Marijuana Legalization for California Financial Woes?

The economic crisis within the state of California, has put eyes to the idea of legalizing marijuana. Reportedly, legalization could bring the state revenue close to 77 billion annually.

If government originally decided that the legalization of marijuana was a bad idea, how does profit automatically override the latter? 

The state of Georgia handled their "alcohol law" in a similar fashion, displaying legislation that would allow alcohol sales to commence on Sundays, all for the purposes of increasing state revenue; forget the fact of why alcohol sales were originally banned on Sundays, right? Something along the lines of "church" and "God", played a part in the decision to ban alcohol sales on Sunday; profitability would seem to quickly erode that religious claim. 

And as for marijuana, which as been an ongoing controversy over its legalization for decades, in part because there are two sides; the side that opposes legalization and adamantly proclaims its harsh and detrimental effects to the human body, and the side that advocates for it while using science to prove its medicinal values. 

Why is it okay for government officials to forbid Americans access to marijuana, and then arrest them should they find access else where, all while claiming it's a gateway drug that's "bad" for people unless of course it seeks to turn a profit for them (ie, state revenue)? Maybe this is why?

In 1905 the first marijuana law was passed in El Paso, Texas; originally, the law was motivated by racial prejudice against Mexican immigrants who brought cannabis across the border -- smoking it on work breaks. 

Initially, the law enacted didn't stipulate it was against the "effects" of marijuana, because cannabis in the form of hemp was a common crop cultivated in the states and already being used in hundreds of common medicines. 

Moreover, after the Harrison Act of 1914 was initiated -- which sought to regulate narcotics in America, shortly thereafter doctors began to not prescribe drugs such as opium, morphine, and cocaine to their patients; for fear of facing lawsuits regarding drug addiction. If physicians can't sell the drugs they purchase from pharmaceutical companies to their patients, then the drug supplier and dealer both lose out on profit -- which for many became a reality.

As a result marijuana became the drug to target and take down by any means necessary, and although cannabis was never proven comparable to opium, morphine, and cocaine, it was added to the class one list of harsh drugs in which to target non-whites.  

The state law of 1913, a California law, had received very little notice but was persistently promoted by the pharmaceutical industry who saw the special "green tree" as a strong "competitor." And by 1930, 30 states had passed laws against cannabis; but it never pertained to the "effects" of marijuana. 

So if marijuana isn't illegal due to the "effects" why is it illegal?

This is the defining question of the 21st century "war on drugs" initiative. It's a question many have asked for decades; including intellectuals who up until now -- went by third party interpretations. 

The fact that a plant can bring billion dollar economic relief to the state of California during its financial woes, is cause enough to consider implementing the same strategy throughout the nation. 

A people and economy stimulator? 

2009 LA