The article states that legalizing marijuana benefits not only people but also the federal government. It provides three reasons of support. The lecturer, however, rebuts this idea by saying that these claims are the same old ones, and opposes all the author's reasons.
First, the reading asserts that the federal government needs money and now it has an anormous deficit. By legalizing marijuana, there is a chance of taxation of mariujana which brings up to 100 billion dollars for them. On the other hand, the professor repudiates this opinion by explaining that this number is not correct. She mentions that it is correct that taxation will add the government revenue but this number sounds huge. She says that it is a misinformation. Finally, she suggests that it is better that govenment add more tax on gasoline witch majority of folks are used not a minority of drug users.
Second, the article claims that with leaglizing marijuana the crime rate will drop dramatically, and the police have more resources to control borders and fight against terrorism. Conversely, the speaker says that it won't happen at all. She mentions that with this legalization too much money will disapear from drug dealers and cartels. In additin, police should spend resources to control marijuana production and distribution. Based on her assertion, this approach will produce new violances in the countries that marijuana produced and send to U. S. .
Third, the article avers that based on the U. S. constitution everybody has the right to choose their lifestyle. It asserts that like cigarette and alcohol, marijuana should be free. If anybody wants to harm themselves it is theri own option. On the contrary, the professor refuts this by mentioning that it is correct that if a person want kill himself, he can, but we should not encourage him. She adds that now we have many problems with drug and prescriptions addicts. She says that this legalization is like pouring the gasoline on fire.
The article states that legalizing
marijuana
benefits not
only
people
but
also
the federal
government
. It provides three reasons of support. The lecturer,
however
, rebuts this
idea
by saying that these claims are the same
old
ones, and opposes all the author's reasons.
First
, the reading asserts that the federal
government
needs money and
now
it has an
anormous
deficit. By legalizing
marijuana
, there is a chance of taxation of
mariujana
which brings up to 100 billion dollars for them.
On the other hand
, the professor repudiates this opinion by explaining that this number is not correct. She mentions that it is correct that taxation will
add
the
government
revenue
but
this number sounds huge. She says that it is a misinformation.
Finally
, she suggests that it is better that
govenment
add
more tax on gasoline witch
majority of
folks are
used
not a minority of drug users.
Second, the article claims that with
leaglizing
marijuana
the crime rate will drop
dramatically
, and the police have more resources to control borders and fight against terrorism.
Conversely
, the speaker says that it won't happen at all. She mentions that with this legalization too much money will
disapear
from drug dealers and cartels. In
additin
, police should spend resources to control
marijuana
production and distribution. Based on her assertion, this approach will produce new
violances
in the countries that
marijuana
produced and
send
to U. S.
.
Third, the article avers that based on the U. S. constitution everybody has the right to choose their lifestyle. It asserts that like cigarette and alcohol,
marijuana
should be free.
If
anybody wants to harm themselves it is
theri
own
option.
On the contrary
, the professor
refuts
this by mentioning that it is correct that if a person want kill himself, he can,
but
we should not encourage him. She
adds
that
now
we have
many
problems with drug and prescriptions addicts. She says that this legalization is like pouring the gasoline on fire.