Wikipedia says George Soros is "a Hungarian-American currency speculator, stock investor, businessman, philanthropist, and social activist" born on August 12, 1930. Forbes lists his net worth at $14.2 billion. During the Black Wednesday crisis in 1992, Soros made a reported $1 billion when he bet that the British government would have to devalue the pound sterling. Soros is a former member of the Board of Directors of the Council on Foreign Relations. Soros is also on the board of directors of the Drug Policy Alliance. George Soros is the Chairman of Soros Fund Management and the Open Society Institute.
In March 2010, it was reported that Soros Fund Management increased their position in Monsanto by over 240%, according to holdings filed as of December 31, 2009 with the SEC. Soros Fund Management increased its position in Monsanto by 244.4%. According to 13F filings, 3.6% of Soros Fund Management assets were in Monsanto, making Monsanto 4th in the hedge fund's top 15 holdings in its portfolio. I found this amusing: Marketfolly.com said "And while Soros sold off POT, they massively added to MON, another agricultural giant." POT is the ticker symbol for Potash, and MON is the ticker symbol for Monsanto. Marketfolly.com said "Assets reported on the 13F filing were $8.8 billion this quarter compared to $6.2 billion last quarter, over a 40% increase in exposure", although the filings "are not representative of the hedge fund's entire base of AUM." 3.6% of $8.8 billion is $316.8 million, which I believe is how much Soros Fund Management has invested in Monsanto. Yahoo! Finance says Monsanto currently has a market cap of $31.6 billion. Although Soros Fund Management is not listed as a major holder of Monsanto common stock.
Wikipedia says Monsanto is Earth's biggest seed company, the company genetically engineered glyphosate-resistant soybeans, 93% of US soybeans are now Monsanto beans, and they like to protect their intellectual property. (I can easily imagine how Earth's biggest seed company could profit off marijuana legalization. From what I've seen, online seedbanks currently sell marijuana seeds for $1.50 to over $33 per seed.) The documentary Food, Inc. discusses Monsanto and Monsanto soybeans. And Monsanto set up a website to answer questions people had related to the film Food, Inc. (The book The Biotechnology of Cannabis sativa discusses genetically engineering cannabis, which I assume would be legal if Prop 19 passes, unless prevented by federal prosecution.)
On September 9, 2010, there was a blog post by "radicaljusticeman" which mentioned Monsanto and George Soros on a website for listeners, programmers, and staff of KPFZ 88.1 FM in Lakeport, California. Lakeport is the county seat of Lake County, at 1,355 feet on the west shore of Clear Lake. The city had a population of 4,820 and 1,967 households as of the 2000 census. The blog post was also mirrored (and/or submitted) on the Coalition of the Obvious blog, which claims to be "a group of people who openly recognize that corporations are destroying Earth, our home; that the enemy of every social justice cause is a corporation; that corporations have purchased governments around the world; that mainstream media is corporate propaganda; and that the first step out of the Corporate State is to expose the truth." The post also appeared on Infowars Ireland.
On October 26, 2010, Kevin Fagan blogged at the San Francisco Chronicle that "billionaire financier" George Soros donated $1 million to the Drug Policy Alliance, one of the main supporters of Prop 19. (Soros donated $1 million to a non-profit organization that he's on the board of directors on?) Fagan said over $4 million had been raised by the pro Prop 19 campaign, and about $300,000 by the anti Prop 19 campaign. (More on donations in another blog post). Soros has long supported changing marijuana laws, but Fagan said Prop 19 opponents noticed that the donation seemed a little late.
Spokesman for noonproposition19.com Roger Salazar said "We've been outspent from day one, but the more they spend, the more the public becomes aware of the flaws of Prop. 19 and the further they drop in the polls." The California Chamber of Commerce is airing radio ads saying Prop 19 would be bad for employers.
Spokeswoman for yeson19.com Dale Sky Jones said "It's mostly really fear and ignorance we're fighting" and said an automated poll by SurveyUSA (which I mentioned in this blog post) showed Prop 19 winning. Dale Sky Jones is the wife of Jeff Jones, who is the co-sponsor of Prop 19, and she is also "executive chancellor" of Oaksterdam University. Fagan said the pro Prop 19 side began airing TV ads with Joseph McNamara, former San Jose Police Chief, saying the war on drugs is a failure.
Shira Ovide also blogged on the Deal Journal at the Wall Street Journal about the following op/ed. Ovide mentioned how Soros supported a 2008 initiative decriminalizing marijuana possession in Massachusetts, as well as other state initiatives to decriminalize minor marijuana possession.
Aaron Smith of CNN also wrote about the following opinion piece, and said that according to Ethan Nadelmann, founder and executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance (which Soros donated $1 million to according to Kevin Fagan, and which Soros is on the board of directors of according to the DPA website) said Soros has donated about $75 million towards drug policy reform since 1995. Nadelmann said this is the first time Soros has outright supported legalization. Jeff Miron of the Cato Institute estimated that Prop 19 could save $960 million annually in law enforcement costs.
On October 26, 2010, Aliya Shahid of the New York Daily News wrote about Soros's op/ed piece in the Wall Street Journal and mentioned the $1 million donation.
John Hoeffel also blogged about the donation by Soros, on an Los Angeles Times blog. He wrote that the donations makes Soros the biggest donor to the pro Prop 19 campaign after Richard Lee, who's spent at least $1.5 million towards it. Hoeffel wrote that Soros has contributed approximately $3 million to help pass 3 California initiatives, including Prop 215 which legalized medical marijuana in 1996. Hoeffel said that the Yes On 19 campaign began running cable TV ads in the LA area on October 26, 2010.
Torey Van Oot blogged on October 28, 2010 on the Sacramento Bee that the Yes On 19 campaign planned to air ads on Comedy Central during The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, and linked to the ad on YouTube.
On October 26, 2010, the Wall Street Journal published an op/ed by George Soros entitled Why I Support Legal Marijuana.
Soros wrote that America's cannabis laws are doing more harm than good, and haven't prevented marijuana from becoming the most widely used illegal drug in the US. But they have resulted in negative consequences and high costs.
My question is, how would Prop 19 prevent marijuana from becoming the most widely used drug in California, or the US? It wouldn't prevent marijuana use, it would promote it. Soros mentions high costs and negative consequences associated with current laws, but fails to mention any costs or negative consequences that may result from Prop 19.
Soros said that there are approximately 750,000 arrests annually for marijuana possession, over 40% of all drug arrests. He said that billions of taxpayer dollars are spent "trying to enforce this unenforceable prohibition." Soros said police should focus on serious crime, and that regulating and taxing marijuana would reduce violence, crime, and corruption linked to drug markets. He said regulation would save billions of dollars spent on law enforcement and incarceration.
But in California, possession of 28.5g or less of marijuana "is not an arrestable offense" already, according to NORML. NORML says an officer will not arrest an offender "as long as the offender can provide sufficient identification and promises to appear in court." NORML also says "upon conviction of the misdemeanor charge the offender is subject to a fine of $100." And since Prop 19 doesn't allow possession over one ounce, people with over one ounce will still be arrested. NORML says currently that "possession of greater than 28.5 grams is punishable by up to six months in jail and a fine of up to $500." Since Prop 19 doesn't allow for sales without a license, people selling marijuana without a license will still be arrested. NORML says that currently "selling marijuana in any amount is punishable by 2 to 4 years in the state prison. Giving away less than 28.5 grams is a misdemeanor and is punishable by a fine of up to $100." Since Prop 19 doesn't allow for selling or giving to minors, people who do that will still be arrested. NORML says "sale of marijuana to a minor is punishable by 3 to 5 years in prison" and a felony if the minor is over 14. If the minor is under 14, sales, offering, inducing, distributing, employing is a felony punishable by 3 to 7 years in prison. Prop 19 doesn't allow people to transport over one ounce of marijuana, so people that do will still be arrested. And starting on January 1, 2011, possession of under one ounce of marijuana in California will no longer be a misdemeanor, due to Senate Bill 1449 which governor Schwarzenegger signed on September 30, 2010. Josh Richman of the Oakland Tribune said SB 1449 was introduced by state senator Mark Leno, a Democrat from San Francisco. People charged for possession of under one ounce of marijuana will no longer have a permanent criminal record of it. California Drug Policy Alliance director Stephen Gutwillig said the signing of SB 1449 was "certainly made possible and perhaps made necessary by the apparent popularity" of Proposition 19.
Since Prop 19 allows people statewide to keep any harvests of marijuana grown in under a 25 square foot area, and allows people to legally share marijuana with adults, will there be no possession limits whatsoever inside residences? What if someone has 20 pounds? 50 pounds? 100 pounds? 300 pounds? 500 pounds? At what point does a red flag go off that someone may be a drug smuggler? Will it matter if it's all in glass jars? In trash bags? In boxes? Pressed into bricks? If law enforcement is called to a residence containing marijuana, what do they have to determine? If the grow area is under 25 square feet? If people have receipts for purchased weed? If there are minors in the home? Does their need to be evidence of a growing operation? Is it enough for someone to claim that someone gave them the marijuana and no money was exchanged? How could anyone know whether or not money was exchanged?
And regarding the regulation of marijuana reducing violence, previously I've blogged about how Fresno County banned outdoor marijuana growing for 45 days after a Fresno man was shot and killed by a medical marijuana patient who suspected thieves were stealing his crop. And like I blogged about here, in July the Associated Press reported that the Oakland police department said in the last 2 years, marijuana grows have been linked to 8 robberies, 7 burglaries, and 2 murders.
If Prop 19 passes, more people in California will legally homegrow a renewable commodity worth one-fourth its weight in gold on the street outside California. More growhouses means more robberies. More robberies means more potential violent confrontations between growers and thieves. Commercial grows and weed stores may be large targets for robbers and thieves, in addition to vehicles in their parking lots and customers. And criminal organizations and smugglers and traffickers will want to protect their grows, and their territory, and trafficking routes.
This blog post by lawyer Jennifer Soares asks how many arrests Prop 19 will stop. Notice how many felony arrests Prop 19 could possibly affect.
On October 3, 2010, there was an article by Josh Richman in the Oakland Tribune called "Hazy math: How much do we spend to incarcerate pot users? Not as much as they say."
Richman wrote that according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the California Department of Justice, in 2009 there were 61,164 arrests for possession of under one ounce of marijuana, currently a misdemeanor (but it will only be an infraction as of January 1st). (And see again the blog post by the lawyer Jennifer Soares and notice how the Department of Justice defines "arrest.") The maximum fine for each arrest is $100. (As I mentioned in this blog post, LEAP member Nate Bradley claimed those fines cost counties $1,000 to process, and that $60 million per year could be saved if police just stopped writing those tickets.) In 2009, there were 17,008 felony marijuana arrests according to the California Department of Justice according to Calfornia NORML. As of the end of 2009, 1,639 people were incarcerated in state prisons for all marijuana offenses. About 0.9% of the California state prison population were inmates held on marijuana offenses. The cost of their incarceration was $52,363 per person, or a total of $85.8 million. The Campaign Against Marijuana Planting or CAMP, an inter-agency marijuana eradication program, costs about $1 million per year. CAMP has eradicated about 3.5 million plants so far in 2010, with an estimated street value of $12.3 billion. Professor Mark Kleiman of the UCLA School of Public Affairs and director of its Drug Policy Analysis Program said the California Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement's CAMP program would probably end if Prop 19 passes since it wouldn't be worth the time and money for criminals to operate illegal grow ops on remote public lands.
Richman said Prop 19 supporters like to talk about all the money Prop 19 would save in criminal justice costs, but he said that the numbers don't really back them up. Richman referred to Senate Bill 1449 and said it means "most of the prosecution and court costs formerly associated with such cases already have been eliminated."
George Soros said nationwide enforcement of the marijuana portion of the Controlled Substances Act costs billions. I suppose that money goes toward law enforcement agencies and jails and prisons and courts and lawyers and judges and the DEA and eradication programs.
yeson19.com says Prop 19 would save "hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars a year." California criminal justice expert and professor Michael Vitiello of the University of the Pacific's McGeorge School of Law said "it seems like real exaggeration." Richman said that in actuality, California doesn't spend very much arresting nonviolent marijuana users. Alameda County Sherriff's Office spokesman Sgt. J.D. Nelson said the county jail probably has zero inmates in for minor marijuana possession, and maybe some growers but very few. Vitiello said some offenders have pleaded down from more serious charges to a marijuana charge. And some inmates may be in prison for violating parole by possessing marijuana. Which brings up another point, it appears that parolees won't be able to possess marijuana even if Prop 19 passes, they'll go back to prison.
Jimmy Lee, spokesman for the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Ofice, said in a recent month, county jails had 6 arrests for cultivation and 19 bookings for marijuana possession under an ounce. The other arrests for marijuana would still be illegal after Prop 19.
And Prop 19 will not change federal law (more on that in another blog post). Marijuana will still be a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act even if Prop 19 passes (which is one of the reasons the Los Angeles Times opposed it, which I blogged about here.)
Richman said the Moscone Act which took effect January 1, 1976 and decriminalized marijuana in California, made possession of under one ounce of marijuana the only misdemeanor in California not punishable by jail time. He wrote that someone found in possession of marijuana "need not even be formally arrested or booked on the misdemeanor charge." Richman said one study estimated that California saved $1 billion in the the next decade in arrest, court, prison, and parole costs. Richman said people arrested for misdemeanor possession that have other marijuana convictions in the last 2 years are eligible for a "diversion program", maybe community service, maybe treatment, to have the charges dismissed. Richard said Proposition 36 in the year 2000 made 1st and 2nd time drug offenders charged only with possession should go to treatment not jail, and their conviction will be erased if they finish a court supervised treatment program.
Soros wrote that Prop 19 would reduce civil liberty violations, saying that currently blacks are 3 to 5 to 10 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than others. California NAACP president Alice Hufman said the criminal justice system does more harm to people than cannabis, and a permanent drug arrest record does nobody any good. Soros also said that marijuana was criminalized in the early 20th century mainly due to racial prejudice against Mexican immigrants. Richman said blacks are about three times more likely to be charged with marijuana possession in California than whites (or even more in some cities), and DPA director Stephen Gutwillig said "there's no reason to believe policing practices are going to change simply because the technical nature of the offense has." Gutwillig said if Prop 19 fails, it's possible some law enforcement agencies will issue even more citations than they do now since the tickets won't result in misdemeanor court appearances.
Richman also referred to an op/ed by ONDCP directors which said legal marijuana would create criminal justice costs that would exceed any tax revenue brought in, just like alcohol and tobacco do now. Prop 19 creates new crimes, like ingesting marijuana in the same "space" as a minor. And Prop 19 allows every city and every county to come up with their own unique laws regarding commercial regulation and sales. They said Prop 19 would burden law enforcement officers with "new and complicated enforcement duties." (Indeed, the cost of new code enforcement was one of the reasons Rancho Cordova proposed to tax homegrowers, which I blogged about here.)
Soros said that major criminal organizations benefit the most from illegal marijuana, and that they would likely be weakened if marijuana was legalized. Soros mentioned how the Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy, which includes former president of Mexico Ernesto Zedillo, former president of Colombia César Gaviria, and former president of Brazil Fernando Henrique Cardoso, recommended that marijuana be decriminalized.
But recently it's been reported that drug cartels don't stand to lose much money if Prop 19 passes (more on that in another blog post). Major criminal organizations surely benefit from illegal marijuana now, but if Prop 19 passes, marijuana will still be illegal in 49 states. If Prop 19 passes, criminals can also benefit from legal marijuana, growing legally, buying cheap weed legally, in addition to selling huge volumes of legal homegrown or legal commercial marijuana for big profits everywhere in the world outside of California. There will still be a black market for minors in California. And currently only 1 out of 10 cities in California allow medical marijuana dispensaries. If a city won't allow medical dispensaries, are they likely to allow retail weed stores? I doubt it. That means 90% of California cities will still have black markets. People who live in those cities may drive to cities that allow weed stores, or legally homegrow,
Who benefits the most from marijuana being legalized in California only? Large criminal organizations who will be able to grow it legally, buy it legally from licensed distributors, and smuggle it out of California and sell it for much much more worldwide. As well as large corporations who will be able to grow it in California, sell it in California, patent it, etc. As well as investors like George Soros. Luisa Kroll, who blogged on Forbes about the donation and the opinion piece, called George Soros "the world's richest hedge fund manager."
Although, corporations may face federal prosecution. Large corporations could probably afford long and costly lawsuits, or wait to see how other lawsuits play out before entering the legal market. But criminal organizations wouldn't care, crime is their business. They don't have to play by any rules corporations may be required to. Even if large marijuana corporations avoid federal prosecution in California, they'll still only be able to lawfully sell their products in California. Criminal organizations have the entire planet as their market. It's entirely possible that criminal organizations would do the most buying from California marijuana corporations.
Someone might argue that Californians would benefit the most from legal marijuana, since they'd no longer have to fear arrest or "persecution" or stigma, but crime syndicates and corporations will be making more money. And they could still fear arrest by the feds. Besides, THC can induce paranoia and persecutory delusions in even legal pot. Someone might argue that taxpayers benefit the most since supposedly tax money would no longer be used on arresting, and incarcerating people for marijuana offenses, but like Josh Richman said, California taxpayers don't spend as much on incarcerating those people as Prop 19 supporters claim. And what about the potential costs of arresting and incarcerating more drug smugglers and unlicensed sellers in California? And consumers will be paying a special tax on marijuana they buy from licensed retailers. Someone might argue that cities benefit the most from legal marijuana, because of additional tax revenue, but how many California cities will allow retail weed stores? 10%? How many people will pay taxes on weed when they can homegrow tax free? Will taxes even be collectible since companies will be federal criminals? How much weed tax revenue will be used up by regulatory agencies set up by local governments?
Soros said he was worried about young people getting involved with marijuana and other drugs, but that honest drug education is the best solution. Soros said teens can find marijuana easier than alcohol, and have more access to marijuana than most adults. Soros said legalizing marijuana "can hardly make it any more accessible to young people."
Can Prop 19 supporters agree on what honest drug education regarding marijuana is? Have any Prop 19 supporters agreed that packs of joints should carry health warning labels, or what marijuana warning labels might say? Maybe that's the responsibility of the Surgeon General of the United States. I guess you could argue that people are waiting until Prop 19 passes and local governments create commercial regulations to get into the specifics of health warnings. If Prop 19 passes, does each local government in California get to decide their own warning labels? Proposition 19 doesn't mention health warnings at all, although in the Findings section it says "Cannabis has fewer harmful effects than either alcohol or cigarettes, which are both legal for adult consumption. Cannabis is not physically addictive, does not have long term toxic effects on the body, and does not cause its consumers to become violent." Is that a sufficient health warning? "Cannabis is not physically addictive, does not have long term toxic effects on the body, and does not cause its consumers to become violent"? Like I blogged about, Dr. Tim Cermak said Prop 19's assertion that pot is not physically addictive is a myth. And Itai Danovitch, a member of the California Society of Addiction Medicine's Committee on Public Policy, and assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral neurosciences at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, wrote that about 1/11 adults who use marijuana develop an addiction to it, and that as many as 1/6 people who start smoking marijuana before 18 develop an addiction to it.
And Prop 19 lets anyone in California legally homegrow. Does George Soros think that the number of growers in California will remain the same if Prop 19 passes? Does Soros think that no parents in California will start homegrowing if Prop 19 passes? More and more parents legally homegrowing means more marijuana available to young people. More and more people growing, perhaps visible from the street, means more marijuana available to young people. Industrial volumes of commercial joints means more marijuana available to young people. How many strains of marijuana can a typical teen in California currently obtain in the next hour? Is that number going to go down if Prop 19 passes? Prop 19 supporters like to say that "dealers don't check for ID" but if Prop 19 passes, dealers will *continue* to sell marijuana to minors on the black market, and not check for ID.
This article in the The Atlanta Journal-Constitution from July 2009 discusses the pros and cons of anti-tobacco ads. The pro side by Michael Eriksen, former director of the Office on Smoking and Health at the CDC, said "Rigorous scientific research has shown that price increases, strict advertising restrictions and clean indoor air laws are effective in reducing smoking for everyone, but are particularly effective among young people." The con side by Michael L. Marlow, an economics professor at Cal Poly in San Luis Obispo, California, said "Statistical analysis that I've conducted shows that there is a very tenuous link between cigarette sales and state anti-tobacco spending. At best, spending large amounts of money on anti-tobacco programs seems to produce a trivial drop in cigarette sales — less than a pack a year per capita."
Anti-marijuana ads on television are routinely criticized by marijuana users. Also, on May 28, 2005, research on anti-weed ads was presented by Dr. Harvey Ginsburg of Texas State University, San Marcos at the American Psychological Society's yearly convention in Los Angeles. Ginsburg said "These findings are roughly consistent with independent evaluations showing that the anti-marijuana ads failed to produce positive impacts and may actually boomerang" and that "Any White House conclusions that their ads have caused a national reduction in marijuana use are not warranted." This webpage on the Common Sense for Drug Policy website features headlines such as "The Persistence Of Folly: ONDCP's Anti Drug Media Campaign", "House Appropriations Committee Reduces National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign Funding", "ONDCP Spends Millions On Ads In Spite Of Federal Research Proving Campaign Is A Failure", "NIDA Issues Final Evaluation Through 2003 Of Media Campaign -- No Changes, Ad Campaign Still A Failure", "The More Things Stay The Same: ONDCP Again Launches New Ads In Super-Expensive Super Bowl As Feds Release Report Calling Anti-Drug Media Campaign A Failure", "Federal Evaluation: ONDCP Ad Campaign A Failure, Yet Czar Begs Congress To Fully Fund Program." If anti-marijuana ads fail to reduce teen marijuana use, why would that change after Prop 19 passes? Will anti-marijuana ads suddenly become effective after the passage of Prop 19?
Soros said Prop 19 won't solve all of the problems associated with marijuana but it would be a major step forward, and experience could be used to correct any deficiencies. Soros said that states began repealing alcohol prohibition laws leading to the 21st amendment which repealed alcohol prohibition nationwide, and that US states must begin repealing marijuana prohibition laws. Soros said California voters have an opportunity to lead the nation like like they with Prop 215 in 1996 which legalized medical marijuana.
Since marijuana is a controlled substance federally and in all 50 states, isn't talk about "repealing marijuana prohibition laws" actually referring to controlled substance scheduling? In August 2009, the Oregon legislature passed SB 728, which directed the Oregon Board of Pharmacy to reschedule marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule II, III, IV or V. On June 16, 2010 the Oregon State Board of Pharmacy voted 4-1 to move marijuana from Schdule I to II, to recognize that cannabis has an acceptable medical use. Marijuana is now a Schedule II controlled substance in Oregon, the first state in the nation to make it a Schedule II drug. In February 2010, the Iowa Board of Pharmacy recommended its legislature reschedule marijuana from Schedule I to II, recognizing its medical use. But even if all 50 states reschedule marijuana, that does not mean that marijuana will be rescheduled federally. The US is still a party to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and the federal Controlled Substances Act is based on that international treaty.
Wikipedia says the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs can reschedule cannabis. Congress can reschedule cannabis. The Executive Branch can reschedule cannabis. The US Attorney General can reschedule cannabis. The DEA supposedly looks at petitions to reschedule cannabis. The Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services can reschedule cannabis. But the US still ratified the treaty the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. Cindy Fazey said total legalization would require the US to denounce that treaty, amend the treaty, or reinterpret it (which would probably be opposed by the International Narcotics Control Board.)
Soros said just the fact that Proposition 19 is on the 2010 ballet has "elevated and legitimized public discourse about marijuana and marijuana policy in ways I could not have imagined a year ago."
No comments:
Post a Comment