Malloy: The Marijuana Governor?

Ever since Dan Malloy started his campaign to tax everything in sight, I've heard the statement, "Dan Malloy must be on drugs!"  Well, while the Governor may not actually be on drugs, we at least know that he and his 60s-throwback friends in the Legislature are a big advocate of them.



Marijuana Legalizers
are McStupid

Today, with the full support of Governor Dannel Malloy, the Judiciary Committee held public hearings which seeks to decriminalize certain drugs via a series of acts, including: S.B. 1015: An Act Concerning the Palliative Use of Marijuana, H.B. 6391: An Act Concerning Penalties For Certain Driving Under The Influence Offences, Offender Risk Reduction Earned Credits And Home Confinement For Certain Non Violent Drug Offenders, and S.B. 953: An Act Concerning Non-Violent Drug Possession Offenses including others.  These bills are the wet dream of those demented individuals who wish to proliferate drugs in our neighborhoods and communities to create a state endorsed dependency on drug use, leading to an economic subculture for drug kingpins who can expand their heinous trade in the open.

It's so disappointing to see Republicans like Penny Bacchiochi testify in favor of legalizing drug use based on misguided emotional appeal - "Hundreds of people have died or are in pain." she exaggerated.  All I could think is that the bad guys are realling winning when they can get Republicans to act like liberal Democrats.  It's a shame that the residents of Somers, Stafford and Union have been hoodwinked into being misrepresented by someone who is as short-sighted as Bacchiochi, and who would open Connecticut's doors to drug lords eager to intice our children into their dangerous cartel.  Bacchiochi acts as if there are no other options to manage pain.  Residents of her districts aught to really call her judgement into question. In fact, maybe they aught to just recall her and replace her with someone who puts children and families before the drug cartel.

Further disingenuous is Democrat Michael Lawlor who claims that the pro-Marijuana bills are not meant to undermine police efforts to keep drugs under control, and out of our children's hands.  Instead, just like the anti-death penalty crowd, Lawlor makes simpleton argument that its just too expensive to use police for law enforcement of drug laws, or to bring criminals to trial (and provide them public defenders), or bother incarcerating criminals, or sending them off for treatment.  Lawlor and other drug advocates simply want to avoid the larger discussion of the negative implications of drug use on society, by hiding behind cancer victims. 

The suggestion that reducing the possession of amounts of Marijuana to a mere infraction under H.B. 6391 is to surrender our values and efforts to drug lords who can't wait for an open market to conduct business here in Connecticut.  I can't imagine placing drug use into a laughable catagory on par with j-walking, cell phone use, or even blocking a side walk with motor vehicle.  What kind of message does that send to kids?  Using drugs is no big deal?  And its ok to do drugs as long as you pay the fine?  This is pure madness!

At least Republican Minority Leader Lawrence Cafero, who serves as a school expulsion officer, spoke at length on the hazards of Marijuana on young people -  particularly the negative effects in a school setting.  Marijuana has contributed to poor school performance, attention issues, delinquency, theft, and truancy in middle school and high school student.  It also creates a habitual dependency that lasts on through adulthood, which will still create the desire for supply and demand, and sale of such products which lead to the use of other products for those seeking other hallucinogenics.  Cafero asked his colleagues to "follow the money" trail of who seeks decriminalization of marijuana and see where it leads.  And he is right that often times drug distribution often leads to a much larger criminal syndicate.  Cafero also made the point that the present set of bills do not even provide for age limits for drug use.  These bills are an outrage! 

Chief State's Attorney Kevin T. Kane confirmed that despite liberal rhetoric theorizing that decriminalizing some drugs would reduce cost to the judicial system, that there would be no actual reduction in savings. Kane said that judicial cost is not going to change much because its no more than the cost of looking at a file, and generally assigning a public defender. Moreover, people who are brought to trial end up getting sent to diversionary programs anyway.  However, abdicating the state's position to force drug abusers into treatment would be counter-productive. Forced substance abuse programs may be the only opportunity for some to get help (marijuana users do not face incarceration).  If the State were to go with the mail-in fine via infraction fewer people would be directed toward help.

A larger concern verified by Attorney Kane is the problem with trying to determine whether someone was operating a motor vehicle under the influence of marijuana as its not as easily detectable as alcohol by use a breathalizer. Kane admitted that its hard to get a conviction based soley on drug use. He said it would police be difficult without proper training and new equipment for police to determine that Cannabis was the root cause for an accident. He also pointed out it was more likely that if Cannabis were decriminalized, there would likely be more people using it, driving under its influence, and failing in school, etc.

Attorney Kane stated that times have changed and the marijuana trade has become increasing violent over the years.  It's no longer people wanting to sit around and just get high.  It's a larger more serious matter - people who deal in illegal goods and services and traffic in illegal goods and services, tend to start protecting territory and forcibly collect debts owed to them, and it would create an environment for expanding violence based on territorial competition. Signalling a tolerance for the product might be further detrimental to law enforcement and the judiciary because it would lead to increased use and trafficking, and subsequently, more criminal activity.



Add campaign for anti-drug use

An even bigger disgrace is Barbara Fair, so-called Executive Director of My Brother's Keeper, a fringe racist-baiting group out of New Haven which spends its time advocating for low income programs for minority groups.  Her agenda (by her own admission) is what she calls the disperportional inequity amongst blacks being cited for drug trafficking around schools. Her testimony seeking to remove or limit penalties for drug distribution around schools should be particularly alarming to parents.  Barbara Fair is just asking the state to look the other way when it comes to drug distribution in urban environments - because her chief concern isn't children; its keeping black people out of jail.  My Brother's Keeper? More like My Brother's Crack Dealer.  What a creep!



Perhaps, people like Penny Bacchiochi  should listen to Lt. Michael R. Rinaldi, President of the Narcotic Enforcement Officers Association (NEOA) of Connecticut.  The following fact based points are relevant:

• The Federal Drug Administration, American Medical Society, American Lung Association, and the American Cancer Society all oppose legalization of Marijuana.  Marijuana is four times more likely to cause cancer and lead to other cancer related/respiratory illnesses.
• The FDA and AMA have deemed smoked marijuana to not be a medicine.  Marijuana has not been deemed to be beneficial as a medicine in fact quite the contrary when it comes to impacts on the respiratory system.
• Marijuana is one the most prevalent illegal drug detected in testing following traffic fatalities involving the use of drugs; a major public safety issue
• Most studies collected by those undergoing drug abuse treatment show that Marijuana is generally documented as the "gateway drug" to other drugs to use of other illegal drugs. Notwithstanding, the legislature's decriminalization would remove the social stigma associated with its use, and toughen the role of positive parenting through its quasi-endorsement of the drug. 
• Social scientists agree that decriminalization would lead to increased use, increased addiction, increased workplace issues, increased healthcare costs, increased health burden borne by taxpayers, increased additional treatment costs, increased insurance premiums, and increased traffic fatalities.
• The claim legalization would result in the elimination of the black market is clearly false, as evidenced by the existing black market for cigarettes in place today
• Of the total prescriptions filled for marijuana only 1.5% were for Cancer, Glaucoma, and AIDS patients.  The remaining 98.5% were for soft tissue injuries, sleeping problems and other minor issues.  70% for people under the age of 40 despite that the Compassion Act was passed for the "sick and dying of the aged".
• Massachusetts recently passed the law decriminalizing Marijuana.  It's understood that the packaging related to the distribution of drugs into smaller less than one ounce bags now causing a distribution problem for law enforcement due to the size of the bags which fall just under the illegal limit.  Moreover, there is no teeth in the Massachusetts law - no one is paying the fines, and there is no provision for following up with offenders in the current law.
• Montana has repealed its laws on use of Marijuana because of its negative impacts on its population and labeling as a drug source state citing increase in drug trafficking and increase in violent crime. Thus its caused increased burden on state government.  Arizona and New Mexico have begun the process of repealing their new laws.
• On average, Marijuana costs about $120 an ounce. An ounce of cannabis creates approximately 120 joints.  As demand would increase, so would the cost and that would result in an increase of activity in an economic subcultural
• Connecticut would require additional costs to train and purchase equipment to handle Driving while Drugged enforcement which does not exist today.   
• In California since its legalization, 90 California cities have sought repeal of the Marijuna legalization laws. 
• As a matter of public safety, unlike alcohol which marijuana legalization advocates love to reference, marijuana remains in a person's system for between 24 and up to 4 weeks. 
• An FDA study shows that the use of Marijuana by those infected by HIV-AIDS often leads to complications that lead to reduced defense mechanisms, form new vesicular cancer, and expedite death.
• The Marijuana Policy Project and the Drug Policy Alliance are the two primary organizations that wish to push drug use in the United States.  The goal of these two disgusting groups is to open up marijuana use for recreational purposes, and expand drug dependency, and set up commercial centers of operation for the marketing and sale of marijuana and other drugs.  
• Local Connecticut Drug Treatment Centers report that over 50% are undergoing treatment for Marijuana use, and this is likely to rise if the drug is legalized thus creating additional burden for the state and community.

Other consequences of Marijuana use can be found here.   When you read the effects that marijuana has on a person, it makes you wonder why Connecticut's Governor and Michael Lawlor would wish to decriminalize drugs.  The ability to tax another product is hardly worth the pain and suffering it would cause.  I never expected our Connecticut leadership to one day try to ban smoking in bars, restaurants, and now seek to legalize pot smoking without age restriction.

Parents should really be concerned with the kind of leadership Connecticut has in place.


This original blog entry can be found at http://www.thekingsview.blogspot.com/