Lobbyists are a part of capitol hill much as the partisan blowhards that listen to them, but do lobbies ever become involved in state elections? And much more ones that are socially taboo? The answer is yes, and there has been a surprising amount of lobby interest from both companies and organizations opposing and supporting proposition 19 in California. “Big Alcohol” has been reported by (citation) the California state governments political finance website, stating the California Beer & Beverage Distributors donated $10,000 directly to No On Prop 19.
Interestingly enough however two breweries belonging to the association, Sierra Nevada Brewing Co. and Newcastle Brown Ale have both publicly expressed their want to be removed from a list of members, and in the case of Sierra Nevada from any future political actions the association undertakes.
Almost a third of the money being donated to the campaign opposing Proposition 19 has been from Law Enforcement Organizations, spanning local and county departments to contribute along with the California Narcotics Officer’s Association. Knowing the parties responsible for the opposition of Proposition 19 must raise at least one question, do the aforementioned parties act out of public or self interest? Law Enforcement Organizations however exist in large part monetarily to the war on drugs, declared at any level of government. Billions of dollars are written into state and national budgets for drug law enforcement purposes. The stated purpose of law enforcement by definition is to enforce the laws people have determined for themselves out of appropriate legislatures, not enact the laws in their view, should they even expect to hold one as an instrument of justice.
Is voting against Proposition 19 just? Allowing people the ability to self determine what should be legal in one’s private residence; ending asset forfeiture that funds LEO directly out of drug war legislation, reducing their operating budget and ability to do their “business.” But wouldn’t allowing Officers to act in ways more positively effective to society instead of wasting time persecuting a benign substance be the sure answer? In a strictly utilitarian sense, assuming an increase in protection from criminal elements would result out of increased police attention to them; one would conclude certainly a vote in support would appear imperative. However in speaking dollars and cents and ease of persecution Marijuana makes an incredibly appealing target; wide usage, minority base, easy convictions of non-dangerous and non-violent offenders from courts facing ever increasing pressure to alleviate crime. Why not go for the most obvious criminals one can legislate
Big Alcohol doesn’t face a similar dilemma in stated purpose, owing no allegiance to justice nor the public outside of a business interaction. However in coming out against legislation against another “sin” often the subject of weepy commercials that champion their illegality would rally at the cause of another societal vice? Perhaps not in terms of competition for the all important market’s time spent engaged in a businesses wares it does represent significant competition. Studies conducted as well as surveys suggest that people would willingly trade off alcohol for marijuana; however pending upon legislation the choice is either available or will remain a monopoly for alcohol.
While a corporation must act in it’s self interest, a consumer should also be compelled to do the same and boycott alcohol producers and indeed parties involved in opposing what an individual stands for, in personal freedom and at least from that of a corporations; not individual or public, interest. Corporations ultimate fealty is to that of owners or shareholders, not the public, not the individual’s best interest; surely one would defend the public and an individual’s interests before those of a select party or group. I would hope at least the voters of California do.
No comments:
Post a Comment