Getting Ready for the 2024 Florida Ballot Amendments

It's about time to start thinking about the state-level referenda that will be on the 2024 general ballot along with the major races like President, Senator, Congress, and State legislators.

Ballotpedia does a good job of keeping track of these things, so I defer to the information they've got gathered for the six amendment offerings: 

Amendment One: Partisan School Board Elections

This one changes the county-level school board elections from the current nonpartisan (no party listed) to where a candidate has to establish affiliation. The debate around this is a question of transparency: While the ballot currently doesn't say which candidate's issues and ideologies are, you can judge by which company they'd keep if they were openly Republican (vouchers to private schools, doing nothing on teachers' pay, crowded classrooms, etc.) or Democrat (public money to public schools, improving teacher pay, smaller classroom sizes, etc.).

If you ever visit a state or county-level party website, you'll see listings for "Supported Candidates" that will include "recommendations" for school board candidates. They may pretend to be "nonpartisan" but they're really not.

I'm kind of on the fence on this one. You can't avoid the reality that there will be partisan candidates for school boards, especially as the fights over book censorship and transgender/gay rights move to the forefront. If you can tell which candidate is backed by either party, you can at least gauge which will better defend your interests. The problem will be the campaigning: If you make the school board elections officially partisan, the hostility and viciousness that comes with such campaigns could make the local elections more divisive.

On this one, I'm going to err on the side of "better to know which candidate is Republican and thus shouldn't be in office".

Amendment Two: Right to Hunt and Fish

While there is some hunting and fishing allowed in Florida, this amendment seems to expand that right to unregulated levels.

Florida is on a rare environmental stage: a diverse ecosystem relying a lot on water (shorelines, rivers, lakes) and on still-undeveloped geological areas like wetlands, swamps, and forests. There's a number of endangered animals still about - the Florida Panther for example - and a lot of dangerous wildlife - alligators and brown bears - facing more encroachment and threats from humans (not just the hunters). This amendment in my opinion would increase the risks towards a number of those endangered or dangerous animals to where we'll disrupt the Florida environment even more. Those who oppose the amendment also point to the threat of overfishing.

I've never gotten into hunting. My grandfather willed me a hunting rifle as a child and I never accepted it. I don't believe in hunting as a sport or as a natural part of the cycle (there are logical reasons to manage high-breeding animals like rabbits and deer in some places, but not for me). If I wanna stalk an animal I'm using my camera to take pictures, not lives.

Amendment Three: Legalizing Marijuana for adults

A previous amendment had legalized pot for medicinal purposes back in 2016, and this one looks to open the market to recreational use for those 21 and up.

This is coming at a moment when the Biden administration is pushing to reduce marijuana's Schedule status from Class I (dangerous, illegal, and criminal) to Class III (regulated/controlled by doctors). There's been more studies about the benefits and risks of using cannabis and essentially pointing to how it doesn't fit the Class I profile.

Reducing marijuana to Class III lowers it as a priority drug for law enforcement, which should reduce a lot of unnecessary arrests and prison time for otherwise non-dangerous users. Putting it at Class III still requires regulated control, and would encourage upholding penalties for things like Driving Under the Influence much like we do for alcohol.

I am not a drug user. I don't smoke anything. I don't drink alcohol (I've tried once or thrice). I don't begrudge those who do (except for smokers, I hate second-hand smoke, keep away from me ugh), although I advocate for moderation in all things. When I see how the War on Drugs has been a disaster - much like Prohibition that did nothing to stop alcohol consumption - anything that would reduce the prison rate in our nation and change policing habits is a good thing. If we can shift the focus on the War on Drugs away from punishment and towards health care (rehab and detox) we ought to see a reduction in drug use.

Amendment Four: Abortion Rights for Residents, setting a specific timeline and for cases where the woman's health is at risk 

This is the big one, now that the state court allowed for a restrictive six-week ban that essentially negated abortion as a choice for women no matter what.

Previous state court rulings upheld a right of privacy, but two decades of hard Far Right government allowed Republican governors to replace judges with anti-abortion advocates. Given that a solid majority of Americans agree that abortion should be a choice for the woman, this amendment is a strong effort to regain that choice and set the abortion deadline to a more viable 24 weeks.

This is where the Minority Party Rule obsession of the Republican Party is at odds with what the people want (and need). Without access to abortion as a health care right, more and more (poor) women are going to suffer from miscarriages, infections, stillbirths, and worse.

With the supermajority requirement of 60 percent approval for this amendment to pass, there's going to be a lot of fighting between the anti-abortion and pro-choice factions to get the vote out. Here's hoping the pro-choice side gets well above the 60 percent threshold to signal to the Far Right just how serious residents are in protecting their personal rights.

Amendment Five: Annual Inflation Adjustment to Homestead Exemption

This is where the Republican-controlled Legislature wants to add the Consumer Price Index to creating more tax cuts. Essentially adjusting on an annual basis more room for non-school related county/city millage rates. It probably won't be much for most homeowners as a tax savings, but the cities are opposing it because it will cut into their revenues.

I should mention as a city librarian employee, this tax cut could affect my library's budget, which affects all the steamy vampire romance novels we can add to the collection. You don't wanna lose your steamy vampire romance novels, do you? DO YOU?! Save the steamy vampire romance novels, and vote No on this amendment, thank ye.

Amendment Six: Repeal of Public Financing for Statewide Campaigns

There's currently a referendum amendment on the books from 1998 that set up public financing - and serious spending restrictions - for state-level offices such as Governor/Lt. Gov. The Republican-controlled state Legislature is looking - has been for a good while - for ways to undo that amendment and remove the restrictions.

The dangers of private, deep-pocket money getting into state-level elections are very real. The Republicans - deep in the tank for billionaires, land developers, and rich wingnuts - want more of that unregulated campaign money to finance themselves (and their consultant buddies eager for six-figure fees).

We've seen the effect of unregulated campaign financing at the federal level (fuck you, Citizens United). That's the LAST thing we need in the Sunshine State. This better be a hard No, Floridians.

So, to recap: Huge Yes to Amendment Four and abortion rights, Solid Yes on Three to allow marijuana use for adults, Middling Yes on One for Partisan School Board elections, Hard No on open Hunting/Fishing, Huge NO against inflation-adjusting property taxes and against the repeal of public-financed campaigns.

Get the vote out this November, Florida. Elections always matter. Especially the referenda, especially for our rights.

Florida Ballot Amendments 2020: As Always, What the People Want (And Sometimes, What They NEED)

 As before, many thanks to Ballotpedia website, which tracks all the state referendums and goes into the details of the debates surrounding each issue facing the electorate. If you're visiting this blog from a state other than Florida, do yourself a favor and check that Ballotpedia link to see what your state is voting on this 2020.

In the meantime, here's what I and 18 million other Floridians have to deal with:

Amendment One: Citizenship Voting Amendment

It's a relatively straight-forward amendment that spells out "only U.S. citizens can vote in the elections." Which is kind of odd because our Florida Constitution already HAS wording to that effect. Seriously, click this link to the Florida Senate's Constitution website, Chapter 97.041 in the Florida Statutes, (1)(a) 2. must be a citizen of the United States.

What this reads like to me is part vanity project by the people backing this referendum, part intimidation tactic to scare minorities. The ones pushing this want to see a positive turnout and majority Yes vote on a no-brainer "Patriotic By God" referendum that really changes nothing. Anybody caught voting No to this bill can thus be labeled UN-PATRIOTIC. Screw that. I'm voting No because there's no reason for this referendum to reinforce something that's already in the law.

Amendment Two: Minimum Wage Amendment

Now here's an amendment that matters: "Raises minimum wage to $10.00 per hour effective September 30th, 2021. Each September 30th thereafter, minimum wage shall increase by $1.00 per hour until the minimum wage reaches $15.00 per hour on September 30th, 2026. From that point forward, future minimum wage increases shall revert to being adjusted annually for inflation starting September 30th, 2027."

State of Florida is currently one extra dollar above the national minimum wage, which is $7.46 (so Floridians are at $8.46). That's nowhere near a living wage (calculated at $16.07 in 2018) to afford rent, car and gas, and food.

What this will do to full-time employees is minimal, other than making entry-level wages go up to put them near the $15 an hour level. But this will have a profound effect on most part-time and seasonal workers, whose ability to pay the rent and other bills will get easier. This will be a huge wage boost since 2009, the last time the federal government raised the minimum wage.

For all the yelling and screaming from businesses that this will force them to fire workers because they can't afford the salaries, or that they'll leave the country, not of lot of them follow through on that. Businesses hire who they need to in order to keep up with any demands for work that befall that industry, and they'll have to hire - and keep - quality workers. And the businesses most affected by a minimum wage increase - restaurants, hotels, retailers - well, they have nowhere else to go and markets here to fill.

In the places that implemented this kind of wage boost: Costs for some services have gone up (but not enough to trigger inflation fears), businesses had cut back on hiring more employees than they already have, and a number of employees working multiple part-time jobs found it easier to cut back to working just one (or two). But the threatened collapse of the cities and states that have pushed these laws never came to pass.

This is anecdotal but I have relatives on part-time employ who live in a state that just went to a $15-per-hour wage. That relative has reported back that mortgage payments just got easier, which has reduced some of the anxiety they're coping with. I don't have much more to report than that.

By all measures, this is a Yes vote from me. Anything we can do to lift our working class out of poverty is a damn good thing.

Amendment Three: Open State Primaries Amendment

This is an interesting attempt to shake up a broken electoral system. This referendum "Allows all registered voters to vote in primaries for state legislature, governor, and cabinet regardless of political party affiliation. All candidates for an office, including party nominated candidates, appear on the same primary ballot. Two highest vote getters advance to general election. If only two candidates qualify, no primary is held and winner is determined in general election. Candidate’s party affiliation may appear on ballot as provided by law."

This does not look to affect the federal-level elections (President, Congress, Senate, Awesomest Chris, etc). 

What this looks to emulate is the Open Primary system they use in California (although that does include the non-Presidential federal offices). It mixes up the major parties (Republican and Democratic) and forces them to play nice with the smaller parties (Libertarian, Green, is Modern Whig still around...) and/or anybody else able to get on the primary ballot.

The results of this can be a mixed bag by the looks of it. As the WaPo article highlights, it can give one party an advantage in certain districts by dominating the primary and having both finalist spots filled (meaning a party win no matter what), but if too many candidates from the same party fill the ballot, they risk a split between party voters in that district (or state) and the less popular party can fill those two gaps instead (it hasn't happen yet, not noticeably).

The advantage to the Open Primary system as proposed is one that affects me: I am registered a No-Party-Affiliate. Yes, I am voting All-Democratic ticket now and for the foreseeable future thanks to Republican BS, but having been burned as a former registered Republican I feel uncomfortable signing up for another party even if I agree with them on 95 percent of the issues. Anyway, the problem being NPA is that I can't vote in either party's primaries (currently closed to members only): With an Open Primary, I now have a reason to show up in March and August when the primaries usually take place in Florida and I can have a say on which candidate(s) I think should represent in the General Elections that November.

And you'd be amazed at how the two major parties - Republicans and Democrats - are responding to this referendum: They both fear it, which is like having Burger King and McDonald's teaming up to stop a Wendy's from getting added to the other street corner they're on.

There's also arguments that this primary process of filtering down to two choices in November hurts the minor parties like Libertarian and Green. But here's the thing: They're not winning under the Closed Primary system anyway. Seriously, how many third party representatives are sitting in Tallahassee right now? (spoiler: Florida has NEVER had a non-Dem or non-GOP elected official in the state Lege) With an Open Primary, the odds ought to improve for a Libertarian or Green to do well enough to garner second-place in a two-place final round in one or two districts, if they find the right district that can support them.

The likelihood that a lot of No-Party-Affiliate voters like meself - currently around 3.6 million Florida voters - will show up more to vote improves the chances we will get candidates responsive to the voters instead of the major parties. More voters, better outcomes (or at least HONEST outcomes). On this point alone, I am leaning towards Yes on the Open Primary amendment.

Amendment Four: Second Vote On Public-Approved Amendments Amendment

This should be called the "No No, You Gotta MEAN IT When You Vote A Referendum Into Law" Referendum.

Officially, the legal wording is this "Requires all proposed amendments or revisions to the state constitution to be approved by the voters in two elections, instead of one, in order to take effect. The proposal applies the current thresholds for passage to each of the two elections." Unofficially, this amendment says "We don't believe 60 percent of you really wanted this, so screw you."

Instead of relying on 60 percent of voters to agree on a State Amendment the one time they get that many voters to agree on ANYTHING, this Amendment requires a second set of hurdles to get installed and do the vote ALL over again in case someone gets a bad case of buyers' remorse (or more likely, get inundated with ads and media claims opposing that amendment until enough people give in and vote No the second time).

What this Amendment will do is force the Initiative groups - the grassroots organizations, the non-profits, the ones looking to push reforms that the powerful elites controlling Tallahassee don't want passed - to double up on the costs and hassles of getting an Amendment created in the first place. It's not easy to get the petitions signed and confirmed, it's insanely difficult and expensive.

This is a ridiculous extra step getting added to a process that already has a difficult application process, approval process, judicial process, and then voter process. For any Amendment to survive and get 60 percent or more voters to back it should tell you that YES this is it, no do-overs, this becomes Florida law.

This is the big NO vote this year. This dare not become law, because if it does then nothing else the People desire as law will ever be allowed.

Amendment Five: Homestead Transfer Amendment

Also known as the "Save Our Homes Portability Act," it extends out an existing Homestead Exemption benefit getting transferred between a previous owned home to a new home from two years to three. It's one of two Legislature-approved Amendments, and one that both parties approved as a common-sense measure.

There doesn't seem to be any kind of financial impact statement regarding state revenues, not on Ballotpedia anyway, except for an example of how the "Save Our Homes" benefit reduces the tax paid for the homeowner by several thousands of dollars. There is an editorial listed with the Tampa Bay Times arguing in favor of this Amendment, while the League of Women Voters are opposing it on a blanket opposition to any referendum involving tax cuts that would harm public funding.

I am with the League in that this looks like another way to starve the state revenues, especially at a time when other resources for state funding is affected by the COVID pandemic. I would have to vote NO on this. I understand it'll probably pass because most voters are also homeowners who see the need to increase their exemption benefits, so I'm not particularly fighting hard against this one...

Amendment Six: Veterans' Spouse Tax Amendment

Again, for Florida a lot of taxation happens with property tax, and there's a lot of Homestead Exemption add-ons to give homeowners to keep said homeowners appeased. One such benefit was given to military veterans - especially popular due to the number of retirees here in-state - and so what this Amendment does is add a rule to that allowing the spouse of that veteran to continue receiving the veteran benefit even if the veteran dies (the exemption goes away if the spouse remarries or sells that property).

Again, this legislative-approved Amendment is so popular with elected officials that nobody balked at it, and again this looks like a popular Amendment to pass because noone dares put the tax squeeze on veterans or widows/widowers. The League of Women Voters opposes, again as a matter of principal. However, I am stuck on the fact this Amendment affects my parents (Dad's a vet) so I gotta go with what's good for my folks. I know this puts a crimp on revenue building but, you know, family. Voting YES on this one.

And... that's it, these six are the ones that survived the ballot process. Pretty quiet this election cycle, eh.

The key things to remember: Be wary of anything that takes our rights AWAY from us, be wary of anything the legislature throws at us, and be wary of anything that's got more parts to it than a Star Wars Lego set. 

This is why Amendment 4 is a disaster deserving a huge NO vote to reject it: If it passes, we may never see another citizen-approved referendum made again. 

This is why Amendment 3 is a GOOD one to pass: It expands our voting rights, especially for the large plurality of non-party voters who can finally get a say on which candidates they prefer in August well before they're forced to choose party hacks in November.

And anything that gives our workers better wages is always a plus, so YES on Amendment 2.

One last key thing: Every election the ballots we get are big ones, lots of offices to fill, lots of local ordinances up for votes as well. Check EVERY part of the ballot and make sure you've filled out every single choice you can see. Every vote needs to count, every election matters.

Now get the damn vote out, Florida. Early voting starts in October, and registration ends around October 3! Prepare yourselves.

Florida Ballot Amendments 2016: Four More Reasons to Show Up AND VOTE, PEOPLE

Welcome back to yet another ANOTHER installment - it's 2016 the Year of Celebrity Deaths - of "Florida's Voting For WHAT This November?"

This is primarily focusing on the state amendments on the ballot, that if passed by more than 60 percent of the vote get incorporated into the state's constitution. There's two types: ballot initiatives from the citizenry and legislative initiatives from Tall Hassle Tallahassee. So it's imperative to review who's backing what and determine whether or not Florida will actually benefit from the proposal.

This DOES NOT include any review of the Pasco Mosquito Control Board seats, I'll post something about the candidate votes later.

All links bounce to the Ballotpedia site:

Amendment 1: Solar Use and Subsidies

This citizens-based amendment basically lets Florida residents produce their own solar energy - through buying or leasing equipment - if they choose. It also allows state and local governments to "protect" those who won't produce solar energy from being required to subsidize any solar energy generation.

It's that second part that bothers me. It's worded to where it would grant the state or county or city governments the power to block any solar energy plans that would - and usually DOES - require subsidizing (i.e., funds from other resources). It can grant a government agency representing something - like, oh, a regional utility company - the power to force all leasing or purchasing of solar equipment from just that one utility (who can then charge exorbitant fees). The opponents arguing against this ballot measure are pointing out how this actually creates an expensive, state-backed monopoly on energy alternatives. 

It's clear when you look at the ballot-backer - a PAC called "Consumers for Smart Solar" - gets funds from major utilities like Duke Energy that the people looking to profit from this amendment's passage are NOT doing so in the people's best interests. I'd actually vote NO against this measure and wait for something better to show.

Amendment 2: Medical Marijuana

Again.

The previous attempt at passing a medical marijuana amendment in 2014 barely missed the 60 percent cutoff, so the bill's backers are hoping a strong turnout this cycle - when there's a Presidential election on the line - will bring in enough voters to break that barrier.

The arguments basically remain the same. Proponents view this as a sensible means of granting licensed doctors the power to help pain relief and other medical disorders that can be treated with marijuana. Opponents just hate pot and fear this will open up to recreational drug abuse.

The amendment makes it clear this grants DOCTORS the power to proscribe the drug - much like they could for any other pharmaceutical - and still reflect on the federal guideline that puts Marijuana under a restrictive Class I status.

What I said back in 2014 is what I'll say today:

I'm not a drug user.  I don't use marijuana (although I've known people who have).  I don't smoke nicotine cigarettes (which is more lethal than marijuana yet regulated by the feds).  I don't drink any alcohol, not even wine (again, in excess alcohol can be lethal, yet is still regulated by the feds).  I don't want to see any substance abuse of any kind for kids under 18 (in alcohol's case, the age limit is 21).  These are personal preferences for me.  Yet I don't see the severe harm of marijuana.  The death rate from pot overdose is non-existent: the amount of ingested THC (the chemical that makes marijuana the weed we know today) needed to overdose is thousands of times higher than the regular rate of ingestion.  Nearly every pot smoker just smokes one a day: it would take 20,000 of those rolls in one sitting to kill one smoker.  Even pot brownies - arguably more potent - doesn't have enough THC in it to cause death (diabetes, though...)

This is an amendment worth passing. I'm giving this a huge thumbs up YES.

Amendment 3: Tax Exemptions for Disabled First Responders

This is one of those legislative-backed amendments that the Far Right Republicans want to push as a means of tax-cutting without actually get held accountable for tax-cutting.

It's specifically for "First Responders, totally and permanently disabled as a result of injuries sustained in the line of duty, to receive relief from ad valorem taxes assessed on homestead property." It adds onto the existing Homestead Exemption, I would figure, and would reduce the amount of state and county/municipal taxes raised on residential property.

It doesn't provide tax relief to a lot of people - just the firefighters, cops, medics, or other emergency personnel - disabled/injured in the line of duty. So it doesn't benefit many and it doesn't cut back on a lot of tax revenues, so it's barely beneficial AND barely harmful. There's almost no argument for or against this amendment, which makes it almost neutral in terms of political partisanship. I'm still not a fan of these exemption amendments, so I'd vote No. I'd actually consider a broader-based amendment that would prove more beneficial to more people. I'll expect it to pass simply because enough Floridians won't see the harm in this amendment much like the other exemption amendments they passed in previous years.

Amendment 4: Tax Exemptions for Solar Panels

This already passed: for some reason it was put on the August primary ballot rather than the general election, and garnered about 72 percent of the vote. So... moot point.

Amendment 5: Tax Exemptions for Senior Citizens

Another legislative-backed deal, this one specifically geared for seniors with "homes valued at less than $250,000 owned by individuals over the age of 65 who have lived in the home for at least 25 years. The exemptions would also be available to permanently disabled veterans aged 65 or older and surviving spouses of veterans, or First Responders who died in the line of duty. Seniors would be able to keep their tax exemption even if their home value exceeded $250,000 in the future."

It does have a cutoff for houses worth more than $250,000 which tends to be the average market rate for a 3-4 bedroom homes with garages and indoor plumbing.

It's one of those fluffy-feed-good amendments that make it difficult to contest. Arguably you need to give seniors tax breaks as they're on fixed incomes in retirement, and they do need to afford living in their homes they've owned for ages. My problem with this amendment is that it grandfathers in (pun unavoidable) any homeowner whose property value DOES go up in the foreseeable future. Once it's exempt it's for the life of the homeowner(s). Which could dramatically affect county or city or school board tax collections for much-needed revenues.

Again, I'd argue No on this amendment because it's another questionable attempt to restrict agencies from any revenues to, you know, pay for things while benefiting just a select few residents. Granted, it's not benefiting the uber-rich homeowners, it's just one more paper cut by the Republicans against the state.

So that's my review of the amendments. Yes on 2, No on 1 and No on 3 and No on 5.

Also, a big No on Rick "Medicare Fraud" Scott, just because it needs saying.

Thank ye.

Reclassifying Marijuana Would Be Game-Changing

A patron at the library just let me know about a news blurb that came out a few days ago, so I went online and checked on the reports.

The federal agencies responsible for how drugs are classified for use - especially ones that can be addictive and harmful - are considering reclassifying Marijuana from Schedule I drug - listed as one of the most dangerous drugs out there - downward to Schedule II - which is harmful but not as criminally severe. Link to ABC News report on this:

Federal authorities have announced that they are reviewing the possibility of loosening the classification of marijuana, and if this happens, it could have a far-reaching impact on how the substance is used in medical settings, experts said.

Marijuana is currently classified as a Schedule I drug, meaning it is listed alongside heroin and LSD as among the "most dangerous drugs" and has "no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse."

The Drug Enforcement Administration announced last week that it is reviewing the possibility of reclassifying it as a Schedule II drug, which would put it in the same category as Ritalin, Adderal and oxycodone.

Medical experts are welcoming the review, saying it could ease restrictions for researchers, so that they can better understand which compounds in marijuana could be used to help patients...

I'm amazed there hasn't been more talk about this in the major blogs or media outlets. This could be a major shift in not only medical research - which the article focuses too much on - but also our entire legal system and the 40-year-plus War On Drugs.

Marijuana (pot) is one of the more commonly used illegal drugs in the nation, and one of the more prosecuted by an aggressive legal system fighting that War On Drugs that shows no signs of ending. It's a drug that's listed among the worst of the worst, in a scheduled class containing drugs with a high incidence of overdoses and deaths such as heroin.

...And yet, marijuana isn't as lethal as heroin or even other lesser Schedule drugs like opoids (pain-killers). Here's a government website that's charting drug overdoses, listing even prescription drugs alongside cocaine and heroin. Notice anything? THERE'S NO CHART FOR MARIJUANA. There are no reported cases of overdose deaths (granted, there are some reports of overdosing related to pot but no-one's died from them).

In terms of the effects marijuana has on the human body, it's less harmful than alcohol. And yet we treat marijuana as a criminal offense while alcoholism - outside of DUI, which is a major public safety risk and deserves criminal treatment - is handled as a health care medical issue.

The reasons for marijuana being treated as a Schedule I has less to do with the facts and more to do with politics. It's even come out recently that the War On Drugs that began under the Nixon administration was purely political:

The April cover story of Harper’s magazine explains not just how counterproductive the drug war has been but also, and perhaps more importantly, its racist roots. Written by Dan Baum, the article lays out the case for legalization, which is worth absorbing on its own. But it begins with a startling revelation from John Ehrlichman, one of Richard Nixon’s close aides and a Watergate co-conspirator.

This quote is from 1994, when Baum was writing a book about drug prohibition. Baum tracked Ehrlichman down, hoping to get some insight into the drug war, which began in earnest during Nixon’s administration. Ehrlichman’s explanation was surprisingly blunt:

“You want to know what this was really all about?” he asked with the bluntness of a man who, after public disgrace and a stretch in federal prison, had little left to protect. “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black people, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

What happened since the War started was a round of mass incarcerations, focused primarily on Blacks and to a lesser extent Hispanics and Asians, justified by the criminalization of certain drugs -marijuana - that those communities enjoyed over others. But marijuana had been vilified decades before - say hello to Anslinger - much to the extent that badly ill-informed movies about pot like Reefer Madness were made in the 1930s (if viewed objectively, the drugs the actors in that movie seem to be on is Meth or speed, not pot). By 1968, with the wave of civil unrest tied into a youth culture getting high, it was easy to exploit again.

The result has been long jail sentences for possession of pot for a large number of otherwise non-violent offenders that had led to overcrowded prisons and the downward spiral of the imprisoned into a life of crime (either to survive, or because their felony histories block them from meaningful jobs and livelihoods). The impact on entire communities - loss of employment, loss of income, loss of social aid, loss of voting rights - cannot be understated.

A lot of that is excused by having marijuana listed so high - erroneously, intentionally - as a lethal drug. So what happens if/when pot drops to the less-lethal Schedule II?

Actually, not a lot. The Federal government treats Schedule II drugs at about the same level of penalties as a Schedule I.

But this is where the medical aspect of the lesser Schedule comes into play: Making marijuana a Schedule II drug makes it EASIER for corporations and medical research facilities to access the drug for testing and pharma development. Most of what we know about marijuana's benefits are mostly anecdotal or on just-recent testing by other nations also loosening their penalties on pot. A more rigorous and thorough scientific research into the chemicals related to marijuana can quickly identify the medical/health aspects of cannabis consumption, and give cause to reduce the Schedule status for pot even further.

We'd have better scientific evidence that marijuana is no more harmful than alcohol, which we DO regulate with age restrictions, DUI laws, and other legal prohibitions. We'd have better evidence to drop marijuana even further into lesser Schedules that won't lead to automatic jail-time. And where we deal with alcoholism by treating it as a medical issue - and by creating social norms of alcohol consumption with moderation and common sense - we would treat any marijuana addiction as a health issue as well. And we wouldn't have a War On Drugs wasting everyone's time and money with needlessly excessive prison sentences.

Granted, this won't end the larger War On Drugs - there's still cocaine and meth and heroin and painkiller abuse to worry about - but dropping this one overwhelming part of that War could free up a lot of our resources, and bring some relief to our communities wrecked by an unjust pursuit against a mild substance.

Florida Ballot Amendments 2014: So Few Yet So Important

Another election cycle here in Florida.  Another round of Florida state amendments on the ballot for 2014 for the voters to decide.

Unlike previous ballots like 2012 and 2010 and 2008, this year we've got only three amendments to consider.  Could make for the smallest ballot sheet in recent history.  Deal is, these three are some of the biggest issues to vote on I've seen in ages.

Amendment One: Land Acquisition Trust Fund

The wording on this makes it so Florida has "to acquire, restore, improve, and manage conservation lands including wetlands and forests; fish and wildlife habitat; lands protecting water resources and drinking water sources, including the Everglades, and the water quality of rivers, lakes, and streams; beaches and shores; outdoor recreational lands; working farms and ranches; and historic or geologic sites, by dedicating 33 percent of net revenues from the existing excise tax on documents for 20 years."

What's at stake is funding for a state-founded land trust dedicated towards overall environmental management and protection.  Funding for that trust had been slashed back in 2009, and it seems the current legislature leadership isn't in the mood to find replacement revenues.

If you've never been to Florida, or just moved here, or if you've lived here for 20-40 years and just plain forgot, this state has a very fragile ecosystem and not a lot of room for growth.  Geographically, we're a mid-sized state but population has us as the fourth-most.  That means a lot of our limited resources are getting pulled in a lot of directions, above all our water.  Drinking water is important, as is our lawn maintenance and agricultural needs for water.  Not to mention our state's reliance on tourism with our impressive chain of beaches, rivers, lakes, and parks.  The risk of pollution to key waterways - especially the Everglades - is always high.

I don't buy what I've seen of the opposition's arguments: that this would force a constitutional solution to what normal legislation ought to handle, that it would cause an unbalanced budget, that it would kill job-creating funds.  On the first point, our current legislature hasn't been in any rush to resolve this matter, so we've got nowhere else to go to resolve it.  On the second, we have other ways of balancing the budget IF said legislature opened their fricking minds to the options available: besides, the Fiscal Impact committee that measures the cost benefits of all amendment proposals can't say if this will hurt or boost revenues.  On the third point, any time a Republican says anything will affect "job creators" I don't believe them, because their idea of "jobs creation" is "more money to the rich".

The overall purpose of this amendment is to protect our state's environment and conserve our resources in a way to ensure ourselves and future generations can LIVE HERE.  With regards to Amendment One, I vote YES.

Amendment Two: Medical Marijuana

This one is the doozy, the headache.  The major bout on the general election card this November (in some ways it's a bigger fight than the hotly contested Governor's race between Crist and Scott).  Just arguing over any kind of decriminalization of a drug... this can get messy.  So I'd like to start off simple.

This amendment sets out to allow "the medical use of marijuana for individuals with debilitating diseases as determined by a licensed Florida physician. Allows caregivers to assist patients’ medical use of marijuana. The Department of Health shall register and regulate centers that produce and distribute marijuana for medical purposes and shall issue identification cards to patients and caregivers. Applies only to Florida law. Does not authorize violations of federal law or any non-medical use, possession or production of marijuana."

What this means: marijuana can be used for medicinal purposes for individuals suffering in such a way that only marijuana's effects - usually pain-killing, appetite stimulus, and specific treatment for illnesses like glaucoma - can help them.  The use can only be signed off by licensed state doctors and caregivers (people who can lose such licenses if they're careless or law-breaking).  Treatment and distribution centers have to register and get managed by a state's oversight office, the Department of Health.  The amendment spells out that federal law, which still classifies marijuana as a major - Class I - narcotic, cannot be violated.  That means recreational possession or use of marijuana is a no-no.

Florida isn't the first state to pursue a medical marijuana protocol: both Colorado and Washington are the more recent states that have even legalized the manufacture and sale of marijuana (in Colorado's case even for recreational use).  There are 17 other states with some level of medical marijuana rights, or a decriminalization of pot use to where those arrested aren't jailed for it (they're fined and/or sent to outpatient treatment).  For what it's worth, the decriminalization efforts in other nations - Portugal for example - demonstrates that decriminalization does not lead to massive drug abuse (most drug abuse dropped in fact).

I do admit this amendment is a slippery slope towards an overall decriminalization of marijuana: if effective in showing the use of pot as a medicinal herb, the next argument is obviously how pot is "safe" as a recreational drug.  This is where the debate get worse.  Because there are a lot of people who fear the potential spread and abuse of marijuana as a recreational drug.  Because the keystone of our nation's massive War On Drugs has been a fight against marijuana use across the board, medicinal or otherwise.

Here's the thing: the War On Drugs has been a disaster.  The government is spending billions every year towards fighting it, it's led to the militarization of our police force to abusive levels, and it's led to the packing of our prison system at the state and federal level with a ton of non-violent drug offenders at a human cost of making them more hardened criminals.

It's been forty-plus years of the official start of the War On Drugs and the amount of drug abuse has not abated.  There is an aspect of human behavior we're just not going to be able to overcome with draconian policing and arrests.  The sad thing is that we've seen this all before: we called it Prohibition.

We tried policing human behavior under the good intentions of ending rampant alcoholism, which was viewed as a blight upon society.  The temperance movement in the United States got to be pretty powerful, and during an era of major social and political reform got the 18th Amendment - basically banning all alcohol - passed by 1920.  Rather than end the consumption of beer, whiskey, and other alcoholic drinks, all this did was drive the manufacture and consumption of alcohol underground, into speakeasies and gambling dens and criminal hideouts (and into country clubs, people's homes, other places where social types gather).  Criminal gangs that lived on the edge of society suddenly ran a profitable black market industry that boosted their financial and political clout.  Street wars erupted between these gangs.  The courts were flooded with Prohibition-related cases that clogged up our legal system for years.  Corruption became rampant.  In less than 14 years, we had to pass the 21st Amendment - and if you understand how hard it is to amend the U.S. Constitution, you'll understand how serious a problem this was - to repeal the 18th - we've never repealed an amendment since - just to do something to combat the violence and corruption.

Since then, our nation's fight against alcohol abuse has been more restrained and focused.  We go after direct risks such as Driving Under the Influence of alcohol (since drunk driving is a severe risk to everyone on the streets).  We place chronic drinking addicts into probationary counseling services - rehab clinics and group therapy - rather than jail.  We teach our kids in schools about the dangers of alcohol, and we have laws banning the sale or sharing of alcoholic beverages to the underage.  It's not perfect - we still have alcoholics, and we always will - but it's a good-faith effort, and it's more an effort to treat and save rather than jail and punish.

Instead of treating drug abuse as a crime, we ought to be treating it as a medical/health care issue.  We ought to focus more energy and funding into treatment and counseling, which have been effective means.  We ought to treat the overuse of drugs the way we treat alcohol addiction: as a medical problem, not a crime.

I'm not a drug user.  I don't use marijuana (although I've known people who have).  I don't smoke nicotine cigarettes (which is more lethal than marijuana yet regulated by the feds).  I don't drink any alcohol, not even wine (again, in excess alcohol can be lethal, yet is still regulated by the feds).  I don't want to see any substance abuse of any kind for kids under 18 (in alcohol's case, the age limit is 21).  These are personal preferences for me.  Yet I don't see the severe harm of marijuana.  The death rate from pot overdose is non-existent: the amount of ingested THC (the chemical that makes marijuana the weed we know today) needed to overdose is thousands of times higher than the regular rate of ingestion.  Nearly every pot smoker just smokes one a day: it would take 20,000 of those rolls in one sitting to kill one smoker.  Even pot brownies - arguably more potent - doesn't have enough THC in it to cause death (diabetes, though...)

I honestly don't see why pot is viewed as a Class I danger drug up there with heroin, which is deadly (along with cocaine and oxy, both of which deserve to be Class I but aren't): if anything marijuana ought to be classified a Class III alongside the synthetic THC drug Marinol.

I'll grant you one thing: The most severe problem with marijuana is psychological, the impact it has on the brain.  It can induce depression and cause memory loss, and it can adversely hinder kids' development during their growth into adulthood.  Any artificial drug/stimulant is going to have its' negative effects.  Alcohol can cause cirrhosis of the liver and affect depressive mood swings.  Alcohol in excess also causes violent mood swings that lead to a lot of other deaths (if anything, marijuana users tend not to trash the bar while high).  Smoking nicotine kills the lungs, causes cancer, and has been a major burden to our health care system.  Yet we regulate those drugs as best as possible to prevent kid and teen abuse: we regulate their sale and manufacture to try and reduce the health risks.  We can do the same with marijuana.

And that's not even getting into the legalization of industrial hemp, a cousin to the marijuana plant that's also been banned because of its' tenuous relationship (even though hemp barely contains any THC worth bothering).  At least our national government is making some sensible strides there.

For all these reasons - above all that this amendment is one more steps towards ending a War On Drugs we've already lost and that we can start treating marijuana use in a sensible productive fashion - I am going to vote YES on Amendment Two.

Amendment Three: Judicial Vacancies

This is the legislative-induced amendment proposal allowing the governor to set nominations for judicial vacancies, based off of a nominating committee list of no less than three names and no more than six.  Sounds pretty simple, doesn't it?

Hidden in this amendment is the change making it possible for a current sitting governor to nominate a candidate for a judicial vacancy before that vacancy even happens (the "prospective" part of the amendment's wording).

Say Rick "No Ethics" Scott is still the sitting governor if this amendment passes.  And he's there in office 2015 and he's looking at the State Supreme Court and sees there's three judges facing mandatory retirement in 2019, four years away and during the tenure of the next possible governor (due to term limits, Scott can't run for 2019).  Scott can use the power granted by this proposed amendment to nominate in 2015 three people to fill those eventual vacancies in 2019 even though those judges are still sitting there doing their jobs.  Worse, these nominations can't be overturned or blocked by the next governor, who would want to have the right and authority to nominate his/her own candidates for the office.  In fact, all seven seats on the Florida court can have their "vacancies" filled by a governor who'll be long gone from office by the time all of them are retired out (voluntary or not).

To call this "rigging" or packing a court is an understatement.  This amendment can easily grant a governor who'll be long gone from office the power to put people on any judicial seat without repercussion or any input from the future governor(s), even twenty years down the line.  It denies future voters the power to vote into office a governor that can represent their interests in handling of legal matters relevant to the state in those future times: we'd be stuck with a judge nominated ten or fifteen years ago whose political bias - and yes this is a thing to worry about - won't reflect the current mood or needs.  It doesn't matter if this is a power that can go to governors like Lawton Chiles or even Reubin Askew (arguably the greatest, most honest governor the state of Florida ever had): this is a power that can be abused without limit and can create long-standing animosity and acts of retaliation that would cause decades of legal chaos.

This would be like nominating a replacement Library Director for Broward County Libraries, even though that county system just hired a director and isn't due to retire for another 27 years or so.  In the meantime for those 27 years of waiting, the library system can easily change services, require different resources, respond to new needs for the public that calls for a new brand of leadership that the replacement Director just isn't suited to fill.  This denies the library system the chance to hire at the moment of need the best possible candidate, someone who is versed in that future: instead they're stuck with a rigid, outdated Director more than likely to pursue goals and agendas no longer relevant nor working.

This smacks of Rick Scott and his buddies in the state legislature looking to pack the courts with their pro-corporate, anti-government cronies as soon as possible: the potential shifts in population - even in aging old Florida - is making the Sunshine State more Democrat/Blue by 2020, when even gerrymandering can't save the conservative wingnuts.  Fearing the future, they're hoping to use whatever power they have in the present to rig the game their way for the foreseeable future.  This is an amendment that needs to go down in flames.  For the Love of God, VOTE NO on Amendment Three this year.

And, just one more thing: GET THE DAMN VOTE OUT PEOPLE.  And for the LOVE OF GOD, please vote for Charlie Crist as Governor... get Rick "He's a Goddamn FRAUD" Scott out of office RIGHT NOW.

I thank you.  Stay focused this November, people.