November will be an interesting thing in CA. Among other things, legalizing marijuana is on the ballot. This will be interesting because the tax funded war on drugs (which I think has done more to promote the use of truly harmful substances than it has to curb them) has been waged in quite a curious manner. I cite the cases in which our federal people have aided smugglers while punishing their own whenever they got in the way of certain cartels' operatives. Under the Bush era, several border patrol agents were put behind bars in trials marked by withheld evidence and violent smugglers being paid to testify.
Nothing has changed in that regard, except the pretense of protecting citizens on the border has been lifted a bit.
It was never a war against drugs. It was always a war to ensure certain entities maintained their trafficking networks. I do not know all the detailed ins and outs, but the basic duplicity of the effort is clear. It is hard to keep clear of conspiracy theory when looking at this stuff, but I try. I remember when no one knew what crack was---until the NY Times ran an article describing it, explaining not only how cheap it was but details on how to manufacture it. Really, they gave the entire recipe and process. Anyone with a little cocaine could have used that article as a guide for turning it into crack. Soon, the stuff was all over the place.
So far, from what I've heard, more right leaning people appear in favor of legalization than not. No idea what Arnold's take is. My guess is that he is opposed. I am guessing that behind the scenes La Raza will work against it. It would prove troublesome to the illegals who run farms in national forests. It would also limit the income of the gangs who are part of the drug distribution network. Of course, as much as people pretend otherwise, they also promote some much more damaging substances.
Denial is the only explanation I can figure for the view that alcohol is safer and less likely to accompany violence than is marijuana. Until the recent lunatics who became unruly on airplanes and such, then blamed it on medical pot, I had never known of purely cannabis induced violence. I believe that those who blame their violent behavior on being stoned are lying, hoping ignorant and idiotic authorities or juries will buy the excuse. It is simply not the nature of the substance on the huge preponderance of people.
Of course, those who run the illegal farms on federal land are prone to violence, but not due to use of the weed.
Personally, I am for legalizing pot, and any other plant you care to grow, as long as it isn't a plant that grows out of control and destroys the countryside, like kudzu. I'd make most pharmaceuticals available to adults who feel the need, without the hassle of going to a doctor for a prescription.
Some of us prefer to manage our own health care, and often the doctor visit is merely an exercise in legal extortion which is unnecessary as our own common sense would have worked just fine. Those who are prone to addiction are going to find it anyway, and in many cases became hooked under their doctor's guidance. It is highly possible that left to their on devices they might not have done it. The MD's stamp of approval gives a false sense of safety and security. It must be the best thing if the doctor says it is OK. If I make a bad choice I can sue the doc.
Legalizing pot could save money. One less thing for heavy handed police state interference. Also there are many useful products that hemp in various forms provides. Mostly, what business is it for anyone to tell me what I cannot grow or taste? The initiative allows one to use a 5 foot by 5 foot plot for personal growing use. It CA it is the number one cash crop--15 billion. The second highest yielding farm product is dairy at about half that amount. So, for the most part we are feeding gangs and Mexican cartels billions while wasting time trying to enforce personal choice.
From my experience I strongly believe the number one "gateway drug" is alcohol. You get drunk enough and you have no idea of the end result. Most people do not push it that far but the fire water is big trouble for some. Just a fact, not a reason to prevent its use or to make people obtain a special license to enjoy a glass of wine. Production of alcoholic beverages in an ancient art, and it gives much pleasure to many. If you are one who can't appreciate it properly, then you ought to avoid it. I guess it is like art appreciation---if your idea of great art is the tiger on black velvet, then best not to let anyone know.
It is highly unlikely that actual use and abuse of drugs will increase if big brother gets out of the act. Some studies allegedly confirm that assertion. Ever skeptical of the "studies show" arguments, I would not wager the farm on it. To me that is irrelevant. I strongly, achingly, believe that the birthright of all humans is to live free as long as you don't infringe on the right of others to do the same. And that trumps any studies and most else.
If the illegal voters and corrupt government entities and lobby groups who profit from keeping this plant under control of thugs don't skew the vote, I think it will pass. If so, I think I'll start a cottage business manufacturing special butter, salads, and maybe chocolate treats. The trick is that cannabis is fat/oil soluble, and also alcohol soluble. Water, not so much.
Then again, I doubt I'd even use it except possibly on highly special occasions. Anything that limits the number of excuses for random search and seizure is good. We gave up our right to be free of search without probable cause under this phony "war on drugs". Like health care, the reaction to lunatic terrorists, and who knows what, it was merely another move for an elite to control the population and increase their power.
I'm all for fighting violent thugs and insanely motivated terrorists who think Allah wants them to kill infidels, but I am not in agreement to combating these things by imprisoning citizens and intruding on their right to liberty willy nilly.
So, with some luck, California will let go of the ban on pot, while continuing to fight the evils of trans fats and that stuff you put in the atmosphere when you sigh--CO2.
Maybe they'll even begin to look at the causes for something like 47000 businesses leaving the state in a year's time. Maybe it was 4700. I'll double check, but in either case, that is not a good trend, and there are obvious reasons for it. Anywhere this beautiful and sunny is not easy to leave without good reason.
I knew I heard that 47K number. This from a thing called The Digital Report in an article discussing a [piece of legislation in CA designed to take into account economic impact when making other laws, or some such thing. CA is impact crazy; how will the seals respond? What about the safety of children who walk too fast? Will the earth suffer a worse fever? What about the coyotes? The owls? The manzanitas? etc
The Census Bureau’s 2010 Statistical Abstract of the United States provides that one of every six American employers that closed permanently in 2008 was in California. Our state experienced 45% more business closures than launches, compared to 10.5% nationally. By the end of that year there were almost 47,000 fewer businesses in California than in 2007.
Most likely a lot just went off the radar. It is easier to operate if you class yourself as an undocumented business, person, or worker. Anything else is far too complicated to process with anything but a sick, warped and, quite possibly, brain damaged mind--the sort that embraces and relishes red tape and legal tyranny.
