Cops Admit Drug War Failure. Advocate Legalization with Tight Regulations.

No matter what statistic it is that's examined, be it the kidnapping ranking of Phoenix, shootings in El Paso, marijuana arrests in Brownsville or the number of new gang members in San Diego, the reality of today's America is that drug violence has become a pervasive and pressing threat to most citizens. "We have got to fix this problem, or else it's going to get a lot worse for us here at home," explained Terry Nelson. But what does this mean for American citizens? In short: the drug cartels have won, but it doesn't have to be this way.

Nelson, a life-long Republican, said that he believes many conservative lawmakers are beginning to come around to their view of drug policy as counter-productive to the overall goals of the drug war. "They're just waiting for when it becomes politically viable to take action," he said. "I hope that happens. It needs to."

Green Man: As usual, politicians know what that legalization would reduce crime, violence and adolescent drug use but they are too cowardly to lead because they care more about their jobs than Americans. We can look to Portugal for guidance. They decriminalized all drugs 11 years ago in response a failed drug war--not unlike the failed drug war in America. Decriminalization means it's still technically illegal but instead of going to prison, which won't solve the drug addiction, users are sent to treatment facilities.

Upon decriminalization, the crime dried up, violence was reduced and adolescent use has decreased. HIV/AIDS infections related to dirty syringe use dropped by a staggering 75% and the number of drug users held steady. American cities are slowly but surely increasing drug treatment programs instead of prison time where drugs are just as accessible as on the streets. The drug courts are showing promising signs of hope. "Between 4 and 29 percent of drug court participants in the United States will get caught using drugs again, compared with 48 percent of those who go through traditional courts" (link).

The other problem with sending drug addicts to prison is that they mingle with violent offenders and other criminals where they learn to be real criminals. Plus, it increases the prison population, which costs the tax payer more than if they were treated in the drug programs since the recidivism rates from drugs courts are so much lower than with straight imprisonment. I do think, however, that marijuana should be treated as a separate case from the hard drugs like crack, meth and heroin. Marijuana should legalized, taxed and regulated since it isn't physically addictive, doesn't cause overdoses and causes less societal problems than alcohol.

The bottom line is that the war on drugs isn't just failing, it's doing so exponentially and now the violence that we've seen in Mexico is coming here to America. We'll never stop those who want to use drugs but we can take away the criminal element by decriminalization of the hard drugs and legalization of marijuana. We can also ameliorate the health issues surrounding drug use. Plus, we can drastically reduce adolescent rates because they would have to provide identification to buy marijuana. Whereas, right now, they can go to a shady drug dealer who won't ask for identification. A growing number of Americans on the left and right understand the path ahead, but unfortunately America doesn't have "leaders" courageous enough to lead!!!

Stand up and be counted--email your leaders and tell them you want a more progressive drug policy because this current "war on drugs" has been a failure. If the politicians won't lead, then we the people must take charge.

~The Green Man has Spoken~

Pat Robertson Advocates Reforming Marijuana Laws. Plus, Other Pot News.

"We're locking up people that have taken a couple puffs of marijuana and next thing you know they've got 10 years with mandatory sentences," Robertson continued. "These judges just say, they throw up their hands and say nothing we can do with these mandatory sentences. We've got to take a look at what we're considering crimes and that's one of 'em.

"I'm ... I'm not exactly for the use of drugs, don't get me wrong, but I just believe that criminalizing marijuana, criminalizing the possession of a few ounces of pot, that kinda thing it's just, it's costing us a fortune and it's ruining young people. Young people go into prisons, they go in as youths and come out as hardened criminals. That's not a good thing."

Green Man: Long time Christian Conservative Robertson may not be advocating legalization but he certainly understands that current marijuana laws are ridiculous. Clearly marijuana isn't a drug in the sense of the hard ones: cocaine, crack, heroin and meth. So, to have any penalty for use other than something akin to a fine or traffic ticket is counter-productive and a huge waste of tax-payer dollars. Conservatives support marijuana reform more than might be realized by the vast public because they aren't as open and vocal as Liberals and Libertarians on the matter.

I recently read an article in Time magazine about all the conservatives who support legalization or decriminalization. They are concerned about the costs of prosecuting the war on marijuana; both in tax dollars and in police resources. They believe that we should free up police forces to be going after real crimes like child molestation and being on guard for terrorist activities. In addition, it appeals to their demand for freedom from necessary government intrusion their lives.

In other marijuana related news, potential jurors in Montana refused to convict a citizen arrested for possession of a small amount of pot. So, much so that the judge stated it would be impossible to seat a jury in the case!! That just goes to show how little the public thinks of marijuana laws; and just how far education and understanding have developed on marijuana use.

~The Green Man has Spoken~

States Lessening Limits on Marijuana.

By William M. Welchand Donna Leinwand, USA TODAY

LOS ANGELES — James Gray once saw himself as a drug warrior, a former federal prosecutor and county judge who sent people to prison for dealing pot and other drug offenses. Gradually, though, he became convinced that the ban on marijuana was making it more accessible to young people, not less. "I ask kids all the time, and they'll tell you it is easier to get marijuana than a six-pack of beer because that is controlled by the government," he said, noting that drug dealers don't ask for IDs or honor minimum age requirements.

Green Man: I've been raising the ID point for awhile now so it's exciting to see judges and prosecutors starting to get it. I can certainly attest to this argument as I definitely had a harder time getting alcohol than pot when I was a teen. So, the whole, "What about the kids?!!" argument is exposed for what it is--propaganda to scare people and thus get them to fight against personal freedoms.

Gray is part of a growing national movement to rethink pot laws. From California, where lawmakers may outright legalize marijuana, to New Jersey, which implemented a medical use law Jan. 19, states are taking unprecedented steps to loosen marijuana restrictions. Advocates of legalizing marijuana say generational, political and cultural shifts have taken the USA to a unique moment in its history of drug prohibition that could topple 40 years of tough restrictions on both medicinal and recreational marijuana use. A Gallup Poll last October found 44% favor making marijuana legal, an eight-point jump since the question was asked in 2005. An ABC News-Washington Post poll in January found 81% favor making marijuana legal for medical use.

Green Man: Let's face it, the older generations (by and large) have little to no frame of reference about marijuana since they lived in the golden age of marijuana propaganda with films like "Reefer Madness." That film falsely portrayed marijuana as a drug that made you go insane, rape women and kill people. It is almost laughable now to view this film, especially while smoking pot!! How ironic, instead, that marijuana is known to make you docile, less confrontational and happy. Then throw in a heavy dose of America in the 1950s with its strict and rigid religious fervor and you get an entire generation out of touch with the reality of this wonder drug. Yet they vote based on that misinformation. And it's even more frustrating when you consider that most likely a large majority have never even TRIED the drug!! How can you give a fair assessment of the effects of marijuana if you've never tried it? That's like taking sexual advice from a celibate monk!!

Attorney General Eric Holder last fall announced that raiding medical marijuana facilities would be the lowest priority for U.S. law enforcement agents — a major shift that is spurring many states to re-examine their policies. The American Medical Association recommended in November that Congress reclassify marijuana as a drug with possible medicinal benefit. At least 14 states this year — some deeply conservative and Republican-leaning, such as Kansas — will consider legalizing pot for medical purposes or lessening the penalties for possessing small amounts for personal use. Fourteen other states and the District of Columbia already have liberalized their marijuana laws.

Green Man: It's about time that the politicians and law enforcement catch up to the people who are much more open-minded now when it comes to marijuana. The people always seem to be a step ahead of law makers. It's simply absurd and frustrating that you can go out and buy a gun that can kill people but you can't smoke a plant in the privacy of your own home that hasn't been shown to trigger violence. Nor has it ever directly killed anyone. It's impossible to over-dose on pot. I'm not against gun rights at all--I'm just asking for some consistency.

I think part of the reason that even conservative states are getting on board with lessening penalties for use is that many conservatives resent government interference in their personal lives. Even if they don't use marijuana--a lot of conservatives resent the federal government interfering in affairs on the state level. Especially if voters approved these liberal changes to marijuana. It makes it look like the government doesn't respect democracy and acts more like a police state.

"We have the safest medications in the world and it's not a coincidence. We have an enviable process by which we approve medications, and that's through the (Food and Drug Administration)," he says. "It's a bad idea to approve medication by popular vote."

Green Man: Safest medications? These people are delusional!! Have they not heard the laundry list of negative side effects listed for these legal drugs being advertised on t.v.? I take 7 drugs for a medical condition and they cause all kinds of bad side effects--some very serious. One of the medications I take made me gain a lot of weight and is known to cause diabetes. Another helps with stabilizing my moods but cause an increase in blood pressure. What drug has the least side effects that I take? Marijuana. Yep. Not as many people are buying the lie anymore that every drug approved by the FDA is "safe" and less harmful than natural ones.

~The Green Man has Spoken~

Saving the Amazon may be the Most Cost-Effective Way to Cut Green House Gases.

An hour outside Manaus, the Amazon's biggest city, the blackened remains of a virgin forest smolder. Chain saws whine. And Jonas Mendes tosses logs, one after another, into his kiln. "I know it's wrong to cut down the trees," said Mendes, 48, sweat streaming down his neck and torso. "But I have no other way to make a living." If the Obama administration succeeds in its pledge to curb climate change, billions could flow from the U.S. to help forest dwellers such as Mendes change their ways. Governors of the Brazilian Amazon's nine states are pushing the U.S. and other industrial nations to invest in projects under rules known as REDD -- or Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation -- that are being designed through the auspices of the United Nations.

Under pending legislation to cap greenhouse gases, the U.S. government would auction emission allowances, funneling as much as $3 billion from the annual proceeds into rain forest protection. U.S. companies facing carbon controls could meet part of their obligations by investing as much as $13 billion a year by 2020 to preserve forests. The reason? Slash-and-burn deforestation accounts for about 15% of humanity's carbon dioxide emissions. Despite activists' efforts, forests have been disappearing at the rate of about 34 million acres a year for the last two decades. Globally, Indonesia and Brazil are the third- and fourth-largest emitters respectively of greenhouse gases, after China and the U.S., because of their breakneck pace of forest destruction.

Saving the Amazon, Earth's largest tropical jungle, can be a cheaper and faster way to avoid greenhouse gas emissions than replacing coal-fired power plants with renewable energy or switching to electric cars -- although all such measures are considered necessary by climate experts.

Green Man: I first heard about this idea when the government of Guyana announced that some European countries are buying emission allowances to protect the forests there, which are some of the last virgin stands in the world. Some people in the United States though don't see the upside to this idea--they think we're just redistributing wealthy to poorer countries with nothing in exchange. That is a myopic way of looking at the situation though because if we just continue to allow the free market to go unfettered without pollution controls then there will be no world for these companies to live in, work, in and enjoy their money upon. In the rich countries we don't see the consequences of our everyday actions so much as the places who are getting hit first with environmental degradation. We don't see on a daily basis the island nations whose rural livelihood is being directly threatened but yet they did nothing to bring such trouble upon themselves. Yet in the cruel twisting of fate they have to pay for our mess first.

What's in it for the wealthier countries? A clean environment where our children and grandchildren can thrive. I never understood how the American Conservatives are so against protecting the environment when it has direct repercussions for their families. I say this because, ironically, they are very much in support of strong families and protecting their posterity!!

The Amazon along with all the other big forests around the world are our lungs as well as our liver and kidneys, filtering out the toxic gases and it should be starkly clear that any organism can't survive without its physiological systems intact. Well, the Earth is just as alive as any other being on Earth. It's constantly moving, growing, changing and just like all organisms it can get sick. The Earth has "physiological systems" at work in the air, water, earth and fire. It all has to be balanced or the perfect conditions for ALL life to thrive within will die. This should have been plainly made clear in school for most people when discussing the basic "food chain" concept. If one of the animals in the food chain goes extinct (say a predator) then it throws the balance of nature completely off and you get over-population of species, which in turn depletes the grasses and on and one the domino effect goes. How would it be any different for the plant life growing on Earth?

We need to stop looking at the environment as optional and realize that NOTHING, literally NOTHING else is possible in this life without it. I don't care how big your house is, how much money you have or how healthy you are right now because if we don't clean up our environment and get the cycles back in order then we'll all be dead. I'm not being hyperbolic on this--It's a really crisis. There won't be another chance to make up for missing the boat on this one. It's not like we can always revisit the issue like other issues before governments such as health care programs and such. We have one shot, one opportunity and it would be a shame if we humans were the ones to fuck it all up. It would be shame because it would be our own damn fault. We'd be nothing better than a stupid parasite who killed off its host and thus it as well.

And isn't it better to be safe than sorry? If for some reason ALL the scientists in the world are wrong and Earth will be just fine then at least we protected the last natural places on the planet. Open air museums for our children and grandchildren to visit. And if nothing else we will have created a whole new economy for the world in green energy, which will also free us from foreign oil imported from countries who don't like us anyway!! It's win-win situation either way if you ask me!! I really encourage you to read the rest of the article because it goes into so many great points that I don't have space or time to extrapolate upon them here. Click here for the full article.

---The Green Man has Spoken---

How Can You Deny the Weather and Its Scientific Properties?

It's scary how many people deny and outright HATE science!! I'm thinking most recently of the many climate change deniers. It's like shaking your fist and denying the sun!! Especially when they benefit in SO many ways from science. The really frustrating part is that some (if not many) of the benefits they experience from scientific research they probably aren't even aware of. Ignorance is a weapon of mass destruction. They love our modern medicine but when science shows that our use of fossil fuels is eroding our very thin but critical for life ozone layer, that's going too far? And I always say to them, "Isn't it better to be safe than sorry? What's the worst that happens? We free ourselves from foreign oil with green energy and in so doing create an industry that re-energizes our economy??? Sounds likes a win-win scenario to me!!

And I would venture to say that a sizable portion of the climate change deniers are conservative Christians who believe there is a man in the sky who talks to them. But climate change is where they draw the line? Seriously? Something that has been scientifically proven by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is more illogical to you than the man in the sky theory??? The IPCC is a WORLD scientific body sponsored by the United Nations to study climate change. This aren't just "liberal" scientists from America but from across the globe, o.k.? Most industrialized countries (and others) see the IPCC as authoritative.

You'd think that the American, conservative, Christian tendency of worshiping giant families would be enough to trigger them to action for the sake of their grandchildren. I guess they're willing to gamble their lives too. Family values my ass. Whatever happened to conservatives who believed in protecting nature like Teddy Roosevelt? You know, conserving our natural museums and churches? Would your belch black smoke into your sacred church or temple? Of course not, so don't belch pollution into nature's sacred temple loft, which is our atmosphere.

So either the entire world, whole nations and all its scientists are together in on some uber-conspiracy of epic proportions, (which would arguably be the biggest conspiracy of all time) or the science is right and your an asshole moron. I'm betting on the latter. Thanks climate change deniers for doing the global, climate equivalent of pissing in the public pool.