Arnold Schwarzenegger Calls for Marijuana Legalization Debate
Considering that he vetoed a hemp bill in 2006, this is about as good a statement as I would expect from him:
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger says California should study other nations' experiences in legalizing and taxing marijuana, although he is not supporting the idea.He says it's time to debate proposals such as a bill introduced in the state Legislature earlier this year that would treat marijuana like alcohol.
State Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, a San Francisco Democrat, says taxing marijuana at $50 per ounce would bring more than $1 billion a year to the state.
Schwarzenegger said during a Tuesday news conference that "it's time for debate" on the idea. [NBC]
I like what's happening with this "let's debate it" line we keep hearing lately. It's a way for public officials to show interest in the subject without alienating anyone who feels strongly about the issue. Perhaps it has come to the Governator's attention that 56% of Californians support legalizing marijuana.
Considering the famous Schwarzenegger-smoking-pot video that's all over the web, some will accuse him of hypocrisy should his position ultimately fall anywhere short of outright support for legalization. Still, it's notable in and of itself that we're beginning to see politicians shifting away from knee-jerk opposition to reform, in favor of the more open-minded position of endorsing a debate on the subject.
digg
reddit
Drug warrior transference
Comment posted by aahpat on Fri, 05/08/2009 - 10:14amIt is your prohibition that literally subsidizes the promotion and creation of chaos and instability. And the government knows it.
The Congressional Research Service says so in their report: llicit Drugs and the Terrorist Threat: Causal Links and Implications for Domestic Drug Control Policy" April 5, 2004
"creating chaos and instability"
The international traffic in illicit drugs contributes to terrorist risk through at least five mechanisms: supplying cash, creating chaos and instability, supporting corruption, providing “cover” and sustaining common infrastructures for illicit activity, and competing for law enforcement and intelligence attention. Of these, cash and chaos are likely to be the two most important.
Insanely, the report then concludes:
American drug policy is not, and should not be, driven entirely, or even primarily, by the need to reduce the contribution of drug abuse to our vulnerability to terrorist action. There are too many other goals to be served by the drug abuse control effort.
I have asked politicians and they refuse to answer, exactly what is more important about the drug war than reducing "our vulnerability to terrorist action"?