Back in September of last year I wrote about Tommy Chong’s run-in with the feds and his subsequent incarceration. It hasn’t been that long, and yet a lot has happened since Mr. Chong’s imprisonment. After giving that unfortunate incident and some more recent events some serious thought, I’ve decided to go out on a limb and make a prediction. At some point in the future, when prohibition has ended, we will look back and mark the bust of Tommy Chong as a major turning point in the war on the war on drugs. I believe that the national publicity that surrounded the unreasonable treatment of Mr. Chong at the hands of our federal government finally brought the situation (i.e., the horrors of prohibition) to the attention of the American public. And that is a significant accomplishment.
So what exactly has happened since then that makes me want to go a-predictin’? Well, for starters we got ourselves a new president. I won’t go so far as to attribute any credit for that to what happened to Mr. Chong. But it didn’t hurt that this new president came into office when the media’s interest in the prohibition issue is at an all-time high. It’s getting so you can’t hardly turn on the TV or read a blog without seeing a news report or editorial about some aspect of prohibition. Mostly against. Then shortly after taking office, our new president appointed a new attorney general, as new presidents are wont to do. Although nothing is official yet, that new AG has stated publicly that the federal government is not interested in raiding law-abiding medical marijuana dispensaries. (A few have been raided since then, but that’s another story.) And let’s not forget our new Drug Czar, who said he doesn’t like the term “war on drugs,” and thinks we should probably call it something else. Again, nothing earth shattering (or even real), but at least people in the executive branch are talking about the issue. That’s something that hasn’t happened since the 70s.
As for actual legislative activity, just a few weeks ago Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) along with 9 co-sponsors introduced legislation that would protect medical marijuana patients from federal prosecution. Then a week later, Frank and others introduced a bill that would remove federal penalties for possession of small amounts of marijuana. This isn’t the first time such bills were introduced only to die, but clearly some momentum is shifting.
At the local level, the number of states that allow medical marijuana now stands at 14—two of which were added to the roster along with the election of that new president of ours, and one, NH, was added just this week. Three of those states now permit the operation of dispensaries, and together they are home to over one third of our population. And at this very moment 12 more states have medical marijuana legislation pending. It’s looking like within the next couple of years well over half of the people in this country will have access to medical marijuana. No matter how you look at it, these are some significant, unprecedented developments.
And just a few of days ago the United Nations, in an abrupt 180 to their long-standing policy, made a statement in favor of drug decriminalization (sort of). That’s especially surprising seeing as how not that long ago the UN’s position was that prohibition could end all drug use in the world within 10 years. Seems kind of sudden to give up now, seeing as how they were so close. Who knows, another 10 years and their prohibitionist polices might have worked.
But what does all this have to do with Tommy Chong’s imprisonment. As I said, it’s all about the media. Not to mention the effect a martyr can have on a movement. And what better martyr could the cause have? Mr. Chong is well known, beloved by young and now old alike, viewed as mostly harmless, and (here’s the biggie) was clearly singled out and treated more harshly because of who he is and what he stands for. An ambitious young U.S. Attorney who wanted to make a name for herself ended up making a martyr of a beloved American icon. Which also, incidentally, did wonders for his career. And of course, most importantly, gave the anti-prohibition movement some much-needed attention. People, including politicians, are now talking openly about the issue, where not too long ago an elected official wouldn’t dream of using the “D” word, let alone the “L” word, in public. Even the anti-drug, conservative governor of California recently stated that it’s time for an open debate. Decriminalization and even legalization are now in a lot more people’s vocabularies. Unfortunately, they are not yet in our Drug Czar’s.
So a hearty thank you to Mary Beth Buchanan, the prosecutor who I predict will go down in history as the one responsible for getting the anti-prohibition movement off the ground. Keep up the good work! And if I might make a suggestion to all ambitious prosecutors throughout the land: Find a few more harmless, beloved, elderly American icons and bust them for something marijuana related. Single them out and make examples of them. I’m thinking perhaps someone like Walter Cronkite or Doris Day. Or how about Oprah? She’s not elderly, but quite beloved nonetheless. A few more of these high-profile busts, and we’ll be buying weed right alongside alcohol and tobacco at our local convenience stores before you know it.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Who Is Tony Aroma?
A while back I wrote a piece about where my pseudonym came from (Tony Who?), but I think it’s time I tell you a little bit more about the person behind the pen name. Like why do I even use a fake name in the first place? Why not just be myself? Who is the real Tony?
Well, there are two main reasons for the made-up name. First, I would be a bit embarrassed if my family or friends knew what kind of stuff I am writing. Aside from a few close friends, no one even knows I have any interest at all in the devil’s weed. If they found out what I was writing, most would probably decide (if they hadn’t already) that I was stupid, silly, crazy, pathetic, obsessed, drug-crazed, or all of the above and then some. Granted, I may be any or all of those things, but that doesn’t mean I have to flaunt it. So no one, not a single living soul, knows that I write this blog.
Second, although I have never admitted to committing any crimes in my writings, nor have I encouraged others to do so, I do nevertheless criticize my government. That alone may not be a crime at this particular point in time, but it sure has gotten a lot of people in a lot of trouble. And with all the fear of terrorists and other threats to our national security these days, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if our government were keeping an eye on anyone who is critical of their policies. It certainly wouldn’t be the first time. Not that anyone can really be totally anonymous on the internet. But I do what I can to remain unknown and hope it works.
So, what can I say about myself without compromising my anonymity? I think it’s safe to say that most people that know me would be surprised, shocked even, to know what I’ve been writing about. I can say that I am not a youngster, nor would I be referred to as elderly or spry. I guess that makes me middle-aged. I’m pretty well educated and have what would probably be considered a white-collar or professional job. I don’t consider myself a conservative, but then again I don’t like a lot of liberal polices. If I had to pick a political label, I’d have to say I’m a libertarian. I believe in the Constitution and the limited federal government it describes.
I was pretty rebellious when I was young(er). Some might even have labeled me a “hippy.” But I’m not old enough to have been a real hippy, so I don’t think that label really applies. But now I’m just your typical member of “the establishment.” Although I like to think I’m not all that typical. And for the record, I am not (overly) lazy or a slacker, I don’t lack ambition, I am reasonably successful, I am a generally well-adjusted and happy person, and I rarely ever say things like “man” or “dude” in a conversation. And I hope you’ve determined from reading my work that I am reasonably intelligent and have a pretty good grasp of the English language. So much for the stereotypes.
But I think the best way to describe me is the last person in the world you would expect to write such a blog. Picture in your mind the type of person that you might imagine writes about this sort of thing, and then picture the exact opposite. That’s me. Picture the “person next door” in suburbia U.S.A. Really, like I said in my blurb, I’m pretty much your average Joe. I could be somebody you know. I could be that neighbor that you see every once in a while and say hi to or maybe exchange some small talk with. I could be that person in the next cubicle that you talk to on breaks and have the occasional lunch with. I could be that old friend that you grew up with and wonder what ever happened to. Makes you think, doesn’t it? Then again, this could all be a product of my overactive imagination and not be an even remotely accurate description of me. I hope this answers all those burning questions that you’ve been too afraid to ask.
Well, there are two main reasons for the made-up name. First, I would be a bit embarrassed if my family or friends knew what kind of stuff I am writing. Aside from a few close friends, no one even knows I have any interest at all in the devil’s weed. If they found out what I was writing, most would probably decide (if they hadn’t already) that I was stupid, silly, crazy, pathetic, obsessed, drug-crazed, or all of the above and then some. Granted, I may be any or all of those things, but that doesn’t mean I have to flaunt it. So no one, not a single living soul, knows that I write this blog.
Second, although I have never admitted to committing any crimes in my writings, nor have I encouraged others to do so, I do nevertheless criticize my government. That alone may not be a crime at this particular point in time, but it sure has gotten a lot of people in a lot of trouble. And with all the fear of terrorists and other threats to our national security these days, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if our government were keeping an eye on anyone who is critical of their policies. It certainly wouldn’t be the first time. Not that anyone can really be totally anonymous on the internet. But I do what I can to remain unknown and hope it works.
So, what can I say about myself without compromising my anonymity? I think it’s safe to say that most people that know me would be surprised, shocked even, to know what I’ve been writing about. I can say that I am not a youngster, nor would I be referred to as elderly or spry. I guess that makes me middle-aged. I’m pretty well educated and have what would probably be considered a white-collar or professional job. I don’t consider myself a conservative, but then again I don’t like a lot of liberal polices. If I had to pick a political label, I’d have to say I’m a libertarian. I believe in the Constitution and the limited federal government it describes.
I was pretty rebellious when I was young(er). Some might even have labeled me a “hippy.” But I’m not old enough to have been a real hippy, so I don’t think that label really applies. But now I’m just your typical member of “the establishment.” Although I like to think I’m not all that typical. And for the record, I am not (overly) lazy or a slacker, I don’t lack ambition, I am reasonably successful, I am a generally well-adjusted and happy person, and I rarely ever say things like “man” or “dude” in a conversation. And I hope you’ve determined from reading my work that I am reasonably intelligent and have a pretty good grasp of the English language. So much for the stereotypes.
But I think the best way to describe me is the last person in the world you would expect to write such a blog. Picture in your mind the type of person that you might imagine writes about this sort of thing, and then picture the exact opposite. That’s me. Picture the “person next door” in suburbia U.S.A. Really, like I said in my blurb, I’m pretty much your average Joe. I could be somebody you know. I could be that neighbor that you see every once in a while and say hi to or maybe exchange some small talk with. I could be that person in the next cubicle that you talk to on breaks and have the occasional lunch with. I could be that old friend that you grew up with and wonder what ever happened to. Makes you think, doesn’t it? Then again, this could all be a product of my overactive imagination and not be an even remotely accurate description of me. I hope this answers all those burning questions that you’ve been too afraid to ask.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Smiley Face — Friend or Foe?
I saw Smiley Face (the movie) a while back and never got around to writing about it. But I’ve seen it several times since and decided it was about time I got around to doing a review.
First, let me just say that I loved this movie. And I love Anna Faris. Not in any kind of weird, stalker-ish, John Wayne Hinckley kind of way. She may not be a great actor (then again, maybe she is), but she is cute and funny, and thus far in her career has chosen roles that make the most of her comedic acting talents. The part of Jane in this film is no exception.
Smiley Face is a modern take on the classic stoner movie. Ms. Faris plays Jane, a “pothead” who accidently eats a plate full of marijuana-laced cupcakes, and then goes about her day in a less-than-optimal state of mind. She only really has to do two things that day: pay her electric bill and show up at an audition (she’s an aspiring actress). And even that turns out to be a little too much for Jane on this particular day. Driving—forget it. Not spending her roommate’s electric bill money on more pot—not likely. Impressing the casting agent with her acting skills—not exactly. Getting the money to pay both her dealer and her electric bill—ain’t gonna happen. As you might expect, hilarity ensues.
And, like all good movies, it’s the details that make this one really stand out. There are lots of little things that make it apparent that the writer, director, and actors really know their subject matter. Anyone who’s ever smoked pot (about half the adult population of the U.S.) will instantly relate. Like when her dealer comes over and she drifts off while he’s talking and forgets he’s there. And while waiting for “Mrs. C” (Marion Ross, whom I will always think of as the mom on Happy Days), a photo of corn sets her off on this hilarious stream of consciousness rambling. Or when she thinks she is giving this eloquent, moving speech, but in reality never completes a sentence. Or the boredom, the paranoia, the daydreams, the craving for Doritos and orange juice. These are some people that know what it’s like to be stoned.
Also in the cast are Danny Masterson (Hyde from That 70s Show) as her nerdy/scary roommate, John Krasinski (Jim from The Office) as the ultra-nerd who has a crush on Jane, and John Cho (Harold from Harold & Kumar Go To White Castle) as the driver of a truck she stows away in. All in all, a great cast, great writing, great directing, and great comedic acting. As a screwball/adventure comedy, Smiley Face is top notch.
So what could possibly be wrong with such a fun movie? Well, I hear tell that some in the anti-prohibition community feel that this film, and films like it, portray pot smokers in a negative light. And I guess that’s true. And “they” feel that such portrayals hurt their cause. Maybe, maybe not. It’s true that pretty much all the characters in this film are blatant stereotypes—the stoner, the nerd, the various authority figures. So I can certainly understand how some people might not like having these stereotypes perpetuated. It might make some people think that everyone that smokes pot is like Jane. And they’re probably right–that some people might think that. There are certainly some people out there who really believe all pot smokers are like Jane (or Cheech and Chong). Some of those people are running this country.
But not enjoying this delightful comedy for those reasons is like being a vegetarian because you don’t want animals to be killed. I’d guess that virtually all of those people that think every pot smoker is a dazed and confused danger to themselves and society would think so regardless. So screw them. Let those of us who enjoy this sort of thing do so, and let those others wallow in their own delusions.
And just for the record, every pot smoker is not like Jane. Or Cheech and Chong. Or James Franco’s character in Pineapple Express. Any more than every one who consumes alcoholic beverages is like Otis Campbell (the town drunk on The Andy Griffith Show) or Jim Lahey (the drunk trailer park supervisor on Trailer Park Boys). It’s comedy, people. That’s where you take some little thing, some little trait or quirk or behavior, and you exaggerate it. The characters in comedies often say and do things that no human being in real life would ever conceivably even think of saying or doing. That’s what makes it funny. You can’t take them seriously, as if that needs to be said. So enjoy Smiley Face and films like it for what they are—mindless entertainment. Not social or political statements. If it makes you laugh, that’s a good thing. And this film made me laugh, a lot.
First, let me just say that I loved this movie. And I love Anna Faris. Not in any kind of weird, stalker-ish, John Wayne Hinckley kind of way. She may not be a great actor (then again, maybe she is), but she is cute and funny, and thus far in her career has chosen roles that make the most of her comedic acting talents. The part of Jane in this film is no exception.
Smiley Face is a modern take on the classic stoner movie. Ms. Faris plays Jane, a “pothead” who accidently eats a plate full of marijuana-laced cupcakes, and then goes about her day in a less-than-optimal state of mind. She only really has to do two things that day: pay her electric bill and show up at an audition (she’s an aspiring actress). And even that turns out to be a little too much for Jane on this particular day. Driving—forget it. Not spending her roommate’s electric bill money on more pot—not likely. Impressing the casting agent with her acting skills—not exactly. Getting the money to pay both her dealer and her electric bill—ain’t gonna happen. As you might expect, hilarity ensues.
And, like all good movies, it’s the details that make this one really stand out. There are lots of little things that make it apparent that the writer, director, and actors really know their subject matter. Anyone who’s ever smoked pot (about half the adult population of the U.S.) will instantly relate. Like when her dealer comes over and she drifts off while he’s talking and forgets he’s there. And while waiting for “Mrs. C” (Marion Ross, whom I will always think of as the mom on Happy Days), a photo of corn sets her off on this hilarious stream of consciousness rambling. Or when she thinks she is giving this eloquent, moving speech, but in reality never completes a sentence. Or the boredom, the paranoia, the daydreams, the craving for Doritos and orange juice. These are some people that know what it’s like to be stoned.
Also in the cast are Danny Masterson (Hyde from That 70s Show) as her nerdy/scary roommate, John Krasinski (Jim from The Office) as the ultra-nerd who has a crush on Jane, and John Cho (Harold from Harold & Kumar Go To White Castle) as the driver of a truck she stows away in. All in all, a great cast, great writing, great directing, and great comedic acting. As a screwball/adventure comedy, Smiley Face is top notch.
So what could possibly be wrong with such a fun movie? Well, I hear tell that some in the anti-prohibition community feel that this film, and films like it, portray pot smokers in a negative light. And I guess that’s true. And “they” feel that such portrayals hurt their cause. Maybe, maybe not. It’s true that pretty much all the characters in this film are blatant stereotypes—the stoner, the nerd, the various authority figures. So I can certainly understand how some people might not like having these stereotypes perpetuated. It might make some people think that everyone that smokes pot is like Jane. And they’re probably right–that some people might think that. There are certainly some people out there who really believe all pot smokers are like Jane (or Cheech and Chong). Some of those people are running this country.
But not enjoying this delightful comedy for those reasons is like being a vegetarian because you don’t want animals to be killed. I’d guess that virtually all of those people that think every pot smoker is a dazed and confused danger to themselves and society would think so regardless. So screw them. Let those of us who enjoy this sort of thing do so, and let those others wallow in their own delusions.
And just for the record, every pot smoker is not like Jane. Or Cheech and Chong. Or James Franco’s character in Pineapple Express. Any more than every one who consumes alcoholic beverages is like Otis Campbell (the town drunk on The Andy Griffith Show) or Jim Lahey (the drunk trailer park supervisor on Trailer Park Boys). It’s comedy, people. That’s where you take some little thing, some little trait or quirk or behavior, and you exaggerate it. The characters in comedies often say and do things that no human being in real life would ever conceivably even think of saying or doing. That’s what makes it funny. You can’t take them seriously, as if that needs to be said. So enjoy Smiley Face and films like it for what they are—mindless entertainment. Not social or political statements. If it makes you laugh, that’s a good thing. And this film made me laugh, a lot.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Killer Marijuana!!!!!
OK, I’m exaggerating to get your attention. Much like they’ve been doing in England recently with their stories of the new, super-potent “skunk” weed that is sweeping their nation. And although they haven’t actually said this skunk is killing people (as far as I know), there have been reports like this one that claim it is causing schizophrenia and violent behavior. That’s some scary weed. Indeed.
Could this reefer-madness-esque sort of thing really be true? I don’t know about modern marijuana causing murderous rampages and such but, according to the U.S. government, marijuana potency has been rising for the past 30 years and is now at an all time high (pun intended). Surely this statistic, at the very least, must be true. Surely our government wouldn’t lie to us. Not about marijuana, anyway. But, just for the sake of argument, let me play devil’s advocate here. As I am wont to do.
First, let’s think about the history of marijuana. We know people have been growing and ingesting marijuana for its psychoactive properties for at least 2700 years. And, although there is no hard evidence, I’d bet people have been using marijuana for a lot longer than that. It’s probably one of the oldest domesticated, non-food crops known to mankind. So, why is it that all of a sudden about 30 years ago marijuana suddenly started getting more potent? Is there something we discovered at that time that growers and breeders had missed for the past several thousand years? Granted, modern marijuana breeders know how genetics works. But farmers have known about selective breeding for a long, long time. You don’t need to know about genes and DNA to be able to select the best specimens to use for breeding.
Just a minute there buckeroo, the government might say, you’re forgetting about modern technologies, like hydroponics. Sounds reasonable. After all, so-called “hydro” weed is much sought after. And there are certainly some advantages to growing under perfectly-controlled conditions. Plants do grow quicker and produce higher yields. But, contrary to the hype surrounding hydroponically-grown marijuana, the potency of marijuana is determined almost entirely by its genetics. And where did these modern-day genetics come from? Did some new species of cannabis suddenly appear around 30 years ago? Hardly. Did somebody use some high-tech gene-splicing technique to create a super race of cannabis? Guess again. The genetics that people are growing today are the same genetics that have been developed and improved upon for thousands of years. Granted, there are a lot more varieties around today, but they can all trace their ancestry back to a relatively few strains that have been around for a long time.
So what could explain the finding that the potency of marijuana has been steadily increasing over the past 30 years? As is often the case, our government likes to play fast and loose with statistics. You see, this report refers to the average potency of marijuana that the government has confiscated and tested. And it is true that with more people than ever growing marijuana, and more high-quality genetics more widely available, there is a lot more good weed around. At least in places like California which, coincidentally, is where the federal government conducts a lot of its raids. So, overall, the average potency may have indeed gone up. But, and this is the crux of the biscuit, the highest potency has not really changed. True, there is marijuana today that tops 20% THC (that’s a lot). But there has always been marijuana that topped 20% THC. The Sadhu of Nepal have been smoking this high-potency stuff for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. And today, there is also marijuana that is much less potent, just like there always has been. It’s just that at this point in time, there is a greater proportion of good, compared to bad. Hence a higher average. (The government has also started including hash in their statistics, which raises the average, but that's another story.)
So don’t be misled by more of the same from your government. Marijuana today is not some completely different substance than it was 30 years ago. Or 50 years ago. Or even 1000 years ago. It’s the same pot that your parents smoked. And their parents. And so on. It’s just that where your parents might have gotten lucky and scored some really good smoke every once in a while, the good stuff is a lot more readily available today. At least in some places. And just so you don’t go off half-cocked worrying about your kids getting ahold of too much of a good thing, it’s not that bad. Research has shown that the more potent marijuana is, the less of it people tend to smoke. And achieving the same effect with less smoke entering your lungs can only be a good thing. So in reality, if the government’s claims of more potent marijuana are really true, it should make them very happy. Since its citizens’ health is the main reason for prohibition, the government should be celebrating. In spite of everything they’ve done, people will be smoking less of the new, super-potent weed. When you think about it, there’s really no downside.
Could this reefer-madness-esque sort of thing really be true? I don’t know about modern marijuana causing murderous rampages and such but, according to the U.S. government, marijuana potency has been rising for the past 30 years and is now at an all time high (pun intended). Surely this statistic, at the very least, must be true. Surely our government wouldn’t lie to us. Not about marijuana, anyway. But, just for the sake of argument, let me play devil’s advocate here. As I am wont to do.
First, let’s think about the history of marijuana. We know people have been growing and ingesting marijuana for its psychoactive properties for at least 2700 years. And, although there is no hard evidence, I’d bet people have been using marijuana for a lot longer than that. It’s probably one of the oldest domesticated, non-food crops known to mankind. So, why is it that all of a sudden about 30 years ago marijuana suddenly started getting more potent? Is there something we discovered at that time that growers and breeders had missed for the past several thousand years? Granted, modern marijuana breeders know how genetics works. But farmers have known about selective breeding for a long, long time. You don’t need to know about genes and DNA to be able to select the best specimens to use for breeding.
Just a minute there buckeroo, the government might say, you’re forgetting about modern technologies, like hydroponics. Sounds reasonable. After all, so-called “hydro” weed is much sought after. And there are certainly some advantages to growing under perfectly-controlled conditions. Plants do grow quicker and produce higher yields. But, contrary to the hype surrounding hydroponically-grown marijuana, the potency of marijuana is determined almost entirely by its genetics. And where did these modern-day genetics come from? Did some new species of cannabis suddenly appear around 30 years ago? Hardly. Did somebody use some high-tech gene-splicing technique to create a super race of cannabis? Guess again. The genetics that people are growing today are the same genetics that have been developed and improved upon for thousands of years. Granted, there are a lot more varieties around today, but they can all trace their ancestry back to a relatively few strains that have been around for a long time.
So what could explain the finding that the potency of marijuana has been steadily increasing over the past 30 years? As is often the case, our government likes to play fast and loose with statistics. You see, this report refers to the average potency of marijuana that the government has confiscated and tested. And it is true that with more people than ever growing marijuana, and more high-quality genetics more widely available, there is a lot more good weed around. At least in places like California which, coincidentally, is where the federal government conducts a lot of its raids. So, overall, the average potency may have indeed gone up. But, and this is the crux of the biscuit, the highest potency has not really changed. True, there is marijuana today that tops 20% THC (that’s a lot). But there has always been marijuana that topped 20% THC. The Sadhu of Nepal have been smoking this high-potency stuff for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. And today, there is also marijuana that is much less potent, just like there always has been. It’s just that at this point in time, there is a greater proportion of good, compared to bad. Hence a higher average. (The government has also started including hash in their statistics, which raises the average, but that's another story.)
So don’t be misled by more of the same from your government. Marijuana today is not some completely different substance than it was 30 years ago. Or 50 years ago. Or even 1000 years ago. It’s the same pot that your parents smoked. And their parents. And so on. It’s just that where your parents might have gotten lucky and scored some really good smoke every once in a while, the good stuff is a lot more readily available today. At least in some places. And just so you don’t go off half-cocked worrying about your kids getting ahold of too much of a good thing, it’s not that bad. Research has shown that the more potent marijuana is, the less of it people tend to smoke. And achieving the same effect with less smoke entering your lungs can only be a good thing. So in reality, if the government’s claims of more potent marijuana are really true, it should make them very happy. Since its citizens’ health is the main reason for prohibition, the government should be celebrating. In spite of everything they’ve done, people will be smoking less of the new, super-potent weed. When you think about it, there’s really no downside.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
The Oldest Profession
It occurred to me one day that smoking marijuana is in many ways a lot like prostitution. Before I go on, I want to put those jokes that immediately spring to mind behind us. Here’s one to get you started: They both involve putting something in your mouth and sucking on it. OK? Satisfied? Got it out of your system? Now we can move on.
First of all, people have smoked marijuana and engaged in prostitution, in one way or another, as long as there have been people. If you want to get all scientific about it, agriculture is probably the oldest profession, but I’d guess prostitution comes in a close second. And we know that people have been using marijuana both recreationally and medically at least since the beginning of recorded history. The oldest known medical manuscript mentions the medicinal properties of cannabis, and a 2700-year-old tomb was recently uncovered in China that contained, among other things, almost two pounds of marijuana that had clearly been cultivated for its psychoactive properties.
Both have been legal throughout much of human history, but recently have been outlawed. Why? No particular reason, other than on moral grounds. Some people believe you shouldn’t do these things, and that making them illegal is the most effective way to make people stop doing them. Apparently, in a civilized society, we all need to follow the same moral code, even in private.
They are both, in most cases, victimless “crimes.” Unlike most crimes that involve one person doing harm to another, no one is really harmed by engaging in these activities. Granted, that’s not always the case. But I think it’s safe to say that reasonable, intelligent adults can commit these acts without doing anyone, other than possibly themselves, any harm. Most of the problems associated with these activities are the result of them being against the law, rather than the activities themselves.
And in both cases, if the activity were legal and regulated, much of the danger would be eliminated. As we know, in the case of prostitution, a legal industry is much safer for all involved. Consumers do not have to deal with criminals. The spread of disease is drastically reduced. And people do not have to worry about a criminal record for doing something that is really nobody’s business but theirs. Similar things could be said about legalized and regulated marijuana (except for the part about spreading disease).
Making these activities illegal also brings the government into the privacy of one’s home, which is supposed to be protected by our Constitution. Somewhere along the line, our government got the idea that it was within their power to tell consenting adults what they can and cannot do in private. I guess I missed the part in the Constitution that gives the government the power to tell its citizens what kind of sex they are allowed to have. Or what kind of home remedies they can use. When you get right down to it, people really should be able to do whatever they want in private, as long as all parties involved are agreeable and the activity doesn’t harm or otherwise affect other people.
It’s also the case that arresting and imprisoning people for these activities has no demonstrable effect on the number of people engaging in them. Will outlawing prostitution make it go away? Will prohibition make people stop smoking marijuana? It hasn’t so far. Of course, who knows? Maybe in another 10,000 years the laws will finally start to have an effect, and we just need to be patient. But I tend to doubt it.
Which brings me to my last point. Paying for sex and ingesting psychoactive compounds is what people do. They always have done it, and always will. It’s human nature. As I’ve said before, legislation that goes against human nature will always fail. Threatening people with punishment will not make them stop being people. It’s like passing a law that forbids dogs from relieving themselves on fire hydrants. Ain’t gonna happen. So what’s the point? Don’t we have enough criminals already? Why do we need to make up laws that make even more people into criminals. Why can’t the government stay out of people’s personal lives? More importantly, why does the government insist on legislating morality? Why does it bother some people so much when others do something they don’t approve of? Why can’t we just live and let live? Anybody? Bueller? I’m waiting for some answers. I haven’t got all day.
First of all, people have smoked marijuana and engaged in prostitution, in one way or another, as long as there have been people. If you want to get all scientific about it, agriculture is probably the oldest profession, but I’d guess prostitution comes in a close second. And we know that people have been using marijuana both recreationally and medically at least since the beginning of recorded history. The oldest known medical manuscript mentions the medicinal properties of cannabis, and a 2700-year-old tomb was recently uncovered in China that contained, among other things, almost two pounds of marijuana that had clearly been cultivated for its psychoactive properties.
Both have been legal throughout much of human history, but recently have been outlawed. Why? No particular reason, other than on moral grounds. Some people believe you shouldn’t do these things, and that making them illegal is the most effective way to make people stop doing them. Apparently, in a civilized society, we all need to follow the same moral code, even in private.
They are both, in most cases, victimless “crimes.” Unlike most crimes that involve one person doing harm to another, no one is really harmed by engaging in these activities. Granted, that’s not always the case. But I think it’s safe to say that reasonable, intelligent adults can commit these acts without doing anyone, other than possibly themselves, any harm. Most of the problems associated with these activities are the result of them being against the law, rather than the activities themselves.
And in both cases, if the activity were legal and regulated, much of the danger would be eliminated. As we know, in the case of prostitution, a legal industry is much safer for all involved. Consumers do not have to deal with criminals. The spread of disease is drastically reduced. And people do not have to worry about a criminal record for doing something that is really nobody’s business but theirs. Similar things could be said about legalized and regulated marijuana (except for the part about spreading disease).
Making these activities illegal also brings the government into the privacy of one’s home, which is supposed to be protected by our Constitution. Somewhere along the line, our government got the idea that it was within their power to tell consenting adults what they can and cannot do in private. I guess I missed the part in the Constitution that gives the government the power to tell its citizens what kind of sex they are allowed to have. Or what kind of home remedies they can use. When you get right down to it, people really should be able to do whatever they want in private, as long as all parties involved are agreeable and the activity doesn’t harm or otherwise affect other people.
It’s also the case that arresting and imprisoning people for these activities has no demonstrable effect on the number of people engaging in them. Will outlawing prostitution make it go away? Will prohibition make people stop smoking marijuana? It hasn’t so far. Of course, who knows? Maybe in another 10,000 years the laws will finally start to have an effect, and we just need to be patient. But I tend to doubt it.
Which brings me to my last point. Paying for sex and ingesting psychoactive compounds is what people do. They always have done it, and always will. It’s human nature. As I’ve said before, legislation that goes against human nature will always fail. Threatening people with punishment will not make them stop being people. It’s like passing a law that forbids dogs from relieving themselves on fire hydrants. Ain’t gonna happen. So what’s the point? Don’t we have enough criminals already? Why do we need to make up laws that make even more people into criminals. Why can’t the government stay out of people’s personal lives? More importantly, why does the government insist on legislating morality? Why does it bother some people so much when others do something they don’t approve of? Why can’t we just live and let live? Anybody? Bueller? I’m waiting for some answers. I haven’t got all day.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
U.S. Supreme Court Decides Not To Decide—Again
A while back I wrote a column, U.S. Supreme Court Decides Not To Decide, about the case of a California man whose medical marijuana was taken by local authorities who then refused to return it even though the man was a legal medical marijuana patient under California law. That case made it to the U.S. Supreme Court, who refused to hear it. Case closed, federal law does not trump a state’s medical marijuana law. Chalk one up for the good guys.
Well it’s happened again. Back in 2006, two counties in California that had refused to issue medical marijuana ID cards filed suit. They claimed they didn’t have to issue these cards because it was a violation of federal law. They lost their case in the state superior court and in the state appeals court. The state supreme court refused to hear their appeal, so they took it to the U.S. Supreme Court. Funny thing, just like the previous case, the highest court in the land decided against hearing this one too. Case closed, yet again. Lots of taxpayers’ money wasted, yet again. (Good thing California has so much extra money to throw around.)
So what does this second landmark non-decision mean? Basically, the same as the first one. Let me say it again, just so we’re clear: federal law does not trump a state’s medical marijuana law. The U.S. Supreme Court has now made this point quite clearly and unambiguously. Twice. The immediate effect of this law will (or at least should) be that San Diego, San Bernadino, and the seven other California counties that have refused to comply with state law must now do so. In theory. In practice however, I’m not so sure it will make much of a difference. The elected officials in these 9 counties quite clearly do not want to honor the people of California’s decision to allow medical marijuana. I’d put my money on them delaying and wasting more taxpayers’s money on additional pointless legal battles. As we all know very well, drug warriors do not give up easily. Things like laws and supreme court decisions are of little consequence when keeping drugs out of the hands of sick people is the issue. I mean after all, what kind of message would it send the children if we allowed sick and dying people to take any drug they want to just because it makes them feel better? If sick people want to feel better, let them take the more expensive and less safe drugs offered by the pharmaceutical companies just like everyone else. Our children need to know that this is the only reasonable alternative in a civilized society. (As far as I can tell, a civilized society, according to our government, is one in which the government, rather than the people or the medical community, decides what medications its citizens are permitted to take.)
There’s not much more to say about this, other than it’s another small step in the right direction. While it may have little immediate impact in those California counties, it does send a message to the rest of the country. Perhaps some of the people in states hesitant to pass medical marijuana laws because they conflict with federal law will reconsider. Assuming of course that such reasoning is sincere and not just an excuse to avoid doing the right thing. Regardless, it’s one less leg for the prohibitionists to stand on. Knock out a few more legs, and they will hopefully collapse under their own (dead) weight. I know, I’m the eternal pessimist. But perhaps, just maybe, there is finally the tiniest bit of very faint light at the end of the seemingly endless tunnel.
Well it’s happened again. Back in 2006, two counties in California that had refused to issue medical marijuana ID cards filed suit. They claimed they didn’t have to issue these cards because it was a violation of federal law. They lost their case in the state superior court and in the state appeals court. The state supreme court refused to hear their appeal, so they took it to the U.S. Supreme Court. Funny thing, just like the previous case, the highest court in the land decided against hearing this one too. Case closed, yet again. Lots of taxpayers’ money wasted, yet again. (Good thing California has so much extra money to throw around.)
So what does this second landmark non-decision mean? Basically, the same as the first one. Let me say it again, just so we’re clear: federal law does not trump a state’s medical marijuana law. The U.S. Supreme Court has now made this point quite clearly and unambiguously. Twice. The immediate effect of this law will (or at least should) be that San Diego, San Bernadino, and the seven other California counties that have refused to comply with state law must now do so. In theory. In practice however, I’m not so sure it will make much of a difference. The elected officials in these 9 counties quite clearly do not want to honor the people of California’s decision to allow medical marijuana. I’d put my money on them delaying and wasting more taxpayers’s money on additional pointless legal battles. As we all know very well, drug warriors do not give up easily. Things like laws and supreme court decisions are of little consequence when keeping drugs out of the hands of sick people is the issue. I mean after all, what kind of message would it send the children if we allowed sick and dying people to take any drug they want to just because it makes them feel better? If sick people want to feel better, let them take the more expensive and less safe drugs offered by the pharmaceutical companies just like everyone else. Our children need to know that this is the only reasonable alternative in a civilized society. (As far as I can tell, a civilized society, according to our government, is one in which the government, rather than the people or the medical community, decides what medications its citizens are permitted to take.)
There’s not much more to say about this, other than it’s another small step in the right direction. While it may have little immediate impact in those California counties, it does send a message to the rest of the country. Perhaps some of the people in states hesitant to pass medical marijuana laws because they conflict with federal law will reconsider. Assuming of course that such reasoning is sincere and not just an excuse to avoid doing the right thing. Regardless, it’s one less leg for the prohibitionists to stand on. Knock out a few more legs, and they will hopefully collapse under their own (dead) weight. I know, I’m the eternal pessimist. But perhaps, just maybe, there is finally the tiniest bit of very faint light at the end of the seemingly endless tunnel.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Busting The Biggest Myth Of All—Part 2
In last week’s column I discussed the myth that decriminalization leads to increased drug use. People who believe in this myth have no basis for their prediction. It’s just common sense. But, as I also pointed out, some real, solid evidence does in fact exist that would enable us to make a more informed prediction. For the past 8 years, all recreational drugs have been decriminalized in Portugal. Granted, Portugal is not the U.S., but I think what’s been going on there is still pretty relevant when it comes to making a prediction of what would happen here. The Portuguese are, after all, a pretty conservative and religious people. It might not be a perfect comparison, but better than just going on a hunch.
So, what’s been happening in Portugal over the past 8 years? Are dogs and cats currenlty cohabiting? Has it been a tragedy of biblical proportions? The simple answer to this complex question is, no. Not a single, observable bad thing has happened. In fact, just the opposite is true. Some really good things have resulted from Portugal’s insanely-tolerant drug policy. Not that that’s relevant to the good ol’ U.S. of A., where we base our drug policy on fear and baseless speculation rather than facts. So even though it’s pointless, let’s see what the results of decriminalization really are, minus the fear and baseless speculation.
A study of the drug situation in Portugal was recently completed by the CATO Institute, a non-profit public policy research foundation. They’ve posted a video on their web site that discusses the history of decriminalization in Portugal and the results of their study. So you don’t have to view the entire video, I’ve summarized the main points here. But please do check the video out, so you’re not basing your opinion entirely on my interpretation of it.
Drugs were not decriminalized in Portugal for socially progressive or libertarian reasons. The drug problem there was out of control in the 1990s as their criminalization efforts intensified. They decided to try decriminalization out of desperation, because what they had been doing was not working. So they formed an apolitical commission in 1998 made up of scientists and medical professionals to examine their drug policy and figure out how to fix it. The commission decided that decriminalization was the best way for the government to get the drug problem under control. Legalization was not an option because of international treaties. Not surprisingly, they heard the same arguments against this “experiment” as we hear in this country—that drug use would go up, that they would become a haven for drug tourists, etc. All those dire predictions turned out to be false. Now it’s pretty unanimous among the citizens as well as the government that decriminalization is a success, and there is no longer a movement to return to prohibition.
So what exactly is the current law in Portugal? Personal use or possession of small amounts (enough for 10 days usage) of any recreational drug is still prohibited by law, but is not a criminal offense. If you are caught, you will not be tried, convicted, sent to jail or receive a criminal record. (This is not at all like the situation in The Netherlands, where the existing laws are not enforced under certain circumstances.) Drug trafficking and selling to minors is still illegal. If you are cited for possession, you are given the opportunity for treatment, but treatment is optional. A recommendation is made at an informal hearing, but it is up to the individual what to do. Police still do issue citations for possession, even more now than before. That’s because now there’s a possibility it could help the individual, whereas imprisonment never really did anyone any good.
There are basically two reasons the Portuguese believe decriminalization is working: (1) If using/abusing drugs makes you a criminal, you’re not going to go to the government for help. Decriminalization removes the fear of government and the barrier to help. More people are now in treatment and government addiction programs are now far more effective. (2) Imprisoning nonviolent offenders costs lots of money (Portugal is a relatively poor country) without helping anyone. Freeing up much of that money allows the creation of education and treatment opportunities not previously possible.
Sounds good, right? But what about some hard data? Prevalence rates of the use of all drugs in adolescents and post-adolescents decreased between 2001 and 2006, and for some drugs the decrease was dramatic. There is no evidence whatsoever that drug use has increased in the dramatic way decriminalization opponents predicted. Portugal now has the lowest marijuana usage rate across all age groups (age 15-64) among EU nations. It has the sixth lowest cocaine usage rate across all age groups. That alone may not sound so great, but the EU nations with the most severe penalties have cocaine usage rates 5-6 time higher than Portugal. Drug deaths in Portugal have also dropped dramatically from their all-time high in the 1990s. And Portugal has not become a drug tourist destination.
Whether or not these decreases are just a reflection of world-wide trends, it still remains true that drug use did not dramatically increase with decriminalization. Just to be clear, this result clearly and unambiguously refutes the dire predictions made by the prohibitionists. This is in spite of the fact that in Europe overall, marijuana and cocaine use are at all time highs. So if decriminalization reduces the intrusiveness of the state and doesn’t favor the arrest of minorities while at the same time not increasing drug use, what’s the problem? Even if there are no major positive consequences of decriminalization, there are at the very least no negative consequences.
So there you have it. Solid evidence that, contrary to the baseless speculation of drug warriors everywhere, decriminalization does not lead to increased drug usage. Regardless of the other pros and cons of decriminalization, this outcome is quite clear. So every time you hear someone in favor of prohibition spouting off about the rampant drug use decriminalization would cause, politely ask them, “What about Portugal?” If they don’t have an answer, then go right ahead and educate them. There’s nothing prohibitionists like more than hearing about facts that show how wrong their uninformed opinions really are.
So, what’s been happening in Portugal over the past 8 years? Are dogs and cats currenlty cohabiting? Has it been a tragedy of biblical proportions? The simple answer to this complex question is, no. Not a single, observable bad thing has happened. In fact, just the opposite is true. Some really good things have resulted from Portugal’s insanely-tolerant drug policy. Not that that’s relevant to the good ol’ U.S. of A., where we base our drug policy on fear and baseless speculation rather than facts. So even though it’s pointless, let’s see what the results of decriminalization really are, minus the fear and baseless speculation.
A study of the drug situation in Portugal was recently completed by the CATO Institute, a non-profit public policy research foundation. They’ve posted a video on their web site that discusses the history of decriminalization in Portugal and the results of their study. So you don’t have to view the entire video, I’ve summarized the main points here. But please do check the video out, so you’re not basing your opinion entirely on my interpretation of it.
Drugs were not decriminalized in Portugal for socially progressive or libertarian reasons. The drug problem there was out of control in the 1990s as their criminalization efforts intensified. They decided to try decriminalization out of desperation, because what they had been doing was not working. So they formed an apolitical commission in 1998 made up of scientists and medical professionals to examine their drug policy and figure out how to fix it. The commission decided that decriminalization was the best way for the government to get the drug problem under control. Legalization was not an option because of international treaties. Not surprisingly, they heard the same arguments against this “experiment” as we hear in this country—that drug use would go up, that they would become a haven for drug tourists, etc. All those dire predictions turned out to be false. Now it’s pretty unanimous among the citizens as well as the government that decriminalization is a success, and there is no longer a movement to return to prohibition.
So what exactly is the current law in Portugal? Personal use or possession of small amounts (enough for 10 days usage) of any recreational drug is still prohibited by law, but is not a criminal offense. If you are caught, you will not be tried, convicted, sent to jail or receive a criminal record. (This is not at all like the situation in The Netherlands, where the existing laws are not enforced under certain circumstances.) Drug trafficking and selling to minors is still illegal. If you are cited for possession, you are given the opportunity for treatment, but treatment is optional. A recommendation is made at an informal hearing, but it is up to the individual what to do. Police still do issue citations for possession, even more now than before. That’s because now there’s a possibility it could help the individual, whereas imprisonment never really did anyone any good.
There are basically two reasons the Portuguese believe decriminalization is working: (1) If using/abusing drugs makes you a criminal, you’re not going to go to the government for help. Decriminalization removes the fear of government and the barrier to help. More people are now in treatment and government addiction programs are now far more effective. (2) Imprisoning nonviolent offenders costs lots of money (Portugal is a relatively poor country) without helping anyone. Freeing up much of that money allows the creation of education and treatment opportunities not previously possible.
Sounds good, right? But what about some hard data? Prevalence rates of the use of all drugs in adolescents and post-adolescents decreased between 2001 and 2006, and for some drugs the decrease was dramatic. There is no evidence whatsoever that drug use has increased in the dramatic way decriminalization opponents predicted. Portugal now has the lowest marijuana usage rate across all age groups (age 15-64) among EU nations. It has the sixth lowest cocaine usage rate across all age groups. That alone may not sound so great, but the EU nations with the most severe penalties have cocaine usage rates 5-6 time higher than Portugal. Drug deaths in Portugal have also dropped dramatically from their all-time high in the 1990s. And Portugal has not become a drug tourist destination.
Whether or not these decreases are just a reflection of world-wide trends, it still remains true that drug use did not dramatically increase with decriminalization. Just to be clear, this result clearly and unambiguously refutes the dire predictions made by the prohibitionists. This is in spite of the fact that in Europe overall, marijuana and cocaine use are at all time highs. So if decriminalization reduces the intrusiveness of the state and doesn’t favor the arrest of minorities while at the same time not increasing drug use, what’s the problem? Even if there are no major positive consequences of decriminalization, there are at the very least no negative consequences.
So there you have it. Solid evidence that, contrary to the baseless speculation of drug warriors everywhere, decriminalization does not lead to increased drug usage. Regardless of the other pros and cons of decriminalization, this outcome is quite clear. So every time you hear someone in favor of prohibition spouting off about the rampant drug use decriminalization would cause, politely ask them, “What about Portugal?” If they don’t have an answer, then go right ahead and educate them. There’s nothing prohibitionists like more than hearing about facts that show how wrong their uninformed opinions really are.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Busting The Biggest Myth Of All—Part 1
If I were to ask you which country in the European Union has the most lenient recreational drug laws, what would you say? I’m no pollster, but if I had to put money on it, I would bet virtually everyone in the U.S. would answer that question with The Netherlands. Is that what you were going to say? I thought so. But you, and most people in this country, would be wrong. The Dutch have not decriminalized marijuana or any other recreational drug (except of course for alcohol). They just have an unwritten policy of looking the other way under certain circumstances.
If however you had answered my question with Portugal, you would have been absolutely correct and would have won a valuable prize. You didn’t, so don’t try to change your answer now. But it is in fact true. In 2001, Portugal became the first western nation to decriminalize the personal possession and use of all recreational drugs. Don’t confuse this with outright legalization. They still arrest people for producing, importing, and selling drugs. But they no longer treat casual users, or even addicts, as criminals.
Time now for another quiz. (I know, if I would have told you in advance you could have studied. Sorry.) What is the one consequence of decriminalization that even intelligent, well-educated people almost always assume without question is true? If you said that drug use would increase, you are correct. (OK, technically there is no right answer, but this is my quiz so I decide what’s right. Kind of like our federal government.) I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard people say that decriminalizing, or god forbid legalizing, recreational drugs would lead to an out-of-control society where drug abuse is running rampant. Everyone would be high all the time and our nation would be in ruins. It would be a catastrophe of biblical proportions. Dogs and cats living together. And this is what the more intelligent people think.
Of course expecting the worst from decriminalization is purely speculation, at best. We really don’t have any evidence to support or refute that prediction. I mean just because recreational drugs have been legal for the entire history of mankind, up till 70 years ago, means nothing. Somehow civilization has managed to progress quite nicely in its first 20,000 years with all those drugs being freely available. But that’s ancient history. We are now much smarter and just “know” that the consequences of freely-available recreational drugs would be devastating to our society. We don’t need no stinking evidence. It’s so obvious that actual scientific study, let alone trying decriminalization and seeing what happens, would be pointless.
But wait. What was that I said earlier about Portugal having decriminalized drugs 8 years ago? We don’t even need to try it here. We already have a place where we can see first hand the effects of decriminalization over a period of several years. That is, if we care to look. Which we clearly don’t.
But let’s say we did look. What’s been happening in Portugal over the past 8 years? Are dogs and cats now living together? Is the country in ruins? You’ll have to come back next week to find out the answer.
If however you had answered my question with Portugal, you would have been absolutely correct and would have won a valuable prize. You didn’t, so don’t try to change your answer now. But it is in fact true. In 2001, Portugal became the first western nation to decriminalize the personal possession and use of all recreational drugs. Don’t confuse this with outright legalization. They still arrest people for producing, importing, and selling drugs. But they no longer treat casual users, or even addicts, as criminals.
Time now for another quiz. (I know, if I would have told you in advance you could have studied. Sorry.) What is the one consequence of decriminalization that even intelligent, well-educated people almost always assume without question is true? If you said that drug use would increase, you are correct. (OK, technically there is no right answer, but this is my quiz so I decide what’s right. Kind of like our federal government.) I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard people say that decriminalizing, or god forbid legalizing, recreational drugs would lead to an out-of-control society where drug abuse is running rampant. Everyone would be high all the time and our nation would be in ruins. It would be a catastrophe of biblical proportions. Dogs and cats living together. And this is what the more intelligent people think.
Of course expecting the worst from decriminalization is purely speculation, at best. We really don’t have any evidence to support or refute that prediction. I mean just because recreational drugs have been legal for the entire history of mankind, up till 70 years ago, means nothing. Somehow civilization has managed to progress quite nicely in its first 20,000 years with all those drugs being freely available. But that’s ancient history. We are now much smarter and just “know” that the consequences of freely-available recreational drugs would be devastating to our society. We don’t need no stinking evidence. It’s so obvious that actual scientific study, let alone trying decriminalization and seeing what happens, would be pointless.
But wait. What was that I said earlier about Portugal having decriminalized drugs 8 years ago? We don’t even need to try it here. We already have a place where we can see first hand the effects of decriminalization over a period of several years. That is, if we care to look. Which we clearly don’t.
But let’s say we did look. What’s been happening in Portugal over the past 8 years? Are dogs and cats now living together? Is the country in ruins? You’ll have to come back next week to find out the answer.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
U.S. Supreme Court: Molesting Children OK?
I thought there was no new prohibition-related insanity that could still surprise, let alone shock, me. I was wrong. It looks like it is now acceptable to molest a 13-year-old girl in the name of the war on drugs.
On October 3, 2003 a 13-year-old honor student at an Arizona school was accused by a friend of giving her Ibuprofen, an over-the-counter aspirin substitute. Apparently, that is a banned drug. When a search of her locker, backpack, and clothes failed to turn up any of the drug, the student was stripped to her underwear then forced to remove even that to satisfy school officials. This was without her parents’ permission. And the girl had never been in any trouble before. All over an aspirin. Were they afraid that some child would experience unauthorized headache relief?
My first response to this, after recovering from being shocked and stunned, is why would such a case end up in an appeals court, let alone the U.S. Supreme Court? This is a criminal matter. Upon hearing from their child what had happened, the girl’s parents should have immediately contacted the police and had everyone involved arrested. Surely there must be some laws in Arizona against molesting little girls. And as far as I’m concerned, when an adult forces a 13-year-old girl to remove her clothes without the presence, or even permission, of her parents, it is sexual assault. Period.
In what universe would there even be a discussion of whether or not such an act is acceptable? I mean, what could these people possibly say on a witness stand to justify such behavior? We were looking for an aspirin? I’m sure all pedophiles have similar excuses. These people are child molesters, plain and simple. They belong behind bars and their names added to the national and local registries of convicted pedophiles. They are a danger to children, and should not be allowed anywhere near a school ever again.
What shocks me almost as much as what happened to this little girl is the fact that this case is now before the U.S. Supreme Court. I guess these people really want to prove to the world that they are not perverts and what they did is perfectly alright. Just to show you what kind of a world we live in, the Court may actually find in favor of these child molesters. After hearing arguments, comments made by our esteemed Supreme Court justices suggest they are leaning toward overturning the lower court’s decision. Believe it or not, they might just decide this sort of behavior is OK. For example, Justice Stephen Breyer didn’t seem to understand how a strip search could harm a child. Justice Breyer was reported as saying, “why is this a major thing to say strip down to your underclothes, which children do when they change for gym?” But wait, there’s more. Justice Breyer went on, “In my experience when I was 8 or 10 or 12 years old, you know, we did take our clothes off once a day. We changed for gym, OK? And in my experience, too, people did sometimes stick things in my underwear. Or not my underwear. ... I mean, I don't think it's beyond human experience.” And then there’s Justice David Souter who said he “would rather have the kid embarrassed by a strip search ... than have some other kids dead because the stuff is distributed at lunchtime and things go awry.” Dead? Really? From an aspirin? Now maybe if it were a bomb or a gun, OK. But I don’t think a strip search would be required to find a deadly weapon. Unless it was really, really small.
There’s more, but I think you get the point. And don’t forget, we’re talking about an aspirin here, not a bomb or even a particularly dangerous drug. If this situation doesn’t fall under the 4th Amendment, which guarantees that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...”, then I’d like to know what does. Surely forcing a little girl to take off her clothes to find a suspected aspirin is unreasonable under any and all circumstances. My only remaining question: What have these people, in particular our esteemed Supreme Court justices, been smoking and where can I get some?
On October 3, 2003 a 13-year-old honor student at an Arizona school was accused by a friend of giving her Ibuprofen, an over-the-counter aspirin substitute. Apparently, that is a banned drug. When a search of her locker, backpack, and clothes failed to turn up any of the drug, the student was stripped to her underwear then forced to remove even that to satisfy school officials. This was without her parents’ permission. And the girl had never been in any trouble before. All over an aspirin. Were they afraid that some child would experience unauthorized headache relief?
My first response to this, after recovering from being shocked and stunned, is why would such a case end up in an appeals court, let alone the U.S. Supreme Court? This is a criminal matter. Upon hearing from their child what had happened, the girl’s parents should have immediately contacted the police and had everyone involved arrested. Surely there must be some laws in Arizona against molesting little girls. And as far as I’m concerned, when an adult forces a 13-year-old girl to remove her clothes without the presence, or even permission, of her parents, it is sexual assault. Period.
In what universe would there even be a discussion of whether or not such an act is acceptable? I mean, what could these people possibly say on a witness stand to justify such behavior? We were looking for an aspirin? I’m sure all pedophiles have similar excuses. These people are child molesters, plain and simple. They belong behind bars and their names added to the national and local registries of convicted pedophiles. They are a danger to children, and should not be allowed anywhere near a school ever again.
What shocks me almost as much as what happened to this little girl is the fact that this case is now before the U.S. Supreme Court. I guess these people really want to prove to the world that they are not perverts and what they did is perfectly alright. Just to show you what kind of a world we live in, the Court may actually find in favor of these child molesters. After hearing arguments, comments made by our esteemed Supreme Court justices suggest they are leaning toward overturning the lower court’s decision. Believe it or not, they might just decide this sort of behavior is OK. For example, Justice Stephen Breyer didn’t seem to understand how a strip search could harm a child. Justice Breyer was reported as saying, “why is this a major thing to say strip down to your underclothes, which children do when they change for gym?” But wait, there’s more. Justice Breyer went on, “In my experience when I was 8 or 10 or 12 years old, you know, we did take our clothes off once a day. We changed for gym, OK? And in my experience, too, people did sometimes stick things in my underwear. Or not my underwear. ... I mean, I don't think it's beyond human experience.” And then there’s Justice David Souter who said he “would rather have the kid embarrassed by a strip search ... than have some other kids dead because the stuff is distributed at lunchtime and things go awry.” Dead? Really? From an aspirin? Now maybe if it were a bomb or a gun, OK. But I don’t think a strip search would be required to find a deadly weapon. Unless it was really, really small.
There’s more, but I think you get the point. And don’t forget, we’re talking about an aspirin here, not a bomb or even a particularly dangerous drug. If this situation doesn’t fall under the 4th Amendment, which guarantees that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...”, then I’d like to know what does. Surely forcing a little girl to take off her clothes to find a suspected aspirin is unreasonable under any and all circumstances. My only remaining question: What have these people, in particular our esteemed Supreme Court justices, been smoking and where can I get some?
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Historic First: Politicians To Be Trusted
On March 9, 2009 our president did something that no other leader in recorded history has ever attempted. He officially declared that elected officials must tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Well OK, not in so many words. Nor as a general rule. But specifically in regard to science that guides national policy.
What the president did was issue a Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies that stated, in part:
Not that this memorandum is going to make a difference, but just imagine a perfect world where it would. First, let’s consider some of the major scientific studies commissioned by the government itself. Starting with The LaGuardia Report, virtually every major study conducted in the U.S. has at the very least recommended rescheduling of marijuana. For example, let’s looks at some of their conclusions:
A thorough review of the latest medical marijuana research, The Endocannabinoid System as an Emerging Target of Pharmacotherapy, was published in Pharmacological Reviews in 2006. It summarizes recent findings on the medical uses of the various compounds found in marijuana. Not surprising, there are many conditions that can be effectively and safely treated with marijuana-based compounds. Even the Institute of Medicine, the group that the federal government is always quoting to justify their prohibition, concluded in 1997 that scientific developments indicate marijuana and its various cannabinoid compounds have therapeutic properties that could potentially treat many illnesses and conditions. And did I mention the patent that the federal government holds on medical marijuana, U.S. Patent 6630507 - Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants?
In a perfect world, this consensus among the scientific community and the overwhelming evidence that supports the medical benefits of marijuana would be more than enough to satisfy the president’s mandate that policy be based on actual science. It would result in an immediate rescheduling of marijuana and a retraction of the blatant lies the government has been spreading over the past 70 years. Unfortunately, we live in the good ol’ U.S. of A. where if a politician is speaking, chances are pretty high that they are lying. Presidential memoranda notwithstanding.
What the president did was issue a Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies that stated, in part:
Science and the scientific process must inform and guide decisions of my Administration on a wide range of issues, including improvement of public health, protection of the environment, increased efficiency in the use of energy and other resources, mitigation of the threat of climate change, and protection of national security.In other words, we should be able to trust those we elect to office not to lie to us about scientific justifications for their policies. Apparently, this needed to be explicitly stated. I guess the oath of office doesn’t cover honesty. Am I naive, or could this be relevant to the war on drugs? Could this, along with the recent proposal to review our entire criminal justice system, the case currently before the Ninth Circuit Court, and a few other apparently unrelated developments, actually be small steps in an indirect route toward the end of prohibition? Maybe the current administration really is on our side, and they are approaching the prohibition issue in a roundabout, non-confrontational, path-of-least-resistance sort of way? Or not.
The public must be able to trust the science and scientific process informing public policy decisions. Political officials should not suppress or alter scientific or technological findings and conclusions. If scientific and technological information is developed and used by the Federal Government, it should ordinarily be made available to the public. To the extent permitted by law, there should be transparency in the preparation, identification, and use of scientific and technological information in policymaking. The selection of scientists and technology professionals for positions in the executive branch should be based on their scientific and technological knowledge, credentials, experience, and integrity.
Not that this memorandum is going to make a difference, but just imagine a perfect world where it would. First, let’s consider some of the major scientific studies commissioned by the government itself. Starting with The LaGuardia Report, virtually every major study conducted in the U.S. has at the very least recommended rescheduling of marijuana. For example, let’s looks at some of their conclusions:
- The LaGuardia Report (1944)—“The publicity concerning the catastrophic effects of marihuana smoking ... is unfounded.”
- The Consumer’s Union Report (1972)—Recommended “the immediate repeal of all federal laws governing the growing, processing, transportation, sale, possession, and use of marijuana.”
- The Report of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse (1972)—“Marihuana’s relative potential for harm to the vast majority of individual users and its actual impact on society does not justify a social policy designed to seek out and firmly punish those who use it.” (This is the study Nixon commissioned to justify the Controlled Substances Act.)
- The American College of Physicians Policy Paper (2008)—“Given marijuana’s proven efficacy at treating certain symptoms and its relatively low toxicity, reclassification would reduce barriers to research and increase availability of cannabinoid drugs to patients who have failed to respond to other treatments.”
A thorough review of the latest medical marijuana research, The Endocannabinoid System as an Emerging Target of Pharmacotherapy, was published in Pharmacological Reviews in 2006. It summarizes recent findings on the medical uses of the various compounds found in marijuana. Not surprising, there are many conditions that can be effectively and safely treated with marijuana-based compounds. Even the Institute of Medicine, the group that the federal government is always quoting to justify their prohibition, concluded in 1997 that scientific developments indicate marijuana and its various cannabinoid compounds have therapeutic properties that could potentially treat many illnesses and conditions. And did I mention the patent that the federal government holds on medical marijuana, U.S. Patent 6630507 - Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants?
In a perfect world, this consensus among the scientific community and the overwhelming evidence that supports the medical benefits of marijuana would be more than enough to satisfy the president’s mandate that policy be based on actual science. It would result in an immediate rescheduling of marijuana and a retraction of the blatant lies the government has been spreading over the past 70 years. Unfortunately, we live in the good ol’ U.S. of A. where if a politician is speaking, chances are pretty high that they are lying. Presidential memoranda notwithstanding.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
