The election is just a couple weeks away now and I have my eyes focused on Prop 19 in California. I ran across a newspaper 'editorial' condemning Prop 19 and decided I would take it apart and demonstrate the sheer futility of trying to apply "logic' to continuing an abysmal, counterproductive failure of a policy.
Just Say No to Prop 19 starts off badly, right at the title.
Just say no is synonymous with massive fail and this newspaper just told you, right in the title, how far out of touch with reality they are.
They then start with a ceremonial blurb that some arguments for relegalizing marijuana "have some merit" and then launch into Teh Stupid. Their main complaint is that "Prop 19 is a mess".
Their reasonings, such as they are, follow:
For starters, there's Proposition 19's distorted and contradictory message to children about drug use and gateway drugs. It's a confusing message that disarms our teachers and counselors at the very critical moments they're waging daily battles against drug usage in our schools and at home.
Typical of prohibitionist mindsets, they provide no actual text from the proposition: they simply tell you that it's a mess.
They don't tell you what they consider "contradictory" but the inclusion of "gateway drugs" shows that they are still stuck in the past, regurgitating anti-marijuana myths that have been recurrently demolished.(Click here to go find the report of your choosing that shows this has been dismantled time and time again.)
Citing the gateway theory is strike # 1. It means you don't know what you are talking about.
Furthermore, the issue is about REGULATION. Prop 19 establishes a mechanism for the regulation and control of marijuana. As it is all those teachers and counselors are working tirelessly day and night mainly because marijuana is illegal and therefore not controlled and high schoolers have easier access to it than I do. That ain't right.
Tobacco and alcohol are regulated and controlled - that has cut down some on teenaged drinking. Tobacco smoking is so accepted nationwide that it remains popular with teens. I'm all for finding ways to get them to stop smoking tobacco. If that topic would get a faction of the attention that marijuana does, I am sure we'd see decreases in teen tobacco smoking.
Let's move on.
And outside the classroom, marijuana use -- particularly by drivers -- is a highly dangerous activity and has been blamed on numerous fatal traffic accidents. While Proposition 19 does not directly address current laws about impaired driving, the arguments for its passage make no reference to it.
Alcohol use, particularly by drivers, is a highly dangerous activity known for decades to be related to tens of thousands of deaths every year, but nobody is getting their panties in a wad to use media access to fight that, are they?
Nobody is claiming that marijuana is "safe", only that is is much, much safer than alcohol. [Link to CNN video, for what that's worth.]
Marijuana isn't like alcohol and doesn't have the motor-skill impairment that comes with even minimal alcohol consumption.
HOWEVER....marijuana smoking DOES meet the legal definiton of "impairment" and few will disagree that enforcing DUI laws is a wise manuever.
DUI laws already exist, the Field Sobriety test already exists, there is little need to re-create the wheel. The howling and whining about drivers driving stoned is mostly emotionalized hysteria building on 3 generations of lying about pot to begin with.It's an issue: its far less of an issue than the well-tolerated alcohol, but it's an issue nonetheless. Just not as big as lying prohibitionists want people to think.
And never mind that uncounted numbers of people already drive "high" and while there are definitley some numbers to suggest some people have or cause accidents while driving high, this is a very tiny stat.
Part of this little issue is the old fallacy "why should we add more danger to the highway?" The answer is that that question is poorly formed and overlooks the vast amount of death and destruction caused by alcohol.
Indeed, Big Alcohol is part of the resistance to marijuana law reform.It's very likely - highly likely?? - that legally-available marijuana will cut into alcohol consumption because a lot of people may be drinking - to avoid drug testing - and would much prefer to smoke the safer product with the much better quality effect.
And because people can make these sorts of claims I can suggest that itt is entirely possible that legalized marijuana could reduce alcohol consumption, thus reducing the overall number of drunk driving accidents. I don't have any data, but then if the newspaper doesn't need "data", then neither do I.
Let's move on....
And then there's also the slew of legal chaos and bureaucratic red tape and confusion the measure's passage would invite in California and in Washington.
That's just an extra sentence thrown in to pad this lame-ass critique of a cannabis reform bill.
The Federal Government uses the Controlled Substances act - a glorified memo - like a crowbar to limit state's rights. The Fed lie through their teeth and out their ass about marijuana and they have ZERO credibility. All of their "research" amounts to half-assed propaganda.
How can I say such a thing? Because as long as tobacco and alcohol are legal and tolerated there isn't one salient complaint about marijuana as it is worlds safer than either one. Tobacco and alcohol - as you already know - kill about 400000 Americans each year. Tobacco is thought to kill about 2 million people worldwide each year. Nobody cares.
Opposition to cannabis law reform is wholly irrational and facts have nothing to do with it.
Lets move on
Finally, the alleged economic benefits marijuana legalization would bring to California -- one of the most common arguments for passage -- are tenuous at best, and cynical at worst.
Again, they simply take a piss on the tax argument, which is a solid argument. They just diss it without so much as a reason. This is how marijuana prohibition works: smears, lies, half-truths, and fearmongering.
I think that the legalization and taxation will provide California with a modest little new revenue stream. Undoubtedly.
It will actually SAVE California even more money in law enforcement. It's rteally quite simple: how many people does California arrest each year for touching marijuana? (Note: You get arrested for touching marijuana, not for smoking it.)
In 2008 California arrested about 75000 people for touching marijuana.
That is a lot of police officer time and pay to accomplish...what? When the law is fixed there are 75000 fewer arrests California cops have to make and that much more law enforcement manpower that can be devoted to something a bit more important. It will be substantial savings.
So reform is going to be a positive thing for California's bottom line.
The piece goes on to mention the issue with Mexican Drug Cartels and their hyper-violence but, of course, they were against Prop 19 from the get-go and they end thinking they have made a case for their pathetic position. Why the newspaper supports these violent criminal cartels I cannot say.
No...Prop 19 isn't likely perfect and it doesn't have to be.
Marijuana prohibition is a massive failure and something that is less of a failure would be an improvement.
Prop 19 IS that improvement.