Monday, October 31, 2011

Regarding the Corporate Conspiracy Theory behind Cannabis Prohibition

The conspiracy theory about the hidden corporate ties of Hearst and DuPont promoting prohibition has been talked about for years, but all that does is distract from the true agenda of marijuana prohibition.  The role that Hearst and Dupont played in the promotion of cannabis prohibition is interesting, but much less important than many people think.  The real agenda that people should be aware of (and scared about) is the power these cannabis prohibition laws have allowed the federal government to gain more power.  Much of what is done today in the name of  the "War on Drugs' was considered unconstitutional in 1937.

The corporate conspiracy theory implies prohibition exists (or initially existed) to protect commercial interests, the truth is much simpler and much more ominous. Prohibition was (and still is) about nothing more than political power for the agencies and administrators charged with it's enforcement.  The DOJ (and other enforcement agencies) have more power today than they ever had before, and they owes all of that to Prohibition.

After the end of alcohol prohibition the federal agencies which had been created and enlarged to enforce that law were in a position in which they were going to lose funding.  Henry Anslinger took political  advantage of public misinformation to get the U.S.Congress to enact a new prohibition on canabis in 1937.  This was made even easier because of the yellow journalism and "Jim Crow law" attitudes prevalent at the time.

Cannabis prohibition was at it's start and has continued to be throughout it's history, nothing more than a way for the agencies charged with enforcement to continue to exist at the scale they operate.  Prohibition exists for the purpose of allowing the drug enforcement bureaucracy to grow and flourish.

The government usually loves conspiracy theories.  They usually do contain elements of truth, but shift attention away from where it really needs to be. Conspiracy theories are just another element in propaganda campaigns. It's like a 'slight of had' trick performed by magicians. The feds have probably encouraged the conspiracy theory themselves in an effort to keep peoples attention off the true agenda.

Prohibition has been so successful for it's true agenda, the DOJ (and other enforcement agencies) now have enough clout to threaten state legislators and our federal congress whenever they try to loosen the legislation.

The only ones who have ever benefited from cannabis prohibition has been the drug enforcement agencies and organized crime (both sides of the 'War on Drugs').  The rights of our citizens, our states, and many of the founding principles of our government have been trampled on in the process.

Wednesday, August 17, 2011

Department of Justice undermines the War on Drugs!!!

The U.S. Department of Justice is seriously undermining their 'War on Drugs' by including marijuana as a schedule 1 drug.  The gov't is in effect saying that marijuana is in the same risk category as heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine, opium, and other seriously dangerous addictive drugs.  The unintentional consequence of this is; it also implies that heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine, opium, etc. are no more dangerous than marijuana.

There is such a vast difference between the factual information  and the anti-marijuana propaganda disseminated by the feds that as soon as anyone is exposed to marijuana the reality is obvious. Once someone uses marijuana it's very apparent that it's in about the same category as alcohol.

Since the anti-marijuana propaganda is so obviously false, the logic carries forward that the scary information about cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin, opium, etc. is probably a bunch of false propaganda as well.  There's actually much evidence disputing the claim that marijuana is a gateway drug, but for the small percentage of cases in which it might be, this could be the primary reason.  After all, the feds have them all placed in the same category.

The problem for the user is those other drugs actually are far more dangerous.  The other drugs in schedule 1 are very addictive, can cause violent behavior, and an overdose of the drugs can have dire consequences including death.

In contrast... Marijuana is not addictive. There have been many studies on this matter always concluding that marijuana has no physical addictive property. For some people with addictive personality types might develop a psychological addiction, but for those people the same thing is true of anything including food. Tobacco is actually far more addictive than marijuana.

Marijuana is less likely to cause violent behavior than alcohol.  In fact numerous studies have shown that rather than causing violent behavior, the reverse is actually true, marijuana has a calming effect on the user.  

It's virtually impossible to overdose on it. The quantity which would cause an overdose is so large it would be virtually impossible to consume it in a short enough amount of time.  In 2001, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control(CDC)reported there were 331 alcohol overdose deaths and 0 marijuana overdose deaths. There are similar statistics for other years  as well and there are no reported cases of marijuana overdose.

In spite of those facts, the U.S. Department of Justice continues to include marijuana in the same category as it does highly addictive, extremely dangerous drugs.  Because of this 'hard-line' stance taken by the Department of Justice their policies are actually the biggest cause of more people using and becoming addicted to dangerous drugs every day.


Friday, August 12, 2011

Kern County Board of Supervisors Ban on Store-front Medical Marijuana Collectives

The Board of Supervisors in Kern County, California voted on August 9, 2011 to ban the store-front operations of medical marijuana collectives.  The misrepresentations made by Sheriff Donny Youngblood in pushing for this ban are reminiscent of the propaganda strategies used to justify the federal prohibition on marijuana in the first place.

The first half of the 20th century was an interesting time. People would believe just about anything presented in newspapers, and the general population had a high level of trust overall in our nation’s leaders. Such an environment of trust allowed yellow journalism and political corruption to run rampant and go mostly unchecked. This was a time before McCarthyism, Watergate, and many other glaring examples of 20th century political corruption.  We now know beyond doubt that political motivation can often sway our leaders to make decisions not necessarily in our best interest.

In 1937, the Commissioner of the U.S. Treasury Department's Federal Bureau of Narcotics, Harry J. Anslinger pushed for legislation prohibiting the use of marijuana, citing unsubstantiated newspaper articles, racist propaganda and even outright lies to support his position.  The American Medical Association was on record as opposing the prohibition of marijuana, but supporters of Anslinger deliberately mislead legislators when it came time for a vote by stating that the AMA was in accord. This was in fact a lie; the AMA actually considered cannabis to have at least some minor beneficial medicinal properties. They didn't consider it to be a very strong drug, but felt it needed further research to determine its full medicinal value.  They did not consider it dangerous and objected to its placement in the same category as opiates and other addictive drugs. The American Medical Association was absolutely against a prohibition on cannabis.

In spite of objections by the representative from the AMA, members of Congress were swayed by Anslinger’s campaign of misinformation and passed the first federal legislation prohibiting marijuana.  Thus, America’s prohibition of cannabis was based on the grandstanding of an ambitious politician, supported by nothing more than sketchy, often racist, anti-marijuana sentiment and yellow journalism — disregarding the recommendations of the American Medical Association and the scientific knowledge of the time.

It's often noted that people today are a lot more cynical than people in the 1930's were about our politicians and the decisions they make, as well as about stories the media presents. It's unlikely that a politician today could lie about having the support of the AMA and expect to get away with it, when in fact the AMA had sent a representative to oppose their legislation.  Not only could a politician get away with such a thing in 1937, Harry J. Anslinger and his supporters did. 

We like to think we’re more sophisticated these days. Which is why it's so amazing that the Board of Supervisors in Kern County has allowed the local sheriff to similarly seduce them into enacting a prohibition against medical marijuana.  Even though the state legislature has passed bills providing for its regulation and use, the Kern County Board of Supervisors has accepted the recommendation of a local politician and banned the store-front operation of medical marijuana collectives.  In the second decade of the 21st century, the medical community in general acknowledges that significant medicinal benefit can be derived from the use of cannabis for many ailments.  Yet, based on irrational arguments and the self-admitted inability of the Sheriff’s Department to tell the difference between black market criminals and methodically law-abiding businesses, the Board of Supervisors abandoned the opportunity to effectively regulate and control a significant portion of the medical marijuana commerce in Kern County. 

Even more amazing is that in 2011, true to the yellow-journalism practices rampant in the 1930s, the local media in Kern County presented sensationalistic news reports about illegal grows in the county just in time to help support Youngblood's doom and gloom propaganda.  The timing and sensationalism of the news reports was so slanted toward Youngblood's position it was almost as if he were writing the stories himself.  It's a sad thing to see that level of biased reporting. 

Those illegal grows weren't operating because the medical marijuana laws allowed them.  The grows reported were obviously not in compliance with the requirements of the state marijuana laws. In fact they were in violation of many other laws as well. There was no need for any action at all on the part of the Board of Supervisors to control that problem.  Youngblood could have easily shut those operations down at any time by enforcing existing laws and regulations.  But Youngblood obviously has an agenda, so the KC Sheriff’s Dept. did not move on these locations until it was politically advantageous to do so.  

The local media did a great job of sensationalizing the stories, and the KCSD was able to use these examples of illegal marijuana grows to support their position.  Not only to claim that all marijuana grows should be banned (even the ones doing everything they could to comply with regulations), but also presented in such a way as to affect the unrelated issue of whether store-front collectives should be allowed.  Rather than addressing the issue of how best to regulate the existing businesses already established and serving the community, they used the illegal grow fields as an argument for banning the store-fronts altogether.  The illogical nature of the connection is stunningly obvious.  Collectives obtain their supply from members of the collective that are registered producers (an obvious opportunity for regulation and control.) 

Even though there was massive public support for allowing the store-front medical marijuana collectives with clear regulations for their operation, the Board of Supervisors voted in opposition to public opinion and denied the provisions and protections of California state law to citizens of Kern County.  Other than the sheriff's own political agenda (or his incompetence), there was and is no reason to shut down other growers who are operating in compliance with state law. There's even less reason to ban the store-front collectives because of it.

What if the Sheriff's Dept. discovered a company that was manufacturing jewelry illegally? What if they discovered the owner was illegally booby-trapping the shop when it was closed? What if it was discovered the owners were involved in other criminal activities?  Would they then push for legislation banning all jewelers?  Of course not, they would most likely arrest the owners for the illegal activities and if necessary shut that single manufacturer down.  They would have no further concern about other law-abiding jewelry manufacturers in the area that are operating legally.  They certainly wouldn't close down the manufacturers and then continue on to prohibit the operation of store-front jewelry stores as well.  The store-fronts are a separate issue from the manufacturers.  If any are operating illegally then close them down; if not, then leave them alone. 

So why does Youngblood treat medical marijuana differently from any other law-abiding businesses? Well, for one thing he apparently has far more respect for his personal opinions than for laws passed in California.  Youngblood seems to have a political stake in cannabis prohibition as a re-election platform and chooses to perpetuate nonsensical anti-marijuana propaganda that has been disproven factually and/or scientifically over and over.  The Board of Supervisors, however, has an ethical obligation to make some sort of objective assessment of an issue before acting on it; they failed miserably at this.  It amounts to a rather craven abdication of responsibility, giving it over to an unqualified and flagrantly biased local official, who also happens to be facing a re-election campaign soon.

Youngblood also seems to have trouble remembering who he represents. Youngblood has stated on many occasions that marijuana is against federal law.  He's made it very clear that he disagrees with the voters and the state legislature regarding their position on medical marijuana. Even though he's an elected official of a California county, he doesn't seem to understand that his first duty is to uphold county and state laws and regulations.  It isn't the sheriff's job to enforce a federal law if it conflicts with a state law. If the feds want to enforce a federal law then that's what they have the FBI, DEA, and other agencies for. He certainly should not obstruct the feds, but when there's a conflict with state law he should leave the enforcement of federal law to the feds.

This ban of store-front collectives will effectively force every legal user of cannabis in Kern County (at least the ones incapable of growing their own) to either do without or deal with criminals.  If this was how he dealt with any other type of business he would be declared incompetent and there would be a recall election soon after.  But Youngblood is able to cloak his incompetence in a “tough on crime” platform because so many people still believe the anti-marijuana propaganda.

The Kern County Board of Supervisors has proven themselves equally inept.  When it was pointed out to them that there should be some clear regulations regarding the operation of collectives, their solution was to eliminate them.  Will it somehow be easier to regulate thousands of individuals and small groups who have no visibility at all?  That's the same type of network that exists within the black market.  Our elected officials are apparently so naive they do think it will be easier to control that type of network than it was to regulate store-front collectives.  This decision, while on a smaller scale, is distressingly reminiscent of Congress in 1932 taking the recommendations of Harry J. Anslinger over the advice of the American Medical Association. 

Their decision is so obviously based on years of irrational anti-marijuana propaganda, it's fitting to remind Sheriff Youngblood and The Kern County Board of Supervisors who they're in company with.  Here's a quote from their distinguished colleague:

          "There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US,
       and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers.
     Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage.
        This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations
               with Negroes, entertainers and any others."

             Harry J. Anslinger, testimony to Congress, 1937

Do we really want Donny Youngblood and the Kern County Board of Supervisors to carry that legacy forward?  The prohibition of marijuana by the federal government was based on lies and propaganda Harry J. Anslinger presented to the U.S.Congress in 1937.  We should demand more rationality from our elected officials in 2011.