Leana S.Wynn Op-Ed about Marijuana Health Risks

The San Diego Union-Tribune recently published an Op-Ed by Leana S. Wynn titled “Will the Government Face Up to Cannabis Health Risks?” where she called on the federal government to take stronger action in controlling marijuana use. Her recommendations include more research, stricter advertising controls, and restricting CBD sales. While I don’t doubt that the government could implement these policies without new legislation, the bigger question is: Are these concerns necessary and valid?

For over 80 years, anti-marijuana campaigns have issued dire warnings, many of which have since been debunked. Initially, marijuana was blamed for causing blindness, sterility, and even madness. As time passed, the supposed dangers shifted, but many of these claims remained unsupported by medical evidence. With marijuana now legal in many states, both for medical and recreational use, we’ve yet to see the flood of health crises that opponents had long predicted.

This raises a question: Who truly drove the false narratives about marijuana? Were these efforts motivated by genuine public health concerns, or were they fueled by racial bias, the alcohol industry seeking to stifle competition, or pharmaceutical companies protecting their profits from low-cost alternatives? The murky motivations behind these claims have left many skeptical of new warnings.

After decades of exaggerated dangers, it’s hard for the public to take fresh concerns seriously. Like many, I expected that the legalization of marijuana would lead to increased health issues, traffic accidents, and birth defects. But we haven’t seen such outcomes materialize.

Wynn calls for more research, similar to the studies conducted on tobacco and alcohol. But it’s important to note that, for decades, the federal government was prohibited from conducting marijuana research. The anti-marijuana lobby didn’t want studies because they feared the truth—that their warnings might be proven false, which has indeed happened.

That said, I do agree with the need for comprehensive federal marijuana legislation. It should include aspects of Wynn’s recommendations, but also go further by legalizing marijuana at the federal level. We need better regulations around potency, testing, and production, as well as more robust research. Advertising restrictions should be strict—perhaps even banning it entirely, as is done with tobacco. But why not also allow marijuana to be sold in national pharmacy chains, or even major retailers like Walmart and Costco?

The conversation around marijuana must move beyond fear-based rhetoric and into a more balanced, evidence-based approach that addresses public health, consumer safety, and access. It’s time for the federal government to create thoughtful policies that reflect reality, not outdated myths.

California Marijuana Initiative -- Drug Policy Alliance

I received a solicitation in the mail today from George Soros requesting support for the Drug Policy Alliance.  I responded with a donation online.  It is time to get serious about reducing our "war on drugs."
I read and hear the Republican right-wingers continually complaining about the efforts to legalize marijuana and their stories and arguments never seem to add up.  They never actually able to bring up scientific evidence that says that the use of the drug is worse than the results of our Government fighting the drug war.    I contend that a lot of the support FOR the drug war comes from the organizations, businesses and individuals who currently profit from the drug war.  Conservative estimates are that the U.S. Spends $51 Billion each year on the war.  I think we spend a LOT more than that, if we include the cost of keeping people in prison, and the cost of helping the prisoners families while their breadwinner is incarcerated.  The costs include the  1.5 million people each year who are arrested for non-violent drug charges, the 44,000 people in the US that died from an accidental drug overdose,  as well as the 100,000 mexicans who have died in Mexico's drug war as a direct result of the US drug policy.  Many of the individuals who consider themselves as "drug warriors" are very high paid and are influential, such as judges, lawyers, prosecutors and manufacturers of eavesdropping equipment.  They don't want to lose the benefits they receive. They have consistently lied to the public about the effects of drugs in order to maintain public support for their war.  One fine example is the "Reefer Madness" video in the 1930s.
I'm not sure if the California proposition for this fall's general election ballot is the best approach.  However, at the moment, it appears to be the only solution.  Our California legislature knows that the majority of Californians are in favor of marijuana legalization.  But they refuse to put together a reasonable set of laws that would move in that direction.  Why do they wait for a ballot initiative?  If they would write a good law now, it would stop the initiative in its tracks.  It would also allow the legislature in the future to make adjustments to the laws if problems or "loopholes" are found in the laws that need correction.
George Soros is clearly taking a leadership role, and we should admire him for doing it.  It will be very interesting to see if anyone asks Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump what their positions are on marijuana legalization.  Will they answer it?  Or will they "duck the question?"

California GOP Policy Vote on Pot Legalization shows how corrupt the party has gotten

An LA Times Article by Phil Willon on Sunday reported that the State GOP voted to oppose the proposed California statewide ballot measure known as the Adult Use Act. for Marijuana.  The act would allow those 21 and older to possess and use up to an ounce of pot. There are apparently several propositions in work for the November ballot, but this one has already qualified for the ballot, and most public opinion polls show .that it is very likely to pass.  It is hard to understand why the party would take a position that goes against, in effect, the will of the people.  It would seem that many of that majority who are now in favor of pot legalization would most likely also vote against Republicans who are advocating against it.  If even a small percentage of pot proponents vote against their Republican legislator in the November election, that could dramatically tip the election against Republicans.  Why would they do that?  I have some thoughts on that:
The Republicans imply that they are gravely concerned that pot is an entry level drug that leads to addiction, and they also say they want to keep it away from children.   Both of these claims probably have some small amount of truth to them.  Concerning children -- teenagers seem to be able to get the drug now,  However I suppose if more people (adults over 21) are using it, and seen using it, possibly more could get their hands on it too.   Concerning the "entry level" claim:  I think that smoking tobacco is probably an "entry level" drug too.  People who already smoke tobacco are probably more likely to be able to switch to pot without coughing or choking.  However the Republican party has continuously fought against ANY restrictions on tobacco.  They fought against restrictions starting in the 1970s and are still fighting it today.   The tobacco lobby continues to make huge donations to Republicans according to this website.  In California the Republican party opposed all tobacco regulation and taxes.  Alcohol could also be considered a "gateway" drug, and it's use is the 4th largest cause of death in the us: 80,000 deaths annually according to the NIAAA. Yet, the Republicans also are strong opponents to restrictions on alcohol, and, of course, are major recipients of donations:  see this link. So, their claim of concern about "entry level drug" really means that there is no industry making big contributions (yet) to their party and candidates.  If there is nobody contributing to the party in support of pot legalization, why wouldn't the party take a neutral position?  I believe there is very big money behind the "drug war."  Many of these people who are sharing in that big money are in influential positions, including government roles.  They, in some ways, are concerned about their jobs and businesses.  I would estimate that well over half of the law enforcement industry feeds on the drug war.  That means that 50% of the courts, judges, lawyers, police, jails, prison guards, DEA, FBI Border Patrol, and even the prison guards are employed to fight the drug war.  In addition, there are huge industries involved in producing hardware for eavesdropping and spying on suspected drug producers, traffickers, and users.  These people see the "worst of the worst" in the drug war, and I'm sure have disdain or even hatred of the "druggies" they have to deal with.  Of course, Elliott Ness of the FBI during prohibition also saw the worst of the worst in the alcohol producer/smugglers such as Al Capone too!  So the current law enforcers aren't just trying to protect their job, but they really think they are performing a vital service for America.
I've never tried marijuana and don't plan to.  I would not like my children or grandchildren to use it, and I don't want them to try any of the other, more dangerous drugs.  I don't like the smell of marijuana or tobacco.and would like to ban all smoking within my condo complex.
However, when I see how many lives have been lost due to the drug war, it appears to me that we've lost more than we would have lost had we not been "fighting" the war.  Not only has the US lost lives in the drug war, but also many other countries have lost lives in helping us fight our war.  Mexico (100,000 lives) and Colombia (220,000 lives), for example have lost very many lives fighting a proxy war funded by the US. In the US, we morn the 50,000 lives lost in the Vietnam war.  But the losses in just Mexico and Colombia dwarf our losses in Vietnam.   In addition to lost lives, the war has ruined lives.  Families with relatives or breadwinners in prison, or unable to get good jobs due to criminal records for being arrested with small amounts of drugs.  These costs seem to overwhelm the benefits achieved by continuing to fight this war.  It seems that much more resources should be applied to regulation, control, and counseling.
In 1996 General Barry McCaffrey was appointed as the US "Drug Czar" -- head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP).  When he was appointed, I was happy.  As a recently retired USAF colonel, I thought highly of the Generals I had known..  The were usually straight-shooters who made decisions based on facts, and would never let politics affect their judgment.  For decades prior to McCaffrey, the US had created crazy anti-drug propaganda that distorted the truth and in many cases lied about the effects of drugs. For examples, see this link: us government anti drug posters from 1930s.  Since the 1930s the US Government has "toned down" the rhetoric, but has never presented the effects of marijuana in a factual form.  In fact, the Government didn't want to know the facts, because they banned all scientific testing of the effects of marijuana. However General McCaffrey let the country down.  He caved in to the anti-drug warriors and expanded the drug war to Colombia.  He also traveled to other countries who had relaxed policies on marijuana, such as Netherlands, and then reported that their policies were "disasters" -- which, in 20/20 hindsight was clearly a lie on his part.  Now the Republican Party, is claiming it would be a disaster if California legalized pot.  However Alaska, Colorado, Washington, Oregon and Washington DC, has legalized pot, and I have not heard of any "disasters" there yet.

Will the California Legislature Lead on Pot? Or will they again show they aren't worth their pay?

It is April 2016, and almost everyone in California seems to believe that recreational marijuana will be “legalized” through a November ballot initiative.  According to LA Times, at least one of the 20 propositions will make it onto the ballot.  It is pretty clear from the results in Colorado that the drug armageddon that the right-wingers threatened would happen, has not occurred there, or on other states where pot has been legalized.  Polls in California seem to show that the public is overwhelmingly in favor of legalizing pot, and local governments are trying to position themselves to maximize the possible increased revenue.

One of the problems with ballot initiatives is that they are not always written well.  They are written in order to gain public support, but are not always well reviewed.  Opponents don’t always want to correct flaws, because they hope to exploit those flaws in advertising against the initiatives.  After a ballot initiative is passed, it is very difficult to amend.  The legislature is bound by the initiative and can’t easily change parts of it to “tune” it or make necessary changes after it becomes law.   Proposition 13, for example, was a cumbersome law that could have been made unnecessary with corrective legislation passed months or years prior to its passage.  After it was passed, it took years of legislative wrangling, and additional propositions to correct some of its obvious flaws. The same thing happened with Proposition 184 in 1994, the three strikes law and the anti gay marriage Proposition 8. The state legislature could have easily passed laws that would have accomplished what the propositions did, and then later could have passed changes to that law that would have corrected any flaws discovered after enactment.  I wondered why the legislature failed to act on those issues, but in all fairness, it was not clear from polls in advance of those initiatives that they would, in fact, pass.  However in this case it is different!  According to Orange County Register, polls are clearly pointing toward legalization.  

Our legislators are our elected representatives, and should be passing laws that the people of the state want.  That is their job!  Why do they refuse to take the important steps necessary to do that?  They now have an opportunity to pass legislation to legalize marijuana before the ballot initiatives are finalized.  They could look at what works in other states, and quickly draft and pass the new law.  Democrats have control of the legislature and the governor, so legislation should not be held up by political infighting. In general Democrats seem to be in favor of personal freedoms, while Republicans generally try to restrict our freedoms, and try to protect the jobs of their higher paid constituents that include prosecutors, judges, and higher ranking police. Even so,  I believe many Republicans would also be willing to vote for legalization to show they are in sync with their constituents, and also interested in getting the new revenue source without raising taxes.

This is our legislature’s opportunity to show their leadership.  Will they do it?     .  

Nixon's Rationale for Starting the "War on Drugs"

In the 1960s I really didn't understand why the US stepped up the "drug war." Yes, we heard stories about drug abuse. But during my 5 years of college, I had never seen anyone have, buy, sell, or use drugs. Of course, we did tap an occasional keg of beer at our fraternity on Saturday night. There was a news report that Penn State police arrested someone for selling marijuana, but it turned out the man was selling oregano, so he was released. I understand that to prevent similar embarrassment many states later passed laws to make selling of non-drugs as drugs illegal. As I became an officer in the Air Force in 1968, the military gradually ramped-up drug abuse training & surveillance. Yes, we certainly didn't want people flying planes, piloting ships, or carrying guns under the influence of drugs. In the "civilian world" though, it seemed that the Government's efforts were only making the drug problem worse, and the Government was gradually taking away our rights with the "drug war" as justification. It always seemed like a mystery how Government could get away with violating so many of our constitutional rights to prevent people from doing something that affected only themselves in the privacy of their own home.

Last week, Dan Baum published an article in Harper's entitled "Legalize It All:  How to Win the War on Drugs/" Dan Baum says that in a 1994 interview he had with John Ehrlichman, he finally resolved the mystery. Ehrlichman said that Richard Nixon stoked the fires of the drug war in order to continue his war in Vietnam, and his battle against Blacks. Once he got the drug war going, it was hard to stop. All subsequent administrations found it useful to continue. Since that time, the drug war-industrial complex has grown HUGE. I don't think that anyone has ever been able to add up the amount of money spent each year by all levels of government involved in the drug war. I don't believe there is any branch of our government, at any level that doesn't have to consider some aspect of the drug war in their operations or budget.  Even neighborhood parks have to consider the drug war in their design and operation. Ehrlichman's statement, if true, does make sense, and at least partially explains why the Government did what it did.  Each participant in the "drug war" has continued to do what they think is the right thing to do to fight that war.  As a result, we now allow the Government to search everyone going in and out of our borders for money and drugs using both expensive and sophisticated equipment and highly trained dogs.  We use powerful computers to monitor all of our money transfers through the banking system, and monitor and track all of our travel, phone calls, and internet browsing.  When will it stop?  How much further will they go?  If we can't keep drugs out of prisons, how can we keep them from the public.  

.

Heroin Addiction Rising & now can be synthesized

On August 20th the San Diego Union Tribune had an editorial about the increase in the abuse of heroin.  The alert was raised by using data provided by the US DEA and the San Diego County Prescription Drug Abuse Task Force.  They claim that more people are using pain killers than ever before.  These organizations, of course want to defend and probably increase their budgets, so their claims could be viewed with some skepticism.  I would prefer there be some sort of independent organization gather and provide those statistics.  I do know from the US demographics that there are a huge number of people getting to the age where they have more aches and pains, and chronic diseases that require more pain medication to control it.  I didn't see any mention of that fact.  All opiate medications are very carefully controlled, inventoried and tracked.  If there are "leaks" in the system, the DEA certainly has the power to tighten up the tracking of those medicines.

On the other hand, what I predicted many years ago, has now happened.  Rachel Feltman of the Washington Post reported that scientists can now synthesize heroin using yeast and sugar.   So, theoretically, citizens could make heroin, (and in the future maybe cocaine, or THC) at home for their own use?  I'm sure that the anti-drug industrial complex will do their best to stop people from being able to do that!  

Asset Seizure -- A Relic of the War on Drugs

Today's Sunday LA Times (23 Aug 15) had an editorial advocating SB433 (sponsored by State Senator Holly Mitchell --Democrat from LA) currently being considered by California's legislature to put some more restrictions on the seizure of assets by police agencies. Three days ago, the San Diego Union Tribune published an editorial by David Bejarano, the Chula Vista Police Chief arguing against the law.

Since the 1980s I have been concerned about the infringement on our civil liberties by the police being permitted to confiscate our property without proving our guilt.  The situation has continued to become worse, as the amount of assets seized continues to increase.  It is sort of like allowing our US Army soldiers or battalions to keep any money, land or assets they might capture in war.  Throughout the first millennium that practice was called "looting and pillaging" and the "rewarding fun" of doing that was one of the main recruiting tools used by Roman Emperors, Crusaders, and Attila the Hun to conscript soldiers.

I can understand David Bejarano and the California Police Chief's Association position.  They are frustrated, feel they don't have enough budget to fight what appears to be an endless and overwhelming war on drugs. The funds obtained through seizures can help them do their job.  I can also sympathize with his argument (using a hypothetical transnational drug organization) that there are situations where huge amounts of assets could be "laundered." before a the defendant is found guilty.  Yes, in cases like that, the assets should be "frozen" to prevent them from moving them out of reach before a trial.  However, as is so often the case, when the police are given a "tool" they abuse it.  Police agencies have used the forfeiture process to blackmail people into testifying (maybe lying) against others in order to get their property back.  They have seized homes from owners who's tenants have done drug deals.  They have "planted" evidence in order to be able to seize property from unwitting citizens.  The process of getting property returned is so expensive and cumbersome (guilty until proven innocent) that innocent people have lost almost everything they owned to fight it.  

On the other hand, David Bejarano, and the Police Chiefs clearly have a conflict of interest in arguing against the law. Police departments are clearly beneficiaries of the current arrangement.

It is clear that forfeiture is primarily used as a weapon in the drug war.  I haven't heard many cases where it has been used in cases involving other crimes, such as prostitution, gambling, etc.  I agree that recreational drugs are a scourge on our society and we do need to try to stop people from abusing them.  However I do not believe that our current approach focusing on interdiction is the right one.  As a result of our drug war, the US has a larger percentage of our population locked up in prisons than any other country in the world.  Are we really a "free" country?  Or are we being subjugated by the "Police-Industrial" complex who make huge amounts of money (much more than the "street value" of drugs seized) to seize and hold our property hostage, monitor our finances,track our travels,  read our email, and listen to our phone calls,

I hope SB433 passes.  It isn't a perfect bill, but it is a step in the right direction of putting some controls on the process to protect citizens from abuse, while still allowing our police departments to do their job.