Will Legalizing Pot Save California from its Cash Crunch?
By Bruce Mirken, Marijuana Policy Project Posted on February 25, 2009, Printed on February 27, 2009 http://www.alternet.org/story/128963/
California state Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) has announced the introduction of legislation to tax and regulate marijuana in a manner similar to alcoholic beverages. The bill, the first of its kind ever introduced in California, would create a regulatory structure similar to that used for beer, wine, and liquor, permitting taxed sales to adults while barring sales to or possession by those under 21.
Estimates based on federal government statistics have shown marijuana to be California’s top cash crop, valued at approximately $14 billion in 2006 — nearly twice the combined value of the state’s number two and three crops, vegetables ($5.7 billion) and grapes ($2.6 billion) — in spite of massive “eradication” efforts that wipe out an average of nearly 36,000 cultivation sites per year without making a dent in this underground industry.
Ammiano introduced the measure at a San Francisco press conference this morning, saying, “With the state in the midst of an historic economic crisis, the move towards regulating and taxing marijuana is simply common sense. This legislation would generate much needed revenue for the state, restrict access to only those over 21, end the environmental damage to our public lands from illicit crops, and improve public safety by redirecting law enforcement efforts to more serious crimes,” said Ammiano. “California has the opportunity to be the first state in the nation to enact a smart, responsible public policy for the control and regulation of marijuana.”
“It is simply nonsensical that California’s largest agricultural industry is completely unregulated and untaxed,” said Marijuana Policy Project California policy director Aaron Smith, who also spoke at the news conference. “With our state in an ongoing fiscal crisis — and no one believes the new budget is the end of California’s financial woes — it’s time to bring this major piece of our economy into the light of day.”
Independent experts from around the world, from President Nixon’s National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse in 1972 to a Canadian Senate special committee in 2002, have long contended that criminalizing marijuana users makes little sense, given that marijuana is less addictive, much less toxic, and far less likely to induce aggression or violence than alcohol. For example, in an article in the December 2008 Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, Australian researcher Stephen Kisely noted that “penalties bear little relation to the actual harm associated with cannabis.”
"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant."
John Stuart Mill
I didn't get high until I was 23. I had smoked pot twice before without feeling much of any effect. Prior to this point in my life, I had many opportunities to smoke pot, but I always politely refused. I was never "peer pressured" and several pot smokers actually complimented me on my ability to make my own decision.
When I was fifteen or sixteen, I was in a very private and difficult part of my life. At the time, I was opposed to drug use of all sorts including marijuana, alcohol, tobacco, and psychological medication. Although I've always been philosophically inclined, this was this period in my life in which I realized I had questions that no one had answers to, my homework was more for the benefit of others, women were as desirable as they were unattainable, and the entire world doesn't give a shit about my problems. Naturally, this began my depression. My mother, who had recently divorced from my father, was very disturbed by this and recommended anti-depressants. I thought about it long and hard, whether I wanted to be freed of this self-inflicted psychological agony, but ultimately, I refused. My reasoning was that if I needed to enter an altered state to manage my feelings, I wasn't really managing them. I was ignoring them. If I was able to handle my feelings on my own, I knew I would be stronger for it. At the same time, I realized that this was a personal choice and didn't push this belief on others.
Up until the age of twenty-three, I got drunk maybe three times and smoked cloves... maybe five times (never regular cigarettes). I had talked to a lot of people about their drug experiences and, unsurprisingly, the people who had done the most drugs also knew the most about them (granted, I also surround myself with intelligent people). I also read a lot of books, not so much about drugs but influenced by drugs. Then I would read what the writer said about his drug experiences.
My studies on spirituality, the history of spirituality, spiritual development, and spiritual practices also dovetailed into my studies on drugs. I came to discover that hallucinogens helped to influence all of the world's religions. Even more interesting, hallucinogens were often considered exclusively for spiritual leaders including the Catholic clergy. Of course, everyone knows about the role of hallucinogens in Native American cultures (particularly peyote), but anthropological studies have shown that virtually all shamanic cultures practice the safe use of hallucinogens. (Of course, that's not for us logical white folk. *dripping with sarcasm*) In any case, it became clear to me from my studies that for a person on a path of spiritual development, a hallucinogenic experience is vital... although this is an experience I have not yet had.
For the purposes of this blog, I will be focusing on several different drugs. First, I will be looking at marijuana, it's effects, legal issues, medicinal value, associated risks and history. Second, I will spend some time looking at the effects of psychiatric medication with a particular focus on anti-depressants and ADD/ADHD medication and the prevalence of use for treating minors. Third, I will be looking at hallucinogens including psilocybin, amanita muscaria, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), mescaline, ayahuasca, peyote, and salvia divinorum. Finally, I will be looking at methamphetamines, particularly crystal meth and ectasy, and opiates, particularly cocaine, heroin, and their legal cousin, oxycotin.
Disclaimer: I'm not advocating anything except sound judgment and education. Although I try to be as accurate as possible, don't take my word for this. Do your own research on both sides of the fence and decide for yourself what you believe. Most importantly, be safe and be smart.
Cannabis sativa
Cannabis sativa is the scientific classification for the plant which can be harvested in two very different ways depending on the intended use (there is also cannabis indica, but sativa is by far the dominant breed for both hemp and marijuana). Cannabis grown for drug use is commonly referred to as marijuana while cannabis grown for fiber, seeds, or oil is referred to as hemp.
Cannabis grows very quickly and easily, well-deserving of the nickname "weed." Technically speaking, cannabis is a weed which is why it is highly resistent to both weeds and drought. It can grow in virtually any environment. Due to it’s long roots, cannabis replenishes soil with nutrients and nitrogen and helps control erosion of topsoil. Through a process known as phytoremediation, cannabis actually removes and purifies toxins from the soil. (Little known fact: Cannabis sativa was used to clean the ground after the Chernobyl disaster.)
How Marijuana Works
The primary psychoactive component in marijuana is delta-9-tetrahydrocannibinol or THC. THC develops in crystals concentrated on the flower and small leaves of the plant, so the strength of marijuana can more or less be judged by amount of crystals present on the flower buds. These buds are harvested and dried for consumption. Most commonly, the drug is smoked, but it may also be used as a tea or infused with butter for cooking.
When consumed, the THC bonds with cannabinoid receptors which are designed to respond to similar chemicals called "endocannabinoids" which occur naturally in the body (endo meaning internal). The body's primary endocannabinoids are anandamide (from the Sanskrit word ananda meaning "bliss") and 2-arachidonoyl glycerol (2-AG).
Cannabinoid receptors are surprisingly abundant in nerve cells and have the highest densities in the cerebral cortex, hippocampus, hypothalamus, cerebellum, basal ganglia, brain stem, spinal cord and amygdala. This distribution explains marijuana's diverse effects. Its psychoactive properties come from its interaction in the cerebral cortex. Memory impairment is rooted in the hippocampus, a structure essential for memory formation. The drug causes motor dysfunction by acting on movement control centers of the brain. In the brain stem and spinal cord, it brings about the reduction of pain; the brain stem also controls the vomiting reflex which marijuana has been known to suppress. The hypothalamus is involved in appetite and the amygdala in emotional response.
Recent studies have shown that cannabinoid receptors are essential to depolarization-induced suppression of inhibition (DSI). Temporarily dampening inhibition enhances a form of learning called long-term potentiation, the process by which information is stored through the strengthening of synapses. Such storage and information transfer often involves small groups of neurons rather than large neuronal populations, and endocannabinoids are well suited to acting on these small assemblages. As fat-soluble molecules, they do not diffuse over great distances in the watery extracellular environment of the brain. Avid uptake and degradation mechanisms help to ensure that they act in a confined space for a limited period. Thus, DSI, which is a short-lived local effect, enables individual neurons to disconnect briefly from their neighbors and encode information.
In 2003 Giovanni Marsicano of the Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry in Munich and his co-workers showed that mice lacking normal cannabinoid receptors are less likely to recover from anxiety than mice with functional cannabinoid receptors indicating that endocannabinoids are important in extinguishing the bad feelings and pain triggered by reminders of past experiences. This raises the possibility that abnormally low numbers of cannabinoid receptors or the faulty release of endogenous cannabinoids are involved in post-traumatic stress syndrome, phobias and certain forms of chronic pain, thereby supporting the belief that marijuana can be used to treat anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, or just to help cope with profoundly negative memories.
The Recreational Effects
The effects of cannabis vary depending on the person, the amount consumed, and the manner in which it is consumed. It is most often smoked through a glass pipe, paper (a joint), or a water pipe (bong). [Contrary to some of the propaganda images below, marijuana is not an intravenous drug.] Many users do not feel any effects the first, second, or even third time they consume cannabis. Effects generally last between one and three hours. Like alcohol or any psychologically altering drug, it is safest and most rewarding when taken amongst a group close friends. It should not be taken while driving or performing any action which requires a clear head.
The Positive: Reduced stress levels, muscle relaxation, mild to intense euphoria, metacognition, introspection, increased sensuality (all or some senses may seem slightly enhanced), possible very mild visual or auditory hallucinations
The Neutral: Increased appetite, decreased awareness of time
The Negative: Paranoia, lethargy, temporary short-term memory loss, dryness of the eyes and mouth, possible over stimulation of the senses
Unlike alcohol and many other drugs, marijuana does not promote violent or destructive behavior. Alcohol use in particular has been linked to 72% of college rape cases, 66% of domestic abuse cases, 75% of spousal abuse cases, and more three million violent crimes in the United States annually.
Despite rumors to the contrary, marijuana has an extremely relaxing and peaceful effect as well as certain non-quantifiable social and intellectual effects. It often enables the user to connect disparate ideas and promotes abstract thinking. Due to the effects on short-term memory, it discourages fixation and forces the mind to wander. Both the euphoric and contemplative properties of marijuana encourage conversation and engagement. The disorientation can also make it easier to overcome social awkwardness.
It is also worth noting that marijuana has two important natural means of controlling its effects: If too much is inhaled at one time, the subject may grow tired and fall asleep; and one cannot stay at the peak of their experience for prolonged periods of time no matter how much marijuana they smoke. A breaking period is necessary to lower tolerance levels. For infrequent users, this may be six to twelve hours; for frequent users, several days.
A primary accusation against marijuana use is that it causes people to become lazy and unproductive leading some to suggest that marijuana causes Amotivational Syndrome. While it is true that the euphoric and relaxing effects of the drug encourages the user to be less active, the same can be said of television. People who are intoxicated constantly, regardless of the drug, are less likely to be productive members of society. There is nothing about marijuana specifically that causes people to lose their drive and ambition. In laboratory studies, subjects given high doses of marijuana for several days or even several weeks exhibit no decrease in work motivation or productivity. Amongst employed adults, marijuana users tend to earn higher wages than non-users. College students who use marijuana have the same grades as nonusers. Among high school students, heavy use is associated with school failure, but school failure usually comes first.
The Legal Issues
The issue around the legalization (or criminalization, depending on your perspective) of cannabis is actually three issues commonly reduced to a single issue. Those issues are:
The legalization of cannabis for industrial purposes only without producing psychoactive material.
The legalization of psychoactive cannabis for medicinal purposes.
The legalization of psychoactive cannabis for recreational purposes.
Currently, marijuana is listed as a Schedual I narcotic under the federal Controlled Substances Act. While some states have passed laws allowing the production and distribution of industrial and medicinal cannabis, these laws are technically in violation of the Controlled Substances Act meaning that someone who legally produces and/or consumes cannabis at the state level may still be charged at the federal level. Arrests for marijuana possession and trafficking have been on the rise reaching new heights with every year:
(Please forgive the outdated figures. It was the best I could find.)
Possession of less than an ounce is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a fine of $2000. Possession of an ounce or more may result in a felony charge which, amongst other things, carries a one to ten year sentence, a $5000 fine, and permanently strips the individual of the right to vote.
The Netherlands is well-known for its decriminalization of marijuana for people over 18 years of age. This has not led to a dramatic increase in marijuana use and, in fact, Dutch rates of drug use are lower than U.S. rates in every category, but particularly in the use of marijuana amongst minors.
Cost/Benefit Analysis In 2005, Jeffrey Miron, Professor of Economics at Harvard University, conducted a study titled The Budgetary Implications of the Marijuana Prohibition. In this study, Professor Miron concludes that legalizing marijuana would save $7.7 billion dollars annually on the cost of enforcement ($5.3 billion in state and local, $2.4 billion in federal). Additionally, if marijuana was taxed the same as all other goods, it would yield $2.4 billion in annual revenue. If it were taxed comparably to tobacco and alcohol, it would yield $6.2 billion in annual revenue.
That's $13.9 billion dollars wasted every year. $7.7 billion being spent to persecute American citizens for a victimless crime. And that $6.2 billion, instead of going to schools and roads, goes to criminals.
Medicinal Uses
Fourteen states currently have medicinal marijuana available to those in need including Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, and Vermont.
Although many claim that marijuana has no proven medicinal value, medical groups have overwhelmingly supported legalization of medicinal marijuana and have, at times, broken the law by prescribing the illegal drug to patients. (Technically speaking, I think that any doctor who recommends marijuana is in violation of federal law.) The American Medical Association has actually been the strongest voice of decent during earlier efforts to tax and later ban the drug.
Marijuana has been shown to have medicinal value in the treatment and/or relief from the following conditions: cancer, stroke, glaucoma, chemotherapy, migraines, chronic aches, clinical depression, ADD, ADHD, Tourette's, hypertension, gastrointestinal disorder, constipation, inflammatory bowl disease, fibromyalgia, obsessive-compulsive disorder, post traumatic stress disorder, bipolar disorder, anorexia, bulimia, insomnia, sleep apnea, epilepsy, schizophrenia, abdominal pains, nausea, vomiting, PMS, asthma, AIDS, HIV, atherosclerosis, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's, and Parkinson's. In California alone, marijuana treatment is indicated for over 250 medical conditions. There is also evidence to show that marijuana may be used to help break addiction to more harmful drugs including alcoholism and heroin.
Addictiveness
The addictiveness of marijuana is a matter of some debate, but legitimate debate holds marijuana at somewhere between a little addictive and not at all. Take a look at this addictiveness rating chart from a study done by the University of Chicago:
Nicotine, a completely legal and uncontrolled substance, has the highest addictiveness rating above crack cocaine and crystal myth. Alcohol is more addictive than heroin and cocaine. Even caffeine scores 68% thereby blowing marijuana (at 21%) out of the water. Health Effects
Unlike alcohol or more serious drugs, it is impossible to overdose on marijuana. The dosage required would be thousands of times stronger than a recreational dose. Alcohol, on the other hand, requires only ten times that of a recreational dose to overdose. The only widely acknowledged risk associated with marijuana is in the way it is typically consumed. Any smoke, when inhaled, presents a cancer risk as well as presenting risks of respiratory problems. However, there have been no cases of lung cancer which have been conclusively or even strongly linked to marijuana use.
Some have suggested that marijuana may be more harmful than tobacco due to a relatively high tar and ammonia content, but the jury is still out on that one. Two important things should be considered. First, tobacco cigarettes usually contain eighty-one carcinogenic additives including nicotine, ammonia, arsenic, benzene, beryllium, cadmium, chloroform, formaldehyde, and lead. These may or may not be taken into account in these studies. Most studies are unspecified leading me to believe that they are done using pure tobacco, not commercial tobacco. Second, tobacco smoking often leads to binge consumption behavior commonly referred to as chain smoking. There is no equivalent with marijuana. Recreational marijuana users generally range from one deep inhalation per hour for a novice to roughly ten inhalations per hour for the habitual user. This, of course, is only during the periods in which they wish to be intoxicated unlike tobacco which may be smoked at any time of day before, after, and during complex tasks.
In 1995, based on thirty years of scientific research editors of the British medical journal Lancet concluded that "the smoking of cannabis, even long term, is not harmful to health."
Annual world death rates Tobacco: 435,000 Alcohol: 85,000 (not including accidents, suicide, or murder while intoxicated) Prescription drugs: 32,000 (from adverse effects while used as directed) Marijuana: 0
That's right. Zero. Let me say that again: zero. Nada, zip, zilch. There has not been one recorded death in all of human history due to marijuana. It is the safest intoxicating substance known to man.
The Gateway Drug
Marijuana is commonly referred to as the "gateway drug," a phrase that I always found suspect. In fact, it isn't true. Most drug users start with alcohol and tobacco. Tobacco in particular has demonstrated a stronger causal link to harder drug use later in life. Marijuana has gained this reputation because it is usually the first illegal drug people try. This makes sense, not only because it is the most prolific and abundant illegal drug, but also because it is the safest and most mild. (After all, you wouldn't want LSD, meth, or cocaine to be the gateway drug, would you?)
In some ways, the anti-marijuana campaign actually contributes to further drug use. Like any form of propaganda, when it has been invalidated, people no longer trust the source of information. When young people try marijuana and find that it does not result in murder as some commercials have suggested or when they research it and find out that most of what they've been told is untrue, they tend to distrust everything they've been told and take drugs that are far more dangerous including hallucinogens and opiates.
The Hemp Distinction
Hemp is one of the most versatile plants on Earth. Hemp fibers are ideal for cloth and paper. Cotton fibers are only a fraction of an inch long while hemp fibers can be several feet in length making them far more durable and useful. The fibers are longer, stronger, more absorbent, more mildew-resistant, and more UV-resistant than cotton. Hemp is also naturally resistant to most pests and weeds reducing the need for pesticides and herbicides. By comparison, cotton production is responsible for fifty percent of the world's pesticide use.
Hemp fiber is commonly referred to as "biomass" or "farm waste" in studies or legislation to dissociate it from the negative connotations of marijuana. These long fibers enable hemp paper to be recycled considerably more than wood-based paper. Hemp is 77% cellulose to wood's 60%. Due to its low lignin content, hemp paper can also be produced with far fewer chemicals resulting in less pollution. Due to its lighter color, hemp paper can be lightened using simple hydrogen peroxide instead of the harsh, expensive, and toxic chlorine bleach. Hemp can yield 10 tons of fiber per acre; that's four times what you get from an average forest. Also, unlike a forest, a crop of hemp can be harvested in only four months.
Hemp seed has been called the most nutritionally complete food source in the world. It not only contains every single essential amino and fatty acid necessary to maintain a healthy life, it contains them in the appropriate ratios. Many of these nutrients are lacking in the regular American diet leading to heart disease and cardiovascular disorder. Hemp seed is 65% globulin protein, the highest known concentration in the plant kingdom. Globulin is an important component in the human immune system. In fact, antibodies (AKA immunoglobulins) are globulin proteins designed to destroy bacteria and viruses.
Hemp oil is the richest known source of polyunsaturated essential fatty acids including Omega-3. It is also quite rich in essential amino acids including gamma linoleic acid (GLA), a very rare nutrient also found in mother's milk. It has shown promising results in the prevention and treatment of heart disease, hypertention, kidney disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis, rumatoidarthritis, and more.
Henry Ford and John Diesel originally intended for their engines to run on hemp oil. Petroleum was cheap at the time, so by refining the oil, they were able to re-engineer it to function like hemp oil. An acre of hemp can yield 1,000 gallons of oil; three times what cannot be collected from corn and similar products. When burned, this oil is almost completely pollutant free making it an excellent alternative to standard fuels. It is already being mixed with standard diesel in other countries like Canada where many buses run on B20 (20% biodiesel).
In hemp cultivation, plants are grown extremely close to each other, as little as four inches apart, to encourage maximum height of the stalk. Consequently, they grow tall and thin up to 20 feet high. Marijuana is grown to be short and fat with as much as six feet between plants to give them room to spread. Marijuana is bred for a high THC content. Marijuana is bred to produce flowers and leaves in great abundance with a high THC count as opposed to hemp which, when harvested properly, is cut down before flowers develop.
Both members of the cannabaceae family, cannabis is actually a cousin of humulus (commonly known as hops, a main ingredient in beer).
In hemp, THC is not desirable because it decreases seed count, so plants are bred to have a low THC content (between 0-2%) as opposed to marijuana which is bred for a high THC count (roughly 6%-15%). Hemp plants also have a high CBD (cannabidiol) content; CBD is a THC blocker. (Between the low THC content and the high CBD content, it would be nearly impossible to smoke enough industrial hemp to get high and the result would likely be more unpleasant than anything.) Cross-pollination between hemp and marijuana will result in lower THC levels in the marijuana, but not higher THC levels in hemp.
The History of Cannabis Sativa
Historically cannabis has had many names and many uses. The ancient Romans coined the term cannabis, later adopted as the scientific term. In the Middle East, ancient Semites adapted the term as kannab. East Indian cultures called the plant ganja while in China, hemp dates back to 2700 BC where it was named Ma. In the third century AD, sacred Buddhist documents were made from hemp paper. These are the earliest known paper documents. Around 1000 AD, the plant's name was changed to Ta Ma, meaning “Great Hemp,” to emphasize its cultural importance. Furthermore, archeologists have found remnants of hemp seeds and fibers amongst the relics of Neolithic cultures 12,000 years ago.
The earliest reference of hemp in Western culture is from the Greek historian, Herodotus, who praises the Thracian cloth as being nearly indistinguishable from linen. He also mentions that the hemp seeds are burned in funeral rites as incense which produce a state of euphoria when in contact with it. Hemp has a long tradition as a part of religious ceremony dating back to ancient matriarchal belief systems and their pagan descendants until it was outlawed by the Inquisitions of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. In 1484, Pope Innocent VIII declared that users of cannabis were heretics and worshippers of Satan.
By the sixteenth century, the process of creating hemp paper had made its way from China, across the Middle East, to Spain and quickly to the rest of Europe. This was a huge asset to the burgeoning printing business and contributed dramatically to the rise of education and rise of the Renaissance. Sailing ships were also using hemp almost exclusively for rope and sails. The word canvass is actually derived from the word cannabis.
In eighteenth and nineteenth century India, the use of cannabis as a drug was common place, although the British authorities spread rumors that the drug caused insanity, crime, and violent behavior. These rumors were supported by the British Temperance League who lobbied for the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission to conduct a one year investigation into cannabis. They reported no serious problems with the substance and advised against prohibition.
In America
In colonial America, hemp was a standard agricultural staple grown both by George Washington and Thomas Jefferson while Ben Franklin ran a hemp mill. Washington once wrote to his farmers, "Make the most of the Indian hemp seed, and sow it everywhere!" while Jefferson is quoted, "Hemp is of first necessity to the wealth and protection of the country." In this context, its hardly surprising that hemp paper was used for the Declaration of Independence. By 1810, hemp was America's third largest agricultural industry produced mainly by southern slaves for their landowners. Cannabis was also an ingredient in many medicines of the period.
After the Civil War and with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the hemp industry declined due to the invention of mass production practices which enabled cheaper cotton, wood-based paper, and the decline of sailing in favor of steam technology. Machinery at the time could not easily strip hemp fiber.
In 1908 and 1910, with the effect of tree farming for paper resulting in deforestation, the Department of Agriculture started looking for alternative sources for paper. Several articles were published suggesting the use of hemp, referring to it as “one of the most promising alternatives.” Jason L. Merrill, a Department of Agriculture chemist noted that the forests were being cut down three times faster than they could be regrown suggesting that wood was an infeasible source for paper. He reported:
“Every tract of 10,000 acres which is devoted to hemp raising year by year is equivalent to a sustained pulp-producing capacity of 40,500 acres of average pulp-wood lands. In other words, in order to secure additional raw materials for the production of 25 tons of fiber per day there exists the possibility of utilizing the agricultural waste already produced on 10,000 acres of hemp lands instead of securing, holding, reforesting, and protecting 40,500 acres of pulp-wood lands.”
Between 1914 and 1931, local movements, beginning in El Paso, Texas, succeeded in banning non-medicinal use of marihuana in twenty-nine states beginning in the Southwest as part of an effort to control the Mexican immigrant population which was, of course, being used as a sub-minimum wage source of labor keeping the immigrants at the poverty level. White workers, independent farmers and unionists, were threatened by the cheap source of labor prompting local law-enforcement officials spread the same rumors about crime and violent behavior that the British used to describe the Indians. One officer is quoted as saying, “Under its baseful influence reckless men become bloodthirsty, terribly daring, and dangerous to an uncontrollable degree.” In 1915, authorities from El Paso filed a complaint against marihuana with the federal government leading to a ban on importation of the drug for all purposes other than medicinal.
Two years later, Dr. Alsberg, the Chief of the Bureau of Chemistry, dispatched his personal assistant, Reginald Smith, on an eleven city tour along the southwest Mexican border to gather information about marihuana and marihuana use reporting that it was used infrequently to treat the pain of child-birth, asthma, and gonorrhea. He also found that the drug was used recreationally by Mexicans, “Negroes,” and “lower class whites.” Based on testimony from local law enforcement, he concluded that the drug was harmful to the user and often caused the user to commit heinous crimes. This was based on no scientific evidence, but merely second-hand accounts by law enforcement officials. Smith concluded that the prohibition against non-medicinal importation of the drug was completely ineffective and recommended that the more stringent Harrison Act be amended to include cannabis.
Meanwhile, in 1916, American military authorities stationed in the Panama Canal Zone received reports that army personnel were smoking the drug leading to a 1925 investigation into the Canal Zone marihuana problem. Based on a series of first hand experiments and personal testimony, the committee reported, “There is no evidence that marihuana as grown and used here is a 'habit-forming' drug in the sense in which the term is applied to alcohol, opium, cocaine, etc., or that it has any appreciable deleterious influence on the individual using it.”
In 1926, Dr. W.W. Stockberger of the Bureau of Plant Industry supported the Panama Canal Zone report and contradicted the reports coming out of El Paso: “The reported effects of the drug on Mexicans, making them want to 'clean up the town,' do not jibe very well with the effects of cannabis, which so far as we have reports, simply causes temporary elation, followed by depression and heavy sleep.”
Marihuana had long been a recreational pastime amongst poor black communities of New Orleans after the drug was introduced by Caribbean sailors and West Indian immigrants. Marihuana use was especially prevalent in the jazz community of the 1920s and traveled with it as the popularity of the music spread into urban communities across the country. Naturally, the drug again found its way predominantly into the lower-class ethnic communities where local white law enforcement officers blamed the drug for contributing to violent behavior that was clearly a result of the dire conditions in which these people lived.
In the cities, marihuana began to be defined by layman as a narcotic. This is an important distinction because the Progressives' temperance movement which had passed the Harrison Narcotic Act in 1914 to prohibit the use of opiates and coca products due to their addictive properties. To pass this act, they engaged in a campaign designed to depict the drug addict as society's most evil criminal. Cannabis was not included in this act because it was determined to lack the negative effects associated with these other drugs. However, with the rise of the jazz scene and the corresponding marihuana use, the white middle- and upper-class were in fear of a cultural revolution.
It wasn't until 1929 that the federal government even formally acknowledged the existence of marihuana. Senator Morris Sheppard of Texas introduced the first federal anti-marihuana legislation proposing that marihuana be included in the Narcotic Drugs Export and Import Act, but since Congress was largely ignorant of the drug, the Surgeon General was asked to conduct a study of the drug which was entitled “Preliminary Report on Indian Hemp and Peyote.” This report ignored the 1925 Panama Canal Zone Report and the British Indian Hemp Commission Report and concluded that marihuana was a narcotic, addictive, and induced criminal behavior based on rumor and lacking all scientific fact. Additionally, the report reiterated a popular myth that Marco Polo gave marihuana to his Assassins to invoke a bloodthirsty, berserker state.
In 1930, the Federal Narcotics Control Board and narcotics division of the Bureau of Prohibition were disbanded to form the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Harry J. Anslinger was appointed by his future uncle-in-law Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon to head the Bureau. Andrew Mellon of the Mellon Bank was the DuPont company's chief financial backer. The DuPont company had patents on methods of creating plastic from coal and oil as well as processing wood into paper. At that point, machines for processing hemp fibers were becoming a practical reality making the use of hemp fiber and hemp oil a serious risk to the future of their business.
Anslinger immediately pushed for a total prohibition of marihuana. One of the first actions of the Bureau was the enactment of a uniform state narcotic law including cannabis in its provisions. They engaged in a campaign of misinformation linking racial minorities, crime, and marihuana. A source within the Bureau is quoted in the Christian Science Monitor as saying, “Instances of criminals using the drug to give them courage before making brutal forays are occurrences commonly known to the Narcotics Bureau.”
Meanwhile, the American Medical Association continued to oppose the inclusion of cannabis in the UNDA which determined which drugs would be prohibited. When the UNDA was finally passed in 1932, marihuana was considered optional leaving the issue to be decided at the state level. The Bureau relaxed its position on marihuana, apparently having faith that states would exercise the optional marihuana clause, but due to lobbying by the AMA, only five states prohibited marihuana. In 1935, the Bureau responded with a misinformation campaign far greater than they had previously.
Media mogel William Randolf Hearst was a lead voice in the campaign to demonize marihuana. Hearst was the Rupert Murdock of his day and his papers were about as fair and balanced as Fox News, and like Fox News, Hearst didn't hesitate to lie or propagandize to incite expanding use of military colonialism. He well-known for saying, “You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war,” and he repeatedly tested this idea. According to Upton Sinclair in his 1919 book, The Brass Check: A Study of American Journalism, Hearst employees were “willing by deliberate and shameful lies, made out of whole cloth, to stir nations to enmity and drive them to murderous war." He also asserted that Hearst newspapers lied “remorselessly about radicals," excluded "the word Socialist from their columns" and obeyed "a standing order in all Hearst offices that American Socialism shall never be mentioned favorably."
Hearst had a vested interest in the paper industry. Aside from his newspaper empire, he owned hundreds of acres of tiber and a vast number of paper mills. The concept of using hemp for paper seriously undermined his business interests and he had a convenient method of swaying public opinion, often publishing many stories that Anslinger had fabricated for the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.
This resulted in the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 which made the possession or transfer of cannabis illegal excluding medical and industrial uses which were taxed exorbitantly. The AMA opposed this act because it imposed a heavy tax on physicians prescribing cannabis, retail pharmacists selling cannabis, and the industries of cultivating and manufacturing cannabis. New York Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia, who was a strong opponent of the act, started the LaGuardia Commission that in 1944 contradicted reports of Hearst's papers and their accusations of addiction, madness, and overt sexuality... but by then it was far too late.
In 1942, the United States military was facing a severe shortage of cloth, rope, and cord. To combat the problem, the US government produced a film entitled “Hemp for Victory” to encourage the farmers in the heartland to grow as much hemp as possible. After the war, this film was suppressed. The USDA and Library of Congress denied its existence until it was finally recovered in 1989.
Also during the war, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), a precursor to the CIA, used marijuana as a truth serum at OSS labs in St. Elizabeths Hospital in Washington DC. It is reported that the drug caused the subject "to be loquacious and free in his impartation of information." In 1943, head of OSS counter-intelligence operations Major George Hunter White spiked a tobacco cigarette with THC concentrate to get information about Lucky Luciano's heroin operation from Augusto Del Gracio. It was extremely effective. 1952 saw the passage of the Boggs Act followed by the Narcotics Control Act of 1956 which made first time cannabis possession offense a minimum of two to ten years in prison with a fine of up to $20,000. This was not changed until 1970 when Congress repealed mandatory penalties for cannabis offenses.
In 1972, President Richard M. Nixon, at the direction of Congress, appointed the bipartisan Schaffer Commission to investigate marijuana and the governments current stance. The Commission determined overwhelmingly that there was not a substantial health risk and recommended decriminalization. The report was ignored.
In 1975, the Supreme Court ruled that is was “not cruel or unusual for Ohio to sentence someone to 20 years for having or selling cannabis." The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 reinstated mandatory sentences. A later amendment created a three-strikes law which created mandatory life sentences for repeat drug offenders and a possible death sentence for “drug kingpins.” In 1989, President George H.W. Bush declares his War on Drugs. In 1996, California voters passed Prop. 215 allowing the sale and use of medicinal marijuana.
One of my biggest annoyances of the present are gay people who discriminate against bisexuals. I don't care what your personal theories or experiences have told you. I don't care if you have a friend who says he's bisexual, but only dates women when there are no men available. I don't care if you are sick of "bisexual" girls who can't commit to a lesbian relationship. That's your problem, not theirs.
The sheer hypocrisy is staggering. Over the past fifty years, homosexuality has made incredible strides to become a recognized alternative lifestyle. When ever I get too upset about the stupidity surrounding the "gay marriage" issue, I remind myself that the question fifteen years ago was not whether or not they should be able to get married, but whether or not they should exist. It relieves a huge burden on the logic centers of my brain that I no longer hear the phrase: "It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." (Actually, it's neither, you brainwashed Bible zombie.)
I understand that a lot of gay people, when coming out of the closet, have this big scary cliff to leap off of where you go from pretending to be straight to embracing your gayness, but it isn't an either/or proposition for everyone.
Personally, I'm of the belief that we are not born with a switch in our brain that points to straight or gay. I think sexuality is a lot more complicated than that. I also think that socialization has distorted the way we perceive sexuality. In Western culture, the insinuation has long been that sex is only acceptable in terms of vaginal intercourse by a married couple. I can't imagine how many lives this idea has ruined. Only in the latter half of the twentieth century with the sexual revolution did premarital and homosexual sex begin to be considered an acceptable alternative.
When moving from the idea of a single acceptable lifestyle, it is natural for a single alternative to become dominant, particularly in the case of gender preference where there are two clear distinctions. This gives root to binary thinking where individuals gravitate between two possible options. In our American culture, this includes heterosexual/homosexual, conservative/liberal, Christian/atheist, pro-Life/pro-Choice, pro-gun control/pro-gun rights, capitalist/socialist, PC/Mac, Coke/Pepsi... and so forth. This naturally excludes bisexual libertarian agnostics who use Unix, drink Hansen's, believe in some abortion limitations, and more control on assault weapons but not handguns. You know, non-conformists.
As for "faux-bians" (a derogatory term for straight girls who experiment with their sexuality), deal with it. Sexual experimentation is a healthy part of psychological development. If you are frustrated that a girl seems really interested one day, then not at all the next, welcome to dating girls! It sucks, but it's nothing that straight men haven't had to deal with.
It's only natural that women would be more likely to experiment sexually because male bonding is based on machismo... particularly in youth. We define ourselves by our fighting ability and sexual prowess. To be intimate with another man, you have to stop thinking of each other as competition and be emotionally vulnerable to him. That which is subordinate (read: a bottom) will be regarded (if only on a unconscious level) as weaker.
Girls have less of a compunction to be intimidated by homosexuality. There are no tops and bottoms in lesbianism (there can be, but then you can reverse the standard roles in heterosexuality as well). Also, women are generally able to emotionally bond with people much easier than men do. Theirs is a culture which promotes crying, hugging, sharing, and interdependency while male culture involves more emotional distance and competition. Women are also generally more aware of beauty and how to create it. Heterosexual, homosexual, or other, women tend to notice and emulate the beautification behavior of other woman. (The art of male heterosexual beauty is to look good without looking like you are trying to look good.)
All this is to say that those who come out of the closet have to overcome social pressure that stigmatizes them and brands them as other. In order to make this leap, they either have to be incredibly determined to express their natural impulses whatever they may be or (and this is the key) unable to happily live in a heterosexual lifestyle. Since I have met few people in life that fit this first category, I'm compelled to think that most fit into this latter category. Therefore, I imagine that there are many people with homosexual impulses happily living heterosexual lives because their sexuality is capable of encompassing both the male and the female, but they are not willing to claim homosexuality and not comfortable in the ambiguity of bisexuality.
Personally, I think sexuality encompasses a range of attractions which may have absolutely no relation to gender. Although I don't hear it talked about much any more, a lot of attention used to be placed on women's hair color including men who would limit their sexuality to a particular shade (usually blondes or redheads). Sexuality is often determined by behavior with some preferring innocence and others aggressiveness (personally, I can find both very attractive, although I have a preference for the latter). And we've all seen that sexuality can conform to race, notably Asian women, black men, and Native Americans of both genders. I had a blond-haired, blue eyed friend who was only attracted to Latino women. I've also known plenty of white people only attracted to other white people, but I don't regard them as racist.
If studies on sexuality are to be believed, there may be a biological reason for some forms of sexual preference. Using the earlier examples of Asian women and black men, Asian women tend to be smaller and have higher pitched voices which is unconsciously interpreted as being more feminine while black men tend to be taller with deeper voices indicating more masculinity and more testosterone. Generally speaking, we are attracted to the extremes because they indicate better genetic stock.
Although the biological reason for homosexuality is not known, it is clear that homosexuality exists in nature and is not a man-made invention, as some have claimed. My brother-in-law mentioned once that every large family he knew, about half of them were gay. My sister jokingly suggested that this might be a natural reaction to overpopulation. I don't know, although I do believe that psychological factors may contribute to homosexuality or at least to the open expression of this desire.
My theory is regarding sexuality simple: Sex feels good, having sex is a bonding experience, therefore sex has a social function which promotes harmony. The homosexuality of the Greeks is considered by historians to have created better soldiers because (1) they weren't sexual frustrated and (2) they had an intimate interest in each other's well-being.
I also believe power has a great deal to do with sexual interest and compatibility. No relationship that I have witnessed is entirely balanced. One person ultimately has more power over the other, although they express their power in different ways and this power dynamic may change due to circumstance. Part of being in a healthy and happy relationship is trusting the other person to have power over you. Traditionally, the men would have ultimate power in a relationship while women would exercise whatever power the men allowed them to have... such as religious moral authority, influence over children, and the network of gossipy housewives. Although women officially have the same rights as men, in practice, men are still overwhelmingly dominant, however whether this is a societal construct of dependency or a biological imperative is still up to debate. Homosexuals, lacking in defined roles, have had to create them for themselves leading to the oversimplification of the "bitch or butch" theory.
But as with all dualistic issues, there is small minority that throws the entire concept into disarray and defies all previous definitions. This is sometimes very loosely referred to as "the third gender," but it encompasses many distinct groups including hermaphrodites, transsexuals, and crossdressers. Male-to-female crossdressers create a particular problem for most straight men because their macho programming encourages an extreme embrace of heterosexual behavior and an absolute rejection of homosexual behavior. Therefore, if he sees a sexy crossdresser, he will usually engage in several sexual acts mentally before realizing that this individual is biologically male resulting in confusion between his penis (which actually sends chemical signals to the brain when stimulated which impair rational judgment and increase perceived attractiveness) and the logic center of his brain which is programmed to reject males as suitable sexual companions.
Personally, I am comfortable eroticizing a cute crossdresser. I don't see another penis as a threat to me, or in modern parlance, I could tap that. I doubt I could date a male-to-female crossdresser, however, as I would be uncomfortable with their lack of commitment to femininity... which I feel is an intrinsic part of my sexuality. A transsexual woman, however, might be different. And of course, I wouldn't be attracted to a crossdresser with masculine features (i.e. drag queen) any more than I would a woman with masculine features.
Therefore, while I admit that my sexuality crosses the line of heterosexual behavior, I do not believe that this makes me gay nor does it make me bisexual. Furthermore, bisexuality implies an equal interest in men and women, but I have trouble imagining that this is true for most. Surely there has to be a lot of people with a 60/40 interest one way or the other. If someone is 75% heterosexual, is that enough to be considered straight? If someone is 75% homosexual, is that gay or bi?
Then there is the pornography industry wherein both males and females who identify as straight and live out their lives with a partner of the opposite sex will engage in homosexual behavior for money. This is referred to in the industry as "gay for pay" because pornographers generally find gay porn, male or female, to be more rare and therefore more profitable. And if you were to ask them how they felt about performing homosexual acts, most would say it was fun. Period.
Part of the problem is that we wrap up three very different concepts in sexuality: love, physical attraction, and sexual compatibility. It is possible to have a deep and rewarding monogamous love with someone you are not physically attracted to or interested in having sex with. It is also possible to have intense physical attraction to someone without love or sexual compatibility. Really, any combination of the above is viable. Our modern conception of the romantic ideal is to have all three of these qualities in one person which, as we all know, is extremely difficult. Many people who are bisexual find this lifestyle not only satisfying, but logical, since you are more likely to find your perfect match if you have twice as many people to choose from.
Of course, then we enter issues of monogamy and whether or not this is a natural practice, but I will save that for another conversation.
The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labour...I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
Albert Einstein, "Why Socialism?" (essay originally published in the first issue of Monthly Review, May 1949)
Socialism accepts... the principles, which are the cornerstones of democracy, that authority to justify its title , must rest on consent; that power is tolerable only so far as it is accountable to the public; and that differences of character and capacity between human beings, however important on their own plane, are of minor importance when compared with the capital fact of their common humanity. Its object is to extend the application of those principles from the sphere of civil and political rights, where, at present, they are nominally recognized, to that of economic and social organization, where they are systematically and insolently defied.
Richard Henry Tawney, 1931, page 197
I am a Socialist not through reading a textbook that has caught my intellectual fancy, nor through unthinking tradition, but because I believe that, at its best, Socialism corresponds most closely to an existence that is both rational and moral. It stands for co-operation, not confrontation; for fellowship, not fear. It stands for equality, not because it wants people to be the same but because only through equality in our economic circumstances can our individuality develop properly.
Hansard, House of Commons, 6th Series, vol. 45, col. 316. Maiden speech by Tony Blair as MP for Sedgefield, 6 July 1983.
Whether or not people believe in the practice of socialism, I hope that one day we can agree that a society of co-operation is preferable to a society of conflict.
The issue is Socialism versus Capitalism. I am for Socialism because I am for humanity. We have been cursed with the reign of gold long enough. Money constitutes no proper basis of civilization. The time has come to regenerate society — we are on the eve of universal change.
Eugene V. Debs, Open letter to the American Railway Union, Chicago Railway Times (January 1, 1897).
Money should be a means to an end, not the basis for anything. Every society should have human values as their basis... hence the Bill of Rights.
"From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need."
Karl Marx
The essence of socialism... also the essence of not being a dick.
Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.
Adam Smith
Adam Smith is considered one of the greatest economic experts in history and I think this is a wonderfully succinct explanation of the role of government. The question then becomes, to what extent should the "haves" be protected from the "have-nots?"
Bureaucracy and social harmony are inversely proportional to each other.
Leon Trotsky
This is for those who think that communism creates more bureaucracy than capitalism.
It is just as difficult and dangerous to try to free a people that wants to remain servile as it is to enslave a people that wants to remain free.
Machiavelli
It is important to remember that people have to want to embrace social change. This begins with education and cannot be forced by a mandate by the state.
No government, of its own motion, will increase its own weakness, for that would mean to acquiesce in its own destruction ... governments, whatever their pretensions otherwise, try to preserve themselves by holding the individual down ... Government itself, indeed, may be reasonably defined as a conspiracy against him. Its one permanent aim, whatever its form, is to hobble him sufficiently to maintain itself.
H.L. Mencken
The problem to be solved is, not what form of government is perfect, but which of the forms is least imperfect.
James Madison
Recognizing that no form of government is infallible is the first step to creating a better government.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.
Unknown
The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant.
John Stuart Mill
This one is worth memorizing and considering in relation to every law.
Economic history is a long record of government policies that failed because they were designed with a bold disregard for the laws of economics.
Ludwig Von Mises
The number one law of economics I see consistently violated is the idea that wealth can be consolidated in the hands of the few. Money, like water, needs to spread in sufficient amounts to all members of society for that society to be economically healthy or the businesses undermine their consumer base, their work force, and long-term prosperity. The goal of modern economics is to make so much money that when the economy collapses, you can ride it out.
Congress is so strange. A man gets up to speak and says nothing. Nobody listens and then everybody disagrees.
Boris Marshalov
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
Edward R. Murrow
A reminder of the importance of vigilance and accountability.
You can only govern men by serving them.
Victor Cousin
Any role of leadership should be viewed as a form of servitude. The only reason for leadership is to best serve those that are led.
I know of no safe repository of the ultimate power of society but people. And if we think them not enlightened enough, the remedy is not to take the power from them, but to inform them by education.
I remember doing a project in my political science class one day. We were supposed to guess how the federal budget is divided by percentage. I remember that the military budget was much less than expected and welfare was much more. But that just didn't make sense to me.
If there were really that many billions of dollars invested in welfare, wouldn't there be fewer poor people? And if we spent that little on the military, how is it that our military budget increased so dramatically over the course of the Cold War and continued to rise through the Clinton and Bush administrations? If that were true, what the hell did we fight World War II with?
So I did a little research. The budget is actually very flexible depending on how you interpret it, which is why you never really see a simple breakdown of the budget. Basically, the cost of war and a lot of military spending goes into our national debt, which is not a part of our yearly budget. Since China is buying up our national debt, we are basically taking a military loan from China.
Heh, don't support Communism, Republicans? Maybe you should add "except when there is profit to be made."
As for welfare, I found out that by far the majority of welfare is corporate welfare. That's when the government takes tax payer money and invests it in a private business. This might sound familiar because its happening right now with these controversial corporate bailouts. It is also where the titular phrase comes from: privatize the profits, socialize the losses.
It's a phrase I found a few months ago that describes the Republican economic position perfectly. The idea goes "When a business is doing well, it is wrong to interfere with their business practices because the free market has decided that they should prosper, and to control the way they run their business in any way would be a violation of their freedom," but when the business is doing poorly, we have to bail the company out so that people don't lose their jobs and other businesses that are dependent upon them are not impacted.
Now, I've never been one to take a person at their word since what someone says rarely has much relation to what they think, much less what they do. Rather, I try to find the motive that matches the effects. The effect of Republican economic values is to maintain the wealth of the rich. That's it. Period. The whole thing about self-reliance and pulling themselves up by their bootstraps is the same bullshit that every ruler has said since the beginning of time to justify their position.
To this end, the Republican position has always been that businesses must have as much freedom as possible including zero regulation on executives (whose pay and perks have absolutely no relation to their performance), lax regulation on pollution (see Kyoto Protocol), eliminating socialized institutions (i.e. communications, energy, and education), and promoting the idea that private business can do anything better and cheaper. The problem is IT DOESN'T WORK!
Executives live by the creed "It is only business." Given a choice between polluting and not polluting, they will go with whatever produces the most profit. Only if there are potential lawsuits or negative publicity associated with the action will they choose to do a moral thing when it is easier and cheaper to do the wrong thing.
The energy companies were deregulated during the Reagan administration to the praise of the party, but after Ken Lay and those other fuckers at Enron withheld power to drive up prices during the energy crisis, the blame was laid on the Democrats in power at the time of the scandal including Bill Clinton and California Governor Grey Davis... which led to the special elections that put Arnold Schwarzenegger in office.
Republicans have also undermined the educational system by bad mouthing the teacher's union. (Does anyone actually think teachers have it easy? They are paid crap and have to try to get kids to learn.) They have tried to promote school vouchers to use tax money earmarked for public schools to be diverted to private and parochial schools. Again, tax money going to private businesses (and economically speaking, schools are businesses). They have starved public schools of funding, tried to replace sex ed with abstinence only (a program that has been shown to contribute to teenage pregnancy and the spread of STDs), tried to promote intelligent design as a legitimate alternative to evolution, and declared the American educational system a failure that should be turned over to private hands.
How could anyone in their right mind believe that a private enterprise, with absolutely no accountability to facts, is more capable of teaching children than a democratically accountable institution? And if schools are privately run, how will the poor become educated? Yes, I know. You will hand out vouchers, but can you guarantee that these vouchers will consistently be able to pay for a quality education? Of course you can't. Nor can you guarantee that they won't be taken away entirely.
As far as I'm concerned, any party which seeks to undermine public education has something to be gained from having a stupid population. This isn't just political bias. This is the party that elected a C-student whose daddy got him into Yale to the presidency because they wanted to have a beer with him. This is the party that admires a bad actor who had Alzheimer's and increased the national debt by 1000%; the party that put the world's fifth largest economy (Yes, California has a larger economy than most countries) in the hands of a roided-up action star with no political experience whatsoever; the party that invited a man they call Joe the Plumber (who is neither a Joe nor a plumber) to a political strategy meeting.
So if you aren't ashamed of being a Republican, I sure as shit won't be ashamed of being a socialist.
It isn't until the white middle class feel the pinch of a recession do we start talking about socializing things. As soon as the Republicans hear a whisper of this kind of talk (or imagine it might exist somewhere), they start channeling Joe McCarthy on the old Ouija board. Suddenly, they are intentionally dense about the distinction between communism and socialism (except for the genuine morons who don't even understand how our government works). They cite the Soviet Union and Cuba as examples of the evils of communism socialism ignoring the successful, peaceful socialist capitalist democracies such as Sweden.
The essential idea behind socialism is simple. In a capitalist system, wealth and power will inevitably be owned by a few people since having money enables you to make more money. And since money represents work and property, you are able to buy more property and make more people work for you. Socialism says that before we accumulate this wealth, we should make sure that people's basic needs are taken care of... just as democracy is designed to make sure that people's basic rights are taken care of.
The fear of socialism (aside from the big red herring that was the Cold War) is based in the Protestant work ethic or what I call "fear that someone else is working less than you and is happy about it." This is why the conservatives talk about welfare and the lazy poor. (I could never understand why, if the poor were taking all of our money, they weren't rich. Maybe they just watched Brewster's Millions and think that if they spend the money fast enough, they get more. Either that or they are stashing it with the fabled Hobo Gold.) And yet no attention is given to the wealthy elite who don't work nearly as hard as the rest of us do for far more. The only answer is that makes sense is that conservatives want to become the exploiters instead of the exploited.
Conservatives talk a lot about small town values, but to me, nothing expresses small town values as much as taking care of your neighbor. You didn't do a background check to see if they worked hard enough, you just figured that if they were struggling to survive and you could do something to make it better... you did. No questions asked.
Now, don't get me wrong. I ignore the homeless just as much as the next guy... which is why I'm such a strong believer in food and housing for the poor because I have absolutely no faith that the change in my pocket is going to stop the problem. I don't know that they aren't blowing that money on alcohol, cigarettes, or drugs (not that I'd blame them), so why not have a handful of change (and that's all it would take) removed from my taxes to provide for the basic needs of the poor? After all, what chance do they have of becoming anything other than poor if they are dirty, smelly, wearing bad clothes, have no place to sleep, no medication, and no car? And I'm one good breakdown or another recession away from joining them.
Add this to the fact that every job is a small part of a business. Every employee has both cost and work value associated with it. The goal of every business is to make the most profit for the least cost. Whenever possible, a business will hire as few employees as possible for the least amount of money as possible without impairing the workload.
Therefore, the business does not need to consider the needs of the employees who depend upon their employment for survival (unless you count the fact that employees are also consumers and vital to the continued distribution of wealth, but as a rule, people value short-term personal benefits over long-term societal benefits). In fact, they don't have to be concerned with anything aside from the prosperity of the business which is why you will find amoral business behavior is usually echoed with the phrase "It's just business" as if that justifies any action.
This is not to say that a business can't be moral, only that the motivation to be moral is so abstract and relative that most people don't even think of it. Even then, in a climate where greed is considered normal (or even good according to Ayn Rand and Gordon Gekko), the morality of business is in contributing relatively small amounts of money to the very types of problems which socialism seeks to eliminate.
Granted, the practical applications of socialism are much more complex than the conceptual ones, but the same potential for abuse is not only possible in capitalism, but rampant as numerous recent scandels have yet again demonstrated. The purpose of this blog is to suggest that the inherent concepts behind socialism are ones that the United States must adopt in order to live up to our promise as leaders of the free world and moral people. I do not wish to be a "me first" nation.
Someone once said that a nation should be judged by how it treats its weakest citizen. I couldn't agree more, and I don't think anyone can claim by this standard that we are a great nation.
Writer of Overcast ("the most successful novella no one has read"), A Relationship in Ten Minutes ("the funniest screenplay never produced"), as well as the creator of several short films. His current projects are comic book works "Most Modern," "Genius" and a superhero story set during World War II tentatively entitled "Astonishing Adventures."
