Tag: marijuana

Posted on

The Grass Grows Under My Feet

They said the psychiatrist told them he didn’t believe their son had a substance abuse problem. But by then, the boy had other problems. After the disciplinary hearing, “he just broke down and said his life was over. He would never be able to get into college; he would never be able to get a job,” Linda Bays said.   Roanoke Times, 2015-03-15

On March 14th, the Roanoke Times posted a story–a true story– about a school district which suspended an 11-year-old boy for possession of marijuana.

The “marijuana” was not marijuana, but here’s what happened– and it’s a profound story that authorities far and wide should study carefully, because it’s the story of the most wicked and stupid actions of authorities everywhere.

A snitch told the principal at Bedford Middle School that a boy– known as R. M. B.– had some marijuana in his possession that he was showing around, on the bus, or maybe it was in the bathroom, or, wait a minute, I think it was in the classroom.

The boy was apprehended and searched and a leaf of something was found. The expert pedagogue consulted google and concluded that it was a marijuana leaf and summoned the police and suspended the boy from the school for 364 days.

First detail of note: it was a leaf, not a bud. It does not appear to have occurred to the authorities that this detail mattered in the least.

Second detail of note: the boy was 11 and both of his parents were, or had been, teachers in the public schools in this area. No matter: zero tolerance. Authority must be respected.

The leaf was sent away to be tested.  Take note: the authorities did not wait to see if it really was marijuana– they acted before any real evidence existed.   They acted based on disinformation.  Do I need to say something like “lord help us if authorities can punish us for something someone said that might or might not be true before doing the due diligence to determine if it is or is not true”?

Months went by. The suspension had a profound effect on the boy’s self-esteem, feeling of community, trust in authority figures, and happiness. The leaf was tested: it was not marijuana. But authorities must be respected and respected authorities do not make mistakes that have unpleasant, destructive consequences on innocent people. Test again! Still not marijuana. Test again!!

I’ll bet that the authorities were “disappointed”.

Think about that.

Do you think they were elated to discover that the young lad was not a hardened criminal drug addict?  I have no doubt that they were disappointed. At this stage, the story is about authority that refuses to admit that it makes consequential mistakes. No: that refuses to admit that it is stupid.

That is what they know, and we know, they must admit to, if they are to honor the truth: we were stupid. We were not worthy of your trust and respect. We are more concerned with our personal status and comfort and authority than we are with the welfare of a young, innocent if slightly mischievous 11-year-old boy. Screw the boy: authority must be respected.

The parents rightly– well, too late, for my taste, but eventually– launched a lawsuit. Here we see how far the authorities will go: they announced that it wouldn’t have mattered if it was real marijuana or not because the school system’s policy states that possession of anything that is an “imitation” of a prohibited substance can have the same consequences as possession of the real thing.

Are there any criminal laws that state that a person can be convicted for doing something that looks illegal to an idiot regardless of whether or not they actually did something illegal? Maybe there is– but it still seems stupid. It is stupid.  I refuse to sound moderate and temperate and diplomatic about this:  the school board, and their lawyer Jim Guynn, are stupid: they didn’t care if he really had marijuana; they wanted to punish him for having something that  morons in the administration of a school might mistake for marijuana.

What they are obviously, manifestly angry about is having been made fools of.  And only a genuine fool would be this spiteful about that.

The truly moronic thing about it, though, is that anyone ever thought it was a good idea to have a one-year suspension for possession of real marijuana. This is a policy that only a psychotic person could believe in. But we are, unfortunately, a psychotic society. We approve. We elected the fools that appointed the fools who implemented this idiotic policy.

What happened is that the authorities become vested in their own actions and judgments. They have to continue the charade because the moment they drop it, it they confess that they are inadequate human beings without common sense or decency.

The drug war is the most obvious misguided policy of the United States government, but listen and learn: there are a host of other candidates. Homeland Security, the War in Iraq, the War in Viet Nam, oil subsidies, sports stadium subsidies, non-negotiable pharmaceutical rates, and countless others that are clung to because the authorities have become invested in them and can’t bear to admit they were stupid to implement them.

What could President Johnson do in 1968? Admit that he made a mistake that cost thousands of American lives or continue the war until something could be tarted up to look like victory “with honor” and then walk away and hope it all doesn’t collapse until the helicopters have been dumped into the ocean?

What could Bush do once he — perhaps– realized what an egregious error the war on Iraq was?

What can Obama do now that he has doubled down in Afghanistan?

Posted on

Medical Marijuana

It is no great shock that the Canadian government should suddenly decide that human beings in this province must not be allowed to grow a certain plant. The only surprise is that, given the real purpose behind this kind of legislation, the government didn’t also make it illegal to grow your own food. If you grow your own food, the wealthy corporations who can call government ministers and arrange meetings with them and donate to their re-election campaigns, will have competition for their products. But even Harper could not go that far. But he could make it illegal for you to grow your own marijuana, even if a doctor prescribes it for your own medical use.

It’s a bizarre world. By what moral or ethical authority does the government take it upon itself to stop you from harmlessly enjoying a few tokes in your own basement while watching the latest episode of Homeland? Who invented his ridiculous idea?

As soon as it became clear that the courts were ready to allow medical marijuana for private use, the toadies to the pharmaceutical industry– the government– had to step in to preserve Corporate Profits. Their worst nightmare is that the public should get to use nature’s bounty without having to pay for the services of a pimp.

Posted on

The Psychotic Judicial Torturer Theologian of the United States

Richard Posner is a judge on the United States Court of Appeal, 7th Circuit. Take note: this man is a standing judge in the United States. If you were arrested and tortured by the police, this man might end up hearing your appeal.

Richard Posner had just published a book called “Not a Suicide Pact: the Constitution in a Time of National Emergency”.

Okay, let’s start with the “National Emergency”. Personally, I think that two terrorist attacks in 10 years doesn’t quite constitute a “National Emergency”. Posner thinks this emergency is so dire that the government could and probably should suspend most civil rights, spy on everybody, torture prisoners, and, if Congress would kindly agree to it, allow the President to do whatever he thinks will attend to the emergency.

Now a reasonable person might ask what the definition of “National Emergency” is. This is a very important thing– since Posner seems willing to embrace the most repulsive human behaviour imaginable– torture– because we have one. A “national emergency”.

One would think it would mean that the survival of the nation was at stake. Too melodramatic for you? All right. One would think there would be sustained and continuous attacks on American citizens. One might think there were bombs going off in our streets, roving squads of masked, armed men, kidnapping and torturing people. One might think the economy was imploding under the pressure, that regional governments struggled to function, that hospitals were over-crowded, that bomb-shelters were filled to capacity, that people in the streets of Chicago, Seattle, Pittsburgh, felt fearful of their personal safety because you never knew when another terror attack would take place, that air traffic was snarled because of all the bombs, that politicians were being assassinated….

Obviously, the nation actually appears to be prosperous, peaceful, and orderly.

If our current state fits Posner’s definition of “National Emergency”, it is easy to see that any government could at any time, by his standards, declare a “National Emergency” and invoke all those delicious powers to detain, spy, torture, and arrest journalists.

I’m quoting from the review in the New York Times: “coercive interrogation up to and including torture might survive constitutional challenge as long as the fruits of such interrogation were not used in a criminal prosecution.”

It’s an odd rationale. If the “fruits” (one calls to mind Billie Holiday’s extraordinary “Strange Fruit”, written by Abel Meeropol, who adopted the children of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, and that’s another long, long story…) … where was I? Oh yes. If the “fruits” of an interrogation using torture should not be used in a criminal prosecution (of the person being tortured), as Judge Posner recommends– think about this carefully if you think you are or should be a responsible citizen– then he is actually advocating the use of torture against people who will never be adjudicated to be anything but innocent by any official, legally constituted authority. Geez, it’s hard to keep this simple. Again, since these persons would never be legally convicted of any crime, according this actual U.S. judge, what we have is a government that uses force, that imprisons and tortures, whenever it feels the need to.

This government is unlimited and unaccountable.

The government, then, is committing crimes.

Posner is saying that he, as a judge, would excuse this government.

I am saying that this government cannot have any legal or moral legitimacy. It may be overthrown. It should be overthrown and we should start over again with something called a “democracy” and a “constitution”.

What if a group of concerned citizens agreed with Mr. Posner, but decided that it was necessary, for the survival of civil liberties, and constitutional government, and human decency, to seize this judge, hold him in a cell, and waterboard him day and night until he agrees to rescind his expressed opinion? Why shouldn’t they? Mr. Posner has already provided the rationale. The safety of our freedoms and liberties is at stake. There is no need for due process, or even for a constitution, in this circumstance.

Mr. Bush is seeking legislation to cover his stinking tail on the issue. He knows, better than anyone, that, until and unless this legislation is passed, he has no legal cover. He only has friends like Richard Posner.

The only thing that makes feel better when I go to sleep at night is the unfounded confidence that some day in the future–maybe even the near future– President Bush will be remembered sneeringly as the President who tortured.

Will a Democratic candidate for president in two years stand boldly in front of the electorate and declare loudly, clearly, and proudly, that his administration will never use torture?

And when is some politician going to summon the guts to demand the impeachment of Richard Posner: how can you leave someone on the bench who cannot imagine why it might be wrong to torture people?

Even if most Americans don’t mind torturing people– as long as they don’t have to conduct the messy, violent, repulsive acts themselves, personally, with a cattle prod or whip– it’s quite another thing to stand proudly in front of your neighbors and say, I voted for the guy who tortures.

He’s Not Totally Crazy

Posner’s Position on Marijuana:  Well, let me put it this way. I don’t really see the case for picking out marijuana among a huge variety of mind-altering substances ranging from, you know, caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, but above all, you know the prescription drugs. You know, for all of the illegal drugs, there’s some kind of prescription alternative. You know, it could be Valium, it could be Paxil. So given that, you know, mind-altering substances are a part of our culture, it seems to me the people who want to continue the prohibition of the sale of marijuana should explain. Well, what is special about marijuana that, you know, it deserves what’s now heavy criminal penalties for sale of substantial quantities. Maybe–maybe there is a case. I’m not an expert on it, but I haven’t heard the argument.  (From a University of Chicago website)

Posted on

Dutch Treat

Everybody knows that the Dutch are crazy. While we North Americans spend billions of dollars every year fighting marijuana use, the Dutch have virtually legalized it. What a crazy country! Amsterdam, with its numerous legal hash joints, is known as the “dope capital of Europe”. Here, we call that place “Washington DC”.

But, well, life is strange. According to a recent study by the Amsterdam University and Dutch Central Bureau of Statistics, only about 16% of the Dutch population, over the age of 12, have ever tried cannabis. The equivalent percentage for North America is 33%.

Zowie! That is really weird. Can anybody explain this?

Maybe it can be explained with the old “forbidden fruit” theory. Because it is illegal in the U.S. and Canada, our teenagers want to try it, to prove that they’re not sissies who listen to their mommies and daddies. In Holland, it’s the mommies and daddies (the politicians) that are saying, “Here, try it”, and the kids are saying, “What? Are you nuts?”

Maybe it’s like when your kid threatens to run away from home. One day, you hand her a suitcase and say, “Okay.” That usually stops them dead in their tracks. Maybe it’s the same with marijuana. Now that Dutch society says, “go ahead, use it if you like.” And the kids are going, “Why? Maybe I don’t want to.”

Well, I think we owe it to common sense to give it a try here. If it reduces drug use to legalize drugs, I’m all for it.

But why hasn’t it worked for guns?