Pubdate: Fri, 31 Oct 2014
Source: Washington Times (DC)
Copyright: 2014 The Washington Times, LLC.
Contact:  http://www.washingtontimes.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/492
Author: Deborah Simmons
Page: A14

JUST VOTE NO ON MARIJUANA

On Tuesday, voters will decide whether to take the next giant leap in 
the pro-marijuana movement by approving ballot measures that call for 
legalizing recreational use.

It's not too late to vote no.

There has been an awful lot of discourse on how to accomplish 
legalization, but not so much on how to move in the opposite direction.

Since Colorado and Washington are already leading the way in the 
pro-pot effort, I'll lay out three succinct reasons why voters should 
push back.

First, here's what voters face on Tuesday. In Alaska, Measure 2 would 
allow people to possess up to an ounce of dried marijuana. For those 
of you in denial, dried typically refers to the kind ready to sell, 
roll like a cigarette and smoke, and for use as food seasoning. Dried 
marijuana also is ripe for being laced with heroin, cocaine, PCP and 
other illicit drugs.

Oregon is in the running to be the next state to legalize marijuana, 
too. Measure 91 would not only legalize production and distribution, 
but use and possession as well.

There's oodles of money poured into buckets labeled "for" and 
"against" in the three states, but not in D.C. Can you smell the 
stench? D.C. voters should vote no on Initiative 71.

1) Blacks in D.C. are the city's largest consumers of marijuana - and 
if you don't believe me, why do our council members and other 
pro-marijuana supporters cite "disproportionate" arrest/jail/prison 
among blacks to support their cause?

2) Black unemployment rates remain in double digits, and has always 
been twice that of whites for the 42-year period that the U.S. Bureau 
of Labor Statistics has been distinguishing the rates by race. D.C. 
officials have been trying to erase double-digit jobless rates in 
certain pockets of the city since ... well ... since ... hmm ... 
since before blacks took over the city with the 1974 home-rule act. 
That's key in the marijuana debate, and here again because of the 
race-based "disproportionate" argument. On one hand, blacks might not 
be arrested on marijuana charges, but on the other they can be denied 
employment after failing a drug test. Moreover, driving under the 
influence and exposing your children to a "contact high" are still offenses.

I deliberately played the race card to make those points because 
people either don't realize or don't care that it's the very card 
progressives are using as a trump. The third reason has nothing to do 
with race, however.

3) Neither the military, medical professions, law enforcement 
agencies or major sports organizations, including the Olympics, wants 
participants toking on marijuana. They cannot - we cannot - afford 
for them to sign onto the movement. Besides, they have yet to 
reconcile their organizations' rules and regs with the pro-pot 
movement. And they shouldn't. The D.C. initiative is all but certain 
to pass by a 2-1 margin, depending on turnout. And in city hall on 
Thursday, the regulatory scheme being worked on by D.C. Council 
members could bring in $130 million annually, based on a projected 
cost of $350 per ounce.

"Ouch," said the unemployed woman, a mother of five.

"Three-fifty," chimed the senior citizen, whose Social Security check is $273.

Just vote no. Legalizing pot won't whitewash the black market. But it 
sure will help keep blacks folks down.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom