Another bubble is being blown in California, one that could have more euphoric aftereffects. How much money will get pumped into states with legal self-characterized medical marijuana and how far the legislation will spread into other states before the government reverses its decades long stance on the dangers of marijuana and allows the necessary federal research to occur is anyone’s guess.
And on Sunday the Obama Justice Department announced that the federal government would not intervene in the 14 state medical marijuana social experiment, effectively giving support to the measures in contradiction to federal laws that outlaws cannabis and hemp, classifying them as having no medicinal value and similar in addictive qualities to heroin.
Marijuana has been big business on the West Coast from Vancouver to California for decades, booming prior to 1996 with Canadian marijuana coming across the border from Canada as well as legalization activist Marc Emery’s business clandestinely sending high quality marijuana seeds into the U.S. from Canada where possession of seeds is a legal grey area.
With a similar loophole included, California voters approved proposition 215 by popular referendum to legalize marijuana for medical use in 1996. The ambiguous federal status of marijuana as a schedule 1 controlled substance, defined as having no medicinal value, and also having a federal medical distribution program and the wording of California’s law has de facto legalized marijuana in California. There are no FDA approved uses of marijuana as a result of prohibition and strict limitations on research. Physicians are unable to actually prescribe marijuana and rely on patients for validation that it effectively treats a specific condition. Voters’ original intent was to allow cannabis to be used to treat terminally ill AIDs and cancer patients yet what has been allowed to develop is something entirely different. Since 1996 an estimated 2100 dispensaries have been opened across California, more than Starbucks and Mcdonalds combined, and featured in many cable news reports showing Amsterdam-like café’s.
This month in California 34 people were arrested in a ring that turned 50 $400-600,000 suburban homes into growing operations with several suspects fleeing to China raising questions about their immigration status. No one believes in the war on drugs anymore. In a recent PBS news piece when asked what the dangers of marijuana are, the marijuana enforcement officer cited decreased productivity and its danger to kids’ “mentality.” The interviewer simply looked at him like there was no need for further questions.
If in a recession tax revenue from marijuana isn’t tempting, at least taxing hemp should be. And with 5 times more arrests than whites for drug offenses, while representing a small minority of the population, hundreds of thousands of African Americans are jailed and lose the right to vote each year for non-violent crimes, many related to marijuana. With Obama’s latest move a nail has been put in the coffin of our racist drug war in California, and hopefully soon to be New Jersey.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Why Won’t Obama Publicly Say The Word Racist?
On Letterman, when President Obama was asked if he thought racism played a role in a profusion of wildly fearful and frantic anti-Obama public sentiment, his response was to joke that “I was actually black before the election.” It’s possible he meant that those same people were also opposed to him before his election because of his race, but the issue began to fade from the headlines afterward so it looks like it was interpreted to mean he did not think it was racist because they weren’t so vocal and agitated before he got elected…when he was also African American .
The idea that how other people, the public and the media, should think about the role race is playing is dependent on President Obama’s own opinion is as anachronistic as what the president actually said.
In order to accept Obama’s statement you would have to ignore the possibility that racial fears could have been stoked after he was elected, for example by calling his policies reparations for slavery or saying he has a deep seated hatred of white people . His statement also uses a definition of racism that cannot separate a racist action from a person who hates another race. While a bully is rubbing a child’s face in the mud, if you ask the child whether the bully is being cruel and they say no, it should have no bearing in whether it’s deemed cruel or not by the rest of society. Similarly if in the cafeteria a bully starts a hilarious rumor about a child’s mom, claiming that he only wanted to be funny and because he doesn’t hate or dislike the child it’s not cruel, this argument also should have no standing in determining if it the action is considered cruel or not by others. Substitute race for cruelty and you have arguments that are uncritically put forth to protect the racist rhetoric behind the movement. This definition is used by people like Arlen Specter defending Trent Lott’s comment that the country would be better off if Strom Thurmond, a segregationist, was elected president and by Rush Limbaugh to defend his playing the “Barrack the magic negro” song on air .
Condoning a culture of not speaking out against things that are racist and embracing the tactics used to cover racist actions by the president, I believe, hurts the nations progress toward racial equality. A strategy to avoid public debate on issues of race so that policy can be worked on behind the scenes, preventing messy public dialogue, would fit in the same category. Progress does not come from policy alone. There’s only so many policies that people haven’t morally progressed to you can pass before they notice and all those policies are on the table at once. Our racial policy should not be crafted by power but by moral determination. A strong moral argument is the only thing that can counter a fervent, irrational protection of privilege. Obama’s hands have been tied in responding to these attacks, for example calling him racist, when he actually had a prime opportunity to make the strong moral arguments for why we should to stop racial profiling, why we should have healthcare for the poorest citizens including African Americans, etc. Maybe Obama can’t be (and maybe shouldn’t even try and be) a MLK from inside the white house, but he can at least say the word racist when it needs to be said.
The idea that how other people, the public and the media, should think about the role race is playing is dependent on President Obama’s own opinion is as anachronistic as what the president actually said.
In order to accept Obama’s statement you would have to ignore the possibility that racial fears could have been stoked after he was elected, for example by calling his policies reparations for slavery or saying he has a deep seated hatred of white people . His statement also uses a definition of racism that cannot separate a racist action from a person who hates another race. While a bully is rubbing a child’s face in the mud, if you ask the child whether the bully is being cruel and they say no, it should have no bearing in whether it’s deemed cruel or not by the rest of society. Similarly if in the cafeteria a bully starts a hilarious rumor about a child’s mom, claiming that he only wanted to be funny and because he doesn’t hate or dislike the child it’s not cruel, this argument also should have no standing in determining if it the action is considered cruel or not by others. Substitute race for cruelty and you have arguments that are uncritically put forth to protect the racist rhetoric behind the movement. This definition is used by people like Arlen Specter defending Trent Lott’s comment that the country would be better off if Strom Thurmond, a segregationist, was elected president and by Rush Limbaugh to defend his playing the “Barrack the magic negro” song on air .
Condoning a culture of not speaking out against things that are racist and embracing the tactics used to cover racist actions by the president, I believe, hurts the nations progress toward racial equality. A strategy to avoid public debate on issues of race so that policy can be worked on behind the scenes, preventing messy public dialogue, would fit in the same category. Progress does not come from policy alone. There’s only so many policies that people haven’t morally progressed to you can pass before they notice and all those policies are on the table at once. Our racial policy should not be crafted by power but by moral determination. A strong moral argument is the only thing that can counter a fervent, irrational protection of privilege. Obama’s hands have been tied in responding to these attacks, for example calling him racist, when he actually had a prime opportunity to make the strong moral arguments for why we should to stop racial profiling, why we should have healthcare for the poorest citizens including African Americans, etc. Maybe Obama can’t be (and maybe shouldn’t even try and be) a MLK from inside the white house, but he can at least say the word racist when it needs to be said.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Consumer Financial Protection Agency, Obama’s First Major victory?
Just because some stocks are going up again and the stock market is making gains doesn’t necessarily mean a recession is over. A common occurrence in prolonged recessions is what is known as the “W”. Where after the initial crash in the market a small rebounding starts only to see the market take another nose-dive. With unemployment rising to 9.8 percent in the most recent data and congress still not having passed new regulations for the financial sector, to some it might seem that we are on the cusp of a dreaded “W” in the recession.
One of the most pressing issues for Obama and the financial sector in the near future is the creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency. There’s skepticism about how hard Obama can really push for this agency or how much authority it will be granted given the current situation. The president’s biggest campaign donor was the financial sector (Goldman Sachs one of the biggest), which now stands at 21% of our GDP. So far he has left the CEO’s of the banks in place to oversee the distribution of taxpayer money and make regulatory recommendations since the time of the crash.
The seeming reluctance of Obama to hold the banks accountable could be based on real fears about our apparently very weak economy, but creating a Consumer Financial Protection Agency would create an opportunity for sweeping oversight and regulatory change in the financial sector, including non-bank entities like mortgage lenders and credit card companies.
Agencies like this focus on industry practices from consumer’s point of view and make regulatory rulings based on potential for harm to consumers, not based on deceitful actions of sellers. It is free to require industry to change practices that are harmful to consumers. This means that the agency won’t have the burden of proving intent or fraud by the offending companies, but also will not seek damages. Here, legalese in credit card contracts that could confuse consumers along with practices that could result a large number of consumers being deceived could be ruled on without proving intent to deceive by the sellers. Anyone interested in the role the creation of the Federal Trade Commission has had on falsity in advertising should check out "The Great American Blow-Up" by Ivan L. Preston.
This agency would wield a great and important power. It will not punish financial firms but regulate their practices. This needs to happen. But I find it troubling that agencies like this need to be formed in the first place. Why is the idea that our branches of government should work correctly to pass legislation acceptable to the Supreme Court that would protect consumers from industry practices like this thought of as impossible? Why is it that the idea that permanently codifying new and improved ways to reduce the influence of vested interests is UNDESIRABLE so pervasive in our judicial system and history of legal precedent that we just create another government body to gain huge power in the name of protecting the citizens, only to eventually be corrupted and bought back by the vested interests? Take the FDA. Looks like we can’t look to brand new life long politicians, even Obama, to sweep in and clean up the system, we need to start valuing education and civil engagement in this country again.
One of the most pressing issues for Obama and the financial sector in the near future is the creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency. There’s skepticism about how hard Obama can really push for this agency or how much authority it will be granted given the current situation. The president’s biggest campaign donor was the financial sector (Goldman Sachs one of the biggest), which now stands at 21% of our GDP. So far he has left the CEO’s of the banks in place to oversee the distribution of taxpayer money and make regulatory recommendations since the time of the crash.
The seeming reluctance of Obama to hold the banks accountable could be based on real fears about our apparently very weak economy, but creating a Consumer Financial Protection Agency would create an opportunity for sweeping oversight and regulatory change in the financial sector, including non-bank entities like mortgage lenders and credit card companies.
Agencies like this focus on industry practices from consumer’s point of view and make regulatory rulings based on potential for harm to consumers, not based on deceitful actions of sellers. It is free to require industry to change practices that are harmful to consumers. This means that the agency won’t have the burden of proving intent or fraud by the offending companies, but also will not seek damages. Here, legalese in credit card contracts that could confuse consumers along with practices that could result a large number of consumers being deceived could be ruled on without proving intent to deceive by the sellers. Anyone interested in the role the creation of the Federal Trade Commission has had on falsity in advertising should check out "The Great American Blow-Up" by Ivan L. Preston.
This agency would wield a great and important power. It will not punish financial firms but regulate their practices. This needs to happen. But I find it troubling that agencies like this need to be formed in the first place. Why is the idea that our branches of government should work correctly to pass legislation acceptable to the Supreme Court that would protect consumers from industry practices like this thought of as impossible? Why is it that the idea that permanently codifying new and improved ways to reduce the influence of vested interests is UNDESIRABLE so pervasive in our judicial system and history of legal precedent that we just create another government body to gain huge power in the name of protecting the citizens, only to eventually be corrupted and bought back by the vested interests? Take the FDA. Looks like we can’t look to brand new life long politicians, even Obama, to sweep in and clean up the system, we need to start valuing education and civil engagement in this country again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)