Hemp of Your Garment
On January 4, 2012, members of the Weber-Morgan [Counties, Utah] Narcotics Strike Force attempted to arrest Matthew David Stewart, 37, a former Army sergeant and Iraq war veteran. Holding a valid “knock and announce” warrant, they broke down Stewart’s door in a quiet neighborhood of Ogden, Utah and a shootout ensued. Stewart allegedly shot six police officers and killed one of them, Officer Jared Francom.
According to the warrant for Stewart’s arrest on murder and attempted murder charges that ensued, Stewart fired on Strike Force officers from a
concealed position at close range with a Beretta 9 mm semi-automatic pistol … Agent Grogan was struck in the face and went to the floor. Agent Derek Draper returned fire as he was fired upon … Agent Kasey Burrell [was hit] at least twice and [Stewart] mortally wounded Agent Jared Francom who was struck six times. … Stewart shot Sergeant Nate Hutchinson several times as he engaged the suspect and helped wounded officers evacuate … the suspect also shot Agent James Vanderwarf … Stewart advanced on officers as they were trying to evacuate … and continued firing at officers as they moved away from the home … the suspect shot Officer Rounkles twice as he entered the home … Stewart moved to the front door of the residence and continued shooting into the street and front yard at the already wounded agents and fellow agents … Police returned fire causing the suspect to retreat … and exit the northeast bedroom window into the backyard … entered a small storage shed.
The cause of all this carnage? Allegedly, home-grown marijuana.
Stewart was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and was attempting to self-medicate with pot he grew himself, his father claims.We’ve tried prohibition before. On January 16, 1919, Utah was among five states that helped the Eighteenth Amendment cross the 36-state threshold on that day. Forty-six of then 48 states (all except Connecticut and Rhode Island) eventually ratified the amendment. The accompanying Volstead Act went into effect on January 17, 1920. A wave of crime never before seen in the United States ensued, spawning Al Capone, Bugs Moran, and a slew of other now-infamous organized crime bosses and enforcers.
The Twenty-First Amendment, ratified on December 5, 1933, repealed the Eighteenth Amendment. Prohibition is now regarded by historians as an epic mistake. The libertarian Cato Institute published a white paper in 1991 titled, “Alcohol Prohibition Was a Failure”.
Colorado is one of the battleground states in this year’s Presidential election. Its nine electoral votes are currently in the “tossup” category. Colorado has a strong Libertarian streak; the Libertarian Party was founded in Colorado Springs in 1971.
In the 2008 election, candidate Barack Obama famously promised to have his Justice Department ease off on enforcement of marijuana laws, suggesting the decriminalization (but not legalization) of medical marijuana. At that time, Obama said:
What I’m not going to be doing is using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue simply because I want folks to be investigating violent crimes and potential terrorism. We’ve got a lot of things for our law enforcement officers to deal with.
He has partially reneged on this promise, but just as his personal and political positions on same-sex marriage were at odds until recently, he seems to feel differently as a person about marijuana decriminalization or legalization than he does as President.
Candidate Mitt Romney argues for strict enforcement of marijuana laws:
People talk about medicinal marijuana. And you know, you hear that story that people who are sick need medicinal marijuana. But marijuana is the entry drug for people trying to get kids hooked on drugs. I don’t want medicinal marijuana; there are synthetic forms of marijuana that are available for people who need it for prescription. Don’t open the doorway to medicinal marijuana.
The Cato Institute isn’t fond of either Romney or Obama. They gave Romney a “C” grade on fiscal responsibility as governor. As Doug Bandow, a Cato scholar, puts it:
For Republicans, only a few human vices should not be fixed by the national government. Like smoking. But Uncle Sam should crusade against other drugs, battle the scourge of pornography, and make us all moral. Moreover, government is supposed to enrich business and other favored interest groups, only those which contributed to the GOP instead of the Democratic Party.
Therefore, political observers are carefully watching a ballot initiative in Colorado, “The Colorado Marijuana Legalization Initiative”, which would, unsurprisingly, legalize marijuana. A similar measure was defeated by an 18-point margin in 2006.
Gallup polling now shows a majority nationwide in favor of marijuana legalization. As with same-sex marriage, public opinion has undergone a sea change over the last 40 years. A December, 2011, Public Policy Polling survey of Colorado voters finds a plurality in favor of unconditional marijuana legalization (49 to 40 percent favoring) and a large majority in favor of medical marijuana use (68 percent to 25 percent).
Could marijuana legalization bring Democratic voters to the polls and give President Obama an electoral Rocky Mountain High?
Related articles
- Reefer (prohibition) madness (steveprestegard.com)
- The Washingtonian on the Cato vs. Koch Conflict (volokh.com)
- Gary Johnson, Libertarian Candidate, Gives Marijuana Supporters an Alternative to Republicans (blogs.sfweekly.com)
- Obama, pot legalization to share Colorado ballot (politico.com)
- Obama’s War on Bongs: Capitol Hemp Edition (reason.com)
- Obama’s Chances In Key State Could Hinge On Marijuana (huffingtonpost.com)
- Mitt Romney’s Crazy Comments on Medical Marijuana (musicians4freedom.com)

This entry was posted by Monotreme on June 4, 2012 at 3:00 am, and is filed under Uncategorized. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0.You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.
-
With drugs, the question is purely one of setting a bright line. But there are so many different criteria that could be used for setting that line that it’s really hard to figure out a good way to do it.
I know this is going to sound like I’m all focused on race these days…I swear I’m not. We just happen to have had a lot of topics of late that have racist histories. Marijuana is one of them. It was initially particularly popular among the jazz crowd, which was overwhelmingly African-American (and many considered those who were Caucasian, but hung out in jazz clubs, to be negatively influenced by those African-Americans…much as rock music was derisively referred to as “jungle music” for some time). It was during this time that marijuana became the target of anti-drug laws. Cocaine, which was the “white man’s” drug of choice at the time, was left untouched. It later became illegal to grow for more traditional business reasons: William Randolph Hearst had extensive timber holdings and was worried that new technology would render hemp a cheaper source of paper than would wood; the DuPont family wanted support for nylon, and didn’t need the competition from improved strains of hemp. Both were very influential in Congress.
-
#3 written by Mainer 11 months ago
Mac, after 32 years in uniform and about that many years of random piss tests I never really caught onto the whole marijuana thing. That said I have very good friends that are as you have said very productive members of society and users. We need a rational national drug policy and not one that is driven by paranoia, missinformed church ladies, the pharmacutical industry and sure as hell not by the incarceration industry or our idiot drug czar.
Interestingly enough we may be looking at the wrong demographic on this. While I know that it is felt that this will mostly impact the younger segments of our society all the users I know are North of 40 and many are Vietnam war vets so considerably north of 40. The other side of this is that if this group shows up to vote for changes in drug laws and keep checking off boxes it isn’t going to be for Republicans. Of the several dozen older users I know I can’t think of one of them that would not vote for a Democrat over a Republican. Odd actually as many of them are pretty apolitical. -
#4 written by mclever 11 months ago
@Michael
Like the differential sentencing between crack and powder cocaine…
I think there’s more than one “bright line” to be drawn. One on usage of a controlled substance, and whether to treat it as a non-issue, a health issue, or a crime. For example, do we criminalize the usage, or only misbehavior while under the influence? As far as the law is concerned, it’s a non-issue to be drunk, but DUI is illegal. Similarly, excess use or addiction to any other drug could be treated as a medical/psychological concern rather than a crime, which would probably reduce relapses… Should it be a crime if someone can use and still function in society without noticeable detriment? How do we decide? Weekend drunks aren’t thrown in prison, and they don’t lose their jobs as long as their work performance remains acceptable, too.
There is a different bright line to be drawn with regard to the crimes of production and/or distribution of such substances without appropriate license to do so. Is it a crime to grow hemp? To grow it in small amounts? Or should we treat home growers like folks who home-brew alcohol and only make it a crime if they engage in unlawful distribution without a license? Just like distributing Oxycontin without a prescription, it’s illegal to distribute controlled drugs without license, even in states where marijuana use is “legal.“
Your point about the business incentives for restricting hemp is also worth noting. The same sort of business errors get made all the time–a new technology or alternative approach threatens existing practices, so instead of adapting, the power-brokers try to block or hinder the new. It never works out well in the long run, and we all suffer in the meantime… -
mclever,
I agree that there are medical and psychological issues involved. Anything psychoactive is going to go there. The drunk/DUI analogy works for some things, and not others. Someone on LSD is, by legal (though not clinical) definition, insane. Do we convict with murder someone who kills another while on LSD? Someone who is drunk can be expected to have enough judgment left to be able to choose not to drive, but I’m less sure about that applying in the LSD case.The same sort of business errors get made all the time–a new technology or alternative approach threatens existing practices, so instead of adapting, the power-brokers try to block or hinder the new. It never works out well in the long run, and we all suffer in the meantime
Indeed. It’s the cornerstone of crony capitalism, and I’m sure you’d get a loud “Amen” from Mule Rider on that one.
Along those lines, I don’t approve of crony capitalism either…it’s just harder to define in the less obvious cases.
-
#6 written by mclever 11 months ago
@Mainer
I didn’t mean to imply that no one over 40 smoked pot, but the issue has much more awareness and approval with the under-40 crowd (or under 35, depending which poll you read). Given the high number of vets living in Colorado, I’ll take your post as a hopeful sign that some of those generally apolitical, libertarian-minded vets over the age of 40 might also show up and add their voice of support on the pro-legalization side, which would also help the Dems, most likely. -
#7 written by mclever 11 months ago
@Michael
I think there’s a difference between mild and severe drugs. Perhaps another “bright line” to be drawn? The distinction you make between someone who can (usually) make the decision not to drive while under the influence vs. someone who has so lost control that they are functionally insane. In that regard, marijuana is certainly closer to alcohol than LSD. Not sure where cocaine falls, because I haven’t looked into it as much.
I agree with you (and Mule) that crony capitalism sucks.
-
-
#9 written by Mainer 11 months ago
-
I think an abhorrence of crony capitalism is one of the things that liberals (and socialists) share with libertarians. Interesting that each extreme tends to accuse the other of engaging in it — but that’s probably because it’s the mainstay of the people in the middle.
Overtly, the conservative worship of “job creators” is crony capitalism writ large. But moderate progressives often snuggle into the pockets of business as well, since 1) all politicians need lots of money for campaigns these days, and 2) the Folks Back Home like to have companies open businesses in their neighborhoods. This is kind of a digression though, but it does refer back to the whole idea of certain substances being illegal for all the wrong reasons.
-
#12 written by Mainer 11 months ago
DC, crony capitalism worked as long as it did provide jobs. The problem is now, crony capitalism isn’t producing decent jobs but about producing big pay outs to CEO’s and CFO’s.
I know most of you did not like my gallows plan for sorting this crap out so here is a new plan. We take all of these Mitt Romney wanna bees and take them out and tie them to a damned stake and we allow screwed over investors, and screwed over workers to have a pool where the winners get to plink at these bastards with single shot .22 rifles and rat shot. Ok am I getting to be mister compashionate or what? -
Mainer,
crony capitalism worked as long as it did provide jobs
I beg to differ on that. One has to examine the opportunity cost of the crony capitalism. Sure, it may have created or preserved jobs in a particular industry or company, but did that come at the expense of other jobs elsewhere? Might it have come at the expense of more jobs elsewhere? It’s not as simple as you made it out to be.
-
#15 written by Mule Rider 11 months ago
“One has to examine the opportunity cost of the crony capitalism. Sure, it may have created or preserved jobs in a particular industry or company, but did that come at the expense of other jobs elsewhere? Might it have come at the expense of more jobs elsewhere?“
Michael, are you waxing Austrian??? -
#16 written by Mainer 11 months ago
-
Mule,
One need not be an adherent of the Austrian School to recognize the deleterious effects of crony capitalism. Nor must one be an adherent of the Keynesian countercyclical philosophy to recognize that not all free markets will converge on perfect efficiency.Perhaps I’m not exactly as you have been seeing me.
-
-
I agree with you Michael, about propping up archaic industries — which is why we should stop aiding the fossil fuel industry. Yes, our current technology still uses lots of oil, but other technologies would be far more sustainable and efficient for many current oil applications, if we didn’t have artificial supports under it.
But the weight of lobbying (i.e., crony capitalism) insures it’ll be a long time before we move to, say, electric cars, or renewable resources for municipal power generations.
Your point in #17 is a good one. My take on it is that too much coöperation between business and government is as bad as too little regulation of the market. In fact ‚the two are nearly synonymous. I abhor crony capitalism, and I recognize that opportunity costs should be taken into account in any economic decision. (Don’t forget to include things like safety and health in the tallying of costs!)
The problem with opportunity cost consideration, of course, is that one can never know “what might have been”, and projections of “what might be” are always inexact. This doesn’t mean you avoid all projections. It means you do your best, as any businessman will tell you.
-
#20 written by Max 11 months ago
-
-
You must be logged in to post a comment. - Comment Feed for this Post
- Logarchism » Hemp of Your Garment | The Hemp Network News
- Logarchism » Not-So-Trusty Steed
About Monotreme (241 posts)
Monotreme is an unabashed liberal and dog lover who lives in an almost-square state in the Western U.S. He keeps a second blog related to his work as a scientist and author at 7synapses.com.








Let me clarify that I have never used, smoked, tasted, or otherwise tried marijuana in any of it’s munificent forms, though I have known several friends who imbibed frequently enough that I know what it smells like…
I’m probably typical of my generation in that I think marijuana should be legalized, regulated, and taxed much the same as tobacco or alcohol. It’s not the “gateway” that many conservatives allege, as evidenced by both anecdotal experience and studies that have looked at actual drug usage patterns. Yes, some people abuse it, but many more can use it responsibly and still have successful productive lives, much like alcohol. We learned from prohibition that banning it doesn’t work.
The pattern of support for legalization tends to follow age brackets (much as the support for marriage equality), so the question in Colorado is probably one of whether or not this ballot initiative will bring out the youth vote. If under-40s come out to vote in 2008 numbers, then it helps Obama and Democrats in general. If under-40s are too stoned to make it to the polls, then advantage R.