Of Course Drug Laws Have Racist Component

Rand Paul, speaking in Iowa, points out the fact that our nation's drug laws disproportionately target African-Americans and Hispanics.  From Media-ite:

Paul spoke out against the racial biases present in U.S. drug laws. “I think drugs are a scourge. I think we’ve maybe gone too far and that marijuana is a problem,” Paul said. “And yet I also think it’s a problem to lock people up for 10 and 15 and 20 years for youthful mistakes.”

The history of the origin of laws against marijuana show their explicitly racist origins.

The truth is that our perceptions of marijuana—and in fact all of our drug laws—are based on early 20th century racism and “science” circa the Jim Crow era. In the early decades of the 20th century, the drug was linked to Mexican immigrants and black jazzmen, who were seen as potentially dangerous. 

Harry Anslinger, the first commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (an early predecessor of the DEA), was one of the driving forces behind pot prohibition. He pushed it for explicitly racist reasons, saying, “Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men,” and:  

"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the U.S., and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others."

Good for Rand Paul for taking this on.  Now if Republicans would get serious about supporting charter schools and vouchers as well, they might make inroads with black and Hispanics.

Medical Marijuana and Filner

I should have known.  First, let me say that I am in favor of all forms of legalizing marijuana, so of course, I am not opposed to medical marijuana.  I followed the link on this tweet from Craig Gustafson to read about Bob Filner's medical marijuana proposal:

Story on @bobfilnermayor 's med pot ordinance now with docs -- executive summary and actual ordinance language. bit.ly/ZagbXb
— Craig Gustafson (@gustafsoncraig) March 19, 2013

The linked U-T story opens with this paragraph:

Mayor Bob Filner is proposing an ordinance to allow medical marijuana dispensaries to operate in commercial and industrial areas for a $5,000 annual permit fee and a 2 percent city tax on sales.

It seems that Mayor Filner can't help himself but grab for more tax dollars even when doing something I agree with (see previous post on hotel tax).  However, given the fact that there is serious contention with the federal government over the issue, taxing the product provides an incentive for the city to help protect the dispensaries from federal action.  I don't know to what extent the city could help the dispensaries if the feds took action, but the accumulation of resistance to federal enforcement of marijuana laws, like is happening in Colorado and Washington, will eventually roll back this modern form of prohibition.

Decriminalization of Marijuana

By now, you are probably aware that Governor Schwarzenegger signed a bill to decriminalize marijuana possession of less than an ounce. While I support the measure, I have to ask, why in the heck is this a legislative priority a vastly overdue budget and a state struggling with a ballooning pension problem? Some other fabulousness from your state legislature you may have missed, while they were busy not passing a budget. (Much like the Federal congress, and both institutions have heavy Democrat majorities, hmmm.) Some examples from the WSJ:

• A bill that would ban filming cows in New Zealand.
• A long debate over whether to save "serpentine" as the state rock.
• Motorcycle Awareness Month.
• Cuss free week. (I shit you not).
• Finally, and without any sense of irony, April was Financial Aid and Literacy Month.

Rumor is out there that a budget deal has been reached, but it is being kept secret. Easy to predict that it will stink, use gimmicks to close the budget gap and kick long term problems down the road where they will only get worse. I got five bucks on this, any takers?