I saw this article in the LA Times:
How legalizing marijuana on Indian reservations could end the prohibition on pot - LA Times
and this one a few days later in Union Tribune that describes the history of marijuana restrictions http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/dec/25/marijuana-history/
I had no idea that President Nixon made it illegal in 1970. I thought it had always been illegal! This is another thing on the list of "evils" that Nixon was able to do while in office. Of course the Vietnam war was at the top of the list. However his making pot illegal, and listing it in the highest category ruined millions of lives since that time, contributed to destruction of the environment (for illegal pot farms) and increased the level of crime. Of course, the police, judges, prisons, DEA, FBI, Homeland Security, border patrol etc all made huge salaries from that decision.
Now, it appears that Indians will be allowed to grow it on their land! What a dramatic change!
Sunday, December 28, 2014
Sunday, October 19, 2014
Is Threat of Punishment Necessary to Treat Drug Addiction?
Today's Union Tribune had an article by Kristina Davis expressing concern about Prop 47 which is on the ballot this November.
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/oct/18/election-proposition-47-drug-possession-punishment/
Prop 47 will mandate the reduction of penalties for minor crimes...including, of course, drug possession.
The police departments and prosecutors are all against this proposition. They have a relatively good argument that addicts may need some sort of threat of punishment in order to get them motivated to go through treatment. Of course, I believe the police and prosecutors are also trying to protect their own "industry" --they recognize that if they can't prosecute people for the minor crimes, there will be less need for their services. The prosecutors may have brought this problem on themselves. They abused the "three strikes law" that was meant for three "violent" crimes and began using it for drug offenses too. They say that threat of punishment is necessary to get people to treatment, however the police and prosecutors throughout California have not used that "threat" to get people to treatment, but have pushed people into prisons for minor offenses.
Kristina Davis also didn't discriminate between drug offenses for marijuana vs other, more dangerous drugs. The prosecutors would want to push even people arrested for marijuana possession to drug treatment because the laws have arbitrarily put marijuana into the same category as other drugs. .
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/oct/18/election-proposition-47-drug-possession-punishment/
Prop 47 will mandate the reduction of penalties for minor crimes...including, of course, drug possession.
The police departments and prosecutors are all against this proposition. They have a relatively good argument that addicts may need some sort of threat of punishment in order to get them motivated to go through treatment. Of course, I believe the police and prosecutors are also trying to protect their own "industry" --they recognize that if they can't prosecute people for the minor crimes, there will be less need for their services. The prosecutors may have brought this problem on themselves. They abused the "three strikes law" that was meant for three "violent" crimes and began using it for drug offenses too. They say that threat of punishment is necessary to get people to treatment, however the police and prosecutors throughout California have not used that "threat" to get people to treatment, but have pushed people into prisons for minor offenses.
Kristina Davis also didn't discriminate between drug offenses for marijuana vs other, more dangerous drugs. The prosecutors would want to push even people arrested for marijuana possession to drug treatment because the laws have arbitrarily put marijuana into the same category as other drugs. .
Sunday, July 13, 2014
DEA may be losing the war on marijuana politics - Los Angeles Times
Sunday LA Times had an article by Evan Halper that says that the DEA is losing the war on pot.
DEA may be losing the war on marijuana politics - Los Angeles Times:
The part of the article that disturbed me was that Michele Leonhart , head of the DEA received standing ovations from the Anti-Drug/Industrial complex attendees at a conference. It seems clear to me that the primary push back on legalizing pot is the people who are afraid of losing their jobs. They may not lose their jobs --because the serious drugs: Opiates, cocaine, PCP, etc are still a serious problem. However being able to make the easy big, dramatic marijuana busts was good for the morale of the troops. It was also relatively easy, because it is large and difficult to conceal. Busting "store front" medical marijuana stores was also very easy to do.
I can sympathize. Soldiers who spent many years fighting a war in Vietnam felt terrible after we retreated and gave up the war. These Government employees of the DEA, and their many relatively high-paid contractors have been fighting the "drug war" for 60 years. The government "declared war" on drugs and began attacking the users and producers of drugs. Marijuana has always been included as one of those drugs.
Now that it appears that the Government is giving up the war on pot, I can see how bad that would be for the morale. Those agents probably think about how much of their life was spent doing it, and how many people's lives they ruined and sent to jail for doing something that soon might not even be a crime. Pretty tough to swallow. Michele Leonhart has a huge challenge to keep the DEA focused during this Marijuana transition. She doesn't have to be a "friend" to the agents and contractors --she is going to have to LEAD. That might be extra difficult for her to do, since she sort of "came up through the ranks"
DEA may be losing the war on marijuana politics - Los Angeles Times:
The part of the article that disturbed me was that Michele Leonhart , head of the DEA received standing ovations from the Anti-Drug/Industrial complex attendees at a conference. It seems clear to me that the primary push back on legalizing pot is the people who are afraid of losing their jobs. They may not lose their jobs --because the serious drugs: Opiates, cocaine, PCP, etc are still a serious problem. However being able to make the easy big, dramatic marijuana busts was good for the morale of the troops. It was also relatively easy, because it is large and difficult to conceal. Busting "store front" medical marijuana stores was also very easy to do.
I can sympathize. Soldiers who spent many years fighting a war in Vietnam felt terrible after we retreated and gave up the war. These Government employees of the DEA, and their many relatively high-paid contractors have been fighting the "drug war" for 60 years. The government "declared war" on drugs and began attacking the users and producers of drugs. Marijuana has always been included as one of those drugs.
Now that it appears that the Government is giving up the war on pot, I can see how bad that would be for the morale. Those agents probably think about how much of their life was spent doing it, and how many people's lives they ruined and sent to jail for doing something that soon might not even be a crime. Pretty tough to swallow. Michele Leonhart has a huge challenge to keep the DEA focused during this Marijuana transition. She doesn't have to be a "friend" to the agents and contractors --she is going to have to LEAD. That might be extra difficult for her to do, since she sort of "came up through the ranks"
Thursday, June 12, 2014
REAL MEDICINE -Marijuana discussed in Union Tribune
This past Sunday the San Diego Union Tribune had a large column in their "In Depth" editorial section about medical benefits of Marijuana:
REAL MEDICINE? | UTSanDiego.com:
I was surprised that the article seemed so favorable toward medical marijuana,and it seemed to treat the subject much more fairly. In the past, I was under the impression that the newspaper editorial staff reluctantly sometimes supported the California policy since the medical marijuana proposition was passed. From the sound of this article, they seemed to be a little more in favor of it.
I wonder if CVS, Rite-Aid, and Walgreens were selling the prescription medicine it would have been different. When the proposition came out, I wondered why the authors insisted on pot dispensaries being little mom & pop operations. I think they might have been trying to help small farmers or something like that, rather than actually improve patient's health.
The newspaper does, however seem to want to put more restrictions on the retail establishments. From reading their articles and editorials, it sometimes sounds like the medical marijuana dispensaries are in the business of selling illegal drugs to children and they attract bums and sleazy people around the neighborhoods of the businesses. Somehow I think they are stretching the truth -- I have a hard time believing that sick people congregate around outside these businesses and contribute to noise, pollution, crime etc. I think they go in, buy their prescription and go home. I never seem to read or hear of real complaints from neighbors -- always the police or prosecutors who just don't like the businesses being legal because it is cutting down on their opportunities for easy busts.
REAL MEDICINE? | UTSanDiego.com:
I was surprised that the article seemed so favorable toward medical marijuana,and it seemed to treat the subject much more fairly. In the past, I was under the impression that the newspaper editorial staff reluctantly sometimes supported the California policy since the medical marijuana proposition was passed. From the sound of this article, they seemed to be a little more in favor of it.
I wonder if CVS, Rite-Aid, and Walgreens were selling the prescription medicine it would have been different. When the proposition came out, I wondered why the authors insisted on pot dispensaries being little mom & pop operations. I think they might have been trying to help small farmers or something like that, rather than actually improve patient's health.
The newspaper does, however seem to want to put more restrictions on the retail establishments. From reading their articles and editorials, it sometimes sounds like the medical marijuana dispensaries are in the business of selling illegal drugs to children and they attract bums and sleazy people around the neighborhoods of the businesses. Somehow I think they are stretching the truth -- I have a hard time believing that sick people congregate around outside these businesses and contribute to noise, pollution, crime etc. I think they go in, buy their prescription and go home. I never seem to read or hear of real complaints from neighbors -- always the police or prosecutors who just don't like the businesses being legal because it is cutting down on their opportunities for easy busts.
Tuesday, May 20, 2014
Marijuana legalization hurting Mexican drug cartels
I found it interesting in this article that the marijuana growers of Mexico are cutting back on the amount of crop they are growing because of reduced demand from the US. The price they are getting has dropped from $100/Kg to $25/Kg, so it is no longer profitable. I assume this drop in demand is due to the legalization in the few states that have so far done it. See this article: Marijuana legalization hurting Mexican drug cartels: "
The article says that the DEA spends over $2 Billion for Marijuana enforcement. The DEA is just one agency too! I'm sure that FBI, CIA, TSA, NSA, Coast Guard, Border Patrol, and Homeland Security spend a lot as well.
I believe the US Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines are also partially involved in drug interdiction -- but it would be difficult to separate out the interdiction of marijuana from the other drugs. In addition to those Federal agencies, each state also has their own police force and prosecution staff (prosecutors, public defenders, judges, court reporters, balifs etc. Counties have their sheriff departments, and district attorneys, superior courts etc, and cities do also. In addition to these forces, a large percentage of the population in prisons and jails are due to convictions for various crimes involving marijuana: growing, selling, or using the drug. The US also sends money and assistance to other countries to assist them in drug interdiction. The $2B spent by the DEA is only a small part of our governments on policing marijuana business. I wouldn't be surprised if the actual number was closer to $20 Billion/year.
The interesting thing is that the largest portion of that money goes to pay for LABOR -- it doesn't buy much equipment, or capital improvements in the country. Who are the recipients of most of that money? It is the same people who are always fighting the legalization. They, just like the Mexican marijuana farmers, are fighting to keep their jobs! They know that if Marijuana were legalized that many of their jobs would be eliminated.
The country would be a LOT better off if the $20B were spent on bridges, flood control, internet infrastructure, disease prevention research, education etc.
The article says that the DEA spends over $2 Billion for Marijuana enforcement. The DEA is just one agency too! I'm sure that FBI, CIA, TSA, NSA, Coast Guard, Border Patrol, and Homeland Security spend a lot as well.
I believe the US Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines are also partially involved in drug interdiction -- but it would be difficult to separate out the interdiction of marijuana from the other drugs. In addition to those Federal agencies, each state also has their own police force and prosecution staff (prosecutors, public defenders, judges, court reporters, balifs etc. Counties have their sheriff departments, and district attorneys, superior courts etc, and cities do also. In addition to these forces, a large percentage of the population in prisons and jails are due to convictions for various crimes involving marijuana: growing, selling, or using the drug. The US also sends money and assistance to other countries to assist them in drug interdiction. The $2B spent by the DEA is only a small part of our governments on policing marijuana business. I wouldn't be surprised if the actual number was closer to $20 Billion/year.
The interesting thing is that the largest portion of that money goes to pay for LABOR -- it doesn't buy much equipment, or capital improvements in the country. Who are the recipients of most of that money? It is the same people who are always fighting the legalization. They, just like the Mexican marijuana farmers, are fighting to keep their jobs! They know that if Marijuana were legalized that many of their jobs would be eliminated.
The country would be a LOT better off if the $20B were spent on bridges, flood control, internet infrastructure, disease prevention research, education etc.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)