Why does the government continue to harass cigarette smokers, as the drive to legalize marijuana meets with no federal opposition?

Everyday it seems to me that the world becomes a bit more bizarre.  When I was a child, I could not imagine that cigarette smoking would ever be frowned upon.  Cut to 2016, where movements are underfoot in a number of states to criminalize cigarette smoking inside one's own home.  When the medical profession became more vocal about the dangers of breathing nicotine into the lungs, I was thrilled.  I was just out of college, and I had been thinking about trying to discourage cigarette smoking in my own family.  I remember when the federal government decided to make cigarette smoking more expensive.  Then came the isolation and borderline harassment.  I have never smoked, but I saw the evolution of the anti-smoking movement because I come from a family that smokes.  By the time anti-smoking groups were allowed to disseminate questionable studies involving second-hand smoke, I began to have concerns about the amount of authority the anti-smoking groups had been delegated.  At the back of my mind, though, I realized that if everyone were to quit smoking, our society would be changed for the better.....or at least we would be healthier.  It was then that I became more aware of another smoking movement, and this one was all about lighting up!

I'm not positive, but I believe that the first state to legalize medicinal marijuana was California, which came as no surprise to most Americans.  California has earned the reputation for being ahead of the curve when it comes to liberal legislation.  Since California set the precedent, a slew of "legalize marijuana" groups took the hint and changed their argument to "legalize marijuana for medicinal purposes".  Don't let the semantics fool you.  Marijuana doesn't cure anything.  Somewhere along the line, someone decided that smoking marijuana made it easier to deal with chronic pain.  Before you could say, "Cheech and Chong", half the potheads in America were discovering that they a medical history of terrible chronic pain that could only be ameliorated by smoking or ingesting marijuana.  Interestingly enough, Big Tobacco got the word as well.  Instead of worrying about diminishing profits, Carolina tobacco growers saw a way out; why not put all the lobbying money behind medicinal marijuana?  The plan was simple: once the nation became more comfortable with medicinal marijuana, put the lobbyists to work fighting for legalized, non-medicinal marijuana.  The plan has been working like a charm.  Soon, more states will be legalizing marijuana use.  The arguments of the day being that since people are going to smoke pot anyway, why not make some money taxing it?  The same argument has been put forth by Libertarians for years regarding hard narcotics.  Are you ready to see Heroin and OxyContin for sale at the local H.E.B. or Giant or Food Lion?  Why not? Drug addicts are going to buy the drugs illegally anyway; why not make some money for the state through tax revenue?

So the great people of the United States have decided that cigarette smoking is just short of sucker- punching a nun when it comes to heinous behavior, but smoking pot should be legal, because, well, its not as dangerous as alcohol, and the kids are going to smoke it anyways.  The anti-smoking effort and the pro-marijuana movement are like two ships that passed in the night, moving in opposite directions.  Don't be a bit surprised if you discover in a few years that legal large-scale marijuana production isn't taking place in Colombia, but in Winston-Salem and Greensborough, North Carolina.  Everything seems to be in place for smoking pot to replace tobacco use as the favorite pastime of  young Americans, except for one potential problem which might just cause people to think twice before lighting up their next joint.

For decades, research facilities in Australia and Europe have identified a disturbing link between psychosis and marijuana use.  I don't pretend to be a scientist, and even though I think I understand the basic argument, I must ask you to google "marijuana" and "schizophrenia", and examine the research for yourself.  It is apparent to me that some persons who are born with a potential chemical imbalance or "issue", can trigger psychosis just by smoking pot.  You will also find a few articles debunking the research I mention, but always take the time to discover who is paying for what.  The lobbyists and attorneys for Big Tobacco (we must come up with a new name!) have been busy, blocking all efforts to introduce serious, accredited research into the debate surrounding legal marijuana use.  This issue is very important to me because someone I was very close to, someone who would smoke one joint before bedtime, evolved from a brilliant, funny, healthy person into a paranoid schizophrenic in the span of one evening.  The psychotherapist that was hired was blunt with me regarding the problem; for some people, marijuana use is a ticket to psychosis.  Research has yet to determine percentages, and I'm unaware of any method to determine who would be at a higher risk.  But from my perspective, why take the chance?  We haven't even touched on the common criticism of marijuana that it robs a person's ambition.  I remember discussing the issue with a pot-smoking friend of mine, who had been incredibly successful in his field since leaving college.  "I've never stopped smoking pot, and look at me", he offered.  Sure, he's doing great, but what about percentages this time around?  I can't even count the number of people I have met in my life who are absolute permanent pothead couch potatoes who only care about video games and weed.  We all know that a link exists somewhere, but does it matter?  Not to the progressive issue of de jour.

Can't Help Myself - My Comments On This Torture Business

Link: Senator Kirk Telling It Like It Is


Before this issue exploded on the front page of the NY Times, I did not have much to say about Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois.  Interestingly enough, today he became my choice for President in 2016.  I have read the Congressional Report on Torture three times cover to cover, and I have yet to see the justification for all the drama.  Obviously some CIA personnel stepped outside the bounds of their authority.  This FACT was determined years ago, by the CIA's own internal investigation.  Individuals were punished appropriately as far as the process allows.  If you don't like the process, and want to bring CIA personnel to trial for alleged acts against foreign nationals, more power to you.  But you have to change the process (and law) first.  The release of this report was nothing more than rehashing information that was already available to the public.  I never saw any of the disgusting acts described in the report, which isn't surprising since they were the exception, not the rule. One, possibly two detainees were put through some process called "anal feeding".  Its horrible, inhumane and not allowed.  Anyone who participated in that type of behavior should be punished to the furthest extent according to the policies that are in place.  The same can be said for anyone who engaged in slapping, punching, or kicking detainees.  I'm also appalled by the allegation of Agency officers putting restraints on legs of persons with leg or ankle injuries.  I am not opposed to the use of Waterboarding in extreme circumstances.  A clearly defined set of guidelines should determine the proper use of this form of enhanced interrogation.  I know Waterboarding has saved lives.  It will do so again in the future if it is "recalled" to use.  But that decision was, and always will remain above my pay grade. Otherwise, in my opinion the least amount of physical contact between guards and detainees is the best policy.

I had a short but important conversation with my friend Joseph.  JJ and I seldom agree on politics but otherwise we get along famously.  I put great value on humor, and JJ sure knows how to make me laugh.  I think JJ was a bit worried that I would be one of those stereotypical bully-types that are usually associated with intimidating others.  Actually, I don't think he thought I was "one of them", but he was concerned that I might be a sympathizer.  Truth be told, I've met more than a handful of the kind of folks who are usually suffering from a permanent case of The Napoleon Syndrome (or Small Man's Syndrome).  I'm not comfortable around anyone who derives pleasure from degrading others.  I am convinced that people who get pleasure from dominating or humiliating others are suffering from some form of psychosis.  I'm sure that the U.S. Government at one time or another has hired both men and women who fit that description.  But I don't believe it was ever a planned strategy.  I'm sure the CIA has hired persons like this as well, but I'm convinced it was the rare exception as opposed to the rule.  I can assure you that the persons the CIA chooses to interview detainees have no intention of physical interaction.  I believe that the rare (singular?) instances detailed in the recently released Congressional Report shed light on a few bad apples who have since been appropriately disciplined.  As usual, what the report does not mention are the thousands and  thousands of lives that have been saved through enhanced interrogation techniques.  I am personally offended and angered when a Congressman or Congresswoman allege that CIA interrogation techniques have not been successful.  Its not only a false allegation, its libelous. But Congress can say whatever it chooses because the Agency is an easy target.  The CIA has no built-in mechanism to defend itself from internal attack.  I guess the men who built the organization did not anticipate that the U.S. Government would become so self-destructive as to turn on the nation's professional clandestine service.  Some people will not be happy until the CIA is disbanded.

The September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and the intended attack which tragically ended in a field in Pennsylvania, initiated a great deal of commentary from both Congress and the mainstream media.  I remember it like it was yesterday, because I felt like I had a bullseye on my back.  How could these butchers and cowards have managed to pull this off?  Where was the CIA?  Why didn't our intelligence services discover the plot beforehand?  The process has become so predictable.  The Intelligence Agencies, responding to intense pressure from whatever Administration is in power, leaves no stone unturned to improve intel collection, particularly human intelligence, which has proven time and again to be the most valuable.  Almost immediately, the media starts the countdown until they are in a position to point out that the CIA hasn't changed; that its still nothing but a bunch of bully-types who are looking for weaker folks to dominate.  Occasionally the CIA is able to walk the thin line between the "not enough" and "too much" cacophony, but at the end of the day, I believe the Agency's days are numbered.  You have no idea how painful it is to give consideration to such a thought.  But something that used to be whispered about (how will the USG delegate the distribution of Agency responsibilities to other Departments, Agencies and Bureaus) is now discussed openly.

I was really encouraged to learn about Senator Kirk's justified and accurate portrayal of the events leading up to this post.  Feinstein's staffers, already less-than enthusiastic towards the CIA, took full advantage of the opportunity to re-introduce information that has already been disseminated in DC.  But the story was broadcasted in a manner which all but labeled the details as "previously confidential".  Who is Diane Feinstein (and her staffers) to accuse anyone of anything?  They are so out of their league in this business.  And we all know that if, God forbid, the enemy strikes again, this time in California, Feinstein will be the first in line, wanting to know why the Intelligence Agencies weren't more aggressive in their collection efforts.  Like most people, occasionally I can get a bit of the gorilla red-ass about things in DC, but Feinstein's release of this document has upset me more than usual.  She should no longer be allowed to participate in classified briefings.  If I were soon-to-be Senate Majority Leader McConnell I would make sure she was not present during classified briefings.  Since she has decided that she is the only one smart enough to decide what should be released for public consumption and what shouldn't (I don't recall any Feinstein wadded panties during the Clinton Administration's flirtation with missiles to China or the bombing of Serbia to move the conversation away from Monica Lewinsky), then I don't believe she should have access to classified information.

Congress needs to address entitlements and stop digging around in the military and intelligence budgets to save a quarter here and there.  The big money is in entitlement reform.  A sincere effort by Congress and the President, with politics not allowed in the room, can result in serious tax and entitlement reform.  Fraud needs to be addressed and eradicated, and congressional junkets and airports to nowhere must become a thing of the past.  All manner of entitlements must be addressed: no more multi-million dollar grants to the University of South Commode to determine why sober college students have sex less often than drunk college students, or five million dollars to Ass Napkin University to research the causes of color blindness in worms (the schools were invented but the research and grants were real).  Also, someone in Congress please pass legislation that outlaws an incoming president from rewarding donors with absurd billion-dollar grants for eco-friendly research.  Give me the red marker for a week; I'm more than ready to tackle DC spending.  And I can do it without cutting the budgets of the military or the intelligence community.