Related to my last post... marijuana. It still blows my mind that it's illegal. And again, its benefits to anyone - medicinal, spiritual, recreational, experiencing freedom, etc. - are purely inconsequential. What is of consequence is that there's so much money to be made, that massive corporations are currently not making. The tobacco industry must have been hurt by the increasing restrictions, price hikes, etc. on their products over the years (I say "must have been" just because I don't know for sure, and what I do know is that such a massive industry usually won't let itself be stopped from making profit... so maybe they're raking it in by means unknown to me).
But imagine if weed was legalized. The tobacco industry could release an endless stream of products, using various breeds, endless combos (spliffs, blunts, etc.), and make incredible amounts of money. In terms of legality, it would be as controlled as alcohol, if not moreso, and you'd need a license to sell it (the end result would mean mostly only packies and smoke shops selling it). Fines for breaking the various laws would be even bigger than for alcohol.
Meanwhile, the drug war would actually be winnable. People look to chemicals for their speedy recreation, and to weed for their ambling sensations (I just though of those two words together, and had to use 'em, even is it doesn't make a lot of sense... but you know what I mean). So, people will always be interested in scoring some chemicals, but if weed is legal, most of those people would re-direct their hopeful thrills in that direction. If you can get out of your head legally, why go through the danger of seeking out illegal drugs? There's the potentials for violence, arrest, and all kinds of shit. Let's not forget the fact that you're buying chemicals from some guy on the street (or in the park, as it used to be for me, which was a nicer, greener and therefore more progressive environment... uh... right?).
But who knows what's in that stuff? It could be fake, and harmless, or fake and harmful, or laced with something, or it could be the real thing, and all but the first of those carries serious health risks (obviously, chemical drugs can differ greatly from one another; I'm generalizing). There's no recourse against a dealer of illegal drugs, and he has no liability for producing a quality drug at a reasonable price. Obviously, if someone wants to stay in business, you operate appropriately and ensure customer satisfaction. But there's still no nutritional facts information on the packaging. No warning labels! "WARNING: DIS SHIT WIL FUCK U UP GOOD 4 SHO'!"
Giggles aside, my point is that the market for the chemicals would drop hugely. And using weed would have the same ramifications as alcohol, such as not driving when stoned, not smoking in non-smoking areas, not buying for minors, etc. Except in Texas. And the penalties would probably be more severe, in terms of fines and any sentencing related to crimes in which weed is involved. (I don't personally think that one should be penalized more than the other, but that's simply how it would end up being if it were ever legalized, because of political demand.)
All of these ideas taken into account, in the end it all comes down to money; industry could be making it in astonishing amounts, and they're not. For that sole reason, it's bizarre that it's not legal. It will be legal again, some day, and it would happen one state at a time, not nationally, I'm sure. It is currently legal in Alaska, and the medicinal use is legal in 10+ states, with restrictions, of course. I'm hoping that my home state (Massachusetts) will be one of the early ones to legalize.
Actually, if weed was legalized in Massachusetts, my brothers would be making more money, as they rent out apartments here in Worcester (through me). The housing market would skyrocket, as hordes of stoners decide to relocate and get "freedom fried." I'd love to see some stats on the business impact of Mass's legalization of gay marriage.
Note - on the Wiki page for cannabis, it mentions that "On June 2005, more than 530 distinguished economists, including Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman, called for the legalization of marijuana." This led me to the excellent site www.prohibitioncosts.org - check it out.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Chomsky on Al Jazeera and then I ramble on and on.
A good (albeit short) interview w/Norm Chomsky can be read on Al Jazeera's site today... you can also watch it (from Al J's Inside USA show). I always like watching or listening to Chomsky rather than reading him, because in the latter case it can often be like reading a technical manual. In person, he has to dumb it down a bit for people like me.
Anyway, he talks about the election, citing the people as being "irrelevant onlookers," which is not a new idea for people considering our process. But what interested me the most was his explanation of how our health care situation might well improve. Apparently General Motors has voiced the idea that it costs them $1500 more to make a vehicle here than if they did in Canada, because of the differences in our health care systems.
In unconscious synch, I re-watched Michael Moore's Sicko last night (I wish this film had gotten more notice), and one of the things that I again took from this was his interviews with Americans in France. They cited that, while they got ridiculous (in comparison to American) paid vacations and leave, their work productivity was amazing. I'd love to see stats backing up these anecdotes, because it's something I've always believed would be true, but haven't had the opportunity to see it in action. If anyone knows of such data/dada - or has anecdotes relevant to this - I'd love to hear it.
Chomsky also addressed our fake democracy, and compared it to the real democracies of some of the poorest countries, like Haiti and Bolivia, also very interesting. But he said that "You know, if peasants in Bolivia and Haiti can do this, it's ridiculous to say we can't."
My response is that a real democracy that serves the people is easier when the country is smaller, or the government is more localized, and that the US's extreme wealth - held in only a few hands - makes a "real" democracy hardest of all. A massive number of protesters in Washington DC can't affect the entire country. Not even the political body of a single state can have a great effect, forget about a "third" political party, or a big advocacy group. And when the government and media are owned by the extremely rich and extremely established, the systems of both (media including the web and its use) are being controlled in their favor.
In short, we're fucked. I know it's easy to throw my hands up in despair, but I throw them up anyway. But I also have hope. While I personally feel useless, the fact that other countries are showing themselves to be more functional can help lead us in saner directions. The fact that GM sees that it could make more money if we had a better health care system is exciting, because in the end, that's what controls everything. Industries are always tailoring their (not our) government to ensure maximum profit, and there are many opportunities for them to do so. They can ship jobs out of the country, of course, and this happens a great deal. But if more and more jobs are exported, people will go nuts and demand and actually create change, again, because of money. And our industries need us to have money. I was so amused by the news that Wal-Mart found that its customers were buying fewer goods at their stores because they couldn't afford them anymore. How's po' Wal-Mart going to make its money if there's none in the country?
Or, the industries can go to war with one another (brief tangential images pop into mind, of kewl sci-fi future wars waged between companies and their troops, logos tattoed on their foreheads, and no sign of "nations" in sight). If the auto industry can make more money by pushing us closer to a socialized health care system, they'll do it. Or they'll try. Other industries and massive corporations might realize the same, and something might actually happen. Increased productivity from happier and healthier employees could become a real factor to corporations' leadership (the happiness/health aspect is inconsequential of course, the productivity/profit is what's truly important).
The way to get industry and its few ruling bodies to make changes for the better are to show that it also betters them financially. Natural (solar/wind/hydro) power pays for itself over time, and beyond that point is free (minus overhead of course). Manufacturing centers should all be going off the grid as soon as possible, if they really want to make money (assuming they plan to be in business for a long time), setting up their own energy farms and the like. The fact that it will help save the earth is, again, inconsequential. Maybe even one day, we'll reverse the course of our military (the biggest expense of all), and de-privatize it. Although then I wouldn't get to see my kewl sci-fi future in action. But I can still dream... I pledge allegiance to Halliburton, hallowed be thy name....
Anyway, he talks about the election, citing the people as being "irrelevant onlookers," which is not a new idea for people considering our process. But what interested me the most was his explanation of how our health care situation might well improve. Apparently General Motors has voiced the idea that it costs them $1500 more to make a vehicle here than if they did in Canada, because of the differences in our health care systems.
In unconscious synch, I re-watched Michael Moore's Sicko last night (I wish this film had gotten more notice), and one of the things that I again took from this was his interviews with Americans in France. They cited that, while they got ridiculous (in comparison to American) paid vacations and leave, their work productivity was amazing. I'd love to see stats backing up these anecdotes, because it's something I've always believed would be true, but haven't had the opportunity to see it in action. If anyone knows of such data/dada - or has anecdotes relevant to this - I'd love to hear it.
Chomsky also addressed our fake democracy, and compared it to the real democracies of some of the poorest countries, like Haiti and Bolivia, also very interesting. But he said that "You know, if peasants in Bolivia and Haiti can do this, it's ridiculous to say we can't."
My response is that a real democracy that serves the people is easier when the country is smaller, or the government is more localized, and that the US's extreme wealth - held in only a few hands - makes a "real" democracy hardest of all. A massive number of protesters in Washington DC can't affect the entire country. Not even the political body of a single state can have a great effect, forget about a "third" political party, or a big advocacy group. And when the government and media are owned by the extremely rich and extremely established, the systems of both (media including the web and its use) are being controlled in their favor.
In short, we're fucked. I know it's easy to throw my hands up in despair, but I throw them up anyway. But I also have hope. While I personally feel useless, the fact that other countries are showing themselves to be more functional can help lead us in saner directions. The fact that GM sees that it could make more money if we had a better health care system is exciting, because in the end, that's what controls everything. Industries are always tailoring their (not our) government to ensure maximum profit, and there are many opportunities for them to do so. They can ship jobs out of the country, of course, and this happens a great deal. But if more and more jobs are exported, people will go nuts and demand and actually create change, again, because of money. And our industries need us to have money. I was so amused by the news that Wal-Mart found that its customers were buying fewer goods at their stores because they couldn't afford them anymore. How's po' Wal-Mart going to make its money if there's none in the country?
Or, the industries can go to war with one another (brief tangential images pop into mind, of kewl sci-fi future wars waged between companies and their troops, logos tattoed on their foreheads, and no sign of "nations" in sight). If the auto industry can make more money by pushing us closer to a socialized health care system, they'll do it. Or they'll try. Other industries and massive corporations might realize the same, and something might actually happen. Increased productivity from happier and healthier employees could become a real factor to corporations' leadership (the happiness/health aspect is inconsequential of course, the productivity/profit is what's truly important).
The way to get industry and its few ruling bodies to make changes for the better are to show that it also betters them financially. Natural (solar/wind/hydro) power pays for itself over time, and beyond that point is free (minus overhead of course). Manufacturing centers should all be going off the grid as soon as possible, if they really want to make money (assuming they plan to be in business for a long time), setting up their own energy farms and the like. The fact that it will help save the earth is, again, inconsequential. Maybe even one day, we'll reverse the course of our military (the biggest expense of all), and de-privatize it. Although then I wouldn't get to see my kewl sci-fi future in action. But I can still dream... I pledge allegiance to Halliburton, hallowed be thy name....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)