John Shaw
|
| "[My Drug Control Strategy] reflects our will and determination to reverse the years of lost human, social, and economic potential wrought by the illegal drug trade and to bring down appreciably the numbers of our citizens caught in the grip of drug abuse. My administration is determined to reduce drug use in Florida by 50%. This ambitious goal can only be achieved with the commitment of our efforts and resources on many fronts-in awareness, prevention, treatment, and law enforcement." - Jeb Bush, 43rd Governor of the State of Florida (source: http://www.ontheissues.org/Governor/Jeb_Bush_Drugs.htm) |
In 1999, Jeb Bush declared his stance on the drug war in the State of Florida. He proposed that, by the year 2005, drug usage would decrease by 50%. Bush declared how we would achieve this 50% reduction:
And finally, Bush adopted the National Governors Association's policies, which are as follows:
The legacy of Jeb Bush's promising drug-war strategies is nonexistent; drug usage continued to rise after his proposed legislation, fell slightly, and to this day steadily rises again.
Drug usage in Florida did not reduce by 50%.
Drug usage in Florida, by 2005, had increased by 5%.
(statistics sources:http://oas.samhsa.gov/nhsda/2kState/vol1/ch2.htm#2_1, http://oas.samhsa.gov/2k5State/AppB.htm#TabB.1)
It is unfair of me to deduce that drug usage increased because of Jeb Bush's proposed legislation and re-enforcement efforts. Instead, I would conclude that drug usage increased for no particular reason at all; in and of the simple fact that there is no ethical way to control a person's desire or decision to abuse a substance of any kind.
Along with that fact, it is tremendously important to attempt to respect (though maybe not agree with) another person's right to do whatever unto themselves they choose to do. It is human nature to care about the well-being of others, and it is understandable to want to protect them when we feel they may be making bad choices. However, it is simply out of any one's, or any government's, jurisdiction to intervene in such matters. That being said, though, I fully understand that our current population is uncomfortable with the idea of ending drug prohibition as a whole, which is why I have chosen to take a smaller step with marijuana reform.
Let me remind you, though, that the federal government's role in the regulation of drugs is unconstitutional. Drug policy should never have been a federal matter. The power should rest within the State.
Lawmakers in the early 1900s knew that a democratic federal government could not directly criminalize drugs. So, in 1914, the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act was passed. This was a law that proposed that the federal government control and regulate the distribution of opiates. Through this act, a small tax would be imposed upon "certified" distributors of narcotics, and an enormously large tax would be imposed upon those without a license. Those in favor of drug prohibition at this time knew this strategy would work, since those that continued to be in possession of narcotics without licenses did not have the money to pay the large tax. Arresting them for drug possession would be unconstitutional, so instead, they were arrested for tax evasion.
The beginning of these laws soon spread into what we now have as a complete prohibition against most narcotics. The term "narcotics" has been loosely defined throughout the years, and is often used pejoratively to exaggerate the effects of certain drugs. Stemming from the Greek word, narcosis, which means "numbness," the term was originally only associated with opiates due to opioids creating a numbing sensation throughout the body and brain.
In current U.S. legal context, the term "narcotic" explicitly refers to opium, opium derivatives, and semi- or fully-synthetic substitues, with the addition of cocaine and coca leaves, even though cocaine and coca leaves are not chemically narcotic.
This exempts quite a number of drugs from this definition, including, but not limited to, marijuana.
The counter below is an approximation of how much we are spending fighting the drug war in its entirety.
IN THIS YEAR ALONE:
(source: http://www.drugsense.org)
This is money that could be used for health care, education, social services; the list goes on.
A significant portion of this money spent is wasted primarily on marijuana prohibition.
I can tell you who would not benefit.
When you think of Al Capone, what comes to mind? Al Capone was a notoriously brutal Italian mobster that rose to fame in the late '20s and early '30s. He led a crime syndicate dedicated to the smuggling and bootlegging of liquor during alcohol prohibition. During that prohibition, Capone and his gangs, and other gangs alike, made their impact on society. It wasn't until the general public finally decided that personal freedom was more important than trying to control others that the those gangs and their impact decreased.
Drug prohibition has made itself known, though; most current gangs and gang members rely heavily upon the underground trafficking of illegal substances for income. Without a source of income, those gangs will not necessarily cease to exist, but their decline would be rapid. It's disheartening to think of what gang members would turn to in order to make their money, but perhaps the government could concentrate their efforts more on targetting real crime, rather than the distribution of substances for inevitable human consumption.
Taking agriculture into consideration, I am the only candidate who is currently willing to offer an entire new cash crop to farmers (well, maybe not new, since hemp used to be required to be grown by farmers in the 1800s.) Hemp is arguably higher in quality than cotton, and its fibers can be used for many every-day tasks. Biofuels can be created from hemp oil, and hemp is scientifically known to create more energy than corn, sugar, flax, or any other crop currently grown for ethanol or biodiesel. Legalizing industrial hemp would allow us to move beyond our dependency on petrochemicals and investigate this renewable fuel source.
Many people have an issue that matters most to them. No matter what it is, I can guarentee you that legalizing industrial hemp and ending marijuana prohibition will work to effectively solve the problem you want to see solved. We can attempt to solve each individual issue separately, as we have tried to do since 1776, or we can do something new, innovative, and sensible.
I've had many people come to me and say, "John, you can't run a one-issue campaign."
All I can do at that point is remind those people that this is not a one-issue campaign - this is a one-solution campaign.
Thank you for taking the time to read my stance on marijuana reform. If you would like to send feedback, please do not hesitate to contact me.
