There is great debate as to whether substance abuse is a causal factor in the social problems of poverty, lack of education, and violence, or whether it is the other way around. That is to say, the social problems of poverty, lack of family guidance and education, conditioned use of violence, and nonexistent opportunity are a causal factor in what we label substance abuse. Many contend these problems aggravate each other, but we should keep our condemnation in perspective according to the numbers, as we do with alcohol, and understand that even many of the economically underprivileged consume recreational substances without violating the rights of other persons, or disrespecting others property.
There are far more citizens consuming recreational substances respectably, and behaving responsibly, than there are citizens that cause problems. My arguement is that behaving respectably is a product of our family environment, as we are raised from youth, and then afterwards how society cultivates our awareness of social norms. As with many things, education and self-moderation are key factors in one's determiniation of what behavior can be accepted as responsible cultural recreational substance use.
Prohibition, on the other hand, contributes to and directly causes far more problems in society than were sought to be corrected by its enactment. Alcohol prohibition was short-lived because of the problems of black market induced territorial gang violence (some noteable cases included religious groups), corruption of law enforcement personnel (greed and power), and the fact that millions of citizens continued to consume various beverages and concoctions (some made without the benefit of responsible quality control) as they had done for generations.
Modern day prohibition, the so-called War on [few] Drugs, has created a hysterical fear of the unknown. Often, reactions to this fear are directed at a "drug user" profile, hence one of a collective body of unidentified (likely generation-eX-citizen) pre-condemned individuals. I am speaking of American citizens that have offended no one, person or property. This kind of blind unwarranted persecution of ordinary citizens by their own government, increasingly inciting the community to participate, reeks of the same intolerance and hatred espoused by men that were members of a European military government earlier in this century. Some of these men are still facing criminal charges for their participation in massive atrocities against non-offending citizens.
It is obvious, to anyone that takes the time to look, that this philosophy of intolerance is lobbied, sponsored and fueled by those with vested interests, the legal DRUG MANUFACTURERS (who maximize profits with patents on synthetic products no matter how bizarre their origin) and law enforcement organizations, tied together through various government agencies.
Law enforcement organizations benefit in many ways:
Yes, that's what I said, Drugism. Like racism and anti-semitism its foundation is intolerance and hatred inspired by fear of things of which we have little knowledge or understanding. Drugism is widespread in America today, a virtual firestorm spreading its influence to every region of the globe.
I offer this definition:
Drugism- a belief that one's own selection of pharmacuetical or prepared substances are inherently superior and non-harmful, while at the same time, the selections of others are not. Also, the acceptance of this belief to the point of feeling morally compelled to engage in activities that proliferate and
enforce the selection of these substances.
My whole letter on Drugism, sent to some newspapers and politicians in Arizona.
The DEA has even been involved in the subversion of the democratic process of legislative law reform at state and local levels, engaging in high pressure tactics which induce fear in our elected lawmakers, influencing them to vote down legislation that would otherwise have passed. Those DEA personnel are paid with our tax dollars to enforce laws that we enact through our representatives in legislative process. They are way out of bounds when they in fact influence the legislative process for the benefit of themselves and other government and connected entities.
Arizona and California citizens have recently voted to pass referendums authorizing doctor recommended medical use of Cannabis, aware of its beneficial properties, in treatment of a number of ailments and diseases. In California, similar prior efforts through legislation that had been passed by the House and Senate were twice vetoed by the Governor.
Even though Cannabis was part of the United States Pharmacopoeia for many years, more than a century ago, and until 1937, federal and local law enforcement officials refuse to acknowledge it as a medicine (drug). In the same breath, they have told us it is not a drug, and then tell us it is illegal because it is a drug. The reason for classifying certain drugs as illlegal was their claim that they had no known medical use and that there was a potential for abuse.
Certainly in this day and age we can cast our votes in a democratic society to repeal the criminalization and persecution of sick people in their desire to seek health, realizing that the benefit far outweighs the risk involved. The benefit vs. risk evaluation is something considered with the release of every pharmaceutical drug to the market, and again when the doctor prescribes it. Even so, many legal drugs can and do produce serious and dangerous side effects and harm (and sometimes even death).
One of the federal Drug Enforcement Administration's own Chief Administrative Law Judges, Francis Young, concluded that, "Cannabis is one of the safest therapeutic substances known to man," after reviewing hundreds of DEA/NIDA documents and testimonies in 1989 during hearings to consider its reclassification. However, the DEA Director quashed Judge Young's recommendation and ordered that Cannabis remain listed as a Schedule One narcotic; as having no known medical use.
The Pharmaceutical drug companies have lobbied very heavily against reclassification, as they would lose billions of dollars anually in the U.S. alone if Cannabis were legal. Just take a look at who the major financial sponsors of the non-government anti-drug groups, such as the Partnership for a Drug Free America and D.A.R.E., and you will see that their sponsors are legal DRUG MANUFACTURERS. These drug companies' profits are derived from newly patented synthetic drugs; ONLY recently developed drugs. The momentum in the industry has convinced the medical community that any NEW drugs are superior to the earlier developed drugs. Imagine the blow to the drug companies' balance sheets if everyone wised up to the fact that there are many natural substances, even home grown, that have valuable medicinal and health promoting properties.
Take Aspirin for instance. Hippocrates prescribed willow tree bark in 400 B.C. The active ingredient is Acetylsalicylic Acid, and has been used by billions of people around the world, even you. Most of the newer, touted as superior, analgesic/anti-inflammatory drugs prices don't come down untill the patents expire, and then they are available over the counter, without presription.
Can you see where the legal drug companies have an finanacial interest in the so-called "War on Drugs"? It protects them from competition (for dollars) by anybody that advocates culturally recognized medicinal plants, fungi, and other substances.
The U.S. drug cartels, pharmaceutical companies, are aided in their quest by branches of our federal government, the FDA and the DEA. Their druggist influence is being spread around the globe with policies of financial aid to sovereign nations, this aid being denied or restricted depending on the cooperation with Drug Enforcement Agendas. With so much in the news lately concerning the ethics of various contributions to government officials and parties from foreign sources, it begs the question of the morality of our government's intrusive influence on the polices and boundaries of sovereign nations.
It looks to me like all those involved in pointing a finger and shouting Narcocracy are involved in Pharmocracy. What has happened to our Democracy?
How many citizens lives will be affected by the injustices of prohibition before our leaders acknowledge that those among them who smoked cannabis in college did not become the scourge that they now vow to protect us from. How many of them? How many of the rest of us? As Hans Christian Anderson once wrote in a parody of government, "the Emperor wears no clothes!" Our government has spent billions and billions of our tax dollars weaving a canvas of misinformation and hysterical persecution that has begun to unravel with votes cast by citizens from two of our nation's progressive states, Arizona and California.
ARIZONA'S PROPOSITION 200 which Voters passed with a margin of 2:1.
(for more info see AZ4NORML link below)
CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSTION 215, passed by a margin of nearly one million voters. (See California NORML's web page through the National NORML link below)
"Taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society"
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
 |
 |
These TAX STAMPS were issued to a LICENSED CANNABIS DEALER
to be applied to packages of Cannabis showing that the tax has been paid.
The State of Arizona Department of Revenue is authorized to issue Controlled Substance and Cannabis Dealer's licenses, and collect, as well as allocate, tax revenue from the sales of such tax stamps, through ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES TITLE 42, passed by the Arizona Legislature in 1983, and signed into law by Governor Bruce Babbit.
This same document, TITLE 42, also authorizes collection and allocation of monies from taxes levied upon tobacco and alcohol products.
Legal precedence has been set that Tobacco and Alcohol products to which Tax Stamps have been applied ARE NOT CONTRABAND, especially within the jurisdiction of the state government, and its department of revenue, that have issued such stamps to licensed producers and dealers.
Footnote:
Unfortunately, a large percentage of Arizona's cannabis consuming citizens are skeptical of being involved with the licensing and taxation requirements because of their fear of violent repercussion by the administrators of various local police organizations who, in spite of the legislation, continually refuse to acknowledge that sales are indeed licensed and taxed. Most citizens prefer to purchase their cannabis on the black market, as they have done for generations. Some have even expressed their belief that the law will somehow be turned against those that are licensed, using the license as some sort of evidence against them. The fear and skepticism have been reinforced by witness of violent police actions against NON-OFFENSIVE citizens, encouraged by the ideology of the so-called "War on Drugs," a misdirected campaign of hate and prejudice seeking to remedy, yet exacerbating, perceived social and moral decay.
Back to Reed's Home Page