Michele Leonhart for DEA?

I understand that there are a lot of groups opposing Michele Leonhart to be appointed as head of the DEA. Apparently she is Obama's nomination, although she was originally appointed by George W Bush as deputy for DEA. Many people believe that she is behind the drive within the DEA to raid Marijuana dispensaries in states where medical marijuana is legal.

Yes, she does have a tough job. However she does have to make some serious priority decisions on how to use the Government resources at her disposal.

She can use resources to try to stop the manufacture, sale and use of the hard drugs that are tearing our country apart and spreading an almost civil war in Mexico. To do that requires skilled people, careful diplomacy with Mexican authorities, meticulous detective work, and detailed effort to build cases against these criminals. The results of these efforts take months or years to accomplish.

Or, she can a few thugs into a building that has a medical marijuana sign in front and lead some workers out of a building in handcuffs and act like she has done something. Of course, in the process, she will have denied many sick and often terminally sick people from a little bit of comfort before they die.

I question her decision. I've written to our California Senators and President Obama to not confirm her to this important DEA post. I'm sure we can find another hard-working dedicated executive who can do this job well, and make a lot better decisions.

LA County Sheriff Baca Position

Thomas Watkins of Associated Press posted an article today that ran in multiple newspapers that described LA County Sheriff Baca's position on the medical marijuana clinics in California (See article)
Sheriff Baca claims (with no evidence or proof) that 97 percent of the pot shops operate as "criminal enterprises" and he connects them to the Mexican drug cartels. He plans to lead efforts against the pot legalization initiative on the California fall ballot.
It appears that many people think that efforts like his and District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis in San Diego are simply for "job protection." Arresting people for pot usage and sale is clearly a much easier task for them than going after more serious crimes. The more people they have working for them, the higher their pay etc. They clearly aren't "protecting the public" from any threat against our safety or well-being.
I think the State should grow pot using prison labor, on state land -- that would exempt the state from the federal laws. Then the state could sell it to the cooperatives and take out all of the middlemen.

Lying Voters are going to make Prop 19 campaign interesting

Thomas D Elias published an editorial in the North County Times on Wednesday September 1st 2010 that pointed out that the "pollsters" are having a very tough time determining public opinion on California Proposition 19, the Marijuana legalization initiative.
Apparently the Field Poll last month found that 48 percent of likely voters are opposed to legalization, while only 44 percent are in favor. But automated polls taken at the same time (robotically) shows that the measure is leading by as much as 15%. It is possible that people when asked on the phone don't want to admit that they are in favor of legalization. So it is going to be very difficult to predict what is going to happen in November on this issue.

Mr. Elias also mentioned several other interesting statistics:
1. In 1972 there was another proposition like this one, but it lost with a 2 to 1 margin.
2. Some believe that by legalizing the $12 Billion pot industry and taxing it, the state could raise $1.4 Billion. However nobody knows for sure.
3. The $12 Billion estimate is based upon the current street value of Pot (he says $300/oz), which will probably fall if the market is legal. So the tax collection, if a percentage of the revenue, will also be less. Unless the demand for the product increases due to the legalization. Both of these factors are very tough, even for a skilled economist to figure out.
4. He asks if Republicans would support a tax on Pot when they have pledged "no new taxes?"
5 Women oppose the proposition with a 9 percent margin, while men are even.

What would happen if there were NO recreational drugs?

Another way of looking at our drug policy is to consider an example at the edge of reason. In mathematics such as differential equations, we call it examining boundary conditions.

What would the world be like if the human body was totally immune or impervious to all possible drugs that could be used recreational? For example, humans could drink alcohol, but it would only make us sick, not affect our brain, relax us, or cause us to lose good judgment. Tranquilizers, Heroin, Cocaine, Meth, & Marijuana did nothing to provide a pleasurable feeling. Yeah we'd probably need some drug that would stop pain for injuries or surgery --but it wouldn't cause any pleasurable effect that could make it desirable for recreation.

What would the world be like in that situation?

Free trade would prevail -- it seems that one of the main reasons for preventing free trade is to tax alcohol and tobacco.

Prisons would be very empty or non-existent, since many crimes are committed while under the influence, and a large percentage of our prisoners are there due to either using, making or selling drugs -- or laundering money made from drugs.

Religions would probably be more popular. It is well known that religious experiences due to music, chanting etc have pleasurable effects similar to drugs.

What would happen if we found the perfect recreational drug?

I often think about this question: What would happen if someone invented the absolutely perfect recreational drug? What would happen in the US in terms of legislation, taxation, enforcement etc?

What would a "perfect" recreational drug be?

It would have to have no "bad" side effects

• No short-term side effects such as impairing safety, or inciting a person to commit a crime.
• It would have to have no long-term side effects, such as caus cancer, require increasing dosage, damage the heart, liver, kidneys or brain cells.
• It couldn't impair learning or development, and not affect reproduction, gestation, or lactation.
• The dose should be such that an increased amount would do nothing --so an overdose is impossible.
• All of the above would have to be proven with extensive testing over a long period of time

It would have to provide a desirable "good effect" to make it desirable for recreation. What would that be?

• Calming,relaxing, mood elevating?
• The feeling should only last a short time --say 30minutes, so people have control over the amount of time they're under the influence

People who are under the influence of the drug should be clearly identifiable --Their eyes turn red, or their ears turn blue. So if your airline pilot has blue ears, you wouldn't want to fly with him.

Let's assume that there was such a drug--invented today and all of the above is proven. Could I sell it legally? No, it would require the FDA approval. Even if all of those items above were proven, it is likely that the FDA would disapprove it. Why?

One reason is that the competing "legal recreation drug purveyors" would feel threatened. Beer, wine and liquor industries would contribute funds to lobby and advertise against legalization of this new drug. Bars, night clubs, restaurants, beer distributors, and cigar emporiums would all contribute to lobby against the new drug.

The religion industry would also rally against the drug. They know that Karl Marx was right when he said "Religion is the opiate of the people" --A less expensive drug would certainly cause the US religion industry to decrease their revenue.

The anti-drug industry would also feel threatened. There is a huge industry that has evolved around stopping recreational drugs. DEA employees, Prison builders and prison guard unions would certainly stop at spending anything to stop the new drug. Companies that make breathalysers, ignition lock out systems, drug dog trainers, and border surveillance industries would be against it.

The illegal drug industry would also be against this new drug. If people could buy a inexpensive legal, and safe drug, why would they buy these illegal, expensive and unsafe drugs? They would all contribute to the cause of stopping the legalization of this new "perfect recreational drug." Mendocino County residents are against the legalization of marijuana in California because so much of their economy is based upon the manufacture and sale of illegal marijuana.

If a drug like this was discovered and proven elsewhere, those same industries would do everything in their power to prevent the new drug from even being tested. For example, the industries have been preventing all US drug developers from doing controlled tests with Marijuana for decades. Since the 1920s and 1930s the US Government has published advertising and "health" education warning about Marijuana. In most cases the Government has knowingly lied about the health problems caused by Marijuana.

Taking this to another level -- what would happen if we learned that we could manufacture this drug safely at home with a couple of simple household products. For instance if we split a banana, put a piece of spearmint gum inside, close it back up and put it into the refrigerator for 3 days --then chew the gum. Would the Government make importation of banana's illegal? Would the government ban spearmint gum? Or require the forumla for the gum be changed to prevent the chemical reaction from occurring?