Majority of Americans support the legalization of marijuana, Economist says.

According to this article, in the Economist, 

A huge majority of Americans, more than two to one once don’t knows have been excluded, support the legalisation and taxation of marijuana. Even without excluding the don’t knows, a clear majority favours treating the drug equivalently to tobacco and alcohol.

It also concludes that: 

If our poll is right, then it can only be a matter of time before laws start to change, at least in the more liberal states.

The poll is interesting, but I did think of equivalencies from the past. . .

E.g. During the heatlh care debate it was clear that the MAJORITY of  Americans wanted real health care reform, but the law makers - affected no doubt by the lobbyists from big-pharma, private hospitals and insurance companies were convinced, by lobbyists,  that doom and gloom were the only possible outcomes (or maybe American Politicians are literally just corrupt and giving into bribes - esp in the form of donations to their re-election campaigns) See, for example: this article from Physicians for a National Health Program
Once you explain health care reform to Americans - they support it.

So, I suspect that since legalizing marijuana would have a number of positive effects on the general population - fewer people, especially young people with criminal records, fewer people in prison, fewer people gumming up the court system etc. All of these factors reducing costs that must be born by taxpayers.  That is, it is not just the potential tax revenue. . .   Anyway, I can see that "the people" will want to legalize it (personally I wish it were not regulated for personal use - except maybe by limiting what you could grow - to avoid large scale operations - so that one could grow 6-8 plants for personal use without having to resort to buying from the state - but that debate is for another day. . . much like you can make wine and consume it but not sell it.) but that there are "interests" in society that oppose it, in self-interest.

Anyway, the legalization of marijuana has a negative effect on some parts of the economy and might reduce the need for or reduce the expansion of prisons, policing, courts, and even other medications.  So, who do you figure is lobbying against the legalization and regulation of marijuana?  Llikely those companies that build and operate private prisons, those that make a living from the courts and that need or want large volumes of cases  and those that sell drugs that a cheap or home grown marijuana could replace.

As a result I am not expecting legalization or regulation, in the U.S.  any time soon -

Canadians seem to be split on the issue of legalization in most polls, but it seem more likely to happen here first. . . though not with the present government!   They apparently want to lock up as many people as possible and put them into private, for profit prisons - I am guessing owned by their friends or people they want for some reason to impress - the market should not be in the business of prisons!!!!

I remember once before linking to an article by Conrad Black about how private prisons are bad - and I have read information by Marc Emory (Prince of Pot) who is currently incarcerated in an American private prison - which he claims does not operate according to the rules set out for prisons in the U.S. - but since one is a "prisoner" there is no place to complain.

I think legalized and regulated marijuana would be a good thing - unlike most Canadians though I would like to see all drug problems treated like a health problem and not a criminal one -

Democracy

______________________________________________________________________
Yesterday, I wrote about the goings on in the U.S. about legislating away Collective Bargaining. I tripped over a great interview with Noam Chomsky, by Amy Goodman analyzing the U.S. drive to bust the unions. . . 
"Democracy Uprising" in the U.S.A.?: Noam Chomsky on Wisconsin’s
______________________________________________________________________

Just BTW - In Egypt - not a single woman on the committee to write the constitution. . .    just sayin'.
The Egyptian Centre for Women's Rights
 ________________________________________________
Today I am thinking about "democracy" . . . 

Definitions of democracy on the web include:  

• the political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives
• a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them
• majority rule: the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group

What is democracy?  Is it always "representative"?  Does one "have to believe in it"?  Is it a "political orientation", a natural occurrence, a learned tactic, a principle or an ideology?  Is it an economic statement, a political one or a social ideal?  Do we have it in Canada?  Is it "democracy with limits", "democracy with exceptions" or just limited democracy.  It certainly exists in only certain spheres - like at the ballot box, but not generally at work, and for too many women and children still not at home.


People think about democracy a  lot and conflate it a lot with capitalism.   I wrote a blog about that a while back - but now I think people are possibly even more confused about democracy but also have had "enough".   The word "democracy" is getting thrown around a lot as the middle east engages in "demonstrations for democracy". or "pro-democracy demonstrations".   

I began to think about "democracy" (again) more earnestly when an article in an Israeli paper made mention of "democracy with exceptions". . . meaning that you cannot vote for those we do not like. (i.e Islamists)   For instance, even though, in Gaza,  the Hamas was elected (though now saying, according to some suspect sources, that they will not participate in elections) and Hugo Chavez was elected President in Venezuela (see South of the Border - a film about the South American/Bolivarian revolutions) -- through "democratic elections". . . on the news, though, (even CBC radio recently!) they are often called "dictators" as they are opposed to U.S. hegemony in their respective regions. . .


So, trying to relate these thoughts about "democracy"  to my city, region, province, country, work and home life. . . I thought first about work -- I teach courses to union members, generally trying to make them "active";  to give them tools and information to help them mobilize, organize and monitor in their workplace.  The union is truly democratic and run by those who are elected and/or by those who take on tasks and show up to do the work.   But, given the total size of the organization few people are real participants in this truly democratic organization.  So, the processes are democratic (and they truly are) but the participation is small and so is it really "democratic"?   Do people get what they want?   Do they want what is good for them?  Is it the greatest good for the greatest number? What if the majority want to leave the union, or bargain away overtime, in order to feel like management rather than union employees.  Will this really improve things for them at work?  Does democracy just mean "majority rules"?  Does it need to be tempered with individual rights, ad rights for minorities?   What about the right to eat, or have a house, or work, or have children?


I have been thinking about a comment made by a participant in a class in December, 2010.  She said that people "don't believe in democracy anymore", and, by that, she did not mean that people don't see it as an ideal - but that people no longer think there is actually any democracy, anywhere.   That's why they do not show up to vote in elections - it makes no difference, they say, there is no point in participating - someone (the rich and corporations if they think it through, though most don't)  else's needs and desires will be filled but not mine. . .whether I donate to a political party, vote in an election, write a letter to the editor or get on the street with my co-workers. I won't get what I need, so what is the point?  (Partly for myself - I wonder sometimes - what do you need in Canada?  when 80% of the world lives on $5.50 (USD) per day or less. . .  just sayin' - should probably think about that 80% of the world more and stop sweating over our receding democracy. . . ) 


Still connected to thinking about democracy - Last summer, I attended a fabulous conference in Montreal - held by Civicus.  The Civicus World Assembly was 800 or so people from 94 countries talking about how to make progress with civil society players - "the people" - not political parties or governments or corporations but people (and they definitely include unions in the list of "civil society actors".|)  

Aside --  I got access to this pricey conference (for an individual in North America - those from the south pay less) by being a "professional blogger",  part of their Web 2.0 team and was one of the very few folks there from a union (and the union did not actually send me) but I hope that more union folks will attend this year - it was fabulous, and definitely worthwhile!) Go check it out -- http://www.civicusassembly.org/  60% off now!  Unions should send people - I cannot go this year because the dates,  in Sept.,  are right at the beginning of my busiest period in my union's two year education cycle.  But it is one last time in Montreal next year (2012) and I hope to be able to attend before it moves to some more distant part of the world. 

At one 2010 Civicus workshop session (at a table of 6-7) two of the participants were from Burma (Myanmar) and when I complained about the lack of participation of Canadians - especially in political parties or election outcomes, even voting - an older man from Burma - said - "ah and here we are thinking that if we just had pluralistic political parties and democracy, all of our problems would be solved!"  (Guess it is all a matter of perspective and how many people in your country watch TV and who controls the content of the TV or radio broadcasts).


Another aside (a little trouble staying coherent this morning!)  - www.Rabble.ca  had a great article about how we believe things to be "true" and that if the same person tells you over and over wrong facts or strange analysis you will soon come to believe that many people believe those same things. It was in an article about Fox News North bt I cannot find it now. . .   Anyway, if there is no truth, is it possible democracy can exist.   If the majority want what is good for a tiny minority (the rich are blessed by god and we should deny them nothing) is that democracy?


If the majority of Canadians want the rich and corporations to pay more taxes,  and if even the NDP is taking it off the table - and the Liberals (who have the same Neoliberal economic policies as the Conservatives) for the moment still say they want the most recent reductions rolled back. . . What IS THE POINT?  Maybe Capitalism simply does not allow for real democracy.   What do you think?

Make the Rich Pay.

I am at a bit of a loss to explain the attack on the public sector these days. . . it is fast and furious - and culminates this week in a cry for reduced pensions for politicians.

They (the media?  the public?  the right masquerading as one or both?) have already called noisily for the reduction of public sector pensions - because after working 30 years at a decent salary and contributing ( in my case) nearly 10% of every pay to pension contributions - public sector workers are being told that the pension is "too rich". . .   what is that about?

By the way, like most other Canadians,  when/if I retire (if I could at 65) I will have 12 years in a public sector pension plan, that pension plan paying me about 24% of my pay in a pension, when I retire.  I have about about $16,000 in personal RRSP's, from when I had no pension plan (working for non-profits and trying to save the world,  and not worrying about my income now or later,  even though I am well educated and have a lot of skills) and a husband who worked part time, freelance jobs in film and TV all his life,  and has nothing but a small CPP pension.  We will  be poor, if and when I retire.  I had hoped to retire young enough to "see the world" but as a parent with a boomerang who returned with two small children, a husband who became unemployed (and is over 50 and not finding it easy to get work that does not involve saying "you want fries with that" - and in fact, not sure he could get hired in fast food!) late in life, and a reasonable public sector type income (I, in fact, now work for a union); it is not going to happen - no "seeing the world" for me - at least not when I retire - no volunteering in India (after all that effort to study Hindi!), and no money to take the grand kids to Disney World. . .  or winter in sunny climes or summer on the beach. . .

In addition, the provincial and national debts are being blamed on public sector workers - who do not set the tax rates, or decide (they can advise but not decide - I draw your attention to exhibit A - the Oda Case) where money, and how much money, will be spent - they do deliver the services that the public howls about when they are NOT delivered or there is a wait, or they refuse to work unpaid overtime to make up for staff shortages  and/or unfilled positions . . .


Anyway, now the U.S. is trying it on big time -  OUTLAWING collective bargaining in the public sector

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Wisconsin lawmakers are prepared to pass a momentous bill that would strip government workers of nearly all collective bargaining rights over the loud objections of thousands of teachers, students and prison guards who packed the Capitol for two days of protests.The nation's most aggressive anti-union proposal has been speeding through the Legislature since Republican Gov. Scott Walker introduced it a week ago. After clearing a major legislative hurdle Wednesday night, it was headed to votes in the Senate and Assembly.

Up to 20,000 people filled the Statehouse on Wednesday, cheering, singing and chanting in demonstrations unlike any seen in Madison for decades. Their numbers included many families and teachers from the Madison school district, which was forced to close after more than 40% of its 2,600-union covered employees called in sick.

and with Harper in Ottawa looking for a majority - and his penchant to follow the lead of the U.S. these news stories are startling. . .   Rob Ford in Toronto wants to follow some of this lead, too (He's the new crazy right wing mayor of Toronto whose win is barely fathomable) and start privatizing city services from garbage to transit in order to "bust the unions".   Sigh . . .   So, in the U.S. actual outlawing of collective bargaining - we are where?  In some middle east or North African  dictatorship ?   Bit of a joke there, this week as the middle east populations get to their feet and demand real democracy (our phony kind is gonna' look bad soon).


Canada had a middle class partly based on our union density and the ability of labour to make sure that some profits stayed in the country and benefited Canadians. . .  in taxes paid and purchasing power to improve and expand the economy . . .

But there has been no increase in real wages in the last 2-3 decades (see The Bubble, James Laxer, The Trouble with Billionaires - Linda McQuiag and Neil Brooks or   
The spirit level : why greater equality makes societies stronger /by Wilkinson, Richard G.)  and instead of getting together and demanding more, voting the bums out (and a real government of the people in) or demanding changes in taxation most people seem to have accepted that it is all the fault of their neighbours and work colleagues, a fault of the "overpaid" public service workers.

If you want to have a nurse that's competent and happy, the next time you or a loved one is in hospital; if you want to have forest workers, and fire fighters risk their lives the next time a forest burns too close to your home; if you want to get an appointment to apply for a driver's license or you want some one making sure that the drugs you take (OK that system is not working very well but that's for another post!) are safe - then you have to defend, and not attack, public sector workers.

Is there a solution?   to debt, reduction of services and increased taxes on the poor and middle class - Well one is proposed by the National Union of Government and General Employees - a union of public sector unions across the country - Have the rich and corporations pay their share!   it is a much better solution than blaming public sector workers!  They - who help maintain a middle class int his country - and should not be blamed for it.