Who's Getting Rich Off Prohibition?

[FrostyMcFailure]

Who's Getting Rich Off Prohibition? Just Look Who Opposes CA's Prop. 5

Posted by Paul Armentano, NORML at 1:12 AM on November 1, 2008.

You can learn a lot about the merits of a proposal by taking a good, hard look at who's lobbying against it.


You can learn a lot about the merits of a proposal by taking a good, hard look at who's lobbying against it.

Take California's Proposition 5, the Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act, which would require the diversion of certain non-violent offenders to drug treatment and increase funding for state-sponsored rehabilitation programs. The measure seeks to expand upon the alternative sentencing programs initially enacted by Proposition 36, which is estimated to have saved taxpayers some $1.7 billion dollars and reduced the number of people incarcerated for simple drug possession by one-third. So who would oppose this proposal?

If you guessed: the folks who make their living arresting non-violent drug offenders, you'd be right! According to the 'No on 5' website, the California State Sheriff's Association, the California Narcotics Officers Association, the California Peace Officers Association, the Police Chiefs of California, and the California District Attorneys Association all oppose Prop. 5.

However, even more disturbing is who's bankrolling the 'No on 5'campaign. According to the Drug Policy Alliance, California's powerful prison guards union has spent close to $2 million dollars to lobby against the passage of Prop. 5.

After all, overcrowded prisons -- In 2007, California declared a 'state of emergency' in the prison system because of the lack of bed space -- and more prison construction (in lieu of building additional public high schools and state colleges) are a financial windfall for prison guards, even if they spell disaster for everyone else.

In addition to expanding drug treatment in California, Prop. 5 would also reduce minor marijuana possession penalties from a misdemeanor (punishable by a $100 criminal fine with a criminal record) to a non-criminal infraction (punishable by a $100 civil fine with no criminal record). Now who would be against that?

If you answered: the folks who make their living by possessing a monopoly on the sale of legal intoxicants, you'd be correct! According to the DPA, the California Beer and Beverage Distributors have donated $100,000 to the 'No on 5' campaign. Could it be that the alcohol lobby is fearful of the day when they will have to legally compete with a natural product that is remarkably safe, non-toxic, and won't leave you with a hangover? Do we even have to ask?

So now that you know who's against Prop. 5, why not examine who is lobbying for it. That list would include the California Nurses Association, California Society of Addiction Medicine, the California League of Women Voters, and the California Academy of Family Physicians.

In short, those who have dedicated their lives to helping others in need are backing Prop. 5, while those who have dedicated their careers to destroying people's lives (or who promote a product that does) vehemently oppose it. You do the math.

link


biggest drug dealer in this world is a branch of the USA gov.

 

[RegisteredStoneeer]

thx for posting this. I voted for it, i actually thought it had a chance of passing at the time. haha, It had no chance!

 

[anarquista420]

great little opinion article, thanks for that. I felt the same way and voted accordingly, this seemed like a total no brainer to me and as i stayed up watching the results coming in this was the one that really surprised me more than any other. like you said, prop 36 was considered to be a pretty big success. Im really bummed that there wasnt more talk about this when it was on the ballot, i think that the results dont really accuratly reflect the beliefs of the majority on this topic but rather just their lack of education about it. In the little proposition summary book that the state mailed out to voters this one really didnt look that good in the brief little intro synopsis that they gave; it really highlighted the lessening of sentancing for people selling speed which, with everyone that i talked to that i couldnt persuade to see things favorably to the yes side, was what really turned them off. I think that thats what caused this one to go down in flames more than anything pertaining to weed. unfortunate though

 

[FrostyMcFailure]

Agreed Anarquista & RS! Recently a CNBC pole had a 97% approval rating when poled viewers. Many other demands by the public are being made link Its up to the people & now is the window while we still have some say left; we need to force the hand & let the public's call be heard for medically regulated cannabis, loud & legal. Americans have the upmost powerful ability to nag, whine & complain until the opposing power submits to their sometimes outrageous demands, contact all forms of media & tell them you are disheartened your vote was ignored.

Right now mostly everyone is on the side of legalization its just protection of special interests.. Its cracking though thanks to a semi-free media. http://www.norml.com is working for the cause in a effective & noble manor daily.

The people who sell weed... Marijuana is worth more than gold...

Hmmm, no.
1 OZ of gold(not including premium) $970.00
1 OZ of high quality Marijuana reportedly runs around $400(California tends to price lower)
If your the DEA or the cop making the bust each oz is valued to the amount of doughnuts you ate that morning multiplied by 30 & then that number gets 3 extra Zero's & thats how they come up with the "street value" of each ounce.

 

[FrostyMcFailure]

agreed, in theory the price of trade metal may sky rocket in USA dollars within the next months but this may be a reflection of the USA dollar's devaluation due to over production with no real backing.

Federal reserve makes money out of thin air first minute is just sound so skip it if you want to learn how our money is created.