California Might Overturn Odious History Of Marijuana Laws

Close to 40 years after Richard Nixon sparked America's "war on drugs," California voters this November get to vote on the war's biggest challenge ever.

It's a ballot proposition making it legal for any Californian 21 or older to grow or use marijuana. If passed, there will be no more requirements to prove medical need (today's law in California and 13 other states). Cannabis would be subject to taxes, potentially yielding billions of dollars in state, county and city levies.

California will be voting in the wake of Gallup polling that shows nationwide support for legalizing marijuana now at 44 percent, an eight-point jump since 2005. Support is higher in California -- recent polls show the legalization initiative leading by margins of 56 percent to 42 percent and 49 percent to 41 percent.

But that doesn't ensure passage: Historically, a modest poll lead for an initiative can melt away, especially as opponents wage fierce negative campaigns close to Election Day. Stiff opposition to the marijuana measure is likely from California's "prison-industrial complex" including police chiefs, prosecutors and prison guards.

Still, the California stage is set by the state's early approval of medical marijuana and the Obama administration's key decision last year to reverse earlier policy to shut down marijuana dispensaries even when countenanced under states" laws.

Voters will likely debate social impacts of legalization versus potential state and local tax gains. But waiting in the wings is a deep moral issue: How marijuana prohibition laws were written in part to subjugate minority populations.

Last week, the California State Conference of the NAACP issued an "unconditional endorsement" of the legalization initiative. Alice Huffman, the group's president, attacked the current marijuana laws as a de facto way to criminalize young black men.

She cited a Drug Policy Alliance report showing that while total marijuana arrests in California spiraled from 20,000 in 1990 to 60,000 in 2008, arrests for "youth of color" rose four times faster. Federal surveys have consistently shown that young whites are more likely to use marijuana than young blacks. But in every one of California's largest 25 urban counties, arrests of African-Americans for possessing marijuana exceed those for whites. In Los Angeles County, blacks are 10 percent of the population but account for 30 percent of marijuana arrests.

"It is time for them to stop using my community to fill the prisons," Huffman said.

And it's not just a California phenomenon. New York City's marijuana arrests are also racially skewed, reports Harry G. Levine, Queens College sociologist. Arrests for small amounts of marijuana in New York City have skyrocketed to unprecedented heights, he reports, with blacks (26 percent of the city's population) making up 52 percent of arrests, and Latinos (27 percent of the population) 31 percent.

For the cops, this is good business, notes Levine: "Narcotics and patrol police, their supervisors and top commanders" benefit from arrests that "are comparatively safe, allow officers and their supervisors to accrue overtime pay, and produce arrest numbers that show productivity."

But for youth -- nearly all handcuffed, put into the back of a police car or van, taken to a local station to be photographed and fingerprinted, and most often held one or more nights in jail -- it's a traumatic experience. Often they can escape longer incarceration by pleading guilty -- but then have a felony conviction likely to haunt them for life.

Yet New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, asked in his first campaign if he'd ever used marijuana, replied: "You bet I did. And I enjoyed it." One in three Americans, and two recent presidents, has also tried the weed.

Small wonder. Marijuana has been used by humans for more than 10,000 years. President Nixon's hand-picked commission on marijuana found that its health impacts are minimal and that the 'gateway" drug theory has no basis. Yet Nixon, as part of his cultural war on black militants, hippies and campus revolutionaries, made marijuana a chief target.

He wasn't the first. As Mexican workers brought marijuana across the border in the early 20th century, local prosecutors and editors publicly decried the "loco weed." One critic associated it not only with Hispanics but "Negroes, prostitutes, pimps, and a criminal class of whites." States began outlawing the drug, one Texas state senator asserting that "all Mexicans are crazy, add this stuff (marijuana) is what makes them crazy."

In the 1930s, Harry Anslinger, head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, spearheaded the campaign to make marijuana possession a federal crime because of "its effect on the degenerate races" -- not only Hispanics but blacks whom he suggested were deluded by "reefer" to "think they're as good as white men."

Ironically, polling shows Hispanics as the only California ethnic voter group leaning against the fall initiative. A refresher on the odious history of marijuana prohibition ought to be enough to shift that.


NewsHawk: Ganjarden: 420 MAGAZINE
Source: The Denver Post
Author: Neal Peirce
Contact: The Denver Post
Copyright: 2010 The Denver Post
Website: California might overturn odious history of marijuana laws
 
Parts of this may be true... but there is more benifits for the med user. 8oz on hand and 6 mature plants+ depending on how many you grow for. Chance for Fed involvement... less likely than those who will use it for recreational use. Also the benifits of not having the Government regulate it... as we can see what that is doing to our country at this time.
 
Ironically, polling shows Hispanics as the only California ethnic voter group leaning against the fall initiative. A refresher on the odious history of marijuana prohibition ought to be enough to shift that.

[/URL]

Not so much. Hispanics generally don't vote in great numbers and those that do usually vote conservative.
 
I am a conservative leaning libertarian and I believe that marijuana should be legalized, immediately.
Don't confuse political leanings or beliefs with position on marijuana legalization.
The democrats have just as many politicians against it as the republicans.
Who gives the politicians the most money sets their opinion on the issue, not ideology.
Cops, prison guard unions and drug companies are against it. Hurts their bottom line.
Medical doctors, usually the against are pill pushers, while the fors are mental health or surgeon types.
Money is the issue for most, and control for the rest.

Personally I see the way marijuana is being used and grown even with the laws, crack downs and other attempt to stop it as a good thing. Eventually with civil disobedience as it is, the time will come when it is legal all across the US, by all laws.
 
Each his own in his political beliefs.
I go with the adage follow the money.
And since all the big name dems and big name repubs get tons of money from the police/Co unions, pharma companies and medical associations, it doesn't matter what party they belong to.
And I said I was a conservative leaning Libertarian. Fox news nor any of the entertainment reporters do my thinking for me.
Conservative means I believe the Constitution of the USA should be followed, not that the repubs should be the legislators of morals and practices of the USA.
My freedom ends when it encroaches upon yours.
But until then, I should be free to do as I please as long as I cause no harm to others.
 
Our freedoms have been seriously curtailed since the founding of this country, no doubt.
The founders went to war with the most powerful empire the earth had ever seen, knowing that if they failed, it meant horrible deaths for them and most likely their families, over a 2 or 4% tax.
No one with any sense of the founding fathers could ever say that they would approve of any facet of the WoD, or the steady erosions upon our freedoms over the last 60 years or so.
I agree with the whole repub thing about smaller governemnt, yet wanting to micro-manage folks lives. I live in a state where they outlawed smoking in public buildings, except for the country clubs, where you can still eat, drink and smoke a fat cigar.
From a personal standpoint, where a man parks his pecker, as long as it ain't next to mine or any kids, ain't none of my business. I am all for gay marriage. Gay people should have the right to get married, suffer for several years and then lose half of their stuff just like straight folks.
Eh, I would like to see politicians eat whatever the poorest of their constituents eat, live in the same places and have the same level of income and health care as the least of them. We'd see some friggin changes if that as the rule. Especially if that was enforced where for however long they were in office, they had to live that way afterward.
 
I do hope it passes into legalization in Cali but I do agree with some of the other post. They'll get so much publicized shit from the media and right wing conservatives that the officials voting for it will basically cave in and vote against it. As broke as the state is you'd think they'll do anything to fix the current money problems but some folks want a miracle from nowhere versus seeing the opportunities that are right in front of them. I still don't see any difference between marijuana and alcohol use or tobacco use. When's the last time you've heard of someone wrecking a car under the influence of marijuana? I truly think in the end the hold on legalization has more to do with a slew of personal moral standards and less with the supposed "lack" of beneficial uses for legalized marijuana in a regulated environment.
 
I might be a minority on this board, but I favor full legalization of everything. Don't believe it is the government's business to tell any adult what chemicals they can or can not ingest, in any manner they chose.
Look at alcohol for example. When was the last time you saw a wino rob a liquor store to get him a bottle? You don't hardly ever see things like that. Because alcohol is legal and easily available at a cheap price.
Been working on and off for the last couple of years on a BA degree, planning on a MA. Want to be a LSW or LPC working in the substance abuse field within the correctional department, lol huh?
Anywhoo, about 10% of the population has a problem with addiction. That number has been pretty steady for at least 100 years as best they can tell. Not addiction just in the sense of drug abuse, but addiction to stuff too. Food, sex, adrenaline, money, etc etc.
Using chemicals to change our moods and perception is as old as mankind. Can't legislate away a basic need/desire/want from humanity, no matter how hard you try or how stiff the punishments are.
My belief is legalize it all, and treat it just like alcohol. Tax it, limit it to adults, regulate it, but allow adults to use it at an affordable price if they chose. If Joe the crackhead can buy himself a rock for $5.00 at the local liquor store, he ain't going to be breaking into your car or mugging old ladies for the money.
A bunch of the stuff that is called the "horrors of addiction" are not because of the addiction, but because of the illegality of the dope they are chasing. When I was 16, and had a needle habit, there was no way I could feed that hole except by crime. When a person has to pay black market prices for a fix, of any substance, they will do whatever is needed to get the cash.
If it was legal, it would be affordable. It could cut down a lot of crimes if Joe the junkie could panhandle for an hour and get enough to buy his daily fix, instead of having to steal a few hundred dollars worth of stuff so he can buy 40 bucks worth of dope, that actually costs less than a dollar to produce.
Hell, alcohol at the liquor store, Everclear to be exact, is 18 bucks plus tax for a quart.
Five gallons of mash, which costs 2.84 for a 5lb bag of sugar, 1.98 for a package of yeast and 2.25 for a bottle of yeast boost, tap water and some electricity for the distillation is a lot cheaper than that. ( guess you figured out that growing ain't my only practice).
I think it is a mixture of morality, money and power stopping legalization. Folks want to impose their moral standards, while sipping their fine whiskey and popping the special pills the doc gave them, others want the almighty dollars flowing into their pockets, and the JBTs in the DEA and other LEOs want the power.
As far as smoking and driving, in my case it is a no no. I rarely ever drive anymore because of the pain meds. Even though I can not really see any impairment, I would hate to injure someone while driving and spend the rest of my life wondering if it was an accident or if it was the meds. And I know when I smoke, I am too impaired to drive. Reflexes are slower, attention wanders and it is hard to keep focus on the task at hand. So I would not smoke and drive for a million dollars.
 
In my state, which is one of several, if you can't pass a piss test, you are committing a DUI if you drive.
[(3) With any amount of a Schedule I controlled substance, as listed in G.S. 90‑89, or its metabolites in his blood or urine.]

Retarded moralistic, self-absorbed suited pricks. So against anyone doing something they decide is "wrong" the make driving three days after you smoke a joint illegal.

[edit: Hmm, did some research, rather than just taking NORML's word and lookie here.

This schedule includes the controlled substances listed or to be listed by whatever official name, common or usual name, chemical name, or trade name designated. In determining that such substance comes within this schedule, the Commission shall find: no currently accepted medical use in the United States, or a relatively low potential for abuse in terms of risk to public health and potential to produce psychic or physiological dependence liability based upon present medical knowledge, or a need for further and continuing study to develop scientific evidence of its pharmacological effects.

The following controlled substances are included in this schedule:

(1) Marijuana.

(2) Tetrahydrocannabinols. (1971, c. 919, s. 1; 1973, c. 476, s. 128; c. 1358, s. 15; 1977, c. 667, s. 3; 1981, c. 51, s. 9; 1997‑456, s. 27.)

And those are the only two substances listed.
Low risk, so maybe even the fundie suits are getting smarter.
 
Arnold Schwartzaneeger has already taken patients with HIV, and AIDs who are on Medi-Cal their Mediciene away from them. Other Drugs that were available for pain, like Methadone may be on the chopping block before he leaves office. Methadone isn't the answer, although it was the only drug available for some people, Marijuana is the drug we need for pain, but just in case the Marijuana bill doesn't pass, please do everything possible to keep Methadone free, and legal.
The Implications of banning Methadone to patients who are in pain and need it are enormous.
It has never been told to the general public that Methadone is prescribed to patients for pain, although if you stand out side a dispensary you'll see people in wheelchairs, and wakers as well as crutches.
But what we really want, IS THE MARIJUANA LAW PASSED! Please do whatever you can to get this bill passed, and if it doesn't pass remember that doctors prescribe methadone for pain, people like me who were paralyzed need something for the pain.
 
Back
Top Bottom