Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Who's Getting Rich Off Prohibition? Just Look Who Opposes CA's Prop. 5

Posted by Paul Armentano, NORML at 1:12 AM on November 1, 2008.


You can learn a lot about the merits of a proposal by taking a good, hard look at who's lobbying against it.

You can learn a lot about the merits of a proposal by taking a good, hard look at who's lobbying against it.

Take California's Proposition 5, the Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act, which would require the diversion of certain non-violent offenders to drug treatment and increase funding for state-sponsored rehabilitation programs. The measure seeks to expand upon the alternative sentencing programs initially enacted by Proposition 36, which is estimated to have saved taxpayers some $1.7 billion dollars and reduced the number of people incarcerated for simple drug possession by one-third. So who would oppose this proposal?

If you guessed: the folks who make their living arresting non-violent drug offenders, you'd be right! According to the 'No on 5' website, the California State Sheriff's Association, the California Narcotics Officers Association, the California Peace Officers Association, the Police Chiefs of California, and the California District Attorneys Association all oppose Prop. 5.

However, even more disturbing is who's bankrolling the 'No on 5'campaign. According to the Drug Policy Alliance, California's powerful prison guards union has spent close to $2 million dollars to lobby against the passage of Prop. 5.

After all, overcrowded prisons -- In 2007, California declared a 'state of emergency' in the prison system because of the lack of bed space -- and more prison construction (in lieu of building additional public high schools and state colleges) are a financial windfall for prison guards, even if they spell disaster for everyone else.

In addition to expanding drug treatment in California, Prop. 5 would also reduce minor marijuana possession penalties from a misdemeanor (punishable by a $100 criminal fine with a criminal record) to a non-criminal infraction (punishable by a $100 civil fine with no criminal record). Now who would be against that?

If you answered: the folks who make their living by possessing a monopoly on the sale of legal intoxicants, you'd be correct! According to the DPA, the California Beer and Beverage Distributors have donated $100,000 to the 'No on 5' campaign. Could it be that the alcohol lobby is fearful of the day when they will have to legally compete with a natural product that is remarkably safe, non-toxic, and won't leave you with a hangover? Do we even have to ask?

So now that you know who's against Prop. 5, why not examine who is lobbying for it. That list would include the California Nurses Association, California Society of Addiction Medicine, the California League of Women Voters, and the California Academy of Family Physicians.

In short, those who have dedicated their lives to helping others in need are backing Prop. 5, while those who have dedicated their careers to destroying people's lives (or who promote a product that does) vehemently oppose it. You do the math.

Digg!

Tagged as: california, nora, prop 5


Obama's Curious, Curt Response to a Torrent of Pot Legalization Questions
Change.gov's response to pot supporters -- "President-elect Obama is not in favor of the legalization of marijuana."
Post by Paul Armentano. December 16, 2008.
Pot Supporters Bang on Obama's Doors for Drug Reform
16 of the top 50 overall questions posed to the new administration on the Change.gov site pertained to drug law reform.
Post by Paul Armentano. December 12, 2008.
In Feeble Bid to Be Cool, Bush Pardons Cocaine Smuggling Rapper
George Bush pardoned rapper John Forte who was convicted of smuggling 1.4 million dollars worth of liquid cocaine.
Post by Lisa Derrick. November 28, 2008.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Thank you for the cogent analysis.
Posted by: Plexius2 on Nov 1, 2008 5:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It would seem that Amerika got highjacked long ago by the sociopaths who follow their own self-interests at the expense of the rest of us. I estimate about half the voters in this country pretty much don't give a damn about anyone but them and theirs. The other half, the compassionate half, unfortunately has been continuously crushed and exploited for decades. I hope with Obama that the ugly trend downwards toward egocentric anarchy can be reversed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Greed and self-interest
Posted by: marchpet on Nov 1, 2008 5:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These people have no shame. It's not until some of these prison guards see their own kids' lives destroyed by the "war" on certain drugs that they will finally get it. By then, though, it will be too late for the kid.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

TimS
Posted by: TimS on Nov 1, 2008 11:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yeah, I love it. Prop 10,another CA. ballot initiative calls for 900 MILLION BUCKS for cops and prisons and you can guess who backs it , prop 5 is calling for 65 million and it's all for treatment and responsible action surrounding the way courts deal with non violent offenders. I wonder how many third strikers are doing life for simple possession convictions? The feds are telling the governator to come up with 250 million this month just to start building prison hospitals. The federal prosecutor handling the case has been on the air saying an average of one prisoner a week is dying without ever seeing a doctor. Arnold says he won't pay up, the state comptroller says he ain't paying either, the feds say they will hold them both in contempt of court if they don't pay up.The judge wants 8 billion from Sacramento to upgrade the entire system! The state budget is already upside down 5 billion so far this year (some people say it's twice that.) A full third of state prisoners are back in on parole violations, most of the violations? Dirty drug tests. The whole thing is ridiculous.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It boils down to religious discrimination
Posted by: Lauren on Nov 1, 2008 3:06 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please respect my religious freedom and my church.

Bill of Rights

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Give me a break... Posted by: fsuthai
» RE: Give me a break... Posted by: Taylor Siluwe
» RE: Give me a break... Posted by: donl51
Booze Far More Debilitating Than Pot
Posted by: jmmartin on Nov 2, 2008 5:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was dumbfounded to learn up front that the major contributors to the "No" on 5 proposition were law enforcement officers, but only because I assumed you'd name the liquor industry. Then, well into the piece, you did mention that the beer industry also pumped money into the effort to defeat decriminalization of drug offenses.

This is obscene when you stop to think that pot, for example, is much less destructive and than booze. I almost said, "far less addictive," but I don't think marijuana is addictive at all, unless, possibly, psychologically (as adverse to physically). In fact, I don't think pot is addictive at all.

I know. I've used both off and on for years. When I finally kicked my liquor habit 15 years ago, I became an ardent supporter of all measures designed to decriminalize marijuana or at least divert enforcement monies into treatment.

Our so-called war on drugs has made a mockery of law enforcement. Border searches catch about one-tenth of the drugs that come through, as customs inspectors freely admit. Prohibition should have taught us that if you criminalize behavior, organized crime will step in and made it widely available, whether it's drugs, prostitution, or anything else. Decriminalization, together with taxation and rehabilitation, puts the criminals out of business and helps those who want to quit cease their use, just as it provides revenue to pay for treatment and, who knows, enough left over to repair the country's infrastructure.

What are we, a nation of morons? Worse, raving lunatics, since trying the same thing over and over without change in results is one definition of insanity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Since when can we pretend to vote on "natural" rights?
Posted by: Nightstallion on Nov 2, 2008 5:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In our Constitution with its Bill of Rights we have compounded an error in thinking. Anything in that so called bill of rights above after: Amendment I

Congress shall make no law . . . . is all bull shit it should have stopped right there >
"CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW.(PERIOD OR PERHAPS EXCLAIMATION POINT!) Because they did NOT stop there these forerunners of ours created one hell of a vertical fornication!

The sheer Arrogance of a creature that would tell another just what his precepts must be is an abomination before the Lord God Almighty! And we have been doing it ever since Jesus the Christ told us not to.

How could any of us have missed that little bit of excreta am I asleep that I could have missed that? We have dogmatized basic rights! How stupid is that? Not just stupid it is invasive, compulsive horse manure that comes from outside the Body Temple. Wake the flying ---- up!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

8 layers of COCK Protection is TOO MUCH!
Posted by: Ottomatic on Nov 2, 2008 5:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Stop the Brutality
Enough Cops already!
Take them out of the SUVs and put them on the Streets.
When the streets are empty and
There is no one left to Arrest!
Who's going to pay you?

You Serve and Protect WHO?
Paulson, Exxon, Bush/Cheney and the World Bank!
They should pay you,
Out of their Pensions.

So you think that dressing up in a Halloween Costume and beating up Peace activists is fun?
I think it is time for a new line of work.
Go a real Job;
Picking Tomatoes.
Since when did:
Speeding around in a $60,000 Dollar SUV
Spewing Pollution in every one's face become a Public Service?
What a waste of gas.
It STINKS!
Ride a Bicycle.

Lice are hard to get RID of.
Town Cops
Sheriffs
State PoLice
Detectives
Swat
FBI
CIA
NSA
Lawyers
Judges
Parole Orifices
and
Guard filled Prisons:
All with their hands out.
Please donate so I can send you to Jail!

If you put everybody in Jail who’s going to pay for this Sh-t?
Is this the best we can do?
Violent offenders belong in Prison.
People with mental problems belong in Hospitals.
Let the rest go.
Drug Addiction is a medical problem.
TREAT it as such.
No more Parole violators.
No more Victimless crimes.

In the 1960s there were 250,000 People in Prison.
Now there is 2.3 million.
Something is terribly wrong.
George W. Bush WRONG!
The system is broken.
The Police, Prison, Lawyer, Judicial Complex is out of control.
Trim the PORK!

Who benefits by keeping drugs Illegal?
Organized Crime

STOP CRIME
End Prohibition!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

LOL
Posted by: RedFoxOne on Nov 2, 2008 4:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You know how it goes under the Bush regime! The rich get richer and the poor, well, you know...

Jiff
http://www.Privacy-Center.Net

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The other racket is "designated payee"
Posted by: billwald on Nov 2, 2008 9:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The new growth industry is "designated payee." The lawyer gets a judge to rule that a wino or whomever is incompetent to take care of his finances so his welfare checks go to a do-gooder designated payer outfit who charges the wino maybe 25 bucks to cash a check out of his own money.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]