included morals and health factors.
Gieringer, Dale. “Benefits of Marijuana Legalization in California .” California NORML. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Nov. 2010. <http://www.canorml.org//_legalization2.html#Costs>.
Gleason, Christina. “Where is Money Going to Keep Drugs off the Street?” suite101. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Nov. 2010. <http://www.suite101.com//cost-of-the-war-on-drugs-a53068>.
“Ingesting Marijuana Versus Smoking Marijuana.” Rev. of Marijuana. Health & Welness. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Nov. 2010. <http://www.associatedcontent.com///_marijuana_versus_smoking.html?cat=71>. This authors name was not in the article. Therefore i had put in parenthesis where I said “Experts say” the title of the article. (Ingesting Marijuana)
Kennedy, Bruce. “The First Step Toward a National Marijuana Industry?” Rev. of Proposition 19. Daily Finance. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Nov. 2010. <http://www.dailyfinance.com///prop-19-the-first-step-towards-a-national-marijuan//>.
“Medicinal Marijuana Uses.” Concept 420. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Nov. 2010. <http://www.concept420.com/_medical_med_uses.htm>. This article is where I found the medical uses of Marijuana. This site was made to inform the benefits in cannabis. This source held very valid information.
Wood, Daniel B. “Measure to legalize marijuana trails in California, if polls are right. .” MasterFILE Premier. Christian Science Publishing Society , n.d. Web. 20 Nov. 2010. <http://web.ebscohost.com//etail?vid=1&hid=106&sid=1b3f2491-72fe-4fd3-85c9-891650810372%40sessionmgr114&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=f5h&AN=54580453>. This source was through the Butler Library Search engine. The library’s database is very helpful as you know all articles are reliable.
California voters recently disapproved Proposition 19, also known as “Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010”, which would have legalized the recreational use of Marijuana, or Cannabis, to citizens of the state. November 2nd, 2010 not only marked the opening of the polls in California, but as a precedent in voting history, as the people voted either for or against this controversial proposition, though ultimately the bill was defeated. With the denial of this bill, it is apparent that the majority of people, 56% to be exact, in California still disapprove of the recreational usage of Marijuana, which is interesting, seeing as they approved the use of medical marijuana in 1996 with the passing of Proposition 215, oddly enough, with a 56% approval.
The consumption of Marijuana has had a very extensive part throughout history, with many cultures and societies having used Marijuana. Marijuana was popularly used in America in the 1960’s music culture and has become increasingly popular in recreational usage as the years have progressed. However it didn’t start there, Marijuana has been around for …show more content…
centuries. Marijuana has been, and still is, worshipped by some religions and recorded in many religious books as a holy plant. In India, for example, it is referred to as Sacred Grass. Even the founder of the New World, Christopher Columbus, brought Cannabis to America in 1492. From the 17th century to the late 19th century, American farmers regularly grew hemp for many purposes, including for use in making paper to be used in the production of book and maps. In fact, Hemp was second to tobacco as the crop to grow in early America. Hemp is from the Cannabis genus and has been proven to be a very useful material. The Constitution was written on hemp paper and the string on Benjamin Franklin’s kite was also made from hemp.
In Bernie Becker’s article on the legalization of Marijuana, he quotes Joseph D. McNamara, a former San Jose police chief, who recently said in a commercial for Proposition 19 that “the war against marijuana has failed.” I tend to agree with this assumption, since according to the National Institute of Drug Abuse, a subsidiary of the National Institutes of Health, the 2008 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) showed that 15.2 million Americans having consumed Cannabis in the last month. While more recently, a national survey by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration showed illegal drug use among Americans twelve and older is climbing, with much of the increase due to marijuana. This might show that many people would probably agree with Chief McNamara.
Proposition 19’s intentions were extremely straightforward and depicted in the State’s Initiative Statute; the state would regulate, tax and dispense Marijuana, as to take advantage of the drug users and make billions of dollars in revenue for the state. In other words, the users who purchase Marijuana illegally through dealers could then purchase their goods through taxed dispensaries and their money would be going to good use. As per the proposition guidelines, regulations for the sale of marijuana would be similar to those of alcohol restrictions. A buyer would have to be over the age of twenty-one and could not be under the influence while driving a moving vehicle or otherwise face a driving under the influence charge. The new law would also allow for the cultivation of personal marijuana on the individual’s private property, while at the same time prohibiting the sale of personally grown marijuana, especially to individuals between the ages of twenty and eighteen. The new law would not change current laws regarding the possession and sale to individuals under the age of eighteen. This seems to be the logical step in making sure that consumers are both safe and protected, considering the excessive amount of money spent to fight the war on drugs and the crime associated with illegal drugs, which was one aspect that this proposition hoped to remedy, the excessive amount of money spent on enforcing current drug laws.
According to Edward M. Shepard and Paul R. Blackley’s article entitled “The Impact of Marijuana Law Enforcement in an Economic Model of Crime,” the opportunity costs of enforcing marijuana laws in the United States are large; a statement that I easily see as rational and very obviously apparent. A recent study estimated the annual cost of marijuana law enforcement to be about $7.7 billion (404) and according to Dale Gieringer’s, PhD, report on marijuana, “The current cost of marijuana enforcement in California is estimated to be over $200 million per year”. In my opinion, it seems that legalizing the recreational use of Marijuana would be a significant way to both save money and at the same time be a means to produce new revenue for the indebted state.
California’s branch of NORML (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws) estimated $1.2 billion in tax revenue if Proposition 19 had passed. While this seems like a beneficial reason to have this law, anti-legalization proponent Charles D. Stimson disagrees with this figure. He states that these projections are highly speculative and riddled with unfounded assumptions (9). He cites Dr. Rosalie Liccardo Pacula, who says, “the only way California could effectively eliminate the black market for marijuana is to take away the substantial profits in the market and allow the price of marijuana to fall to an amount close to the cost of production. Doing so, however, will mean substantially smaller tax revenue than currently anticipated from this change in policy” (9). With such intimidating details about the possible revenue and the lack there of, it would seem logical that the American public would be pessimistic about legalizing Marijuana, especially if they are led to believe that the legalization would not lead to the proposed billions dollars of additional revenue.
Proponents of Proposition 19 had also wanted the passing of it in hopes that particular crimes and the negative social aspects of such would decrease, and thereby prisons and jails would have required less funding. Along with less funding, it also would have decreased overcrowding in state correctional facilities; thus opening up more space for actual violent offenders and allowing people to remain in prison who actually deserve to be there. As evidence of this, “someone is arrested for violating a cannabis law every 38 seconds” (Gleason 1). According to the Department of Justice, the average sentence for drug offenses was 75.6 months, while the average sentence for violent offenses was 63.0 months. I always believed that non-violent criminal offenders should not have to face jail time, but instead participate in community service and some additional educational classes.
Having legalized marijuana would allow law enforcement officers to focus on more violent crimes instead of harassing victimless offenders to meet a quota. This comes to show the arrests of such victimless crimes are also a waste of taxpayer’s dollars. Along with possible revenue, it would have opened many of job opportunities in dispensaries and the agricultural areas, when it comes to the government side of the production. It is amazing to me that after research showing the potential economic advantages of legalization, even in today’s gloomy economy and the staggering unemployment rate, which in California, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in September was 12.2 percent, people still chose to vote against the proposition.
Once again, Charles D.
Stimson strongly disagrees with the above-mentioned statements about the possible incentives gained from legalizing Marijuana and its possible benefits with the legal system. In his legal memorandum entitled “Legalizing Marijuana: Why Citizens Should Just Say No,” he states that marijuana trafficking is linked to a variety of crimes, from assault and murder to money laundering and smuggling. Legalization of marijuana would increase demand for the drug and almost certainly exacerbate drug-related crime, as well as cause a myriad of unintended but predictable consequences (5). Though there is no guarantee, or even possibility, that Stimson is correct, and I whole-heartedly believe that the legalization of Marijuana will undoubtedly have a positive effect in lowering crime and keeping good people out of
jail.
Stimson continues by stating that in Los Angeles, police report that areas surrounding cannabis clubs have experienced a 200 percent increase in robberies, a 52.2 percent increase in burglaries, a 57.1 percent increase in aggravated assault, and a 130.8 percent increase in burglaries from automobiles. Current law requires a doctor’s prescription to procure marijuana; full legalization would likely spark an even more acute increase in crime (6). I disagree that legalizing marijuana for recreational purposes would only lead to an increase of crime. We must remember that these facts, and where these crimes are committed, are in areas that allow medicinal Marijuana, and in my opinion, are carried out for the intention of obtaining the drug for recreational use.
Unfortunately, for those against Marijuana, the “drug” is not going anywhere. The NSDUH “estimated 97.5 million Americans aged 12 or older tried marijuana at least once in their lifetimes, representing 40.1% of the U.S. population in that age group”. With rising numbers of marijuana users annually, consumers will now continue to buy from drug dealers and the dealers will continue to profit. Saying no to Proposition 19 will not stop the purchasing of marijuana. While it is not entirely plausible that Proposition 19 would have helped the state financially, it would have made the use of Marijuana safer for the millions of people who consume the drug because illegally sold marijuana can be laced, meaning it can contain other, possibly dangerous drugs. Therefore, buyers are not always aware of what they are truly consuming.
However, had Proposition 19 passed, it would have allowed the buyer to be almost completely aware of what was in the product they were purchasing through regulated, government controlled and taxed dispensaries, which would make consuming cannabis much safer because the government would put restrictions on what it could be grown with or what goes into it; and as declared in the proposition, consumers would have the opportunity to grow their own crop of untainted Marijuana. But the safety of Marijuana goes well beyond just what chemicals, added or not, we must also take into account the overall effects the drug can have on the body.
In a review on Marijuana by Ed Friedlander, a medical doctor and board-certified pathologist, he believes smoking Marijuana is unhealthy, saying, “Users frequently report problems with short-term memory, both while using and between uses.” But many experts disagree with this and insist that the negative side effects of marijuana such as paranoia and short-term memory loss are temporary and only occur while under the influence. I think he ultimately fails to put into consideration the positives that come with the use of Marijuana, especially considering the harmful side effects alcohol, a legal but extremely dangerous drug, can produce on the body. It is amazing that alcohol is legal to people above the age of twenty-one while marijuana remains to be illegal for everyone. While its benefits are minimal and only come with nominal ingestion, it can still be highly addictive if abused and reports of memory loss problems are also contributed to it. Alcohol is also a drug that you can possibly die from if you abuse it heavily and try to quit without medical attention. Death cannot only occur from serious medical issues, but from regretful events while being intoxicated. Marijuana, unlike alcohol, has no forms of physical addiction and you cannot possibly have a lethal overdose or die from attempting to quit.
It is truly hard to discern which side of the argument makes the most sense, especially since they both present opposing facts and ideas, and this legal decision will always come down to one’s personal ideas, morals and feelings about Marijuana itself. Will the legalization of marijuana make billions for states or will the need to shut out the illegal options bring the profit to a minimum? Will the allowance to cultivate one’s own crop bring an increase to crime rates or will the stronger personal rights help to reduce criminal activities commonly associated with Marijuana? We will never know for sure which side is correct until a state ultimately passes such a law to legalize the use of marijuana for recreational use. Worse comes to worse, they can always repeal the law.
Works Cited
Blackley, E. M. (2007). The Impact of Marijuana Law Enforcement in an Economic Model of Crime. Journal of Drug Issues , 403-424.
Stimson, C. D. (2010). Legalizing Marijuana: Why Citizens Should Just Say No. Legal Memorandum .
National Institute of Drug Abuse. National Institutes of Health. 6 Dec 2010. <http://www.nida.nih.gov/researchreports/marijuana/marijuana2.html>
Ballotpedia. GNU Free Doc Licence , 12 Nov. 2010. Web. 19 Nov. 2010.
Buter Library. EBSCO, 26 Oct. 2010. Becker, Bernie. “On Legalizing Marijuana.” Web. 19 Nov. 2010. <http://web.ebscohost.com//?vid=1&hid=106&sid=721b6479-1512-4605-8500-07b4396025c0%40sessionmgr113&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=54599768>.
Deem, Rich. “Why Marijuana Initiative is Bad for California.” Rev. of Marijuana. God and Science. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Nov. 2010. <http://www.godandscience.org//_marijuana_review.htmlhttp://>.
Friedlander, Ed. “The Case Against Marijuana.” Path Guy. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Nov. 2010. <http://www.pathguy.com//.txt>. This was Ed’s letter to a large group of men. Coming from a doctor he explained his side on marijuana and the reasons why not to consume it. This included morals and health factors.
Gieringer, Dale. “Benefits of Marijuana Legalization in California .” California NORML. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Nov. 2010. <http://www.canorml.org//_legalization2.html#Costs>.
Gleason, Christina. “Where is Money Going to Keep Drugs off the Street?” suite101. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Nov. 2010. <http://www.suite101.com//cost-of-the-war-on-drugs-a53068>.
“Ingesting Marijuana Versus Smoking Marijuana.” Rev. of Marijuana. Health & Welness. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Nov. 2010. <http://www.associatedcontent.com///_marijuana_versus_smoking.html?cat=71>. This authors name was not in the article. Therefore i had put in parenthesis where I said “Experts say” the title of the article. (Ingesting Marijuana)
Kennedy, Bruce. “The First Step Toward a National Marijuana Industry?” Rev. of Proposition 19. Daily Finance. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Nov. 2010. <http://www.dailyfinance.com///prop-19-the-first-step-towards-a-national-marijuan//>.
“Medicinal Marijuana Uses.” Concept 420. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Nov. 2010. <http://www.concept420.com/_medical_med_uses.htm>. This article is where I found the medical uses of Marijuana. This site was made to inform the benefits in cannabis. This source held very valid information.
Wood, Daniel B. “Measure to legalize marijuana trails in California, if polls are right. .” MasterFILE Premier. Christian Science Publishing Society , n.d. Web. 20 Nov. 2010. <http://web.ebscohost.com//etail?vid=1&hid=106&sid=1b3f2491-72fe-4fd3-85c9-891650810372%40sessionmgr114&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=f5h&AN=54580453>. This source was through the Butler Library Search engine. The library’s database is very helpful as you know all articles are reliable.