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.  

.