Legal Marijuana

Now that Amendment 64 has passed, Coloradans should give some thought to what this means for our state. Some will envision an enclave of personal freedom where responsible drug users enjoy their marijauna use while causing no harm to others. The pessimists will be concerned about trying to live and work with people who are constantly stoned. The reality is somewhere in the middle.

First of all, one unintended consequence of Amendment 64 will be to end the charade of medical marijuana. We all know that medical marijuana is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on and by the people of this state. Anyone who knows anyone with 'a card' knows that their medical marijauna registration is solely to allow their recreational use of this drug. So, we will see the number of medical marijuana dispenseries and the number of medical marijuana card holders plummet once recreational marijauna is available. Those of us who did not support medical marijuana will at least be gratified that the falsehoods of medical marijuana will finally be exposed.

Another effect of Amendment 64 will be changes to the distribution and sale of marijuana, but perhaps not in the ways that many people have predicted. It is assumed that the current marijuana distribution network - a criminal enterprise - will suddenly become a series of tax-paying, law abiding companies. Not likely. These people are criminals. They enjoy making money outside the legal framework that legitimate businesses must operate under. They certainly will not be transformed overnight into law-abiding business owners and upstanding members of the community. Newsflash: Drug dealers are not altruistic advocates for marijuana use and personal freedom. They are criminals operating a criminal enterprise in order to make money. If compliance with the law will cut into their profits, they will continue to produce and sell marijuana on the black market.

We will see an increase in marijauna use among teenagers. Supporters of medical marijuana somehow believe that legal recreational use by those over 21 will actually reduce use by teens. Either they are stoned or they think the rest of us are. According to a recent article in the East High School student newspaper, since medical marijuana was established, marijuana use incidents at East have increased dramatically. I have personally witnessed a person get on a bus on East Colfax, profer a baggie clearly marked with a label from a dispensary, and ask if anyone 'needs to buy some medicine'. I doubt he was checking ids. Such incidents will only increase with Amendment 64.

We will, of course, see a reduction in marijuana convictions under state law. Currently, the demographics of marijuana convictions show that there are disproportionately more young African American and Hispanic men in jail for marijuana possession. While Amendment 64 will reduce the numbers of people in prison, it will not address the underlying causes of disproportionate drug use among minorities. Do legalization advocates really believe that the thousands of people in jail for marijuana possession or distribution are otherwise fine, upstanding citizens?   Legalization of marijauna will not address the underlying causes of drug use and criminal activity in minority and white populations. The economic and opportunity obstacles that many face will remain and will continue to feed the desparation and despair that contribute to drug use and other criminal activities.

The mental health toll of drug abuse will also increase with legalized marijuana. No one can deny that the use of strong psycho-active substances contriubutes to mental health issues. Will the white and well-off aging hippies who voted for Amendment 64 share the burden of increased addiction counseling among the poor and minority populations that are typically hit hardest by drug abuse?

Colorado's reputation as a state with a healthy and well educated population will be eclipsed by the perception that we are all a bunch of stoners. The late night TV jokes have already started. Businesses considering to expand or relocate will not consider Colorado. Business growth and the jobs that go along with it will move to other states where employers can count on having a workforce that is fully functional. Furthermore, any reduction in respiratory health issues that we have recently seen due to reduction in tobacco use will be reversed because of increased marijuana use - it is smoke, after all.

Thanks to the college kids, old hippies, and stoners who voted in favor of Amendment 64. I hope you enjoy your exercise of personal freedom. There will be numerous and long-lasting negative consequences for rest of us and for the state of Colorado.

Engaging Iran - Wag the Dog

In the January 6, 2013 New York Times, Seyed Hossein Mousavian and Mohammad Ali Shabani write about the Persian concepts of expediency, self-interest, and saving face, and how those concepts affect Iran's interactions with America.  Mousavian and Shabani conclude that we must come up with creative ways to attain our goals of containing Iran's nuclear program while, at the same time, allowing Iran to maintain its national pride.  If only it were that simple.  While it would benefit the American side to understand the Iranian perspective, there are outside forces with significant influence on the American's motives.

Let's first look at the proliferation of nuclear weapons, at four nations in particular - India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea.  American actively supported the first three as they sought to attain the technology and expertise to build their nuclear arsenals.  Recall that, in 2006, when George W. Bush authorized non-military nuclear assistance to India, it was abundantly clear to even casual observers that India would take advantage of that opportunity to increase its nuclear military capabilities.  And even in the case of North Korea, one of the most belligerent nations on earth, we have tolerated their possession of nuclear weapons even as we continue to attempt to negotiate with them.

Contrast American policy with regard to these nations to that with Iran.  Our last two presidents have stated unequivocally that we will not allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, with the stated reason that such weapons might be used against America or fall in to the hands of terrorists.  Poppycock!  With regard to the chances of Iran attacking the US - or any other nation - it must be noted that, in the 34 years since the Iranian revolution, Iran has not attacked another country.  The same cannot be said for India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea - as noted, nations which we have allowed or actively encouraged to obtain nuclear weapons.  Furthermore, the leaders of Iran must certainly understand that any agression directly against America would be suicide for their nation.  We have toppled governments for far lesser infractions.  With regard to Iranian nuclear weapons being used by terrorists, we should recall that the Sunni nations of the Persian Gulf produce most terrorists - fifteen of the nineteen September 11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia - and that Pakistan's nuclear weapons are certainly at a greater risk of being used by terrorists, such as the Taliban, Lashkar-e-Taiba, and numerous other terrorist groups that the Pakistani ISI is chummy with.  Certainly the terrorist risk - nuclear or otherwise - is far great from Gulf nations and Pakistan than it is from Iran.

So why the double standards?  This is what Mousavian and Shabani are missing:  America does not oppose Iran's nuclear weapons program out of of concern for American security, but out of concern for the security of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Qatar. 

In the case of Israel, the Israelis feel justifiably threatened by the rhetoric coming from Iran's leaders.  So threatened, in fact, that they would gladly allow their lap-dogs in Washington to take whatever measures might be necessary to send Iran's nuclear program back to the stone age.  So threatened that Benjamin Netanyahu would attempt to influence the U.S. presidential election so that his old friend Mitt Romney would win and promptly order the bombers into the air.  With the influence of the Israel lobby in Washington, there should be no doubt that the some American decision makers would gladly manufacture a reason to bomb Iran if the Israelis wanted it to happen.

The Sunni Arab nations of the Persian Gulf feel similarly insecure about Iran, though for different reasons.  The Saudi royal family, in particular, consider Shiites to be second class citizens, and they do not like the uppity lower caste Shia of Iran attempting to become a regional influence.  Similar to Israel, the Saudis enjoy close relations with many prominent American politicians - who can forget Bandar Bush from Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 911"?  We need oil, the Saudis need to pacify Iran, and the Pentagon stands ready to do the dirty work - this is how things work in the world.

So what's the upshot of all of this?  Here at the Common Sense Pundit, we think America should mind its own business.  If and when we have any indication that Iran might threaten the United States with nuclear weapons, we certainly must act to contain such a threat.  However, as noted, this is not the case right now and it is unlikely that Iran would be so stupid as to do so in the future.  So, America should stand down, and - while we must keep a close eye on the developing situation - we let Israel and the Saudis take care of themselves.

This approach has many advantages.  In the first place, we do not need to expend American diplomatic efforts to take care of the perceived problems of other nations.  We certainly have enough to keep us busy looking after our own affairs.  Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, even the perception that America is taking sides in the Israel-Saudi-Iran dispute will lead the angry young men of the Arab/Muslim world to hate us even more than they do already.  And when enough angry young men are manipulated into turning their anger into actions, we know where that leads.  So, America, keep out of it.  And, if we cannot prevent the next terrorist attack, at least we can hope that it is not directed at us.