Mary Fallin on Legalizing Marijuana

Mary Fallin held her "Facebook Townhall" today. One of the questions brought up was that of legalizing Marijuana.

Her response? (At 15:52 into the video)

"I oppose legalizing marijuana in Oklahoma." Fallin went on to make claims that legalizing marijuana would lead Oklahomans to turn "to other substance abuse" and become criminals who steal and drive recklessly and end up in prisons for other crimes.

In other words, she has no clue about the history of marijuana prohibition nor the fact that the crimes that she alleges Oklahomans will turn to are secondary byproducts of a prohibition doctrine.

Perhaps the alcoholic beverages industry should be running scared. After all, by Mary Fallin's logic all booze should also be prohibited. People rob, cheat, and steal to feed their alcohol addictions. People get behind the wheel of a car while under the influence of alcohol. Of course, by the letter of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Act, alcohol and tobacco should be placed under Schedule I prohibition.

But then again, we know how THAT turned out. (See: Al Capone)

By refusing to support decriminalization of marijuana in Oklahoma, Fallin is in essence endorsing the secondary crimes committed as a result of prohibition. You see, many of the crimes associated with the marijuana black market would not occur if marijuana (a plant occuring in nature) was freely available.

Politicians (whether Republican, Democrat, or any other political affiliation) who support prohibition are only interested in one thing: playing God. They themselves have an addiction — an addiction to asserting as much control over the individual citizen as possible.

Why should government prohibit a citizen from cultivating, possessing, or using a plant? Specifically, why should the Religious Right be so interested in handcuffing citizens for partaking of a natural herb, whether for pleasure or therapeutic reasons? 

Since government should apparently prohibit access to natural substances with medicinal and therapeutic benefits (especially those that don't meet the pharmaceutical mantra of "one pill for every ill"), why shouldn't they prohibit the cultivation of many of the plants in your flower bed? Perhaps Oleander, a popular flowering plant, should be prohibited since its consumption has caused more deaths from 1985 until the present than marijuana? What about Honeysuckle, Tiger Lily, or other flowering plants that are used medicinally and therapeutically and are potentially toxic in large doses?

Face it.  There is only one reason for any remotely educated politician to want government to continue prohibition of access to a naturally therapeutic plant: protection of "Big Pharma".