The Case for Maryjane

On November 2, Californians have an opportunity to challenge the 73 year old federal prohibition on marijuana. Proposition 19 is a ballot initiative that will allow California residents, over the age of 21, to cultivate and consume marijuana. It makes specific provisions for personal transport (up to one ounce) and personal growing (up to 25 sq. ft.) as well as allows municipalities to create tax policy and licensure rules for commercial cultivation and consumption. While the Department of Justice has promised to continue enforcing existing drug laws, while state and local officials echo the federal support of the ban, and while Mexican officials are unconvinced of its effect on drug cartel violence, Prop 19 must be passed if California and the nation are ever to progress towards a sensible drug policy.

It is a straw man to argue that legalizing marijuana will not reduce cartel violence in Mexico and along its border with California. Of course it wouldn’t, at least not in any significant way. According to the law’s authors, violence and illegal activities surrounding growth and distribution are due to its legal status. Establishing regulated sales outlets would, it is reasoned, put the street dealers out of business. While there is credence to this logic, the fact is putting the bad guy out of business is neither necessary nor sufficient to passing Prop. 19. Certainly patrons would much prefer to engage in the legal purchase of legal substances. On the other hand there are still illicit transactions regarding prescription drugs, cigarettes and alcohol. Laws are broken regardless of the level of control of the substance because not everyone who uses a drug has permission to do so .

In essence, reducing crime is not the principal argument in favor of legalizing marijuana. By which I mean that illegal activities and violence along the Mexican border (or in Mexico) may or may not go away. What will go down is the number of people made criminals by engaging in otherwise innocuous behavior. To attack consumers of the product with the same fervor as those who cultivate and distribute it is, and always has been, misguided. A college senior who is experimenting for the first time is very different from a hardened cartel criminal. As Prop. 19 stipulates that international marijuana trade remains illegal, millions of dollars spent on consumption enforcement can be at least transferred to trafficking enforcement, at best saved altogether.

Some crime will be reduced, by definition, while violent crime and illegal trafficking may or may not budge. That is the honesty pill we supporters must swallow. The honesty pill that opponents must swallow is that legalizing marijuana may not effect consumption rates as dramatically as they’ve let on, or at all. Marijuana is the most used drug in the U.S. By percentage of population, it is used more in America than in Holland where it is legal and where studies have shown that even modest changes from strict prohibition have no effect on consumption rates. Strict laws do not entail strict obedience. The net effect of the Prohibition Era was that purveyors of illegal alcohol became millionaires; millionaires who paid no taxes on their illegal earnings. Why would anyone pay $3 for a glass of whiskey (at a time when a glass cost twenty cents)? Because no one else around had any whiskey to sell him. And dammit if he was going to give it up! A further result of Prohibition was a terrible decline in quality and safety of the illegal whiskey. Once imported, from Canada say, whiskey was thinned and cut with chemicals to stretch profits, $10,000 worth of Canadian whiskey would be stretched and marked up to $60,000 or much, much more. The same is true, the markup anyway, with marijuana. One kilogram is worth about $80 wholesale, the street value is upwards of $7,000. What legal, regulated good or service can boast an 8,650% retail markup? None, and neither would marijuana once the illicit factor is removed. While pricing itself may or may not go down, we can be assured that at least some of the marijuana revenue will benefit California and not just criminals.

The compelling reasons to legalize marijuana come down to these considerations. First, decriminalization of behavior that is consistent with, yet statistically less harmful and far and away less addictive than alcohol consumption. Second, it takes dollars out of the hands of criminals, if not forcing them into legitimate enterprise or at the very least providing them with legitimate competition. Finally, two words: tax; revenue. In a state as cash strapped as California, we cannot afford to sneer at any potential revenue source when it is nearly impossible to create new tax revenue. All opposition to Prop 19 has been rooted in moralistic, dystopian conjecture; the kind carted out every time the conservative status quo is challenged. It has been funded by special interest. What possible gain can the U.S. Chamber of Commerce expect from continued prohibition? Politicians are trying to protect their jobs. Prohibition of marijuana has not worked. There is no clear path to make prohibition work.

California needs to end the prohibition of recreational marijuana use and lead the country toward a sensible drug policy. Step one is Prop. 19. Next is a review of municipal licensing and tax revenues, leading to further policies to enhance revenues or protect entrepreneurs. No doubt the federal government would focus its attention on medical dispensaries and recreational clubs or weed bars, as the feds are likely not going to waste their resources on a guy growing a couple plants in his back yard. Then the real challenge begins. California must refine it drug policies to provide protections from the government. Other states will begin to pass similar laws. Court cases will be brought against Prop. 19, but cases will also be brought against existing federal laws at the same time. That is the process in this country. That is how we go from moralistic, unreasonable  prohibition to a drug policy that makes sense.

Share

What "Dr." Laura Did

As my Facebook friends know, I was... less than pleased to hear the following comments made by Dr. Laura Schlessinger on her radio show: 



Even more disconcerting, however, was her "apology" in which she made no attempt to walk back her blatant racism. I hope that I don't have to use scare quotes any more in this post, but I digress. Schlessinger apologized for saying an offensive word eleven times during an on air phone call. To be totally fair, it was the word itself that drew much of the criticism. But the focus on the N-word from the caller, the media and Schlessinger herself drew away from what to me seemed much, much more offensive.

Without going into the etymology and societal mores surrounding the history and use of the word 'nigger,' we can agree that it was at least insensitive, if not wrong for Schlessinger to use it eleven times during her conversation with an African American caller. The apology was justified, at the very least for her crassness but also because she did not offer any solutions to a person asking for her help. That said, she was right in the sense that she wasn't calling anyone a nigger, rather she was making a dubious point about who can and who can't use this particular word.

Hers was a tired, hackneyed complaint about moral equivalence. If a white person can't say, 'nigger,' why is it that a black person can? The answer has more to do with the nature of language and conversational convention than rights and equality. There is context and intention, understanding and uptake and so many factors that have absolutely nothing at all to do with racial worth. But as I've said before her focus, and the media's focus, on this word is at most ignorance.

At 3:48 Schlessinger says, "Don't take things out of context. Don't NAACP me." And that was the real beginning of her racist rant. About the only piece of advice she has for the caller is to not marry outside her race if she can't have a sense of humor. She goes on to say:

I really thought that once we had a black president, the attempt to demonize whites hating blacks would stop. But it seems to have grown, and I don't get it. Yes, I do. It's all about power.

Here Schlessinger is correct. It is all about power. It is about her disdain for African Americans declaring power over a derogatory word. The world makes better sense for her when only White people say 'nigger' pejoratively. There is something out of whack when a comedian uses it with humor or friends use it amicably. It's about the Grand Concession of electing a black president. With Obama in the White House racism, or at least sensitivity to racism, is over, right?

Schlessinger's entire attitude is one that embraces the marginalization of African Americans. Because she doesn't specifically hate or express superiority doesn't absolve her from her bigotry. She wholeheartedly accepts that Whites are "us" and Blacks are "them" and We Whites are put upon because Them Blacks are so dang sensitive. Them Blacks are always taking things out of context. Them Blacks are the real racists nowadays. No, no and no. Race relations is very much a hot button issue still in America. We should still be talking about our racist history and legacy. That conversation, however, has to be rooted in wisdom with the goals of healing and harmony. Schlessinger, with her marginalizing commentary, does not deserve to be the one to lead this conversation. She has a lot more to learn from it than contribute to it.

Faux Tolerance

Following a discussion on Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling against Prop. 8, I found a pastor who describes herself as "tolerant," saying she does not believe ALL gays are going to hell, however: 

Marriage by a pastor is completely different  [from marriage by a judge] and should be taken much more seriously then [sic] it is by people of God. Marriage is a covenant and you can't understand marriage if you don't truly know the meaning of covenant. Marriage by a pastor is a lifelong, unbreakable contract between 3 entities. A man, a woman, and God. [sic] So if the government is telling me I have to perform a marriage for people who don't understand this, then YES I am against that. 

Only one paragraph after averring a position of tolerance (at least one or two gays  might make it into Heaven) we have one of the most intolerant declarations possible, and ultimately my biggest criticism of modern American Christianity. Reading between the lines we see that 1) only marriage before God is lifelong and can be taken seriously and 2) the only marriage God will bless is one between a man and a woman, as done by a pastor.

As to matter one, we know that even marriage declared before God is no more lifelong than baby teeth. If books like Eat, Pray Love can be any kind of indicator, any marriage can only last as long as interest. Boredom, it would seem, is cause enough to leave behind the person to whom you've pledged your life and go on epic journeys of narcissism. But that's another story.

As to the second matter, having been amongst the ranks of militant evangelists, I fully understand the idea that my concept of what God will and won't do is the only correct one. I imagine telling the author that the Unitarian church in my town is led by a lesbian who would gladly perform ceremonies for same sex couples. Unfortunately, I already know the conclusion of that line of reasoning and I am aware that I cannot change her ideas on the matter. That is up to her conscience.

In that regard I'll allow that the author at least thinks she is tolerant, though clearly she is not. But it wasn't tolerant evangelicals who lobbied so vocally against same sex marriage. It wasn't tolerant evangelicals who screamed about how awful marriage equality was for children. And it certainly wasn't tolerant evangelicals who convinced her that she would be forced to perform same sex marriage ceremonies. That simply cannot be the case in this country. So by the author's utter complacence and willingness to be proselytized against a fundamental right of two loving adults, she is completely and utterly intolerant. I have said before that apathy is the worst enemy of equality because when people are on the wrong side of progress, they're just plain wrong. Apathy is much harder to combat because there is no passion to stir. It seems now that I have to update that statement. Lip service, or "faux tolerance," embraces ignorance and entails discrimination. Faux tolerance is far worse than apathy.

Tweet

Share

Yes We Can!

It has been an outstanding couple of days for progressives. Yesterday the Senate passed a jobs bill that will help over 250,000 public sector employees. That is teachers, firefighters, police officers etc. etc. will not be laid off due to budget cuts. The fact that this bill is deficit neutral, being paid for with budget cuts and corporate tax increases (closed loopholes?) did not sway Republican deficit hawks. Only Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine had the balls to stand for the American middle class. Now Nancy Pelosi has called an emergency session of the House in order to get this legislation on the President's desk by the end of next week.

Yesterday U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker decided that California's Proposition 8, the CA constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman, was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. He also found that the law violated the LGBT community's right to due process. In his incredibly well written decision, Judge Walker considers any potential benefit such a law would provide the state to justify a civil transgression against gays and lesbians. He found none. The 138 page decision reflected everything fellow advocates of marriage equality have said over the last several years.

Today the full Senate voted 63 to 37 on the confirmation of Solicitor General Elena Kagan as the 112th member of the Supreme Court of the Unites States. Kagan becomes the fourth woman to be nominated and confirmed as an Associate Justice (that's just a tad under 4% for those keeping track) and there are now the most women ever seated at the same time on the SCOTUS bench... THREE! (also three Jews)

Finally, challenges to the proposed site of the Cordoba House, a Muslim cultural center and mosque were unanimously rejected. Vehement arguments from detractors were met with the calm resolve of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and an interfaith coalition of religious leaders. The Imam argued that the greatest way to fight extremism is to prove that they do not represent the majority. The freedom to build a church of any faith wherever the faithful want it was what was attacked on 9/11. Every American knows the pain that was caused that day, but to succumb to the noise the mosque opponents made would be a victory for the extremists.

Let me be 100%, unequivocally crystal clear...

... George Bush will raise your taxes in January 2011. 

"... It's idiotic."

This despite claims from nearly all Republican leadership and the half-term governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin. Palin went so far as to call Obama's plan to raise taxes 'idiotic.' Frankly, it's a lie. Republicans have forgotten their own recent history and thus, have no clue (really just choose to ignore) WHY the Bush tax cuts are set to expire in the first place. So now, a history lesson:


In 2001 and again in 2003 George Bush directed Congress to create legislation that would reduce taxes to all tax brackets, including a $300 tax refund for individuals, $600 for families. His reasoning? The budget surplus he inherited from his predecessor was due to government charging you, Joe Taxpayer, too much money. The problem was that even the Republican controlled Congress could see this was a bad idea. The immediate impact was to go from a $200 million surplus (swelling to $800B by 2009) into a $1.2 TRILLION deficit. Facing a Democratic filibuster on both occasions Dubya urged Congress to use Budget Reconciliation to pass the tax cuts. Budget Reconciliation is a set of rules by which legislation can defeat filibuster by a simple majority. Congress was able to pass the tax cuts, handshakes all around. HOWEVER, one of the rules for using Budget Reconciliation is that if the legislation increases the deficit it cannot do so interminably, but for a maximum of ten years. The thought was that so many jobs would be created and so much growth would occur that any future administration would have no choice but to make the cuts permanent.OR the thought was that by the end of ten years, should the Democrats be in charge (as they are) the tax cuts would be a great political chip for the Republican party. Either way history proved Bush and the Republicans wrong. 



The fact remains that from the outset there was a horizon on the Bush tax cuts. The horizon was there because the tax cuts were BAD NEWS for the budget. Extending them will not magically make them good news. In fact, we stand to go another $2.3 trillion in the hole in the next ten years alone. If we are truly concerned about the deficit, then in no way should we support extending the Bush tax cuts. Therefore, upon expiration, George Bush will have raised taxes two years after leaving office.

Glenn Beck: One Bad Investment

Click on this picture for a great graphic narrative of the Goldline investment scheme. Essentially, investors who are trying to hedge against inflation are "advised to" (read "coerced into") purchase incredibly marked up gold coins. In buying the coins Glenn reportedly buys, you have already lost 64% of your investment and gold will need to triple in value before you can break even. But this is supposed to be good for you as, according to Beck, the government will soon confiscate all your gold thanks to a 1933 executive order, EXCEPT antique coins.

Of course, it is not illegal to sell assets and stupidly marked up prices. Further, "investors" who are caught by this sham really are responsible for their own foolishness. Stupid is as stupid does.

Happy prospecting!

Infographic by The Big Picture

Racism and Conservative Hypocrisy Pt. II

Let me start by saying that Andrew Breitbart is an awful, awful person. For those who don't know, Breitbart posted "video proof" of the racism within the NAACP. His edited, out of context video was played ad nauseum by Fox News, with scathing commentary by blond, blue eyed newsbots and the usual gang of idiots. By the time the day was over, Shirley Sherrod was out of a job. This was done in response to the NAACP passing of a resolution which challenged the Tea Party movement to repudiate (the proper usage of an actual English word) the ramapant racism within its ranks. This was mistakenly viewed as a resolution that the Tea Party was itself a racist organization, a laughable notion as very little about the Tea Party can be considered organized. Then the floodgates opened and the sad saga of Ms. Sherrod, whose full speech I am listening to as I write this post, was thus inevitable.

Of course the proper answer to a charge of racism is to accuse the accuser of being a worse racist. This, anyway, is the response of the conservative echo chamber and it regrettably works very, very well. The two minutes on Breitbart's website is part of a personal anecdote wherein the speaker, Ms. Sherrod, learns that her own biases, created by early experiences with White people that were resoundingly negative, caused her to act wrongly and that her objective was not to protect those of her own race, but those who are drowning in poverty.

The story, which occupies the better part of the first 21:30 of the speech, is a beautiful one of personal discovery that happened twenty-four years ago when Ms. Sherrod worked for a nonprofit organization and not the federal government. It is a shining example of how conversations about race relations and racism ought to be framed. Ms. Sherrod immediately goes on to say, "There is no difference between us. The only difference is that folks with money want to stay in power." When conservative media converge to create these kinds of monstrosities they call news, it only proves that there is a palpable need to come together and hear these stories and have these conversations. If we are called to repudiate racism and our response is a failed attempt at satire that only highlights how racist we are, something is still very wrong. I applaud the Spooners for being so quick to come to Ms. Sherrod's defense, calling her a lifelong friend who personally saved them from bankruptcy.

The boldest move that could now be made, the only way to show that we will not be bullied by racist hypocrites, is for the USDA to offer Shirley Sherrod her job back. It should be hers to keep or leave at her own discretion and not forced to resign in order to save face. The USDA, the Obama administration owes her that much.

Waving the Bloody Deficit

It is refreshing, to say the least, to hear how upfront and honest Republican leadership has been about their economic policy. That isn't to say that they weren't always very obviously the party of 'no taxes, small government, free enterprise,' but that refrain hides a much larger statement. There is another side to that coin that only now are Republicans truly owning. They do this with the expectation of massive victories in the House and Senate in the November midterms, which makes it all the more surprising. There is no real need to expose their hole cards, as the far-right base already understands the caveat to lowering taxes for the rich. But before trying to figure out exactly at whom this end-run is aimed, let's hear it first from one horse's mouth:

And there it is! As I have previously put it, the position advocated by Kyl (and Gregg and Boehner and many, many others) is 'reduce the deficit at all costs, unless those costs impact the rich, then fuck the deficit.' The pretense of protecting the Bush tax cuts for the middle class (read 'poor'), which were minimal at best, is negated by the fact that Kyl and his crew fought tooth and nail AGAINST the Obama tax cuts for the middle class. To say that tax cuts shouldn't require funding is also bunk. according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:

This chart shows how various economic policies will impact the deficit over the next ten years. That big orange swath growing as time passes is... you guessed it. The Bush tax cuts! (okay, and wars) By contrast, there is a deficit bubble in 2010 that flattens out to a thin strip of pale blue. That is recovery measures and stimulus enacted by the current administration.

Supply side economics is a massive fail. Read Paul Krugman's brief post on the sheer lack of evidence that "supply side roolz!" History proves that intervention on the demand side is what spurs true growth, as opposed to a significant drop followed by nominal growth. That is, put money into the hands of consumers. The consumers will spend the money and business will grow based on consumer demand. That is why every dollar spent on unemployment benefits returns $1.63, while every dollar in tax cuts returns $1.02. Obviously reducing taxes can and does make a difference, but the recipient of those tax breaks makes a big difference.

The deficit hawks want the last say in government intervention in this slumping economy. But these deficit hawks have forgotten exactly how a deficit is achieved in the first place: Step 1, a government collects revenue in the form of taxes. Step 2, that governments spends more than the tax revenue collected. Want to cut spending? Sure, great, have at it. But how can you say that decreasing the government's tax revenue does not affect the deficit, when you are unwilling to offset those tax breaks? Republicans have planted their stakes in opposition to spending, even while a majority of the country supports spending measures, such as extending unemployment benefits, that actually stimulate the economy.

The net effect, which is as likely the cause, is the far right positioning of the Republican party, out of the mainstream let alone Main Street. They are aiming their propaganda at what they consider to be the middle, the undecided, and they've decided that said voters are core conservatives. It is a mistake, I hope the voters of this country prove wrong in November.' Conservative/Liberal,' isn't an ideological name tag most of us wear on a day to day basis. It's bad policy to be against government intervention, when it is clearly required. Intervention on behalf of the people (not the corporations) is the primary role of government. To vow repeal of healthcare reform, financial reform(both of which act as deficit reducers) and to extend tax cuts to the rich that will have the opposite effect of reducing the deficit turns that responsibility upside down. I really hope voters remember this and spare themselves a lot of heartache in the fall.

Health Care: A (Very Simplified) Fairy Tale

One day...

The Democrats told the American people, "We want to make your health care affordable." And they all cheered with their rally cry, "Yes we can!" But the Republicans said, "Hell no, you can't! You will pass the cost off to our children and that's un-American." So the Democrats sent their ideas to the wizards of the Congressional Budget Office. The wizards used their time honored magic and saw that reforming health care would reduce the deficit and our children would be in better financial shape, not worse. The Democrats shouted, "Yes we can!"

So the Democrats wrote a bill and said to the American people, "We want to make your health care affordable." And they all cheered with their rally cry, "Yes we can!" But the Republicans said, "Hell no, you can't! This is a government take over of health care. That's socialism and socialism is un-American." So the Democrats removed the public option and put in a mystical Republican idea called 'individual mandate' that preserves the health insurance industry as a profit-driven enterprise, regulated though it may be. And the Democrats said, "You see? You can be for individual liberty, capitalism, AND for affordable health insurance. They are not incompatible, unless you have an agenda," the Democrats shouted, "Yes we can!"

The Democrats wanted to vote on their new bill. So they told the American people, "We want to make your health care more affordable." And they all cheered with their rally cry, "Yes we can!" But the Republicans said, "Hell no, you can't! We will use procedural blocks and exploit the handful of Democrats who are on our side and wave bloody fetuses to tell the American people that this bill will cause federally funded abortions and federally funded abortions are un-American." The Democrats worked deep into the night, but found deeply hidden paths around the procedural blocks and made unprecedented parliamentary maneuvers to escape them. Then Bart Stupak's heart grew three sizes and even he realized that existing federal law, called the Hyde Amendment, already prevents federally funded abortions except in cases of rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother. So Bart Stupak spoke to the American people, saying, "We want to make your health care affordable." And some asshole called him a babykiller.

The Democrats had the votes and narrowly had the votes on the reconciliation. They made health care more affordable, but the Republicans still said, "Hell no, you can't! We will continue to tell the American people that what you did was wrong and they will vote us into power in the midterm elections. Once we have the power, we will REPEAL your new law making health care affordable for every American." But the Democrats said, "Oh really? You want to make health care UN-affordable again. Wouldn't that be UN-American?" So the Republicans said, "Well, what we meant was... repeal and replace!" The Democrats replied, "Replace with what?" and the Republicans said, "er... ...um ..." And the Democrats said, "Thought so."

The moral of the story is, don't let the Republicans fool you. They have no plan to make health care affordable. They could care less about your insurance costs. They didn't participate in the crafting of a sound bill in the first place and have no business trying to remove the protections of the American consumer now in place. Health care is a right of every American and as a right government has a responsibility to protect the American people from exploitation at the hands of profiteers. Cost should never be an issue when we are talking about lives. We still may not have health care for all Americans, but we've taken a huge step in that direction. Will we ever have a single payer system or at least a robust public option that restores the insurance industry to a not for profit, consumer-driven state? I'd like to hope some people will keep working on it and keep the rally cry in the backs their minds. Yes we can!