Legalize - Regulate - Tax

For the better part of a century, our nation has fought a never ending war on drugs and losing.  This war has cost taxpayers untold billions of dollars with no visible positive affects.  Instead, the affects have been negative.  We have imprisoned hundreds of thousands and built even more prisons to house them.  We have militarized our police.  We have also brought about the rise of the deadly drug cartels of Mexico as well as Central and South America with our anti-drug policies.

One of the easiest ways to end, or at least curtail, this never ending "war" is to legalize, regulate and tax marijuana.

I have never partaken of marijuana nor do I have any plans to.  Oh, the thought has crossed my mind, especially as a way to deal with my manic-depression, anxiety and PTSD.  But I have never smoked or ingested marijuana.

Millions of Americans do, whether recreationally or for medical purposes.  Many states have legalized the medical use of marijuana while three states have legalized it for recreational purposes.  But on the Federal level, it is still illegal and thus even in these states that legalized its use, users of marijuana are subject to arrest by the DEA.

Now, there is some movement in Congress to decriminalize marijuana and to allow the states to legalize, regulated and tax marijuana.  I am very hopeful this occurs and our nation's resources can be better used in shoring up our social safety net.  States are able to use the extra taxes generated and the money saved to pay for public education and other services their residents want.

Legalization, regulation and taxation of marijuana is a win for all.  We get to demilitarize our police, stop incarcerating hundreds of thousands, raise hundreds of millions in new taxes and save billions in ineffective enforcement.  We also get to start breaking up the drug cartels.

Now, if only our politicians could see the light.

The War on Food Stamps: The Continuation

A little over two years ago, I wrote a post entitled The War on Food Stamps.  It quickly became and still is my most read and commented on post.  Two years have passed and yet the war on food stamps sadly continues unabated.

This past week, a small battle was one in this continuing war on the poor and working poor: The “bipartisan” Farm Bill was defeated in the House of Representatives.  This was an amazing event as farm bills are never defeated because they are loaded with subsidies that primarily favor big agri-businesses such as Archer-Daniels-Midland (ADM).  The bill was defeated because a majority of Democrats (24 voted for it) couldn’t stomach the $2 billion a year in cuts to the food stamps program (along with other provisions that would make it tough for people to quality for food stamps).  It was also defeated because 62 Republicans didn’t think the cuts and restrictions were draconian enough.

But why is this war still being fought?  I mean, we have no problem writing checks directly to farmers and major corporations in the form of price supports and other subsidies.  Why should we begrudge the poor and working poor from eating, which actually helps those very farmers and major agri-businesses?  I honestly cannot fathom why Republicans and 24 Democrats in the House of Representatives (the Senate version of the Farm Bill includes $400 million a year in cuts to food stamps, so they aren’t saints either) feel the need to keep stomping on the necks of those who have so little or nothing at all.

The economy hasn’t changed that much in the two years since I wrote that original post.  Unemployment is still extremely high.  Many of those who do have jobs are either underemployed (barely working part-time) or are working multiple jobs.  Many are still struggling to pay their bills and to put food on the table, if they are able to at all.  And yet, we have members of Congress (and our President) who think that we should be cutting food stamps and making it tougher for people to qualify.

The war on food stamps and the greater war on the poor and working poor in the United States needs to end.  How can we be the greatest nation if we refuse to take care of the least of us?

Responding to a Challenge

Distributorcap over at The Reaction has challenged all of the readers of his post How about a real government of the people to suggest changes in how our national government is chosen.  I love a good intellectual challenge and the following is my response to his challenge.  As he mentioned, there are no right or wrong ideas, just points of discussion.  Feel free to let Distributorcap and I know your views.

Amendments: Distributorcap makes a good point that only 17 Amendments have been made to the Constitution since the original 10 were adopted.  I actually believe it is a good thing that it so difficult to get an Amendment added to the Constitution otherwise the anti-gay marriage Amendment would have been the supreme law of the land.  With that said, I would recommend the following amendments.

• No state or lesser government entity may pass a law that is in contradiction to the U.S. Constitution or U.S. Law.
• Marriage is the purview of the Federal government and as such cannot be prohibited or the rights and privileges associated denied on the basis of sexual orientation or religion.  The minimum age for marriage shall be 17.
• As businesses are not "persons" they are not afforded the same political speech rights as Citizens of the United States and are prohibited from making contributions to individual political campaigns, political committees or parties.
• As affordable medical care promotes the general welfare of all, the Federal government will manage and maintain a universal single payer health care system.

Elections for National Office:  I like the concept of the Electoral College, but I think there should be two fundamental changes to it.

1. No state may have "winner takes all" for their Electors.  Each state will divide their electors based on the percentage of the vote each Presidential candidate achieved.
2. Electors are required to place their votes for the candidate they represent and may not change their votes.

I agree that elections are way too long.  I think that no one should be allowed to campaign before February 1st of any election year.  I also believe that there should be serious campaign finance reform, even possibly going to complete public financing.  I don't believe in term limits.  The best form of term limits is an educated electorate.

I do think that Washington, D.C. needs to be allowed to vote on statehood (which would require an Amendment) and should they become a "city state", be given their two Senators and however many representatives they are allowed under apportionment.  I also think that Puerto Rico and the other territories and protectorates either need to vote for statehood or independence.  This would help diversify the Senate and the House of Representatives without resorting to giving larger states more Senators and smaller states fewer Senators.

I do believe that no state should be allowed more than 2 Senators and 13 Representatives (15 Electors).  Once a state is eligible for a 14th Representative after the census, it has until the next census in which to become two or more states.  This would break up New York, California, Texas and Florida and several other states into smaller states.

Supreme Court: The only thing I would change is making clear ethics rules that Supreme Court justices must follow.  An Amendment would be needed to make sure those ethics are spelled out.

Well, those are my responses to the challenge.  What are yours?