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.
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.
