I found this Thursday 22 January 2015 piece from The Daily Bell on a pending federal court case on whether or not marijuana should be continued to be listed as a Schedule 1 drug, a position that is supposed to be used for only the most dangerous drugs.
The Daily Bell is amazing, for it digs deeper than many, if not all, of the alternative news Websites for what is really at stake here. The legacy MSM can’t even find the shovel.
Here’s the first part, from the Bell, quoted for your reading pleasure:
“But there is a larger issue here, which is how fedgov arrived at such a conclusion and sustained it for nearly a century.
“This is the proverbial elephant in the room. In fact, we tend to believe that the unraveling of the current drug prohibition – unlike alcohol prohibition – will give rise to the questions that should have been asked in the 1930s (after the end of alcohol prohibition) but were not.”
For the record, I’ve only smoked the stuff once, and that was 30+ years ago in high school. I fell asleep. Since then, if I feel the need to alter my mind a bit, a couple of good English ales are quite sufficient. But if others want to F themselves up with a stinky plant, “more power to ya.”
The talk so far in Washington State and Colorado and the actions since state decriminalization is legalization of the stuff on a state level. That’s Step 1.
Step 2 is what this court case is trying to do: find the path to legalization on a Federal level.
Step 3 is of course, repeal of the Federal laws that should have never been passed in the first place.
But Step 4 is the most critical of them all, and that’s what the Bell article begins to open, for really the first time in almost any publication, the practical, political aspects of these kinds of harmful public policy decisions and what should be done about them.
We’ve never had that conversation before. We’ve papered over it, but we’ve almost never made our politicians and regulators face real responsibility for their misactions.
We Americans have used the ballot box to punish those we trusted with the responsibility of power. That’s fine, but that’s just the loss of a $140K federal job and unkind words in the legacy MSM and a bruised public reputation.
If you’re one of the psychopaths on the Hill, that salary loss hurts, but it’s not the end of the world. It’s certainly nothing like what a young woman selling weed in a Oklahoma suburb would have happen to them for breaking this ridiculous law–that’d most likely be 3-5 years in a minimum security Federal prison. That’s a penalty that leaves a mark. And in this case, that serious mark is applied to the wrong person.
Because the collective decisions of policymakers affect such a much wider swath of citizen taxpayers than the individual decision to engage in some black market capitalism. One is a minor transgression, the other is truly destructive to the nation and our Constitution.
Step 4 needs to be a public examination of why Federal policies were allowed to be so wrong, for so long. And that step must conclude with a public recognition that those who are responsible for this must pay for their decision(s).
BIG. For this is not just about a stinky plant, this is about abuse of political power on so many levels for decades.
Names need to be brought out. From the politicians who are still alive who kept this travesty going for so long, to the regulators who kept this nonsense in the Federal Register, to the media who did not bother to rock the boat when there was so much evidence out there that this was catastrophic policymaking.
And when these names are named, the U.S. Department of Justice needs to use the full panoply of powers granted to arrest these people on a wide variety of charges, including misuse of power, mass violations of civil rights, unlawful detention, and a whole host of criminal charges.
This isn’t mean to be vindictive. This is a teachable moment, as our socialist overlords tell us.
This will teach those whom we entrust with power that if they make the wrong decision for the wrong reasons, they won’t just lose their job and pathetic public reputation.
They’ll do time.
Will that hinder some decision making by policy makers? Absolutely.
And that’s a feature, not a bug.
Will it eliminate bad policymaking? Of course not. But it will reduce it by 90%. And that’s real progress in determining the right rules for American society.
It will be interesting to see how many Steps are taken as this change moves forward in the courts and the legislatures.
My money is that the bastards will only get to Step 3, because they know Step 4 is just one step ahead and it’s looming larger every day the Internet exists.