An interesting article on the debate over legalization of Marijuana from the New York Times. There are several interesting viewpoints other than the one I have posted below contained in the article. My interest stems from previous experience mostly.
I come from a region where the grow scene had, in my opinion, over the last twenty years corrupted many of the public's authority systems as well as created a close-knit reliance on social capital amongst the growers. The effect of the economic power the drug had on the more rural area created a death grip on the community of the big power cartel size growers. Smaller growers were bullied into silence because of their own quasi-legal activities, and needing an organized distribution for their own bud, while the local "cartel" attracted more and more criminal elements in. The risk taking in the grow community expanded right along with the profit margin. The "big fish" in charge of the local cartel increasingly turned their pot profits into investments in the cocaine, meth, and heroine trade. Daughters and sons were raised in the culture and took up the family business instead of going to college. Just like the movies only they weren't Italians. The cartel, over a period of years, had the increasingly public support, less tacit, of the local authorities including the District Attorney, Sheriff's Department, Planning Commission, etc.
Essentially this process robbed the regular citizens of political power in their own communities as the grow community became the majority. I've served in a unique position where I've seen all views on this issue without having to immerse myself in the trade. It is one of the reasons I decided to leave.
When asked I generally refer to myself as neither pro or anti-pot. I am a "fix the policy so it works for someone" type person. It doesn't seem to be working well for any side of the issue any longer but it certainly manages to consume a lot of taxpayer dough to keep up the facade. It was hell to try to counter the effects of the local drug trade on your work force from a management perspective. How do you hire a reliable janitor for $12 an hour when they can go into the hills and trim weed for $40 an hour--tax free. Basically, you don't. From an individual perspective though, although I am not a user, I have no more problem with the drug than I do with Prozac or Zoloft, etc. My devout Mormon Aunt died a couple years ago from Cancer and the hospital, in the last three months, was charging her an outrageous $120 per weed capsule she had to take to control pain. At 86 and on a fixed income she struggled to pay the fee to avoid the agony of her disease. Her healthcare plan, almost nonexistent to begin with, did not cover Marijuana. A local grower came to her rescue, free of charge. I considered it the grower's "penance" for not paying taxes on his annual $300,000 profit. He considered it his duty in the community.
On the other hand I once had a staffer who lost her father, a grower, in a bad deal with a Mexican drug cartel. The grower who helped my aunt is also dead now. The murder goes unsolved. In the meantime his exwife (they were married for three weeks) continues to dig up his seven properties with a backhoe looking for buried treasure.
For what my opinion is worth. I say legalize it, tax it, control it, and focus on the cocaine, meth, and heroin trade. I'd rather run into someone stoned in a dark alley at midnight than a drunk. The hypocrisies of days gone past should end.
If Marijuana Is Legal, Will Addiction Rise? - Room for Debate Blog - NYTimes.com
I come from a region where the grow scene had, in my opinion, over the last twenty years corrupted many of the public's authority systems as well as created a close-knit reliance on social capital amongst the growers. The effect of the economic power the drug had on the more rural area created a death grip on the community of the big power cartel size growers. Smaller growers were bullied into silence because of their own quasi-legal activities, and needing an organized distribution for their own bud, while the local "cartel" attracted more and more criminal elements in. The risk taking in the grow community expanded right along with the profit margin. The "big fish" in charge of the local cartel increasingly turned their pot profits into investments in the cocaine, meth, and heroine trade. Daughters and sons were raised in the culture and took up the family business instead of going to college. Just like the movies only they weren't Italians. The cartel, over a period of years, had the increasingly public support, less tacit, of the local authorities including the District Attorney, Sheriff's Department, Planning Commission, etc.
Essentially this process robbed the regular citizens of political power in their own communities as the grow community became the majority. I've served in a unique position where I've seen all views on this issue without having to immerse myself in the trade. It is one of the reasons I decided to leave.
When asked I generally refer to myself as neither pro or anti-pot. I am a "fix the policy so it works for someone" type person. It doesn't seem to be working well for any side of the issue any longer but it certainly manages to consume a lot of taxpayer dough to keep up the facade. It was hell to try to counter the effects of the local drug trade on your work force from a management perspective. How do you hire a reliable janitor for $12 an hour when they can go into the hills and trim weed for $40 an hour--tax free. Basically, you don't. From an individual perspective though, although I am not a user, I have no more problem with the drug than I do with Prozac or Zoloft, etc. My devout Mormon Aunt died a couple years ago from Cancer and the hospital, in the last three months, was charging her an outrageous $120 per weed capsule she had to take to control pain. At 86 and on a fixed income she struggled to pay the fee to avoid the agony of her disease. Her healthcare plan, almost nonexistent to begin with, did not cover Marijuana. A local grower came to her rescue, free of charge. I considered it the grower's "penance" for not paying taxes on his annual $300,000 profit. He considered it his duty in the community.
On the other hand I once had a staffer who lost her father, a grower, in a bad deal with a Mexican drug cartel. The grower who helped my aunt is also dead now. The murder goes unsolved. In the meantime his exwife (they were married for three weeks) continues to dig up his seven properties with a backhoe looking for buried treasure.
For what my opinion is worth. I say legalize it, tax it, control it, and focus on the cocaine, meth, and heroin trade. I'd rather run into someone stoned in a dark alley at midnight than a drunk. The hypocrisies of days gone past should end.
If Marijuana Is Legal, Will Addiction Rise? - Room for Debate Blog - NYTimes.com
The Tobacco Precedent
Norm Stamper
Norm Stamper was Seattle’s police chief from 1994 to 2000. He is a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition and the author of “Breaking Rank: A Top Cop’s Exposé of the Dark Side of American Policing.”
Any law disobeyed by more than 100 million Americans, the number who’ve tried marijuana at least once, is bad public policy. As a 34-year police veteran, I’ve seen how marijuana prohibition breeds disrespect for the law, and contempt for those who enforce it.
Let’s examine arguments against legalizing marijuana: use and abuse would skyrocket; the increased potency of today’s marijuana would exacerbate social and medical problems; and legalization would send the wrong message to our children.
Stronger strains of marijuana are already out there, unregulated by anything other than market forces.
It’s reasonable to expect a certain percentage of adults, respectful or fearful of the current prohibition, would give pot a first try if it were made legal. But, given that the U.S. is already the world’s leading per capita marijuana consumer (despite our relatively harsh penalties), it’s hard to imagine a large and lasting surge in consumption. Further, under a system of regulated legalization and taxation, the government would be in a position to offer both prevention programs and medical treatment and counseling for those currently abusing the drug. It’s even possible we’d see an actual reduction in use and abuse, just as we’ve halved tobacco consumption through public education — without a single arrest.
Potency? Users, benefiting from the immutable law of supply and demand, have created huge market pressure for “quality” marijuana over the past few decades. Legalization opponents are correct that “today’s weed is not your old man’s weed.” But the fear-mongers miss the point, namely that stronger strains of marijuana are already out there, unregulated by anything other than market forces. It’s good that responsible consumers know to calibrate their consumption; they simply smoke less of the more powerful stuff. But how about a little help from their government? Purchase booze and you have access, by law, to information on the alcoholic content of your beverage, whether it’s .05 percent near-beer or 151-proof Everclear.
Perhaps the biggest objection to legalization is the “message” it would send to our kids. Bulletin: Our children have never had greater access to marijuana; it’s easier for them to score pot than a six-pack of Coors. No system of regulated legalization would be complete without rigorous enforcement of criminal laws banning the furnishing of any drug to a minor.
Let’s make policy that helps, not handcuffs, those who suffer ill effects of marijuana or other drugs, a policy that crushes the illegal market — the cause of so much violence and harm to users and non-users alike.
Posts
