Palmer Blevins Blog

This article is featured on Helium.

Pot-heads, stoners, and future politicians who are not inhaling, rejoice! On February 3, 2009, Springfield’s (IL) City Council voted 7-3 to allow possession of 2.5 grams (or less) of marijuana to be prosecuted as a ordinance violation instead of as a criminal offense.

Alderwoman Gail Simpson sponsored the ordinance with the goal of generating additional sources of funding for the city of Springfield, which will also “be good for those individuals who do silly things and get in trouble, but they are not going to be stigmatized.” The city is currently facing a budget deficit of $12.5 million.

As a taxpayer, I welcome the decision to decriminalize possession of less than 2.5 grams of marijuana in order to fund certain things, such as keeping library branches ope . First, it means that our county jail will be used as a habitat for the more violent scourge of society; such as thugs, rapists, child molesters, women beaters and child abusers. Second, city and police resources can be better used to battle the latter instead of having to deal with minor possession offenses. Third, each violation of the marijuana ordinance increases in the amount of the fine; which translates into additional revenue for the city. The city should be able to turn a profit with this plan just from UIS alone, which should provide some relief to taxpayers (and yes, I know that many marijuana users are taxpayers too). Fourth, individuals will not have a have a criminal record for mere possession, which can adversely affect one when looking for a job…especially in the job market of today. And finally, politicians will no longer need to offer stupid one-liners in regards to their past marijuana usage.

As much as I support the idea of using marijuana users who are in possession of 2.5 grams or less of the exotic weed as a meal-ticket, one must wonder if this is truly a responsible fiscal pursuit. After all, we probably would not be in such a budget mess if our politicians, who probably were stoned during Economics 101, could learn to be good stewards of tax payer money, to live within a budget in which money is not spent on frivolous ventures, and to not spend money that is not already available. Of course, this is Springfield; a town that lost the Simpsons Premiere and hopes to cash in on people’s addictions instead of truly solving budget problems.

Source: Poole, Deanna, City Alters Prosecution of Certain Marijuana, Drug Offenses, The State Journal Register, February 4, 2009.

Check out a rather old article I wrote back in October as part of Blog Action Day; it is now featured on Triond/Socyberty. Leave your comments here and tell me what you think.

This article of mine is featured on Helium,

The United States is ready for a Third Party. With the Republican Party seemingly weakened as a result of the 2006 Mid-terms and the recent 2008 General Election, the time could be ripe for an Third Party to fill whatever void there may be. Many people on both sides of the aisle were dissatisfied with the candidates who received their nominations from the Democratic and Republican parties, and a good number of people were so disheartened or disillusioned that they either did not vote or they voted for “the lesser of two evils,” who ever that may have been. The election system is broken, for a number of reasons.

It is unfortunate that the democratic process throughout the primaries, for both major parties, hinged on who had the most money, who could win in Iowa & New Hampshire (to states that have a lot of clout in the primary process but not in electoral votes), and who could win the vote of confidence of Big Money and Big Media. Of all the candidates running this past election cycle, only four were given sufficient visibility: Clinton, Obama, Romney and McCain; everybody else took a back seat because they either did not have the blessings of the mainstream media, the money, or both…and it is a shame. It is a shame the elections have become less and less about the issues and more and more about who is most popular, who is able to raise the most money, who is most capable of staying in the good graces of the media, and who is most able to sacrifice his/her principles and resort to the dirtiest of politics in order to get a vote. Therefore, candidates are weeded out to give the spotlight to those more deserving of the crown that the king-makers (money and the mainstream media) can bestow.

For eight long years, the atmosphere of the political process has been polluted by smear campaigns, the sacrifice of principles for votes, doublespeak and half-truths, and the kowtowing to financial backers and the media. But it is in this atmosphere that a Third Party could come in and revolutionize the process. To become viable, a Third Party needs to build a solid foundation on a clear, moderate/middle of the road platform that speaks to the average American who is more concerned with issues that truly matter in their daily lives; such as employment security, national security, education and health-care. Of course, there is the matter of getting that centrist message out to the masses, of which money can be a major hindrance. To overcome this obstacle, it would be wise to capitalize on new media; such as blogs, YouTube, social networking sites and even podcasting.

However, in the current system, Third Parties are not viable; largely because of the long-drawn out primary and general election process. If a Third Party could get a major financier, or group of them, it would be a major plus; but then again you would run the risk of sacrificing principles for an end. Individuals like Ron Paul, Ross Perot and Ralph Nader have/had the huge war chests ($35 million in Ron Paul’s case), but yet could not overcome issues of long drawn out campaigns and trying to get the necessary media exposure with networks who already decide which candidates they want to see run before the next election cycle (the current frenzy of Sarah Palin running in 2012 comes to mind). Many Third Party candidates have to jump through hoops just to get on the ballot in most states, even if they have the necessary number of signatures required by election laws that are drafted by the Democratic and Republican parties in order to keep their electoral monopoly.