The War on Drugs

So we are in year 70 of the war on drugs from the States stand point, and the results are not exactly positive. Millions of people are in jail on multi-year terms on non violent offences, and that figure seems only likely to rise in the following years. Across North America the trade in illicit drugs leads to countless thousands of deaths, and a greater impact upon millions who wish to see the violence associated with drugs eradicated. If you grew up in the later part of the 70's it is likely you support legalisation, of course you could have also been the son or daughter of a minister, or have an explicit dislike of drugs which may skew the perception of the viability of legalisation.

Simply put prohibition does not work, simply for the reason that things that are deemed inadmissible by the state will only encourage more people towards it due to a inverse relationship between freedom and the idea of central power. No doubt drugs are not exactly a positive aspect of society, but drug usage in itself does not lead to murders, but rather the trafficking and the competition involved in markets. Now this is commonsensical, but those who are seated in positions of power seem to think that the population can be beat into submission.

Now I do not desire to see a police state, because quite honestly I enjoy cannabis, maybe a little too much. However, my consumption of the "drug" is not putting me at risk of being a criminal, and certainly is not a factor in the economic woes that we find ourselves in. It seems odd to me that a product once grown by the founding fathers, and whose users can include nearly every modern president, whether they admit it or not, would still be so vilified by mainstream media and corporate interests. Of course the idea of what is to be gained from their standpoint is obvious, because you can't readily localize the production of a plant, but then again, you don't see too many people growing their own tobacco.

Luckily we are in a progressive place, where my generation is unlikely to be pacified by the measures in place, and that some point in the near future will reveal all of this hypocrisy in place regarding drugs. For one a government is not inclined or entitled to tell people what they may or may not ingest, regardless of what some older people think. The government is a function of the constituents, although in my last post I roundly defeated that point of view. However, when my generation gets to the "top", and we will, this whole business of control from the centre is going to go away. AT least in terms of consumption of seemingly "bad things".

So why not regulate the sale of marijuana, relying on federal and state/provincial laws to ensure that it gets into the hands of people who should. Obviously younger people will still get access to it, but the same is done with cigarettes and alcohol. It would instantly pacify all those who quake under the establishment, because lets be honest, one toke of a nice sativa and you aren't worried about the everyday problems that exist. Now whether or not this creates a stoner problem, or an issue of non-productivity is a wash, because people are still able to be productive high, and there would still be unwritten codes that imply good usage. Such as, you should not blaze in front of kids. Kids are impressionable, and if they see a bunch of people they know and look up to, then it's not the best message, but on the flip side, kids are very keen observers on effects, and are routinely disgusted by what they see, and I know plenty of kids whose parents smoked weed who have grown to hate it. Of course there are those who smoke with their parents, but there will always be a spectrum of reactions.

Now I still don't know why weed isn't legal, there is no sound answer to be had from any politician, and Canada has even taken to being more harsh on weed, and foreign influence on the Dutch has been noted as a possible reason behind the increasing likelihood that the lax way in which it is policed will be coming to an end. I just don't understand it, maybe one day I will, but I doubt that severely.

So here is my hypothetical situation in which weed is legal:

So the government has finally decided to approve weed as on par with alcohol, and has opened stores around the country. This is the public option, where the government would have exclusive rights to selling it in a brick and mortar store. The main thing that would have to be done to ensure success is that one, the weed is of good quality, and two that there is a variety of options to choose from. Say an average of twenty strains per store, with some ranging to the most potent, thus being the most expensive, and the shake or skunk weed, that would naturally be the cheapest. Now this escalating scale is logical because some people would not want to buy the expensive stuff on principle, whereas some people would only buy the expensive stuff, again on principle. So say that the cheapest per gram price is $4 and the highest is $16. When you go above a certain amount, and with certain product (eg. the weed over $10) you would start to receive discounts, as naturally happens with street dealers. We could institute daily limits, of say 5 grams. Now I don't care what anyone says, if you smoke more than 5 grams a day, you have a problem. I have done it before, and I can't say the benefit I gained from it was sublime. Of course those who use it for actual medicinal purposes could have an elevated limit, say 15 or 20 grams.

Now as to who grows the weed, well you can have government supplies, but most likely it would be a private thing, which ensures more tax revenue. So say a growing company has contracts with 200 stores in his region, and is contracted to supply a specific strain, at a specific price. Now no one is going to want to grow the shit that is only $4, because the profit margin is too small, so the producers of the cheaper weed would have a subsidy, whereas the ones who sell the top quality weed would have to go through a vetting service to ensure that they can supply the highest quality weed, and aren't merely trying to extract the most money possible. A simple way of doing this is to consider having an expo, much like the Cannabis Cup where the purpose is to decide which grower gets a certain contract for a certain quality of strain. You can also ensure that there are local favourites, and exclusive strains for a region. No one grower would be allowed to sell to every store, because that would allow a monopoly which cannot be allowed. Of course the growing for personal use would be regulated as well, and while there would be underground growers resistant to the idea of regulation, the large majority of growers would comply with provincial, state or federal law. Most people do not want to even have the option of getting in trouble.

A simple way would be applying for licences, which would cost anywhere from $50 for a few plants, to $250 for 20. I think 20 plants is a good upper limit, because you can easily have a 5/5/5/5 split, in terms of a growing schedule, or really a 5/5/5/4 with one being the mother that you take clones from. The licence would be renewed on a bi annual basis, which would ensure a steady amount going into infrastructure and education and whatever else might be needing funding, especially arts and cultural programs. We don't really want weed money going towards policing or the military. Obviously if there was a need, then sure the spending could be necessary, but hopefully not. The great thing about the licence program is that it lists your address, and in the contract you sign you acknowledge the necessity of inspection. Now at the time of inspection if you are found to be over your limit, but not over 20, you have the option of paying the gap, or having the number you shouldn't have confiscated. Now this is fair because one it gives the chance to "make it right" without fear of any tangible punishment, and it shows that the goal of this is not really regulation, but only money. If you are found to have over 20, well you get a ten dollar fine every plant you are over, and have them confiscated.

Now in terms of post tax pricing, this becomes a little tricky. For the $4 a gram product, it is simply a dollar added, because a percentage idea leads to messy numbers. So we can have the idea of escalating taxes, so the 4 - 9 bracket is a one dollar tax, the 10-13 is a 2 dollar tax, and the 14-16 is a 3 dollar tax. Of course this is a very rough idea as to the possibilities of regulation, but the ability to simplify the process should not be overlooked. So lets say in year one there are 500 stores country wide, and using Canada alone as an example we can roughly estimate that 20 % of the population would purchase weed from the stores. Now of those 20% say 9% buy the cheapest, and 7% buy the middle, and 4% buy the most expensive you can see just how much money would be possible. The whole of the equations necessary to accurately predict the amount of tax revenue is fairly complicated, because you may have a person that buys once a year and buys three grams of the medium, which would be $6 or you could have a person that buys the 5 gram limit every day of the expensive stuff which would be $5475 if the store was open every day. The point is, is that every sale has a guaranteed tax, and the more a person buys the more tax money you extract from them, while they "save" on the per gram price, but still have to pay that categories tax rate. So say someone gets 5 grams of 14 dollar weed, he will actually get it for 12, but will still be paying the 3 dollar tax charge on each gram. So lets say a rough estimate of people purchasing weed and the average purchaser would buy 3 grams a week of medium quality weed. That person is paying $6 a week in taxes, and 312 for the year. Now this is a low average I'm going to say, but multiply that by 20% of our population and you get: $2059200000, that's over 2 billion dollars. This is only for the purchasers, and you would get far more from the producers. Why isn't this happening?

Well one I don't think anyone has actually made a suitable idea, and two the whole idea is a little strange. Honestly though, if I could avoid going to a drug dealer, and instead walk into a store and get what I wanted, then that would be great. The issue lies in the other drugs, like coke and heroin. It is insanely difficult to justify the legalization of those drugs because of the obvious harm they do. However, if I stick with my mantra of society not deciding what an individual would do, we could also have stores set up to do that. Of course they would be fewer in number, out of necessity, and the "guilting" of people who buy and use those drugs would be severe. For one thing marijuana is relatively harmless, because well its a natural plant, whose only need is water soil and light. Whereas other drugs have extensive chemical processes that are incredibly harmful and dangerous. However, if we don't also legalize these drugs, the violent subculture will still exist, so it seems necessary to allow its sale through appropriate venues. I'm not going in depth on them however, because one I have no idea how much it costs, and two I don't really care. I've done coke once, and I don't want to do it again, because while I felt great, I knew something was horribly wrong. Or rather I felt like I was doing wrong.

So yeah, I have no doubt this will eventually happen, because it only makes sense. We need to get beyond the idea of a state run power dictating what we may do, within terms of consumption of drugs. It's irrational to believe that human beings do not have their best interests in mind, the only question is do they have other people's best interests in mind, and that is a resounding no. So why not open the market to weed, use the taxes received and put that towards drug education, and a variety of other things.

Now one item for thought; what do the people whose livelihood depended upon the sale of illicit drugs do in this situation? What skills do they have that can be applied to anything else, and how many would willingly do so. This is one sticking point that I have always considered, yet never really could develop a concrete idea as what to do with these people. They would surely at first try and continue their business, but would slowly be leached away, as their customers come to realize that the official place to buy has just as good of a product, and will often time have better prices. Maybe with some of the money we gain, we could attempt to rehabilitate this people, through a no harm no foul policy, where they can come into a centre, admit that their primary income came from selling drugs, and would be set on a path that would give them skills to get jobs that are in high demand. It is a very complicated thing when you step back and look at all the variables, such as what the king pin in Mexico will do as a result, and whether or not people can be convinced to change their lives to be more productive for the community. Some would say their providing of drugs is a service, but it really isn't, because their interest is in selling you as much as possible, whereas a government controlled measure has strict limitations.


*Note: I realize my 20% seems high, but then again so am I(Not really, I'd be asleep right now in that case) The point still stands though even if only 1% smoked weed.

The Ideals of Politics

In the western world where media saturation is at an all time high politics can be seen as nothing more than two cocks fighting. The issues are always polarized, and any sense of cooperation or corroboration is strictly taboo. The reality is is that there is so much collusion between parties that this media line is quite absurd. Corporate interests trump all others, because the largest tax revenues come from corporations, first from their own taxes, and their employees taxes. Lets also not forget the incredible amount of lobbying (read: wining and dining) that goes on, in addition to campaign donations, and the individual ceases to be the "point".

Now I'm not one to cry about this, because well it is the reality of the situation. The people with access to capital, generally get what they want, because everyone loves capital, including our most upstanding members of government. Now whether in a congress, senate, parliament, or any other form of democratic institution the outcomes of legislation are not encouraged by "small people", but rather lobby groups that tend to be comprised of people directly benefiting from the passing of said legislation. None of this is news, I hope, because the whole process of elections is controlled by party caucus, which is in turn controlled by corporations. If you aren't willing to "play ball" so to speak, you get no playing time. The only time this does not happen is when large parties are considered ineffective, and independents use that momentum to install themselves. In stable democracies, this does not happen.

So what point is there in voting? This is a question lots of people ask, and can find no satisfactory answer when confronted with the above facts. If the candidates are all selected from a pool of "eligibles" what variation can be gained? Now you can always vote for the Green party, or the marijuana party if you are feeling like "wasting a vote", because the mainstream media ensures that only those from dominant parties get any face time, which also includes ads. I mean look at the Conservatives attack on Ignatieff, whose sole issue was the fact he wasn't "Canadian enough". Now this is small ball tactics, and I would have thought Ignatieff smart enough to avoid it, but when he goes on to actually defend himself from the accusations, well you see weakness, and you see susceptibility to outside influences. Now most people recognize this, because if there is one trait humans share with other animals, is that we can smell fear. Another issue is his reluctance to call a vote of no confidence, when failing to do so would only reinforce his own "non confidence" in his party to win. Again people see this.

Now when you recollect this with the above paragraphs you wonder whether it is all orchestrated. There are doubts, and ultimately I don't see what goes on behind those closed doors, but using my eyes, and ears, I cannot help to think that my assumptions are correct. It is all conducted to the tune of an orchestra, the only question is who is the maestro? It certainly isn't Harper, because we should all know the public puppets are only there because of their ability to lie with a smile, and impeccable credentials. Well maybe we all don't know.

Anyways, this wasn't supposed to be about the song and dance of politics, but rather the intentions of it. Now the governance of people is always tricky, and I can understand some reasoning behind the "truthful lie", meaning there are some things people in general would be best not knowing. The logic behind this can't really be touched, because supposing the world's leaders knew of an impending doom the idea of letting people know, is tantamount to giving them a free pass to engage in chaos. No, it is better to keep people in the dark, after all happiness is a fickle business, and knowing too much is not good for the health.

So we have established the reasoning behind the "greater good", and have shown it to be nothing more than an illusion. However, there remains the issue of benefits of policy, and whether or not each party has a distinct platform that significantly differs from their opponents. For the most part the answer is a negative, they share most of the same ideals, because well they have to. The main sticking points in Canada seem to centre on marijuana use, and gay marriage. Thankfully we hurdled one of those, and we have the second in our sights. However, the need to show that power is centred in Ottawa is leading to some dangerous things, but none of that really matters.

Now to get to the really important things. The idea of a government was in my mind relatively simple. It is a group of individuals, who come together to serve the interests of their constituents. This is idyllic, because well some constituents matter more than others, as if frightfully obvious when you consider the tax breaks for corporations (played off as an incentive to invest), and other societal handbrakes for the disadvantaged. Now this might be nit picking, and I am fond of it, but the idea of equal opportunity is something that should be upheld by all people who claim to represent other people. This doesn't mean equal ability, just equal opportunity, so if you fail, at least you know you had a fair chance at it, and same goes if you succeed.

Now this seems to be an elitist proposition, because ability is always keeping with privilege, or so it seems to me. So what to do? How do you make the government equal to all? Do you have a handicapper general? Do you have transparency? Well all of this would make sense, but its not going to happen, solely because the people that go into politics are already successful, and innately believe in one person's right/ability to make for themselves what is not given to them. We chastise those who come from family wealth, while applauding those who built themselves from nothing. This is pretty dangerous in my opinion, for one thing it implies that all success is rooted in monetary advances, and two that it is only a rough cycle, because the self made man spawns the entitled group.

But what to do? What is there to do to change the idea of success, the idea of happiness? Well I'm certainly not going to be making assumptions about people's desires, but I will mention my own. I desire to live in a world where all people have access to water, shelter, and safety.(Clothing optional). I desire to live in a world where potential is not wasted, and that everyone has access to education suitable for them. I desire to have a society that doesn't make assumptions of value of any one person. I desire to have a world that is resistant to prejudice. I desire a world where everyone lives in harmony. I desire a world that cannot be. I desire a world where that last sentence is not true. I desire a home for all.

Life is strange for most. It is not different for me, and there's not much to say regarding the normalcy of my life. I have taken to isolation, and really it's only for the sake of not having to open up, or allow people inside my head. When people do, they either A become enamoured, or B become disenchanted. I guess I would have the effect of polar extremes, but I don't wish to. I wish I could appeal to all people, but that's an unhealthy outlook on life, so I don't exactly know when I'll get beyond the school yard mentality.

I see the world through grey coloured glasses, and I think grey is a wonderful colour, because it's not white and its not black, its somewhere in the middle. However, when you are constantly exposing yourself to the grey side of things you get neither happiness or sadness, just a sort of monotonous deluge of crap. I find myself saying "Fuck it", more and more often. I've come to the conclusion that life is nothing but a game, and that playing the game is far better than being a spectator, no matter how interested of a spectator you are. It's like real world sports, where 99% are spectators, and only a minimal amount are actually engaged in the playing of the game. There are even "players" who merely stand/sit on the sidelines, never getting to ply their trade.

It's analogous to life, because most people have no decision in how the world is run, and the most they can say is that they control their own actions, whether or not they control what compels them to their actions is another story.