Give it Props, Props 64 – Medical Marijuana Legislation
Give It Props, Prop 64
Cannabis use as a tool for cessation of lethal drug use is, to say the least, controversial. It’s one of those issue that hits at the nerve and is likely the clash of two rights. Abstinence is right, it’s a great way to get to better life. Abstinence Alternative is a great model for people who aren’t ready for total abstinence and maybe never will be. One thing we should be able to agree upon is, drug use isn’t “crime”. It may be a poor decision but in and of itself, framing it as a crime is a total falsehood. With the passing of Prop 64” the adult use of cannabis act” in California, a step was taken into reframing drug policy. Arguably, the nations most important state took a big swing and said “people who use cannabis aren’t criminals” so what does this mean for folks who have records previous to the passing of this law?
Prop 64 has a few intentions. To tax and regulate cannabis, making it another form of legal intoxication, in much the same way as alcohol. It’s fiscally responsible because cannabis is a massive industry and if it isn’t taxed and regulated it does nothing to monitor its use, it just means drug dealers have a tax free industry. It’s intent is not “drug anarchy” and there are still felony charges for things like distributing across state lines and sale to minors. One of the by products of the drug war was tagging people with felonies, making them ineligible to vote. That’s just wrong. If cannabis users are disenfranchised in this way, so should alcohol users be. The truth is, neither should be so it makes much more sense to understand what the law is: it’s giving adults the freedom to make a choice for themselves rather than making intoxication a government decision. The government was making a bad decision. They said “intoxication is fine, as long as you use the most damaging substance out there, the one that kills more than all other combined, alcohol”. That’s weird.
Who was opposed to prop 64? It’s hard to say but safe to say that distilled spirits, beer, wine, and corn (need it for alcohol production) were all opposed, who wants to end their monopoly? Prison companies were opposed. For them to enjoy their recession proof industry, they need consumers and if cannabis users are no longer criminals, it cuts back their stream of customers. That’s a human rights violation at any turn. “We get rich putting humans in cages because they smoked cannabis”. Wow. That’s quite the business. Others remained opposed based on little other than residual Nancy Reagan culture. So what is cannabis use? Is it good? Is it bad? Whatever your position, it’s at the worst a bad health decision. So is McDonalds and jumbo bags of chips at Wal Mart but consumers of this products have never been tagged with being criminals.
Prop64.org can explain it all to you. If you have a charge it can explain how to get that removed. It’s an important piece of legislation. Having an understanding of it, is valuable for us all.
Author: Joe Schrank