Some weeks ago, The Washington Post announced an op-ed writing contest, where non-professional writers were invited to submit an essay of 400 words or less. The essays would be judged by the clarity of writing, and content with an interesting message, but not on whether or not the editors agreed with the content. There were thousands of submissions, including one from yours truly. Out of these thousands, only ten of these amateur writers would advance to the second round, and the process would gradually whittle down to a single winner, who would get the honor of contributing a regular column for something like ten weeks. The winner would receive a fairly modest fee for his/her columns, but the main prize would be the prestige, not the money.
My essay was not one of the ten that made it to the second round, and of course, I was well aware that my odds were very remote. Anyway, now that I am officially out of the running, I would like to share my essay with my fellow OFA bloggers:
With multiple international crises and a serious economic recession to address, along with an ongoing effort to accomplish major reforms in healthcare, other issues have understandably been set aside for now. It can wait awhile, but I hope that some time before the end of Barack Obama’s presidency, there will be a serious examination of the various laws enacted, and enforcement methods used, in the name of “getting tough on crime.” We have the infamous war on drugs, which generally criminalizes the casual possession and use of various drugs, some of which are relatively harmless. We have the “three strikes” laws in many states, which in some circumstances impose long prison terms for minor offenses. Capital punishment is as popular as ever. Politicians frequently try to outdo each other in the contest to appear tougher on crime, because that perception is always a big advantage in elections. Conversely, an American politician who dares to suggest that these measures are ineffective in combating crime have as much chance of getting elected as would a candidate for the Iranian parliament who publicly doubts the existence of God.
I have no problem with being tough on crime, but I believe that many of the actions done with that supposed objective are ineffective at best, and in some cases counterproductive. Smarter and wiser people than yours truly may disagree, but let’s at least challenge some of the cherished assumptions.
Problems with the war on drugs include wasted resources (police, courts, jail), drug classifications which defy common sense (tobacco cigarettes are legal, marijuana is not), enrichment of organized crime (because lawful merchants cannot supply the people with what they apparently want), and the lost opportunity for excise tax revenue.
The three strikes laws remove the ability of a trial judge to use common sense in sentencing a convicted defendant. By imposing a mandatory twenty year sentence (for example) when a much shorter sentence is appropriate under the circumstances, the prisons become overcrowded with inmates who should not be there.
The usual justifications for capital punishment are false. They do not generally deter crime or save the taxpayers money, nor can we be sure that an innocent person is never executed. Execution undeniably does serve one purpose, which is to satisfy our collective thirst for revenge for an especially gruesome crime.
Let’s have some open an honest debate on these issues.
Now, back to the present day (11/2/09). I wrote the above words about a month ago. The Post editors had to sift through thousands of submitted essays – most of them undoubtedly well written – and it cannot have been easy to select the ten best. For the second round, they asked the would-be pundits to write a 750 word essay, on a different subject matter from the one they used in the first round. Two examples are provided in today’s on-line edition of the post:
http://views.washingtonpost.com/pundits/contestants/mara.gay/2009/11/mom_in_chief.html
http://views.washingtonpost.com/pundits/contestants/darryl.jackson/2009/11/sarah_palins_second_act.html
Syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker has an excellent op-ed in today’s (10/21/09) Washington Post. Ms. Parker is generally conservative, but not right wing, and this column concerns the Obama administration’s decision that the federal government will not interfere with states which permit the use of medical marijuana. I think it is an excellent column, because it articulates the case I have been trying to make in some previous blog postings, but in this case with the skill of a professional writer. She praises the administration for making the first step toward sensible drug policy, but she also advocates going further.
The usual arguments in favor of legalizing (or at minimum, decriminalizing) weed note that it is less harmful and addictive than some other currently legal products, that its illegal status means a huge waste of police/court/jail resources, and various other ways that the “war on drugs” is counterproductive, at least regarding marijuana.
In addition to these things, although the foolishness of the “war on drugs” has a long bipartisan history, self-described conservatives should oppose the long standing U.S. policy on ideological grounds. It is a case of government interference with an individual’s choice regarding a recreational activity. Besides that, it is (or at least was, when the supposedly conservative George W. Bush was president) a case of the federal government overruling the states on matters of social policy. True conservatives should be appalled by such arrogance of big government.
Anyway, here is a link to Kathleen Parker’s column:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/20/AR2009102003084.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&sid=ST2009102003110
Dear President Obama,
Who are you trying to please?
The people who elected you or the people who thought you were the anti-Christ before you got elected and still haven't changed their minds?
Please do what is best for the country, you are the leader. Don't let yourself be led around by those who wish to continue bankrupting our country (and ruining other countries) due to the War on Drugs, which is exacerbating every problem the prohibitionists decry, or those who think that somehow a single-payer system is going to end up costing each of us more for healthcare while reducing what's available. How is it not obvious that if we ALL pool our resources, we can cover everyone and better than we do now?
What did the Founding Fathers pledge to each other?
• Continuously shop for the lowest labor costs.
• Always figure out the most expensive prices vendors can charge.
• Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
• Our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
• Exploit natural resources for the benefit of a few.
• Legislate and force their religions—or professed abstinence from—on others.
Yes, they pledged their lives, FORTUNES, and sacred honor to each other. We all live in this country but I feel more like it's a pack of wolves hunting the prey and fighting each other for dominance. Any sense of teamwork we had was killed off by the hateful, crying "commie," "socialist." Don't you think it's ironic that many of these people's parents gladly took their belongings to collection points and gave them away for free to be melted down and used as communal property to fight Hitler? Seems to me the way some think now, they hate what their parents did, it was not capitalistic, they should have sold it to our begging government. They probably wish their parents could've sold their old brass spitoons on eBay to whatever govt. agency was the highest bidder.
To pretend corruption and conflict of interest doesn't exist or "won't happen" is foolish. This is why those who designed our govt. put checks and balances in place.
You really need to whip the Congress into shape, they've been practicing the removal of checks and balances for decades! Give them a tongue lashing, which does not need to be public, pick them up and set them back down 180° from how they seem pointed.
All those people shouting "Nazi" and such… Here is the ONLY comparison I see.
You are well aware that hateful Hitler's loud mouth and minion convinced many people that the Gypsies were bad, the Jews were bad, the blacks were bad, etc… I'm sure many of them thought, "gee, others must feel this way too" and they went along with the bullies. After WWII many ordinary Germans were sorry they went along with it.
The comparison I see is that some of the loud-mouths are basically just describing themselves, and those in the upper echelons of political power are just like the mild-mannered Germans who were overtaken by the bullies.
Get out the charts and graphs, do like the senators do up at the front of Congress with their huge placards. Show people the dire straights we're in and rushing towards!
C'mon! What did Bob Marley sing? "Wake up! Stand up! Stand up for your rights!" Well, you are president and you have a whole lot more rights to get things done and get the message out than many of us who voted for you. This is why we voted for you, so you could do them. We didn't vote for you, so you would do the will of those who DID NOT vote for you.
In any case, it's my firm belief that many of these 50 & 60 somethings who are screaming loudest will benefit the most from cutting down the unfruitful for-profit healthcare system that benefits from denying coverage so they can pay bonuses and stock dividends to a miniscule percentage of our population.
Like I wrote in another essay. The cops DO NOT care who the backseat driver was who told the driver to ______ that led to the accident. They only care about the person in control. And you are in control. (At least 1/3 of it.) But you are the "head," so you need to stick your neck out every once in a while. Nothing ventured nothing gained as they say.
Tips on who to contact:
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition for lots of statistics on this failed Drug War.
http://LEAP.cc/
MPP - The hosts of one of the groups to which I will post this essay. A source of more information.
http://MPP.org/
Bill Moyers and Wendell Potter - at least watch the interview Bill conducted; but invite them both over for huge insight in to the healthcare issue.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/watch2.html
Respectfully,
Andrew Bairnsfather
P.S. As usual you are welcome to contact me directly, however, I am sure I will just point you at others who know more than I do.
I have heard and observed much on this subject. I, myself, do not use it, tried it long ago, did not like it. I know of some who have not tried it and those who smoke every day and thouroughly enjoy it.
I had a brother-in-law with cancer. His doctor told him, "Off the record, if you can get your hands on some marijuana, it would help relieve the affects of the radiation and chemo."
I have a daughter with Multiple Sclerosis. Research claims that marijuana helps with some of the symptoms. She agrees.
Once upon a time Maijuana was legal in the United States. Once upon a time alcohol was banned. I have seen and heard of more damage done by drunks than potheads. Why is alcohol legal? You drink, you drive, you might make it home, but you might kill someone else or yourself. You drink, you get obnoxious, you get into fights, you throw up in strange places, you break things, you get abusive.
I have seen some people get so high on marijuana that they appear to be glued to the spot. I have seen some function better when high. I have not seen a smoker hurt or kill anyone under the influence of just marijuana. They get giddy and hungry. So WHY is marijuana ILLegal?
So let me start off by sharing...
Change we can believe in is right, but it seems most of Obama's change seems to be coming from his promises to reality, not from Bush's ruining of our country to fixing it.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not here to tell you everything he has done has been bad. Much praise is deserved. That does not mean much criticism is undeserved.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/13/obama-administration-upholds-terrorist-surveillance-secrecy-rules/comments/
Obama continues the use of warrentless wiretapping and evesdropping, using the same BS excuse that Bush used: State Secrets.
Well, we have to wait and see how this turns out.. but it's a little dissapointing.
If you ask me, the NSA will ALWAYS be spying where they see the need, regardless of how legal it is, if the president officially authorized it, etc. We have black ops, covert operations, world wide survaillance. I have no doubt that they can get all the information they need without having widespread wire-tapping and evesdropping (or looking at our library records, recording all our emails, etc)
The NSA is capable of monitoring, flagging, deciphering all the intel it needs. They don't need any help from Patriot Acts or Presidential "state secrets"
I have no doubt that under both presidents, the 'primary' goal was a reasonable one: find terrorists. But again, they do NOT need blanket searches, putting EVERYONE in the spotlight. People have a right to privacy, it's in our Bill of Rights.
Under Bush, liberal watch groups, peace advocates, community organizers, and such people were closely monitored. How do we have any assurances that Obama wouldn't do the same? Monitor those that dissagree with him? Those that may come out with information that he doesn't want out?
It's not about terrorism. They have other, and plentiful means to combat terrorism abroad and at home (currently he touts the use of peaceful negotiations while continuing the combatant practices of Bush)
It's about our privacy and our rights, and about holding Obama accountable to the campaign promises he made.
I had very high faith in Obama to do the right thing with the Online Town hall meeting. It seemed like such a good idea and an easy concept: Ask people what they think, and listen to them.
However, as critics predicted ahead of time, the questions Obama was going to answer were pre-determined. He could guarantee that certain questions would be asked, he just had to wait and see how they were worded. But his responses were all planned, and the questions selected were planned.
This is the opposite of what he stated his intentions were. He did not listen to the people, or take their questions seriously. Instead, he merely read a prepared statement in the guise of an online town hall meeting. Town Hall meetins themselves are usually screened and questions prepared, but he stated that this would be different.
Three questions in particular were completely ignored, but others we ignored in part. For instance, questions regarding how to treat the Auto Industry, how best to spend money on them (or to not) and how best to make them move forward. Many were worded differently, with different emphases. He took a blakent response to these questions, ignoring many comments about smaller companies.
Many asked whether it makes any sense to bail out the companies that are failing. After all, this is the market. They failed for a reason: They had two decades to figure out that using oil is not a permanent solution, and begin to make real progress. They did not. They sold out to the oil industry, killed the electric car in 2000, and continued making gas guzzlers. If we paid for gas as we should, as other parts of the world do, which is unsibsidized, we would ALWAYS be paying double what we pay. Do you think there would have been a bigger push for the elctric car in 2000 if gas was not disproportionately low from government subsidies? This just passes the buck on to our next generations, as we do with many things. So why was gas subsidized? To keep people thinking it was cheap, and that it'd be around forever, and that we don't NEED to have a new solution.
So what did the car companies do? They delayed the inevitable, they got greedy, they sacrificed long term servivability for short term gains. For this, they deserve to go bankrupt. What about the workers? Well, pay them while they look for another job, just as other people are on welfare.
What about our auto-industry? Well thats easy. There's 30 electric car companies waiting to make a shot at it. see: http://venturebeat.com/2008/01/10/27-electric-cars-companies-ready-to-take-over-the-road/
Other companies are working on other solutions, hydrogen power cells, alternative fuel sources. The free market will sort this out, and it won't take as long as people think. The vacuum left from the failing car companies would be quickly filled.
But Obama did not address these questions. Instead he only addressed those that dealt with how to monitor the EXISTING car companies, while ignoring the questions that regarded focusing on NEW car companies. The message? That he doesn't care about the free market figuring this out, nor what his constituents say on the matter, nor about any REAL GREEN SOLUTIONS. Pushing the car companies (that have failed from greed) to make expensive electric and hybrid cars, and SLOWLY push out new alternatives, WILL NOT HELP. Other companies are offering cheaper, better solutions. But he is ignoring those, pushing them aside, and assuming (wrongly) that the only way forward is to work with, and reward, the existing companies.
The other two questions that Obama ignored he did much more overtly.
One is regarding Industrial Hemp. Hemp has been used for thousands of years for everything from clothes, rope, car parts, fuel, paper, to food. Every country in the world grows it except America. America can import it and use it, but not grow it.
Industrial Hemp is the true green future. It could solve many problems at once: economic, farming, food, fuel.. Many questions were asked regarding Industrial Hemp (which contains less than 1% THC - the active ingredient in smoked marijuana) Many questions regarded seperating the two, removing the myths, and taking Industrial Hemp off the banned drug list. At the very least, many stated that it should be up to states to decide. see http://hemporganic.com/whyhemp.html
http://azhemp.org/Archive/Package/Uses/uses.html
Obama chose not to even MENTION this.
Instead, he made a joke about the SINGLE BIGGEST QUESTION asked.
This question was about decriminalizing marijuana.
There were legitimate questions and statements. Economically, it could save tons of money on the war on drugs, make lots from taxing. Ethically, it would keep people out of prison for a relatively minor crime. Pratically, it would allow the government to CONTROL it, who sells it (cut out the gangs and the cross border drug trafficking) who can smoke it (age limits) what they can do while smoking (test for recent use is available now, and could be used by traffick cops to determine if someone has used before driving, just like alcohol)
So there were many legitimate concerns raised (the most salient being economic, the VAST amount of money that could be generated by the government)
Obama, however, made a crack about "this shows who the internet users are" as if EVERYONE who voted for these questions was currently smoking a bong. Many people stated clearly that they were not users. Regardless, who is asking should not concern him. The fact is that it was asked by the people HE SAID HE WOULD LISTEN TO. The Media claimed that the polls were hijacked. Obama claimed that it was not a real concern of the American people.
Clearly, it was a concern. One that will not go away. And for all the valid reasons offered by many, the most obvious is economic. He asked for economic solutions, and three were provided to him that he BLATANTLY IGNORED.
I say SHAME ON OBAMA. He has done much good since coming into office, but is FALLING FAR SHORT of where he promised. He uses unmanned drones to kill civilians in Pakistan. He continues many policies he said he would end. He has NOT checked bills line by line as he said. He has NOT allowed for 3-4 days for the public to view and critique any bill before signing. He has NOT cut spending on porky projects.
And most importantly: HE HAS NOT LISTENED TO THE PEOPLE!Speak out against this! Next online town hall, remind Obama that we will not be silenced so easily! If he wants to claim to be OUR president, he has to listen to us. And not just us, the people who voted for him, but all Americans who have a valid point.
The people want REAL GREEN CARS. The big companies FAILED to provide them, and giving them money will lead to more of the same, and the change will be SLOW AND EXPENSIVE. There's already better alternatives, give them a chance!
The people want INDUSTRIAL HEMP. It is the real green future crop. It grows fast, has plenty of uses, is less harmful to the environment than cotton, prevents deforestation, and has been used for thousands of years! It can be imported but not grown!
The people want DECRIMINALIZED AND TAXED MARIJUANA. Keeping it as a prohibited drug increases crime and mis-use, just as prohibited alcohol did. It is less harmful and addictive than both alcohol and nicotine. It can be controlled, taxed, and monitored.
(sarcasm on)
The government's plan to ensure teenagers deal drugs is working really well!
Continue to make marijuana illegal so that adults do not want to get caught, and use kids as their proxies.
I guess you could make the punishments for dealing drugs as harsh for teens as it is for adults; maybe what is needed is more heavy-handed punishment, you know what they say, "spare the rod…"
The only problem I foresee with making penalties for teen dealers the same as adults, is that this will cause the adults to use pre-teens as their proxies.
But what the hey? The govt. has been ignoring common sense and the obvious for decades! Why change? Maybe you should just make penalties for pre-teen dealers just as harsh as those for adults!
Hm… Maybe what you should recommend is making the penalties for pre-teen and teen dealers outrageously harsh, harsher than for the adults! This could keep the adults from using kids as their proxies.
I've read posts on the Internet from the Religion Against Marijuana (RAM) crowd who think there should be the death penalty for drug dealers. Public executions, just like the old days, ahh the old days. How many children do you think the RAM crowd needs to kill in public before the adults who used them as proxies will stop doing so?
I think all you need to do is volunteer the heavy handed tactics and they will gladly go along with them! Don't call it water boarding, call it "bong boarding," be like former administrations and just invent clever names to disguise what you are doing. Make George Orwell proud.
(/sarcasm off)
You know the racist wolves that surround you are astonished at your authority and can't help but think to themselves, "I sure wish we'd caught his bony behind red-handed snorting or smoking! He sure wouldn't be where he is now!"
I was deeply saddened to hear you tease the notion of ending the prohibition on marijuana and the greed inspired violence, and keeping all the money trading hands in the untaxed black market. Clearly there are millions of people who benefit from this plant, as a medicine or religious sacrament, or both.
The biggest issue you will have to deal with when ending marijuana prohibition are the people dressed in black who will hate you for it, even though they are the high priests of RAM and supposedly hate the supposed harm it causes, they will go to great lengths to cause harm and make it look as though it's due to marijuana. Parallels to this have been written about in many stories, portrayed in numerous TV shows, and movies, and you can see it in action in the current season of Heroes on NBC (2009).
Drew
P. S. Our own govt. scientists have concocted something from the marijuana plant and found it prevents neurological problems like my Dad is experiencing. What is the hold up?! Why should some school-yard-mentality bullies have the power to keep my Dad (and many others) in a state of suffering?! Patent #6,630,507. The main caveat here is my Dad is not a big fan of pills, I also feel he is not into smoking. But my mother is a good cook. I have many religious reasons too for ending prohibition, but will not share them here, now. Feel free to contact me any time.
President Obama recently was criticized for casually dismissing a question about the possible economic stimulus effect resulting from the legalization of marijuana. Although I am on the side of those who would legalize marijuana – or at least getting the federal government out of the way of individual states’ efforts to set their own rules on that subject – I can hardly blame Obama for not wanting to address that issue at this time. The new president has inherited the worst economic crisis within the lifetime of most of us, along with two wars that have not gone very well. In attempting to address the economic issue, he is tying in reforms for education, healthcare, and energy policies, so that the economic recovery will hopefully be far more long term than one based on asset inflation and reckless increases in consumer debt. Obama has a lot of good ideas, but I am concerned that he could be trying to do too much at one time. I hope that he manages to prove my doubts to be misplaced.
At any rate, although I agree with the advocates for the legalization of marijuana, this is the wrong time for Obama to push that issue, even if he privately agrees with it. He is using all of his available political capital to push those issues that he (understandably) believes are the most critical at this time. What he can do, and appears to be doing, is to reduce the federal enforcement efforts against users of the “evil weed.” Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune has a good column on the subject. My one implied disagreement with Mr. Page is that I think he does not take into account the practical reality that President Obama would seriously impair his ability to tackle the bigger issues if he added legalizing marijuana to his policy agenda at this time. Still, it is a good column. Here is the link:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped0401pageapr01,0,1071790.column
Dear Brother Barack,
The "war on drugs" was not started as some half-hearted attempt to overthrow a dictator.
The "war on drugs" has had dozens of decades of money, human might, weapons, and propaganda thrown at it.
The "war on drugs" has already had decades of "surges" applied to it.
Do not fall for the lame logic that continues to whisper in the ears of power, "if we could just have more money, we'd win," or "if we could just send in more troops with a surge against the cartels, we'd win." You are only the latest in a long line to hear those lines. Those doing so are more addicted than the worst offenders. In fact, I would say that many of them are in the same boat as the cartels who don't want this war to end, and many of them are in their pockets too!
Call in LEAP and hear from folks who have been involved in this battle for their whole careers!
Who put your in power? Was it donations from big pharmaceutical companies? Was is huge alcohol vendors run by people with so many houses they don't know how many they own? Was it the privatized prison system that is interested in bigger and bigger profits?
Even though I am not a doctor and have very little medical training, I am sure that in the past doctors tried potent "downers" on hyperactive children. But after lots of experimenting, you know what? They found that ritalin, a "stimulant" of some sort, was what made hyperactive children calm down! What's the moral of this little story? Sometimes the solution is ironic.
Call LEAP today, here are some names to ask for: Howard, Jack, Norm, Peter, Matt (many more).
Since you are a man of prayer, here is a religious perspective. Who came out to defeat Goliath? Was it someone even bigger? Or was it some kid? Something totally unexpected, laughed at and scorned by the leaders, and seemingly totally underpowered?
Where was the King of the Universe born? In a marble palace with a silver spoon in his mouth on silk sheets to beautiful and famous parents? Um, not according to the story! He was born in a smelly barn, his bassinet was a feeding trough for large animals, his young-teen mother was considered by some to have slept around, later he was homeless and wandered around without any visible job. The irony!
Here is a pop-culture fiction reference. What brought down the invaders in "War of the Worlds?" Was it bombs? Was it tanks? Was it a surge of army men dressed in black, kicking in doors unexpectedly?
Please consider ending this war to be parallel to how many have viewed political elections (before you came along). Many people did not like either option, either candidate, they just "voted for the lesser evil."
Surely it should be obvious by now that the ills that prohibition was designed to combat have spawned significantly more serious ills!
Begin by ending the government-imposed unconstitutional religion of hate against marijuana. People undergoing cancer treatment could be benefitting, perhaps people like my Dad who is, I'm told, getting Alzheimer's disease could benefit--or at least partake in studies, and many other people suffering who are currently hiding, could come to the light and share their experiences, for the scientific advancement of society. The only people winning now are the weapons vendors, the adrenaline junkies, the non-taxpaying black market traders, vicious cartels, for-profit prisons, and big pharma.
You don't have to like, or agree with the cartels, but putting them in "suits," regulating them, and taxing them is much better than the accelerating downhill slide that prohibition has caused since its inception, and this includes Prohibition version 1, and Prohibition version 2!
Don't believe for one second this "sends the wrong message to children." Those who are actually children (vs. teenagers…) will not even know what is going on. It won't be on their radar at all. Do I remember self-adulation of adults patting themselves on the back about the message they were sending children, when I was a child? Ha! I thought adults were boring, talked about boring things, and I couldn't wait to get back to video games, board games, reading, climbing trees, etc… This is, and will be, an adult hang-up. Do you remember Nixon's antics? If you were like most kids at the time, you probably were more interested in basketball, music, and other social issues.
I could go on and on with reasons. But I've written enough for today. Please, again, give this serious thought. I am not asking you to enter a beauty contest or popularity contest. I am sure there are many like me who are ready to pack up and leave the US if our best shot at leadership just falls in with the same-old same-old crowd of power and money abusers, whose minds seem beyond repair from drunken self-righteous power and money grabbing while continuing to ignore our very own Declaration of Independence and Constitution and the facts that are before us.
Respectfully, Drew.
P.S. You may call me any time.
I am not an expert in stem cells, so I am willing to go along with the notion that stem cells are important.
But I must say that "bud" cells are very much worth investigating too!
In fact, some botanists would say the only reason for stem cells is so they can produce bud cells!
Dear Barack, you can help stop the suffering! Act now!
My Dad, whom I love, is turning 81 soon and is supposedly getting Alzheimer's. Each year, for decades, he spends months figuring out complex tax codes, a waste of a time for someone who wrote the software that got men off the moon. He does NOT spend months doing taxes because he has off-shore accounts, or oodles of businesses or holdings, he was an electrical engineer (forced into early retirement) and anal, and someone who loves the USA.
Do you know how angry I am?!!!
Take away the shame and illegal laws against a plant that could help him! A plant! We're not talking some strange concoction that comes out of a spigot off of some strange refining, distilling, apparatus, a Rube Goldburg machine! A plant! Bud cells off the end of some stem cells!
As I read today about how bold and complicated his budget proposals are, it struck me how little information we have heard from the media on the choice of the new Drug Czar and the "drug war" under Obama in general. While the President has made it clear that he does not favor legalizing drugs, it has remained a very low priority issue. My guess is that the last thing he wants is to be ridiculed ealry on (which is the conservative right-wing tactic regarding any pot discussion) for bringing this logical policy change into play while there are so many serious issues involved, the economy, health care, education, the wars etc...Like a Texas Hold-em poker player with two aces he is waiting for the other players to bet and raise the "pot" and pull him into the 'war on drugs' debate, but when it is time to lay the cards out, it will be obvious to all that the drug war has to go, for the sake of the budget and the economy. His advisors will point out what Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman and conservative icon Willliam F. Buckley said - The war on drugs cannot be won and it is hugely damaging to our ECONOMY as well as to the safety and security of the citicizens of our country and other nations! Obama is a brilliant tactician/politician as well as a great communicator, because frankly, I thought he would stop the war in Iraq first, and then stop the drug war, but it looks to me like he will take on the easiest "dumb war" we are in first.
From the time of the Big Bang Freedom is the natural state of things and Freedom can only be restrained by man's greedy desires and his artificial outside intervention. While man's collective efforts to restrain individuals from hurting other individuals or groups is a hallmark of our collective soul and civilization, that is not restraint of Freedom, it is restraint of evil. Restraint of the Freedom of an individual who is not harming others to pursue life, libery and happiness is wasted energy because the impulse and instinct for Freedom will always eventually outlast any efforts at artificial restraint. The human spirit's constant movement towards freedom and away from tyranical government will continue, as will our efforts to restrain evil. The devil is in the details of what is evil and what is just inconvenient for some.
The alcohol companies may need a bailout if pot is legalized. It is a lot cheaper to throw some seeds in the ground and watch the "weed" grow than to pay huge companies for your recreational high.
POTPOLITICS
I recently got the inside word that President Obama will move for Legaliztion of Marijuana in June 2009
this is more an economic reality that can no longer be ignored. Marijuana now benefits street people and drug cartels and the government is left with the unecessary burden of a Police state and Prison cost. There is a strong element of useless people that profit from the current system, Judges countless Probation and Parole Officers none who add any real value to society. All these bureacratic positions need to be eliminated. The country economic and secrurity depend on this very measure.
Don't make the same mistakes over and over and expect different results.
You can follow along on my main blog POTPOLITICS
Thanks
John Sullivan
Public resources are recklessly wasted in the enforcement of "marihuana" laws. Human potential is squandered as innocent consumers of an herb are marginalized, demonized, criminalized and discriminated against. The fascist that support enforcement of this prohibition are the beneficiaries of the petro-chemi-pharma-military-industrial-complex; a toxic paradigm of corporate greed that is enriched from our taxed labor. The ruling elitist, the corporate barons that feared hemp’s emerging agrarian potential to the proletariat manifested a propaganda program to preserve their violent unnatural economic control of the planets available resources. The economic threat hemp posed to these industries spawned a propaganda campaign to outlaw the "evil weed”. The prohibitionists played upon racism, and ignorance to fan the flames of the public's fear of cannabis. If you are not convinced that profiters are behind the prohibition of hemp/cannabis check out Jack Herer's book “ The Emperor Wears No Clothes". Now is the time to reverse government policy on the hemp/cannabis issue and allow the free market to determine the worth of this crop, this plant has an ancient history of benefiting mankind. The potential of organiclly grown cannabis to provide fiber, food, fuel and medicine to the masses far out weighs all other arguments. President Obama I urge you to be bold, be fearless and be true to those who supported you. Reverse federal cannabis laws, release and pardon non-violent victims of the war on drugs. One Love.
Months ago i started a list of things I want to see government leadership address. (I wish I could say my list was complete, without spelling errors, or grammatical errors. But I've worked to be concise.)
I have divided my list into two parts:
Welcome to the 21st century!
Our time has come!
I feel that we will, finally, be moving America into the 21st century when President-elect Obama is sworn in!
I will be watching the inauguration on CNN from my television. If you have a facebook account you can join others watching CNN here:
Congratulations to all of you who will be there in person! Enjoy, and please share your stories and photos with the group! We would all appreciate it!
As you may know, Mon. Jan. 19th is a national day of service, as well as Martin Luther King, Jr. day. Those of us who are busy on Mon. will be participating on Sat. and/or Sun.
In Peoria, on Sun., the 18th, at 8am., some of us will be going downtown, taking food, clothes, blankets, etc. for the homeless. You can sign up to join us here:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/gpt87m
Hope, Pride, Honor, Justice: just a few adjectives that describe America's new course, to me.
What adjective would you use?
Happy New Year
Happy New Day: January 20, 2009!
