D Day for Drug Users in California

Walking into a convenience store and buying a joint filled with home-grown marijuana, the fresh scent of rich bud in the air…it sounds like just another day in Amsterdam. However, with at least three legislation measures planned for the 2010 ballot and a steady support seeming to build, it could soon be just another day in California. Mom and pop greenhouses will be telling their slightly-stoned customers to “shop American” as they compete with their local Mexican or Columbian drug cartel.

Yes sir, the “War on Drugs” may be coming to a swift end in the Golden State. Grass smokers everywhere will storm the sunny beaches of California as they celebrate counter culture D-day. I studied social policy in Amsterdam for four months, where I was able to understand the logic and benefits of the city’s drug policies. The legalization of smoking marijuana allows the city to collect taxes from the sale of the harmless drug. Not only do the taxes bring in revenue, but the massive amounts of tourism accounts for the dollars acquired by the state.

This is exactly what California needs! Right now, the West Coast state is in dire need of extra revenue. We are struggling to keep unemployment down while the state is in a large amount of debt. Marijuana is already California’s biggest cash crop bringing in about $14 billion a year. The state needs to capitalize on this capitol; if we legalize marijuana it will bring in an estimated $1.3 billion in revenue. This taxation of marijuana provides a form of regulation of the drug trade that is not currently available while the drug is illegal.

Not only will the state benefit from the influx of tax revenue, but many local businesses and restaurants benefit from the influx of tourism brought to California because we would be the first to legalize marijuana. Counter culture lovers and pot heads alike would flock to California to smoke the potent weed that was grown on the side of the I-5 freeway. Imagine the possibilities. People would need to stay at hotels as their red eyes would need rest, and restaurants to eat at as they would all have the munchies.

Marijuana growing businesses would thrive and decrease the unemployment rate. Farms would be able to educate and hire workers to harvest the crop, provide business for crop transportation and increase the flow of customers to distant shops. Other small businesses, like providing bus tours of the local weed farms, would be able to create jobs while increasing awareness of the benefits of marijuana. Years from now, there would be museums as well as other forms of entertainment to promote tourism and increase revenue for California. Drug tourism works for Amsterdam and it can work for California, too!

Since 2005, when the Supreme Court ruled that prosecution of state-wide federal crackdown was permitted in states that had legalized medical marijuana, there have been over 200 of these raids. However, in a new development, last Monday Obama’s people sent a memorandum to the 14 states who currently allow the use of medical marijuana stating that it would no longer go after their dispensaries. The current administration believes that there is a better use of the already strained federal forces. This new policy of respecting states rights only promotes the vigor to get the drug legalized in 2010. Not only would it be awesome to legalize weed in California, but its necessary for our economy.

The forgotten war comes into the spotlight...

...and it ain't pretty. The United States invaded Afghanistan at the beginning of October 2001 in response to the attacks of 9/11. I was in the 8th grade when 9/11 happened and I remember how America changed so much. Everyone was so angry and hurt by the attacks that invading a country was something we had to do! Osama bin Laden was the prime suspect and Afghanistan’s Taliban was harboring him. It was a war worthy of going to, defending our country and having a clear plan of attack. We were to destroy Al Qaeda training camps and search for bin Laden. U.S. troops succeeded in toppling the Taliban regime.

Now, eight years later, we are still in Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden still hasn’t been caught and they want to send more troops in to reinforce stability. I met a guy this weekend in ROTC at USC and he told me he was probably going to be sent to Afghanistan and I thought to myself “They’re still sending troops there?” Now, headlining many of the major newspapers this weekend is this question of whether or not Obama will succumb to expert request for more troops. It is going to be a huge issue to debate about in the upcoming weeks.

Lt. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top commander of American forces in Afghanistan, has chosen to go public with his recommendation of 40,000 more troops. This weekend, insurgents attacked a pair of eastern military bases, killing 8 U.S. soldiers, the deadliest attack in over a year in the region. Gen. James L. Jones, national security advisor, said this weekend on CNN that he sees no evidence of instability in Afghanistan, seemingly attempting to indirectly oppose McChrystal’s stance. While in an interview with CNN, he said he doesn’t “foresee a return of the Taliban” and “al Qaeda presence is very diminished.” So do we need more troops or can we figure out a plan with the troops we already have?

I think it would be a shame to send more troops into the region. Afghanistan needs stabilization, a stronger state police force, economic growth and a developed infrastructure. Let’s put American dollars into achieving these goals rather than sending in more military. At least one thing is for certain: all of the sudden, Afghanistan in making the headlines again, and reminding American citizens that there was once a war where invasion was warranted and intentions were honorable.

Obama's Bad Week

Being the President of the United States of America is undoubtedly very hard work. No one can deny that. However, in my opinion, Obama had an especially rough week. The past seven days have proved to be exponentially difficult for the President. Last Saturday, September 12th was the 9/12 march on Washington. The 9/12 people, also known as the Tea Party, are a group of ultra-conservative right-wingers who oppose many of the President’s policies. Their website and correspondence has become an outlet for people who agree with the organization to network and organize. They consider themselves a type of grassroots organization. While the turnout was a lot less than the org expected, it was still a sufficient amount to cause the White House a bit of a head ache. But that’s not even the worst part. The worst part of the whole day for Obama, the most personal attack, were the many creative signs that people came with. Not only were they creative, but racist and by my standards, completely ludicrous. They decided to march against Obama's mission, as covered in this LA Times article. While the signs were a moving demonstration of 1st Amendment rights, what the hell?

Of course, there is also the Joe "You Lie" Wilson story. During Obama's speech to both houses of Congress about health care reform, a boisterous senator from South Carolina decided to speak up in a disastrous manner. Wilson screamed "you lie!" at the top of his lungs as Obama claimed that his health care reform would not provide illegal immigrants with free health care. As this LA Times article confirms, the House voted on Tuesday for an official admonition of the South Carolina Senator. While I am thrilled that the out-of-line senator was officially reprimanded for his idiotic behaviors, the intense media coverage and uncalled-for voting in Congress has turned Joe into a sort-of right winged hero. Was it absolutely necessary to pass an official document saying that what he did was wrong. Personally, I thought that was a waste of time and a bit ridiculous. I recently watched a video of English Parliament, in which there are about 100 Joe Wilson's screaming at the Prime Minister and opposition leader. All I have to say is that if our Congress was like that, C-Span would have higher ratings.

And finally, Obama is attempting a "full Ginsberg" in attempt to convince the American public that his plan for USA's health care reform will work. Obama will appear on five Sunday morning talk shows. This article from Yahoo News says that: "Starting at 3:30 p.m. Friday, the hosts began rotating in and out of the room with Obama in this order: CBS, NBC, ABC, Univision, CNN." That is quite a load for one man to pull off. Named after Monica Lewinsky's lawyer William Ginsberg, who first attempted the media blitz in his client's defense. However, he was fired later for incompetence. That is what makes this such a risky move--the risk of over exposure, which many argue Obama has achieved already. With health care reform seeming to hit a glass ceiling, a mob of quasi-racist Glenn Beck worshippers at his back and Republican senators screaming at him, Obama truly has had a rough week.

I agree with Gibbs on this one...

The New York Times reports that Obama's speech at Wakefield High School "became a lightning rod for conservative parents who accused the White House of trying to indoctrinate their children with a political message." I respond to these parents by respectfully saying you are wrong. The White House attempts to defend its leaders message.

“We’ve reached a little bit of the silly season when the president of the United States can’t tell kids to study hard and stay in school,” said Robert Gibbs the White House press secretary, in a Times article. Asked about those who call the speech political indoctrination, he said, “Boy, if staying in school is a political message, somebody should tell the N.B.A.”

I must agree with Gibbs on this one. It seems as though our lovely right wing constituents took Obama's school speech as an opportunity to find yet another reason to complain about the president. I think it is an unwarranted concern of the American parent. It should be considered an honor to hear the President of the United States speak at your high school. Obama not only published his speech early so that it could meet the approval of school administrators, but the speech had no political agenda attached to it. I believe these disgruntled parents saw this speech as an opportunity to protest Obama's policies in other sectors of politics. Leave the high school speech alone; it was a great speech encouraging people to stay in school and work hard. Maybe these parents should have taken Obama's advice; they should have stayed in school.