As you may or may not know, the United State still has at least one accomplishment in which it leads the world: We have the highest prison population rate in the world. That’s right, with 738 of every 100,000 people in the U.S. in prison, we are number one. That’s roughly 0.7 percent of the population. Now 0.7 percent might not sound like such a big number, but compared to the rest of the world it’s pretty impressive. It works out to about 2.3 million people. In comparison, Russia comes in a distant second with only 611 per 100,000 of its population in prison. And England, for example, has only 148 per 100,000 of its population in prison.
But it seems to me that we are not doing enough, prison population-wise. If we aren’t careful, some of those prison population wannabes, like Russia or Cuba, are going to take our crown. Not that such a thing would be easy, but that doesn’t mean we can rest on our past achievements. We need to keep up our frenetic pace of arrests and convictions. And how better than by going after people using illegal drugs. They are, after all, pretty easy to catch. Especially in California where they operate in the open. Not like murderers or rapists. Sort of like if you’re in college and you’re worried about your GPA dropping, you sign up for some easy classes. The results look good on paper, and you don’t really have to put in a lot of effort.
So I’ve been looking at some numbers to see how much we can accomplish if we really set our minds to it. Currently, the U.S. population is approximately 305 million. Of those, approximately 66 percent are White, 15 percent are Hispanic, and 13 percent are Black. The reason such a breakdown is important is because you can’t just go around putting lots of White people in prison. We do need to maintain at least somewhat of the status quo, where the Black prison population is about 6 times that of the white prison population, and Hispanics are incarcerated at about twice the rate of Whites. Of course if we really want to excel we’re going to have to set aside some of our old ways, and start going after non-minority offenders a lot more than we have.
And where better to start than with marijuana users. Unlike other crimes, and even other drug-related crimes, marijuana smoking crosses all racial, ethnic, and geographic lines. The rich and poor alike, urban and rural, young and old, all like their weed. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, approximately 6 percent of the U.S. population 12 years and older are regular marijuana smokers. If broken down by age group, that number goes up considerably. Of those aged 18-25 years, 16.6 percent smoke marijuana regularly, and 8.6 percent of those aged 26-34 are regular smokers. Now we’re talking some serious numbers. According to U.S. census information, somewhere in the neighborhood of 22 percent of the population falls into that 18-34 age group. That works out to about 67 million people, and of those about 8 million are regular marijuana smokers. That’s almost 3 percent of our total population.
I don’t know about you, but numbers like that tell me that our law enforcement officials are not coming anywhere close to doing their jobs. We have over 8 million criminals in this country, and fewer than one million of them are behind bars. That means that almost 90 percent of those dangerous marijuana-smoking criminals are walking around free, smoking their reefer and flouting the law. I don’t know much about how the law-enforcement business works, but in any other business a 12 percent success rate would be totally unacceptable. It would indicate total, absolute failure. Heads would role, people would be fired. Consultants would be brought in.
So what can we do? Almost 3 percent of our population are criminals, yet fewer than one in ten of those criminals are behind bars. Maybe it’s just me, but I find that pretty embarrassing. And scary. How can any of us feel safe and secure with so many criminals running around free? The only solution I can see is to ceaselessly go after all of these marijuana-smoking criminals. I mean, let’s get really serious about it. Not just the occasional bust of a kid smoking a joint or a raid on a medical marijuana dispensary. I think it would be more efficient to just assume that everyone is guilty until proven innocent. Then, after we get that 3 percent of our population safely locked away, we can go after the rest. Remember, that 3 percent represents only the 18-32 age group. There are still millions of younger and older Americans who smoke marijuana regularly. And what about the occasional users? They’re breaking the law just like the rest; an occasional crime is still a crime. So with just marijuana smokers alone, we could increase our prison population to over 5 percent and quite possibly close to 10 percent of our total population. No other country would ever come close to a number like that. We would secure our number one position in the prison population game once and for all. And we would all certainly sleep better knowing that nearly one in ten of our friends and neighbors are securely locked away, no longer smoking their “devil’s weed.” I know I would.
Now if you would, please join me in a little patriotic chant: U – S – A… We’re number 1. U – S – A… We’re number 1. U – S – A… We’re number 1. U – S – A… We’re number 1.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
R.I.P. U.S. Constitution
It’s now official. The Constitution, in particular the Bill of Rights, no longer applies to law enforcement officers. How could something like this possibly happen? Here, in the good ol’ U.S. of A.? Land of the “free.” Simple, the Supreme Court made a decision.
That’s right, the U.S. Supreme Court recently decided that evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search or arrest can still be used against a defendant. Of course this ruling applies only when officers make a “mistake.” Like serving an expired warrant in this case, for example. So much for the 4th Amendment.
Believe it or not, I don’t really have much to say about this turn of events. I think it speaks for itself. There is now nothing to stop the police from obtaining evidence illegally. All they have to do is say it was a simple mistake. I have a feeling that police “mistakes” in gathering evidence are about to go up dramatically. The police now have carte blanche when it comes to search and seizure. We can no longer feel “secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects.” For once, our government has given us something to really be afraid of. And it’s not terrorists or weapons of mass destruction. It’s our government. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
That’s right, the U.S. Supreme Court recently decided that evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search or arrest can still be used against a defendant. Of course this ruling applies only when officers make a “mistake.” Like serving an expired warrant in this case, for example. So much for the 4th Amendment.
Believe it or not, I don’t really have much to say about this turn of events. I think it speaks for itself. There is now nothing to stop the police from obtaining evidence illegally. All they have to do is say it was a simple mistake. I have a feeling that police “mistakes” in gathering evidence are about to go up dramatically. The police now have carte blanche when it comes to search and seizure. We can no longer feel “secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects.” For once, our government has given us something to really be afraid of. And it’s not terrorists or weapons of mass destruction. It’s our government. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
U.S. Supreme Court Decides Not To Decide
Sometimes what the U.S. Supreme Court doesn’t decide is as important as when it actually hands down a decision. But how, you might ask, can that be? If the U.S. Supreme Court doesn’t decide an issue, doesn’t that mean it’s still unresolved? The answer is, not necessarily.
It all started back in 2005 when local police arrested Felix Kha, a Garden Grove, CA citizen, for possession of marijuana and seized one-third of an ounce of the controlled substance from him. The charge was eventually dropped, since Mr. Kha was in compliance with California state medical marijuana laws. However the police refused to return his seized medicine. And that’s what got this judicial ball rolling.
You see the police, and the city which backed up the police’s position, believed that they would be in violation of federal law if they gave the seized marijuana back to its rightful owner. Or so they said. That’s in spite of a valid court order for the return of Mr. Kha’s marijuana. When Mr. Kha pressed for the return of his medicine, the city filed suit with the 4th District Court of Appeals. That appeal was unanimously rejected. You’d think that would have been the end of it, and the police would have just returned the seized property. But no. The city then asked the California Supreme Court to review the case. They also declined, so that definitely should have put an end to the matter once and for all.
But no. Not to be deterred by two decisions not to review their appeal, the city of Garden Grove took their case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Funny thing, the U.S. Supreme Court also declined to hear the case. Fortunately for Mr. Kha, there are no more alternatives for the city of Garden Grove. Case closed. Period. End of discussion. The seized property must be returned. So now what?
Well, the city of Garden Grove spent $80,000 in their pursuit of this case. That amount may increase even more if they are ordered to pay Mr. Kha’s legal fees (as well they should). In the current economic climate, I bet the taxpayers of Garden Grove are just thrilled to death with the way their city is spending their hard-earned tax dollars.
But more significant are the ramifications of the highest court in the land refusing to review this case. It means that law enforcement officials in states with legalized medical marijuana must now respect patients’ rights (in theory). There will no longer be any question as to what to do with property seized from people in compliance with their state’s laws. That’s a great thing for sick people all across the country. But it gets even better. Not only does it mean that it is not the job of local law enforcement officials to enforce federal law, but it means that they cannot choose to uphold federal over state law. As if that wasn’t enough, it means that, contrary to what some have argued, federal law does not supercede state law. At least when it comes to medical marijuana. Whether or not local, state, and federal law enforcement officials abide by this ruling is another question. But at least a precedent has been set. It is, at the very least, one small victory over the U.S government in the war that it has been waging on its sick and dying citizens.
And who knows, maybe it will cause the local authorities to think twice before calling in the feds for a raid (yes, they do that all the time). They might even lose their jobs or be arrested themselves if they violate the state laws that they swore to uphold. And maybe the feds will think twice if they don’t have the cooperation of the local authorities. And maybe, just maybe, Mr. Kha will get his medicine back. Maybe not.
It all started back in 2005 when local police arrested Felix Kha, a Garden Grove, CA citizen, for possession of marijuana and seized one-third of an ounce of the controlled substance from him. The charge was eventually dropped, since Mr. Kha was in compliance with California state medical marijuana laws. However the police refused to return his seized medicine. And that’s what got this judicial ball rolling.
You see the police, and the city which backed up the police’s position, believed that they would be in violation of federal law if they gave the seized marijuana back to its rightful owner. Or so they said. That’s in spite of a valid court order for the return of Mr. Kha’s marijuana. When Mr. Kha pressed for the return of his medicine, the city filed suit with the 4th District Court of Appeals. That appeal was unanimously rejected. You’d think that would have been the end of it, and the police would have just returned the seized property. But no. The city then asked the California Supreme Court to review the case. They also declined, so that definitely should have put an end to the matter once and for all.
But no. Not to be deterred by two decisions not to review their appeal, the city of Garden Grove took their case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Funny thing, the U.S. Supreme Court also declined to hear the case. Fortunately for Mr. Kha, there are no more alternatives for the city of Garden Grove. Case closed. Period. End of discussion. The seized property must be returned. So now what?
Well, the city of Garden Grove spent $80,000 in their pursuit of this case. That amount may increase even more if they are ordered to pay Mr. Kha’s legal fees (as well they should). In the current economic climate, I bet the taxpayers of Garden Grove are just thrilled to death with the way their city is spending their hard-earned tax dollars.
But more significant are the ramifications of the highest court in the land refusing to review this case. It means that law enforcement officials in states with legalized medical marijuana must now respect patients’ rights (in theory). There will no longer be any question as to what to do with property seized from people in compliance with their state’s laws. That’s a great thing for sick people all across the country. But it gets even better. Not only does it mean that it is not the job of local law enforcement officials to enforce federal law, but it means that they cannot choose to uphold federal over state law. As if that wasn’t enough, it means that, contrary to what some have argued, federal law does not supercede state law. At least when it comes to medical marijuana. Whether or not local, state, and federal law enforcement officials abide by this ruling is another question. But at least a precedent has been set. It is, at the very least, one small victory over the U.S government in the war that it has been waging on its sick and dying citizens.
And who knows, maybe it will cause the local authorities to think twice before calling in the feds for a raid (yes, they do that all the time). They might even lose their jobs or be arrested themselves if they violate the state laws that they swore to uphold. And maybe the feds will think twice if they don’t have the cooperation of the local authorities. And maybe, just maybe, Mr. Kha will get his medicine back. Maybe not.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Because The Bible Tells Us So
Believe it or not, I do have some intellectual interests other than the war on drugs. And one of those interests is creationism or, if you prefer, intelligent design. Now I’m not exactly what you would call a religious person, so I don’t actually believe in the “theory” of creationism. And it certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with science. But you have to give the creationists credit for one thing: they have an answer for everything. Although the details vary depending on the issue, the bottom line of every one of their arguments is simply, “because the Bible tells us so.”
Don’t worry, I’m not going to go all preachy on you. Or try to justify the use of recreational drugs based on a tenuous interpretation of some obscure Bible verse (thank Jah). But whether or not you believe you can glean something about the meaning of life or the history of the universe from the Bible, I think you have to admit that the Bible can at the very least teach us something about human nature. Especially the Old Testament. And I think it is somewhat significant that the very first lesson in human nature that the Bible teaches us is fairly simple, straightforward, and not easily misinterpreted: Prohibition doesn’t work.
That’s right, the very first lesson we learn, after finding out about the creation of the universe, comes in chapter 3 of the book of Genesis. Adam and Eve were allowed to eat the fruit of any tree in their garden except for one, the tree of knowledge. They were warned quite clearly that if they ate from that particular tree that they would die. Of course they did eat the forbidden fruit, and the rest is history (at least according to the Bible). So what does that teach us?
First, prohibition cannot be based on lies or misinformation. Eating the forbidden fruit turned out not to be fatal after all. When Adam and Eve realized that they had been lied to about the true nature of the fruit, what else could they do but eat it? They were, after all, only human.
Second, a powerful enforcer of the law is not enough. Even the creator of the universe, who knows all and sees all, could not stop Adam and Eve from eating the forbidden fruit. So how could a mere government and their police force hope to do any better?
Third, even the threat of the most severe punishment, death, is not an effective deterrent. Especially when the “crime” is something that goes against human nature. In this case, the law attempted to prevent people from gaining knowledge. As we all know, people are always asking questions and learning new things. That’s what people do. Such a behavior cannot be controlled with legislation.
Fourth, you can’t watch everybody all the time. Even with a population of only two and an omniscient enforcer, the law was still violated. That kind of makes what the DEA is trying accomplish seem pretty pointless (as if it didn’t already).
And finally this story teaches us a lesson that every parent has eventually learned. If you tell an adolescent not to do something, they often will, if for no other reason than to make a point (“you’re not the boss of me”). But if you give people some freedom, within some reasonable limitations and boundaries, more often than not they will come to the right decision on their own. In other words, given the opportunity to act like adults, most people will.
So I think there’s a lesson to be learned here, especially for those who justify the war on drugs on moral grounds. Regardless of how they might interpret the Bible with respect to what sort of recreation is acceptable or forbidden, there can be little doubt about the Bible’s position on prohibition as a solution: It has, since the beginning of time, never worked, and can’t possibly be expected to ever work, even under the most ideal of circumstances. Amen.
Don’t worry, I’m not going to go all preachy on you. Or try to justify the use of recreational drugs based on a tenuous interpretation of some obscure Bible verse (thank Jah). But whether or not you believe you can glean something about the meaning of life or the history of the universe from the Bible, I think you have to admit that the Bible can at the very least teach us something about human nature. Especially the Old Testament. And I think it is somewhat significant that the very first lesson in human nature that the Bible teaches us is fairly simple, straightforward, and not easily misinterpreted: Prohibition doesn’t work.
That’s right, the very first lesson we learn, after finding out about the creation of the universe, comes in chapter 3 of the book of Genesis. Adam and Eve were allowed to eat the fruit of any tree in their garden except for one, the tree of knowledge. They were warned quite clearly that if they ate from that particular tree that they would die. Of course they did eat the forbidden fruit, and the rest is history (at least according to the Bible). So what does that teach us?
First, prohibition cannot be based on lies or misinformation. Eating the forbidden fruit turned out not to be fatal after all. When Adam and Eve realized that they had been lied to about the true nature of the fruit, what else could they do but eat it? They were, after all, only human.
Second, a powerful enforcer of the law is not enough. Even the creator of the universe, who knows all and sees all, could not stop Adam and Eve from eating the forbidden fruit. So how could a mere government and their police force hope to do any better?
Third, even the threat of the most severe punishment, death, is not an effective deterrent. Especially when the “crime” is something that goes against human nature. In this case, the law attempted to prevent people from gaining knowledge. As we all know, people are always asking questions and learning new things. That’s what people do. Such a behavior cannot be controlled with legislation.
Fourth, you can’t watch everybody all the time. Even with a population of only two and an omniscient enforcer, the law was still violated. That kind of makes what the DEA is trying accomplish seem pretty pointless (as if it didn’t already).
And finally this story teaches us a lesson that every parent has eventually learned. If you tell an adolescent not to do something, they often will, if for no other reason than to make a point (“you’re not the boss of me”). But if you give people some freedom, within some reasonable limitations and boundaries, more often than not they will come to the right decision on their own. In other words, given the opportunity to act like adults, most people will.
So I think there’s a lesson to be learned here, especially for those who justify the war on drugs on moral grounds. Regardless of how they might interpret the Bible with respect to what sort of recreation is acceptable or forbidden, there can be little doubt about the Bible’s position on prohibition as a solution: It has, since the beginning of time, never worked, and can’t possibly be expected to ever work, even under the most ideal of circumstances. Amen.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
The DEA Has Their Say
A while back I wrote a piece about a letter representative John Conyers (D-MI) sent to the DEA about the raids of medical marijuana dispensaries in California. Well the DEA has responded (see their response here and here). To save you a little time, below is my brief summary of the original letter and the DEA’s response, in plain-English.
First, the original letter sent by Conyers on April 29, 2008:
First, the original letter sent by Conyers on April 29, 2008:
Dear DEA,And here’s the DEA’s response, dated July 25:
I see you’ve been spending a lot of the taxpayers’ money out in California, what with all those raids on the medical marijuana dispensaries and all. What’s up with that? I want to see some receipts. I’d also like to know why you’re putting so much effort into going after all those sick people and their caregivers when there are all those really bad drug cartel guys south of the border. I think maybe your priorities are little screwed up. I want some answers, and I want them no later than July 1. Or else.
Yours truly,
The Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee
Dear Liberal Troublemaker,Anyone surprised by the DEA’s response? Anyone think anything will change as a result of this little correspondence?
How many times do we have to say it—we don’t make the laws, we just enforce them. But since you brought it up, they certainly are some mighty fine laws. Contrary to what all those hippie potheads out in California want you to believe. Heck, some of the more sensible ones out there have even been asking for our help in ridding their communities of these illegal drug distribution centers. So there. Oh, and you’re not the boss of us. So shut the f*ck up, stop rocking the boat, and let us get on with fighting the drug menace.
Cordially yours,
The DEA
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
A Dangerous New Drug Menace
I recently watched this documentary on TV about a dangerous new drug menace that is sweeping our nation. Although the show focused on a small town in Colorado, it would appear that kids across the country have found a new way to get “hopped up.” In case you weren’t aware, and I know I wasn’t, it seems that you can experience a hallucinogenic experience by snorting or sniffing cat urine. Not just any cat urine, mind you, but only the urine from a male cat marking his territory. Yes, it’s hard to believe, but I saw it on TV so it must be true. The kids refer to this ingesting of cat urine as “cheesing.” (Why? Because its “Fon to Due”.)
So how exactly do the kids go about getting cheesed? Well, it’s not as easy as you might think. It requires the male cat to be secured in a special harness, the so-called cheesing paraphernalia, and then a second male cat is introduced. This causes the harnessed cat to get all territorial and “spray.” These poor misguided kids then stick their face near the cat’s rear end and let the spray wash over their faces. The result is a psychedelic experience that approximates watching the movie Heavy Metal. Now I don’t know if it affects everyone the same, but the hallucinations seem to involve visions that include a lot of well-endowed women’s breasts. Just so you’re not too alarmed, it seems that the breasts are never completely exposed to the “cheeser.” Thank goodness for small favors.
Fortunately, our ever-vigilant government appears to be on top of the situation. The town that was the focus of the documentary quickly addressed the problem by making cats illegal. The DEA was even shown coming into the town and rounding up all the cats. As is to be expected, some people hid their cats away and a black market sprang up. But it appeared that the feds had the problem under control by the end of the show. I’m not sure exactly why all cats were outlawed, male and female alike, but I’m sure the government had its reasons. Better safe than sorry.
I wasn’t going to mention it, to avoid embarrassing the people involved, but in case you’re interested, the town that was the focus of this documentary was South Park, CO. Now that I think about it, that name sounds awfully familiar. But I can’t quite put my finger on it. And you know, I seem to recall that the documentary was done as an animated feature. You know, a cartoon. And a very crudely drawn one at that. Oh well, whatever it takes to get the message across to today’s MTV generation. My hat’s off to the makers of this documentary. They must really understand the kids to be able to speak to them in their own lingo. And now that this menace has been exposed, let’s just hope that the newly-instituted cat prohibition does what it’s supposed to do and puts an end to cheesing once and for all. After all, prohibition is the only proven way to stop people from doing what the government believes they should not be doing. I’m sure the innocent, non-cheesing cat owners who can no longer enjoy their favorite pet will understand. It’s for their own good.
So how exactly do the kids go about getting cheesed? Well, it’s not as easy as you might think. It requires the male cat to be secured in a special harness, the so-called cheesing paraphernalia, and then a second male cat is introduced. This causes the harnessed cat to get all territorial and “spray.” These poor misguided kids then stick their face near the cat’s rear end and let the spray wash over their faces. The result is a psychedelic experience that approximates watching the movie Heavy Metal. Now I don’t know if it affects everyone the same, but the hallucinations seem to involve visions that include a lot of well-endowed women’s breasts. Just so you’re not too alarmed, it seems that the breasts are never completely exposed to the “cheeser.” Thank goodness for small favors.
Fortunately, our ever-vigilant government appears to be on top of the situation. The town that was the focus of the documentary quickly addressed the problem by making cats illegal. The DEA was even shown coming into the town and rounding up all the cats. As is to be expected, some people hid their cats away and a black market sprang up. But it appeared that the feds had the problem under control by the end of the show. I’m not sure exactly why all cats were outlawed, male and female alike, but I’m sure the government had its reasons. Better safe than sorry.
I wasn’t going to mention it, to avoid embarrassing the people involved, but in case you’re interested, the town that was the focus of this documentary was South Park, CO. Now that I think about it, that name sounds awfully familiar. But I can’t quite put my finger on it. And you know, I seem to recall that the documentary was done as an animated feature. You know, a cartoon. And a very crudely drawn one at that. Oh well, whatever it takes to get the message across to today’s MTV generation. My hat’s off to the makers of this documentary. They must really understand the kids to be able to speak to them in their own lingo. And now that this menace has been exposed, let’s just hope that the newly-instituted cat prohibition does what it’s supposed to do and puts an end to cheesing once and for all. After all, prohibition is the only proven way to stop people from doing what the government believes they should not be doing. I’m sure the innocent, non-cheesing cat owners who can no longer enjoy their favorite pet will understand. It’s for their own good.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Analyze This
I recently ran across the following “Statement By The White House Drug Czar Regarding Food and Drug Administration Dismissal of Smoked Marijuana As Medicine.” What follows is that statement, presented sentence by sentence, with my commentary in italics following each sentence.
(Washington, D.C.)—John Walters, Director of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), and President Bush's “Drug Czar,” today issued the following statement regarding the Food and Drug Administration statement regarding smoking marijuana as medicine.
(Washington, D.C.)—John Walters, Director of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), and President Bush's “Drug Czar,” today issued the following statement regarding the Food and Drug Administration statement regarding smoking marijuana as medicine.
This is the only sentence in this statement about which I have nothing to say.Director Walters said, “Our Nation has the highest standards and most sophisticated institutions in the world for determining the safety and effectiveness of medication.
The fact that FDA-approved medicines are released to the public all the time that end up killing people is irrelevant.Our national medical system relies on proven scientific research, not popular opinion.
Except when it comes to marijuana, where it relies on misinformation and the opinions of people who stand to profit most from the war on drugs.To date, science and research have not determined that smoking a crude plant is safe or effective.
Safe compared to what? Aspirin? Celebrex? Vioxx? Phenylpropanolamine? And there is plenty of evidence, both scientific and anecdotal, that shows beyond a reasonable doubt that marijuana can be an effective treatment for a variety of disorders.We have a responsibility as a civilized society to ensure that the medicine Americans receive from their doctors is effective, safe, and free from the pro-drug politics that are being promoted in America under the guise of medicine.
And to prevent those same Americans from administering home remedies if those remedies might take money out of the pockets of big pharmaceutical companies. The only politics that should be involved, in a civilized society that is, are the anti-drug variety.Too many of our citizens suffer from pain and chronic illnesses.
Agreed.Smoking illegal drugs may make some people “feel better.”
And making sick people “feel better” is bad how?However, civilized societies and modern day medical practices differentiate between inebriation and the safe, supervised delivery of proven medicine by legitimate doctors.
One is bad and the other isn’t. One is a moral issue, the other isn’t. I’m starting to think that “civilized society” might not be all that it’s cracked up to be.In 1999, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) published a review of the available scientific evidence in an effort to assess the potential health benefits of marijuana and its constituent cannabinoids.
So have many other reputable institutions, most of which don’t have a vested interest in their results.The review concluded that smoking marijuana is not recommended for any long-term medical use, and a subsequent IOM report declared, “marijuana is not a modern medicine.”
The IOM is among a very small minority in their conclusion. See for example this NIH review of the medicinal applications of cannabinoids. Funny how the government seems to be unaware of the studies that disagree with their official position on marijuana.For years, pro-drug groups seeking the legalization of marijuana and other drugs have preyed on the compassion of Americans to promote their political agenda and bypass F.D.A.'s rigorous standards which have safeguarded our medical supply for over 100 years.
There’s no place for compassion when it comes to caring for sick people. The most important thing is making sure the pharmaceutical companies make as much money as possible.Marinol—the synthetic form of THC and the psychoactive ingredient contained in marijuana—is already legally available for prescription by physicians whose patients suffer from pain and chronic illness.”
THC is only one of several active compounds in marijuana. Pure THC has been shown to be much less effective than the natural substance. It has also been shown that taking pure THC can have some unpleasant side effects.There you have it. That was a lot easier than I thought it would be. There isn’t a single unbiased statement of fact in the whole… uh… statement. Our government is nothing if not consistent.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
22 Years for Selling Weed!!!!
Now I’m as patriotic as the next fellow, but there are times when I am embarrassed by the American criminal justice system. The reason for my embarrassment can be found in an article I just read about a couple of Modesto, CA men who were recently sentenced for a federal marijuana-related conviction. One received a sentence of 21 years, 10 months and the other 20 years in a federal prison. Keep in mind that the average sentences in federal court for the crimes of murder, sexual abuse, and kidnapping are around 7 years.
Now I’m not claiming that these guys were in the right, or even that they were abiding by California state law. It would appear that they were not. It would appear that they were taking advantage of the system in order to make a lot of money. In fact, one of them even made a rap video practically daring the DEA to come after him. And of course the DEA did go after him. It’s one thing to keep a low profile and quietly go about your business. But once you become a public figure, you can rest assured that the DEA will do whatever it takes to make an example of you. Just ask Tommy Chong.
OK, so maybe these guys were not the altruistic caregivers they claimed to be. Maybe they were. Who really knows? That’s not the point. The point is that all they were doing was growing and selling marijuana. They were not accused nor convicted of any violent crime. And as far as I can tell, they had no prior criminal history. They were the victims of a “mandatory minimum sentence.” In case you haven’t heard that phrase before, it means that if you are convicted the judge has no flexibility in the sentence he passes. In this case, 20 years was the mandatory minimum sentence.
It just so happens that mandatory minimum sentences have become quite popular in recent years. Coincidentally their popularity, much like the so-called “three strikes” laws, has risen along with the increase in private prisons. And why not? If you’ve got a growing for-profit prison industry, you need to have prisoners. It would be pointless to be spending all those billions of dollars each year building new prisons if there weren’t any people to lock up in them. And our government is always willing to do what it can to help out private industry. Especially when that industry has lobbyists and donates millions of dollars to political candidates. It’s just one hand washing the other. That’s the American way.
But that’s neither here nor there. The point is that two people will be spending the next 20 years behind bars for selling marijuana!!!! In what universe is that not cruel and unusual punishment? Even if they were taking advantage of the system and using it for their own profit, the sentence in no way fits the crime. I know this excuse may be overused, but in this case I have to say that society’s to blame. If marijuana were legal, these guys would just be a couple of unknown wannabe rappers. Our society created a situation in which these two could get rich without putting in too much effort. Then when they took advantage of that situation, that very same society punished them. Severely.
The main problem with these two was that they weren’t quite smart enough to figure out the system. If they wanted some quick and easy money, they should have just gone out and robbed or killed somebody. That way, even if they got caught at least they wouldn’t have ended up spending the next 20 years behind bars. So let that be a lesson to anybody who thinks they can make easy some money selling weed. It’s just not worth the risk. Go out and get yourself a gun. All you have to do is point it at people and demand they give you their money. You’ll be happy you didn’t try to sell weed. And so will society.
Now I’m not claiming that these guys were in the right, or even that they were abiding by California state law. It would appear that they were not. It would appear that they were taking advantage of the system in order to make a lot of money. In fact, one of them even made a rap video practically daring the DEA to come after him. And of course the DEA did go after him. It’s one thing to keep a low profile and quietly go about your business. But once you become a public figure, you can rest assured that the DEA will do whatever it takes to make an example of you. Just ask Tommy Chong.
OK, so maybe these guys were not the altruistic caregivers they claimed to be. Maybe they were. Who really knows? That’s not the point. The point is that all they were doing was growing and selling marijuana. They were not accused nor convicted of any violent crime. And as far as I can tell, they had no prior criminal history. They were the victims of a “mandatory minimum sentence.” In case you haven’t heard that phrase before, it means that if you are convicted the judge has no flexibility in the sentence he passes. In this case, 20 years was the mandatory minimum sentence.
It just so happens that mandatory minimum sentences have become quite popular in recent years. Coincidentally their popularity, much like the so-called “three strikes” laws, has risen along with the increase in private prisons. And why not? If you’ve got a growing for-profit prison industry, you need to have prisoners. It would be pointless to be spending all those billions of dollars each year building new prisons if there weren’t any people to lock up in them. And our government is always willing to do what it can to help out private industry. Especially when that industry has lobbyists and donates millions of dollars to political candidates. It’s just one hand washing the other. That’s the American way.
But that’s neither here nor there. The point is that two people will be spending the next 20 years behind bars for selling marijuana!!!! In what universe is that not cruel and unusual punishment? Even if they were taking advantage of the system and using it for their own profit, the sentence in no way fits the crime. I know this excuse may be overused, but in this case I have to say that society’s to blame. If marijuana were legal, these guys would just be a couple of unknown wannabe rappers. Our society created a situation in which these two could get rich without putting in too much effort. Then when they took advantage of that situation, that very same society punished them. Severely.
The main problem with these two was that they weren’t quite smart enough to figure out the system. If they wanted some quick and easy money, they should have just gone out and robbed or killed somebody. That way, even if they got caught at least they wouldn’t have ended up spending the next 20 years behind bars. So let that be a lesson to anybody who thinks they can make easy some money selling weed. It’s just not worth the risk. Go out and get yourself a gun. All you have to do is point it at people and demand they give you their money. You’ll be happy you didn’t try to sell weed. And so will society.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Why Didn’t I Think Of That?
I read this article recently that really put the war on drugs into perspective for me. The article is about a new tactic being employed by our valiant drug warriors. It’s an approach to stopping people from smoking marijuana that is so simple and so obvious, it’s almost unbelievable that no one ever thought of it before. It’s pure genius. Are you ready for this? It’s scary clever:
The people of Prince George County, MD recently decided to ban the sale of single cigars. See what I mean? It’s kind of like the paper clip. After it was invented it seemed the obvious solution; but the day before its invention, the world was full of people wishing they had something to temporarily hold pieces of paper together with.
So what, you might ask, do cigars (or paper clips) have to do with smoking marijuana? Well, as I understand it, “the kids” these days use cigar wrappers to roll their “reefer” in. Sometimes, I hear tell, they even leave some tobacco in their so-called “blunt.” Those crazy kids! They’re always coming up with some new way to take their grass. But the people of Prince George County are onto their little shenanigans. No cigars means no more blunt smoking. Drug problem solved.
Unless, that is, those crazy kids go ahead and buy a five-pack of cigars. Because the new law doesn’t apply to cigars sold in packages of five or more as long as each individual cigar costs at least $5. But those kids that don’t have a lot of money or don’t smoke a lot will definitely be thwarted. They’ll have to go out and buy rolling papers (which they probably sell in the same place they sell cigars). Or use a pipe. Or a bong. Or a hookah. Or a soda can, or a pen, or a plastic bottle, or an apple, or a piece of aluminum foil. In any event, a few people might be somewhat barely-perceptibly inconvenienced. And since the kids won’t have the tobacco handy from emptying out the cigar wrappers, maybe some will forgo their tobacco smoking entirely. It’s like two benefits in a single ban. See what I mean about this idea being scary clever?
I don’t know about you, but I’m cautiously optimistic. I think that the drug warriors have finally hit on a tactic that will work. Although I have to say it’s not really all that original of an idea. Selling drug-smoking “paraphernalia” has, after all, been illegal in this country for quite a while now. The federal government had the right idea with that ban, they just missed the mark. They didn’t realize that kids now smoke their pot in blunts, so the ban on bongs was too little too late. That and the fact that you can still buy drug paraphernalia just about anywhere. But that’s besides the point. No sir, it’s cigar wrappers that are the key. Though some may be skeptical about the effectiveness of the cigar ban—it’s true, there are some doubters—I’m going to go out on a limb here and predict that marijuana smoking will be totally abolished in Prince George County in short order. Remember, you heard it here first.
The people of Prince George County, MD recently decided to ban the sale of single cigars. See what I mean? It’s kind of like the paper clip. After it was invented it seemed the obvious solution; but the day before its invention, the world was full of people wishing they had something to temporarily hold pieces of paper together with.
So what, you might ask, do cigars (or paper clips) have to do with smoking marijuana? Well, as I understand it, “the kids” these days use cigar wrappers to roll their “reefer” in. Sometimes, I hear tell, they even leave some tobacco in their so-called “blunt.” Those crazy kids! They’re always coming up with some new way to take their grass. But the people of Prince George County are onto their little shenanigans. No cigars means no more blunt smoking. Drug problem solved.
Unless, that is, those crazy kids go ahead and buy a five-pack of cigars. Because the new law doesn’t apply to cigars sold in packages of five or more as long as each individual cigar costs at least $5. But those kids that don’t have a lot of money or don’t smoke a lot will definitely be thwarted. They’ll have to go out and buy rolling papers (which they probably sell in the same place they sell cigars). Or use a pipe. Or a bong. Or a hookah. Or a soda can, or a pen, or a plastic bottle, or an apple, or a piece of aluminum foil. In any event, a few people might be somewhat barely-perceptibly inconvenienced. And since the kids won’t have the tobacco handy from emptying out the cigar wrappers, maybe some will forgo their tobacco smoking entirely. It’s like two benefits in a single ban. See what I mean about this idea being scary clever?
I don’t know about you, but I’m cautiously optimistic. I think that the drug warriors have finally hit on a tactic that will work. Although I have to say it’s not really all that original of an idea. Selling drug-smoking “paraphernalia” has, after all, been illegal in this country for quite a while now. The federal government had the right idea with that ban, they just missed the mark. They didn’t realize that kids now smoke their pot in blunts, so the ban on bongs was too little too late. That and the fact that you can still buy drug paraphernalia just about anywhere. But that’s besides the point. No sir, it’s cigar wrappers that are the key. Though some may be skeptical about the effectiveness of the cigar ban—it’s true, there are some doubters—I’m going to go out on a limb here and predict that marijuana smoking will be totally abolished in Prince George County in short order. Remember, you heard it here first.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Profiting From Crime
I read a lot and I’ve written a bit on the economics of the war on drugs. But there’s something I just learned that surprised me, which is pretty hard to do. Did you know that there are privately-owned and operated prisons in the U.S.? Not just a few, but lots of them? I guess I had heard about private prisons before, but never realized how widespread they really are. In case you don’t know, a private prison is a for-profit business. Just like many other “services” provided to the government by private industry, companies bid on and receive contracts to build and operate prisons. And make money doing it.
Maybe it’s just me, but that seems a little not quite right. I have no problem with the government contracting with private companies for other kinds of services, like building fighter planes or running the Senate cafeteria. But isn’t the criminal justice system supposed to be, you know, part of the government? I thought that, at the very least, profiting from crime was frowned upon. Criminals certainly are not allowed this privilege. For example, a convicted murderer isn’t allowed to write a book about his crimes. Why is it that big business is allowed to make big bucks on the incarcerated?
So how about some cold, hard facts on prisons in the U.S. of A.? On any given day there are over 1.5 million Americans in prison, one of the few things we still lead the world in. Not that we didn’t have to put in a little effort to achieve that honor. Why back in 1980, before we had administrations that were so “tough on crime,” we had fewer than 400,000 people in prison. But with a little hard work we managed to more than triple that number in less than 30 years. Pretty impressive.
It makes you think that crime must be running rampant in this country. Well, that’s not exactly the case. For example between 1975 and 1985 the serious crime rate actually decreased slightly while the number of people in prison during that same period nearly doubled. So how does that work exactly, when crime rates go down and prison populations go up? I guess that’s what being tough on crime is all about.
Although I have to admit, there is one type of crime that has been on the rise. Can you guess which type? That’s right, drug-related violations. Over a 25-year period starting in 1980, state and local arrests for drug violations rose from around 600,000 annually to almost 2 million per year. Of course over that same period actual drug use stayed about the same. Again, that’s just more evidence that being tough on crime is actually accomplishing something.
But what about private prisons? After all, that’s what this is all about. Thirty U.S. states, Puerto Rico, and Washington, DC have a total of over 150 private prisons. Those private prisons house 7.4 percent of the nation’s prisoners which, if you do the math, works out to about 116,000 people. At an average cost of around $25,000 per year to house a prisoner, that’s just under $3 billion going to private prisons each year. And I’m sure they’re getting a lot more than that.
Right now we are spending an estimated $6 billion per year on construction alone just to keep up with the rapidly-growing prison population. No wonder these private companies want a piece of that pie. In fact, they want it so bad that during the 2002 and 2004 election cycles they gave $3.3 million to candidates and state political parties across 44 states. And experts estimate that prison populations in 10 states will increase by 25 percent between 2006 and 2011. So there’s lots more money to be made.
And it doesn’t hurt when someone like the soon-to-be former Vice President owns stock in one of the largest private prison companies. There’s no one tougher on crime than Mr. Cheney. Coincidence? Maybe. Conflict of interest? Definitely. Seems only fair that Mr. Cheney was recently indicted in a private prison case. Makes you wonder how many other tough-on-crime politicians also make money in one way or another from the private prison industry.
With all this money being made in the business of incarceration, and even more to be made in the future, how can we ever expect things to change? There’s absolutely no incentive to reduce our prison population. And the best incentive of them all, money, to keep that population growing. You know what they say about money talking.
I guess we’ll just have to look on the bright side. At least we still have something left that we can lead the world in. No one builds more prisons or puts more people in them than the good ol’ U.S. of A. Suck on that Japan, Finland, and Canada. They think they’re so great just because they’re so far ahead of us in student math and science test scores. Let’s see them even try to compete with us when it comes to locking people up behind bars. Then we’ll see who has the last laugh.
Maybe it’s just me, but that seems a little not quite right. I have no problem with the government contracting with private companies for other kinds of services, like building fighter planes or running the Senate cafeteria. But isn’t the criminal justice system supposed to be, you know, part of the government? I thought that, at the very least, profiting from crime was frowned upon. Criminals certainly are not allowed this privilege. For example, a convicted murderer isn’t allowed to write a book about his crimes. Why is it that big business is allowed to make big bucks on the incarcerated?
So how about some cold, hard facts on prisons in the U.S. of A.? On any given day there are over 1.5 million Americans in prison, one of the few things we still lead the world in. Not that we didn’t have to put in a little effort to achieve that honor. Why back in 1980, before we had administrations that were so “tough on crime,” we had fewer than 400,000 people in prison. But with a little hard work we managed to more than triple that number in less than 30 years. Pretty impressive.
It makes you think that crime must be running rampant in this country. Well, that’s not exactly the case. For example between 1975 and 1985 the serious crime rate actually decreased slightly while the number of people in prison during that same period nearly doubled. So how does that work exactly, when crime rates go down and prison populations go up? I guess that’s what being tough on crime is all about.
Although I have to admit, there is one type of crime that has been on the rise. Can you guess which type? That’s right, drug-related violations. Over a 25-year period starting in 1980, state and local arrests for drug violations rose from around 600,000 annually to almost 2 million per year. Of course over that same period actual drug use stayed about the same. Again, that’s just more evidence that being tough on crime is actually accomplishing something.
But what about private prisons? After all, that’s what this is all about. Thirty U.S. states, Puerto Rico, and Washington, DC have a total of over 150 private prisons. Those private prisons house 7.4 percent of the nation’s prisoners which, if you do the math, works out to about 116,000 people. At an average cost of around $25,000 per year to house a prisoner, that’s just under $3 billion going to private prisons each year. And I’m sure they’re getting a lot more than that.
Right now we are spending an estimated $6 billion per year on construction alone just to keep up with the rapidly-growing prison population. No wonder these private companies want a piece of that pie. In fact, they want it so bad that during the 2002 and 2004 election cycles they gave $3.3 million to candidates and state political parties across 44 states. And experts estimate that prison populations in 10 states will increase by 25 percent between 2006 and 2011. So there’s lots more money to be made.
And it doesn’t hurt when someone like the soon-to-be former Vice President owns stock in one of the largest private prison companies. There’s no one tougher on crime than Mr. Cheney. Coincidence? Maybe. Conflict of interest? Definitely. Seems only fair that Mr. Cheney was recently indicted in a private prison case. Makes you wonder how many other tough-on-crime politicians also make money in one way or another from the private prison industry.
With all this money being made in the business of incarceration, and even more to be made in the future, how can we ever expect things to change? There’s absolutely no incentive to reduce our prison population. And the best incentive of them all, money, to keep that population growing. You know what they say about money talking.
I guess we’ll just have to look on the bright side. At least we still have something left that we can lead the world in. No one builds more prisons or puts more people in them than the good ol’ U.S. of A. Suck on that Japan, Finland, and Canada. They think they’re so great just because they’re so far ahead of us in student math and science test scores. Let’s see them even try to compete with us when it comes to locking people up behind bars. Then we’ll see who has the last laugh.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
