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%. Governor Bush explained how we would achieve this 50% reduction:
Furthermore, Governor Bush adopted the National Governors Association's policies on drugs, 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 then 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)
The following is an excerpt from Governor Crist's website:
| "Florida’s new 2009 Drug Control Strategy builds on the success of Florida’s earlier Drug Control Strategy, which was first launched in 1999." (source:http://www.flgov.com/drugcontrol/odc_strategies.html, excerpted on January 10, 2010) |
To be objective, 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. Perhaps it increased because Florida's population is constantly growing (with the exception of 2009, in which Florida's population decreased by 58,000 people).
It is tremendously important for me to point out that we must attempt to respect (though maybe not agree with) another person's right to do unto themselves. It is human nature to care about the well-being of others, and it is understandable to want to protect them and intervene when we feel they may be making bad decisions. However, it is simply out of any one's, or any government's, jurisdiction to do so, unless that person requests help. 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. If anything, the federal government should be concentrating more on national defense. After all, wouldn't a stronger national defense help to alleviate transcontinental drug trafficking?
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. This grew over time, and without much consideration, lawmakers decided to ignore their legal boundaries by enacting the Marijuana Tax Act in 1937. You may or may not be surprised that this was mostly due to financial gain. Please read more about why Marijuana was originally illegalized on the front page of my website (about four paragraphs in).
The beginning of these laws soon spread into what we now have as a complete prohibition against most mind-altering substances. 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 term, including, but not limited to, marijuana. It is important to recognize that the use of improper labels can only confuse and uninform the public. I am certainly in favor of recognition and awareness regarding the dangers and/or benefits of marijuana - however, it is not my responsibility, nor is it necessarily even my right. I am not a pharmacologist, I am not a doctor, and I am not a scientist. I am a politician.
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, as marijuana is at the top of the list in terms of drug trafficking.
I can tell you who would not benefit.
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 - particularly marijuana. The legalization and taxation of marijuana would deprive those gangs of a significant portion of their dirty money, and while it might not necessarily eliminate gangs completely, their decline would be immediately noticeable.
Many current lawmakers, and anyone who simply profits off of marijuana prohibition would most likely not want to consider legalization.
Many people have an issue that matters most to them. No matter what it is, it is my promise to you that legalizing industrial hemp and ending marijuana prohibition will work to effectively solve and/or alleviate these problems. We can attempt to solve each individual issue separately, as we have tried to do since day one, or we can choose to do something new, appropriate, and sensible.
Thank you for taking the time to read my stance on marijuana reform. If you would like to send feedback, or if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
