Editor:
At Mattole School in Petrolia this election season, the 5th through 8th graders spent a couple of weeks discussing the various propositions. According to my grandson, there was strong opposition to Proposition 19, and at the school ballot box it got only three votes (“Prop. 19, R.I.P.” Nov. 11).
Assuming these children reflect their parents it is hard not to feel cynical and sad. The War on Drugs is as destructive as our other wars, a murderously violent security policy intended to create the right environment for resource extraction and corporate exploitation. Domestically it is the modern version of Jim Crow.
These happily oblivious families might as well be voting for war because they work in the armaments business. They’ve evidently forgotten neighbors whose lives were mutilated by brutal arrests and desperate legal proceedings. They need go no farther than Eureka to encounter people who’ve emerged from long prison sentences in debt, blackballed from employment and living in fear of being thrown back in prison again for a trifle.
All arguments against Prop. 19 are casuistry, and its defeat has no silver lining.
Ellen Taylor, Petrolia
This article appears in Holiday Gift Guide 2010.
“modern version of Jim Crow”……….oh please!
“They need go no farther than Eureka to encounter people who’ve emerged from long prison sentences in debt, blackballed from employment and living in fear of being thrown back in prison again for a trifle.”
uhhhhm….if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime. I’m not among these people mentioned because I knew serious trouble would ensue…and reality is just fine with me. Ellen, these people you mention in such dire straights had choices. They did make poor decisions based on a desire to (1) break the law, (2) get high, or (3) assist other people in getting high and breaking the law, or (4) make money – didn’t they????? People in prison for drug offenses need treatment and alternatives beyond dope. They don’t need to be legally impaired or making money helping others become legally impaired – behind the wheel, in school, on the job, etc. I am not against bonafide medical usage. Medical dispenseries are a joke on society to allow many (most) of their customers (without medical need) a means to ingest pot.
Why can’t ET make just one simple valid point without injecting some conspiracy theory drivel?
It’s pretty clear that pot growers don’t care about the social consequences of the current legal environment as long as it provides them with their own privileged little niche.
Thank you for your letter. Your perspectives on liberty and proper role of government are always appreciated.
Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time — the constitutional government was meant to limit government, particularly the federal government. Those who support the war on drugs support authoritarianism, not the Constitution. The Framers never intended government to function as parent of the people, especially an abusive parent at that.
To the above comment I would say this: Government is the authority which guides “the people.” Some folks can’t deal with an authority (or any authority for that matter) put in place to govern in the name of the common good. If the Framers didn’t feel it necessary to place a little order and authority over the emerging nation they wouldn’t have bothered with a constitution. What, you thought the constitution was a document to give us all the right to do whatever we want? Regardless of consequences to ourselves and/or others?
I do feel that regardless the content of the letter itself, the title “Ignorant Little Snots” is in fact entirely irrelevant. Proposition 19 was a poorly written law that would not have simply legalized the use of marijuana, and opposition to that particular proposition does not necessarily demonstrate ignorance as the editor insinuates, but could show an appropriate reluctance to pass a poorly worded, incomplete piece of legislation. I hope the editor gets some strongly worded letters from the parents of the “ignorant little snots” he referred to in his article and takes it upon himself to apologize.
@Straight Tim: You say, “Government is the authority which guides ‘the people.'” S’posed to be the other way ’round, no?
@Some Petrolia Folks: I think you’ve misinterpreted the headline. “Ignorant Little Snots” does not reflect the editor’s opinion of the kids in question.
@Ryan Burns: No, the people elect those in government to positions of authority to lead them – “the people” en masse.
also, “ignorant little snots” was indeed the characterization of the kids in question, but I agree it did not reflect the editor’s opinion –
Great letter ET, I completely agree. Cannabis legalization is a civil rights issue; “poorly written” legislation is better than legislation that outlaws victimless activities that people have been doing since before the notion of government existed. Anyone with an argument against this should look up the definition of casuistry.
It seems like there were two groups in opposition to Prop 19: the hypocrytical faction that thinks that cannabis would ruin society, while at the same time slamming beers or taking pharmaceuticals with numerous health risks; and those that are trying to protect their way of life to the detriment of others who seek to safely recreate or medicate.
“ignorant little snots” was a rude headline, a cheap,sarcastic editorial comment on the letter writer’s views, juvenile, and inappropriate.
Alot of people who don’t grow or smoke voted for legalisation out of sheer fatigue with the growers. Others voted against out of concern for the ‘economic tsunami.’
Legalisation is overdue.
Ditto what Straight Lady said….such a rude Headline. Censor your flippant mouth too rude dude.