Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy

This short informational article takes into account the interests of those readers who wish to ensure that they remain legal. If not legal, then at least responsible and protected. By way of an example, it uses the Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy and examines three key areas of how successful democratic processes come into being. By dint of the committee’s name, you can already see that it is responding to the concerns and interests of those vested in the use of marijuana and even those strictly opposed to it.

Now, if you are from a region or area where you feel progress is lacking on the matter of legalizing or reforming the use of marijuana, then the three key areas, among others, that are mentioned here can only provide you with inspiration apart from the necessary information. It should give you the courage of your convictions in knowing that even you, just small you, can play a positive and meaningful, but always responsible, role, in contributing towards promoting reforms to the benefit of your broader society and not just to you personally.

The three areas being examined here are the historic processes of enacting reforms or legislation, the necessary financing mechanisms and the mostly positive outcomes of the fore-mentioned areas. Where there is a will, there is always a way; as they say. There must be a loud enough and large enough voice to raise the issue, if you will. For example, if just one or two community members among dozens raise their hands at a town hall meeting calling for the legalization of marijuana use then you will likely find that the hands will be hushed down and other matters arising will be turned to.

This is not necessarily a bad thing. It is merely the beginning of what is likely to be a long and patient process. The interested parties know that they have their work cut out in raising awareness among their broader community. Later down the line, when awareness is raised and knowledge empowerment leads to commonsensical and pragmatic approaches to a contentious practice, more hands go up at that town hall meeting. It then becomes the dutiful responsibility of those town hall representatives to take up what could be a just cause, even if they do not personally believe in it.

Their personal interests are not at stake. And if it were at the forefront of town hall meetings, it borders on potential corruption and the breaching of mandated duties. It becomes a firing offense, and even that can entail a long and arduous process. All such democratic things, however, are not possible without proper funding and resources. Public funds are not dispersed for special interest causes but private funds are. This is a good thing and within the public discourse it is usually above board. Finally, the final outcomes are generally positive whereby the concerns of all and not just a few are dutifully and democratically considered.