A few years before my wonderful mother died, she first told me a story, and then followed it up with a strong request.
The story concerned my nephew, who had lived most of his life until the age of about 16 in the frequent company of his grandmother. But as time went along, his grandmother began to show the symptoms of Alzheimer’s, and that awful disease eventually took her away from us about five years later.
Some time after that, my nephew happened to mention to my mother that he only really remembered his grandmother during the time when she was afflicted with Alzheimer’s, and he did not really recall the good times before that. This affected my mother so much that she made me vow to her that when it appeared that she would be at the end of her life, I was not to allow any of her grandchildren to see her. She deeply wanted them only to remember her as she was, during the good times.
So when that time eventually came, we respected her wishes, and didn’t allow her grandchildren to see her.
This caused me to reflect upon my own experience. When I was about 12 years old my father took me to see one of his aunts who was in bed and dying of cancer. I had previously seen his aunt on several prior occasions, but the only visual memory I have of her to this day was that last visit, when she was weak, pale, and wasting away.
Obviously these are deeply personal matters. But personally, I think my mother was right. I want the lasting memories of me by my grandchildren to be of the good times. Think about it, because you might want the same thing, and want to make the same request my mother did.
Even treading further into private issues, I have personally decided that at the end of my life I wish to have the body I leave behind to be cremated. Therefore, I have pre-arranged and paid for this to be done with the Trident Society, and I carry a card in my wallet setting forth my chosen plan. It even includes an added provision that if I die more than 75 miles from my residence, the program will cause my body to be cremated wherever I left it, and the ashes returned to my family for disposal according to my wishes, which I have already made known to them.
Among other things, this course of action complies with my mother’s belief that “the land is for the living,” so the dead shouldn’t take up space. It also would have the additional benefit of relieving my surviving family and friends from the guilt of not going “often enough” to my gravesite to pay their respects. And it would also take away the situation of having withering and dead flowers on my grave, which I have always seen as sad and depressing. So for all of these reasons, I believe that cremation is the way to go.
And then there is the time that life is drawing to a close. My mother, based upon what she had seen and thought about, also made me promise her that no extraordinary measures would be taken to keep her heart beating, if by doing so she would lose her dignity and quality of life.
This evolved into her view that she didn’t want me to allow any tubes to be used to prolong her life under those conditions. And — bless her heart forever — at the end she was true to her convictions.
Without pressing the case too strongly, because these are some of the most personal things a person can discuss, it is important for all of us to think about and plan for all of these inevitabilities.
Not only is it not morbid to make these plans, it is actually being thoughtful and considerate of your surviving friends and family. Why? Because when the time comes, your loved ones will almost uniformly want to carry out your wishes.
So don’t increase their pain and grief by making them guess what your wishes are. Tell them — but not in your will, because by the time your will is read the decisions will have been made and the actions already taken. Instead, write them out in a “living will” (you can get the forms at stores like Staples), discuss them at the appropriate time with the right people, and even make some of the arrangements yourself. This really is an act of thoughtfulness and kindness.
Finally, I was talking with my wife and children recently about one of my wishes after I have left this earth. That wish is that the first time a good production of “Rigoletto,” “Carmen,” or “Les Miserables” comes to Southern California after my death, I want my estate to purchase good seats for anyone in my family who wants to attend, and also, either before or after the show, I want to host a nice meal at a good restaurant with some nice wine. Then maybe my family might have a good time, and drink a toast in memory of my life.
In response, my wife and others suggested that I should not wait. Instead I should purchase the tickets myself, and I should participate in the happy occasion right along with them. Why? Because life is for the living. They are right, and that is what I am going to do.
So that is my final thought to you in today’s column. Don’t wait until it’s too late. Be sure to make special plans to spend some of your remaining time on this earth enjoying nice occasions with your family and friends.
Because not only is the land for the living, so is life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of “Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts.” He can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.JudgeJimGray.com.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Sunday, April 19, 2009
The Canyon Acres story - by Judge Jim Gray
Last St. Patrick’s Day, while waiting at Promelis Market for my take-out order of corned beef and cabbage, I began making light conversation with a distinguished- looking man who was waiting for a similar order to take home to enjoy with his family, including several grandchildren. After expressing my jealousy that he had grandchildren and I didn’t, we began talking about other things.
It turns out that this man was Patrick Dirk, a name that was familiar to me, and he was soon discussing his involvement and commitment to an organization called Canyon Acres Children and Family Services. Surprisingly enough, even though I had sat as a judge on a juvenile court assignment for several years, I was not familiar with this group. So I asked him about it.
At this point, Dirk lit up with infectious enthusiasm. He told me that Canyon Acres is a private/public partnership composed of about 95 paid staff and 300 volunteers that work with the Orange County Health Care Agency, the probation department, and other parties to provide homes, care, treatment, and supportive services for abused, neglected, and emotionally troubled children and their families in Orange County.
What began in 1980 as a home for 12 young children has grown into a model child-welfare agency. It assists with foster care, adoptions, creating family connections, a daytime treatment center, “wraparound” services, mental health services, and in-home crisis services.
In doing this, they have found that their timely intervention both helps to keep children in their homes, and also reduces the chances that the children will later have to be placed into a higher level of care.
Sadly enough, many abused and neglected children in the child dependency system have family members and friends all around the country who are unaware of their plight. So Canyon Acres makes a concerted effort to find them.
Through a unique process of “high-tech” searching, these potential support systems are found and, if they are interested, introduced to the children. Then they are assisted through an “engagement process” to stimulate ongoing contacts and relationships. This action alone provides the children with a sense of stability, hope, guidance, and a brighter hope for the future.
Today most people who are involved with the court system realize that it is frequently in the best interest of the child, parents, and society in general to keep children in their homes as much as possible. So Canyon Acres coordinates the services of mentors, therapists, therapeutic behavior services coaches, and school teachers into a team to individualize a program for each child and family. That is what is known as Canyon Acres’ wraparound services, and they have gratifyingly large numbers of success stories to show for their efforts.
For example, Amanda had been in the foster care system since she was 3 years old, when she was removed from the home of her abusive father. Her mother was known to be on the streets, hooked on drugs, and prostituting herself, and the child welfare agency case workers had written off any further attempts for Amanda to live with her mother because they couldn’t find her.
Enter Canyon Acres’ wraparound services, which found the mother, assisted her in finding a six-month detox program, and then found a home for her that would assist her to reunify with Amanda. Then the team, along with the therapists, helped the mother to discover her own strengths and weaknesses, and helped her further to cultivate her ability to overcome the challenges connected with them.
In addition, the team discovered that Amanda liked to play the guitar, and encouraged and facilitated that interest. The team also assisted in the creation of a family photo album that helped to create in Amanda a much-needed sense of belonging. Over time, all of these efforts worked, and the Canyon Acres team helped a damaged mother and wounded daughter to reunite. Now Amanda is living back with her mother, going to school, and learning to play the guitar, and both of them have regained their health, self-confidence, and self-respect.
Canyon Acres also has a highly trained staff to provide, on a moment’s notice, some in-home intervention to help stabilize families in crisis, with the goal of preventing a child’s placement into Orangewood Children’s Home or psychiatric hospitalization. Orangewood is a fabulous institution, and people in our county have every right to be proud of it and its accomplishments. But the better result is not to have to use their services in the first place, if reasonably possible. And Canyon Acres often realizes that goal.
Then there is the treatment center itself. This is composed of a 4.6-acre ranch in Anaheim Hills, where severely emotionally disturbed children are brought for two to three hours after school, or all day during the summer, for specialized programs including recreational therapy, art, therapeutic horseback riding, and other mental health-based activities.
Mental health professionals have discovered that, among other things, where children will not originally open up to other people, they will often “confide” to a horse. So they have four horses on site, all of which have been privately donated. Canyon Acres specializes in dealing with hard-to-treat children, and it advertises itself as a “wonderful place for children to heal.” Well, based upon my good fortune to meet several of the key players in the Canyon Acres story, and also to take a tour of their ranch, I am here to tell you that they are right!
That was what inspired me to write this column, so that you could also be aware of this wonderful organization. And if you would like to learn more about what they do, please come to their Annual Blue Ribbon Gala, which will be on Saturday, May 16 at the Balboa Bay Club. Not only will you meet some of these marvelous, dedicated, and effective people, you will also be able to contribute your support to one of the most dynamically successful organizations I have ever encountered.
For more information, contact me at the e-mail address given below, or contact Canyon Acres directly at (714) 385-5272. These people are doing great work, and I know you will want to join me in giving them your full congratulations and support.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.JudgeJimGray.com.
It turns out that this man was Patrick Dirk, a name that was familiar to me, and he was soon discussing his involvement and commitment to an organization called Canyon Acres Children and Family Services. Surprisingly enough, even though I had sat as a judge on a juvenile court assignment for several years, I was not familiar with this group. So I asked him about it.
At this point, Dirk lit up with infectious enthusiasm. He told me that Canyon Acres is a private/public partnership composed of about 95 paid staff and 300 volunteers that work with the Orange County Health Care Agency, the probation department, and other parties to provide homes, care, treatment, and supportive services for abused, neglected, and emotionally troubled children and their families in Orange County.
What began in 1980 as a home for 12 young children has grown into a model child-welfare agency. It assists with foster care, adoptions, creating family connections, a daytime treatment center, “wraparound” services, mental health services, and in-home crisis services.
In doing this, they have found that their timely intervention both helps to keep children in their homes, and also reduces the chances that the children will later have to be placed into a higher level of care.
Sadly enough, many abused and neglected children in the child dependency system have family members and friends all around the country who are unaware of their plight. So Canyon Acres makes a concerted effort to find them.
Through a unique process of “high-tech” searching, these potential support systems are found and, if they are interested, introduced to the children. Then they are assisted through an “engagement process” to stimulate ongoing contacts and relationships. This action alone provides the children with a sense of stability, hope, guidance, and a brighter hope for the future.
Today most people who are involved with the court system realize that it is frequently in the best interest of the child, parents, and society in general to keep children in their homes as much as possible. So Canyon Acres coordinates the services of mentors, therapists, therapeutic behavior services coaches, and school teachers into a team to individualize a program for each child and family. That is what is known as Canyon Acres’ wraparound services, and they have gratifyingly large numbers of success stories to show for their efforts.
For example, Amanda had been in the foster care system since she was 3 years old, when she was removed from the home of her abusive father. Her mother was known to be on the streets, hooked on drugs, and prostituting herself, and the child welfare agency case workers had written off any further attempts for Amanda to live with her mother because they couldn’t find her.
Enter Canyon Acres’ wraparound services, which found the mother, assisted her in finding a six-month detox program, and then found a home for her that would assist her to reunify with Amanda. Then the team, along with the therapists, helped the mother to discover her own strengths and weaknesses, and helped her further to cultivate her ability to overcome the challenges connected with them.
In addition, the team discovered that Amanda liked to play the guitar, and encouraged and facilitated that interest. The team also assisted in the creation of a family photo album that helped to create in Amanda a much-needed sense of belonging. Over time, all of these efforts worked, and the Canyon Acres team helped a damaged mother and wounded daughter to reunite. Now Amanda is living back with her mother, going to school, and learning to play the guitar, and both of them have regained their health, self-confidence, and self-respect.
Canyon Acres also has a highly trained staff to provide, on a moment’s notice, some in-home intervention to help stabilize families in crisis, with the goal of preventing a child’s placement into Orangewood Children’s Home or psychiatric hospitalization. Orangewood is a fabulous institution, and people in our county have every right to be proud of it and its accomplishments. But the better result is not to have to use their services in the first place, if reasonably possible. And Canyon Acres often realizes that goal.
Then there is the treatment center itself. This is composed of a 4.6-acre ranch in Anaheim Hills, where severely emotionally disturbed children are brought for two to three hours after school, or all day during the summer, for specialized programs including recreational therapy, art, therapeutic horseback riding, and other mental health-based activities.
Mental health professionals have discovered that, among other things, where children will not originally open up to other people, they will often “confide” to a horse. So they have four horses on site, all of which have been privately donated. Canyon Acres specializes in dealing with hard-to-treat children, and it advertises itself as a “wonderful place for children to heal.” Well, based upon my good fortune to meet several of the key players in the Canyon Acres story, and also to take a tour of their ranch, I am here to tell you that they are right!
That was what inspired me to write this column, so that you could also be aware of this wonderful organization. And if you would like to learn more about what they do, please come to their Annual Blue Ribbon Gala, which will be on Saturday, May 16 at the Balboa Bay Club. Not only will you meet some of these marvelous, dedicated, and effective people, you will also be able to contribute your support to one of the most dynamically successful organizations I have ever encountered.
For more information, contact me at the e-mail address given below, or contact Canyon Acres directly at (714) 385-5272. These people are doing great work, and I know you will want to join me in giving them your full congratulations and support.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.JudgeJimGray.com.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Lowering costs of health care - by Judge Jim Gray
I will get this fact out of the way at the beginning: My wife is a physical therapist, and she owns and manages her own physical therapy practice in the City of Orange. So maybe I have a bias.
Having said that, I want to call your attention to a change that should be made that will reduce the costs of effective health care and increase the general fairness of the health-care system. What is that change? Allow “direct access” for physical therapy in California.
What does that mean? Today patients who are covered by health insurance can go for evaluation and treatment to their chosen chiropractor, acupuncturist, marriage and family counselor, or psychologist and have those visits reimbursed by their health insurers without being first required to obtain a prescription from a physician. But to go to see a physical therapist, patients must first obtain that prescription. This, of course, requires patients to spend extra time and money before they can obtain their physical therapy.
How did this disparity occur? Probably, it has been perpetuated because the physical therapists simply have not had as strong a political lobby as the other health-care professions. But it originated in 1965, when then-State Attorney General Thomas Lynch issued an opinion that interpreted the Legislative intent of the Physical Therapy Practice Act to require access to a physical therapist only after a prescription from a physician. And this opinion was rendered even though it was and still is contrary to the protocol of Medicare and many managed health-care plans.
Currently, 44 states allow some form of direct access for the patients/consumers to physical therapists without a prescription. But California does not. That means that, on the average, the costs to patients in California are 123% higher than those in other states. And that hurts everybody, except the physicians.
In addition, the Wall Street Journal cited a study by Seattle’s Virginia Mason Medical Center that found that putting “physical therapy in front” when treating patients with back pain generally resulted in less time waiting for appointments, fewer MRIs, and a decrease in time lost from work for the patients.
Why do these positive results occur? Recently Consumer Reports published a survey of more than 14,000 patients that showed physical therapist and other “hands on” therapies outranked treatment by other medical specialists for back pain.
So, conservative physical therapy treatment not only is less invasive and less expensive, but often works better than other approaches.
To become licensed, physical therapists must graduate from a physical therapy program accredited through the Commission on Accreditation for Physical Therapy Education.
And, since January of 2003, only physical therapists who have obtained a master’s or doctor’s degree can even be considered for that accreditation.
Of course, if any health-care professionals determine that a patient has symptoms or conditions that are outside their field of expertise, they must refer the patient to the appropriate health-care professional.
But otherwise, just as in any other profession, the patient and consumer should be able to choose which health-care professional to see and trust for evaluation and treatment. And this is particularly true today, when the health-care industry is in such a crisis.
In an earlier column we discussed the benefits of allowing pharmacists to dispense to patients all non-addictive drugs except antibiotics without a prescription, and that not allowing this result affirmatively wasted the patients’ time and money.
The reasons are the same for physical therapists. Direct access would allow these educated and skilled health-care professionals to practice their profession and, along the way, would also reduce the costs and waiting time for treatment.
What can be done about this situation? At the moment, there is a bill that will be voted upon in the California Legislature in the next two weeks to provide direct and equal access for patients to physical therapy. It is Assembly Bill 721, and it merits your support. All it would take is for you to spend a few minutes to contact your representative in Sacramento and voice your support for this measure.
Direct access is a common-sense approach to health-care delivery that will save you time and bother, eliminate the burdens and costs of unnecessary visits to physicians, and often lead to quicker pain relief and recovery from injuries when you need them most. And along the way it will also provide for more basic fairness in the health-care field in general.
To me, that is a win-win situation for everybody. But it won’t be implemented without your help.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court. He be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net. www.judgejimgray.com
Having said that, I want to call your attention to a change that should be made that will reduce the costs of effective health care and increase the general fairness of the health-care system. What is that change? Allow “direct access” for physical therapy in California.
What does that mean? Today patients who are covered by health insurance can go for evaluation and treatment to their chosen chiropractor, acupuncturist, marriage and family counselor, or psychologist and have those visits reimbursed by their health insurers without being first required to obtain a prescription from a physician. But to go to see a physical therapist, patients must first obtain that prescription. This, of course, requires patients to spend extra time and money before they can obtain their physical therapy.
How did this disparity occur? Probably, it has been perpetuated because the physical therapists simply have not had as strong a political lobby as the other health-care professions. But it originated in 1965, when then-State Attorney General Thomas Lynch issued an opinion that interpreted the Legislative intent of the Physical Therapy Practice Act to require access to a physical therapist only after a prescription from a physician. And this opinion was rendered even though it was and still is contrary to the protocol of Medicare and many managed health-care plans.
Currently, 44 states allow some form of direct access for the patients/consumers to physical therapists without a prescription. But California does not. That means that, on the average, the costs to patients in California are 123% higher than those in other states. And that hurts everybody, except the physicians.
In addition, the Wall Street Journal cited a study by Seattle’s Virginia Mason Medical Center that found that putting “physical therapy in front” when treating patients with back pain generally resulted in less time waiting for appointments, fewer MRIs, and a decrease in time lost from work for the patients.
Why do these positive results occur? Recently Consumer Reports published a survey of more than 14,000 patients that showed physical therapist and other “hands on” therapies outranked treatment by other medical specialists for back pain.
So, conservative physical therapy treatment not only is less invasive and less expensive, but often works better than other approaches.
To become licensed, physical therapists must graduate from a physical therapy program accredited through the Commission on Accreditation for Physical Therapy Education.
And, since January of 2003, only physical therapists who have obtained a master’s or doctor’s degree can even be considered for that accreditation.
Of course, if any health-care professionals determine that a patient has symptoms or conditions that are outside their field of expertise, they must refer the patient to the appropriate health-care professional.
But otherwise, just as in any other profession, the patient and consumer should be able to choose which health-care professional to see and trust for evaluation and treatment. And this is particularly true today, when the health-care industry is in such a crisis.
In an earlier column we discussed the benefits of allowing pharmacists to dispense to patients all non-addictive drugs except antibiotics without a prescription, and that not allowing this result affirmatively wasted the patients’ time and money.
The reasons are the same for physical therapists. Direct access would allow these educated and skilled health-care professionals to practice their profession and, along the way, would also reduce the costs and waiting time for treatment.
What can be done about this situation? At the moment, there is a bill that will be voted upon in the California Legislature in the next two weeks to provide direct and equal access for patients to physical therapy. It is Assembly Bill 721, and it merits your support. All it would take is for you to spend a few minutes to contact your representative in Sacramento and voice your support for this measure.
Direct access is a common-sense approach to health-care delivery that will save you time and bother, eliminate the burdens and costs of unnecessary visits to physicians, and often lead to quicker pain relief and recovery from injuries when you need them most. And along the way it will also provide for more basic fairness in the health-care field in general.
To me, that is a win-win situation for everybody. But it won’t be implemented without your help.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court. He be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net. www.judgejimgray.com
Saturday, April 11, 2009
WE TRIED A WAR LIKE THIS ONCE BEFORE - Mike Gray
Dear family and friends,
Enclosed is a copy of an op-ed piece written by my friend Mike Gray that will appear tomorrow in the Washington Post. It is as incisive as anything I have seen, and deserves maximum distribution.
Please help us do so. This bus is moving, and Drug Probition's days of inflicting misery upon us and the rest of the world are numbered.
Good luck to us all.
Judge Jim
THE WASHINGTON POST
Sun, 12 Apr 2009
Contact: letters@washpost.com
Website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/
WE TRIED A WAR LIKE THIS ONCE BEFORE
by Mike Gray
In 1932, Alphonse Capone, an influential businessman then living in Chicago, used to drive through the city in a caravan of armor-plated limos built to his specifications by General Motors.
Submachine-gun-toting associates led the motorcade and brought up the rear.
It is a measure of how thoroughly the mob mentality had permeated everyday life that this was considered normal.
Capone and his boys were agents of misguided policy. Ninety years ago, the United States tried to cure the national thirst for alcohol, and it led to an explosion of violence unlike anything we'd ever seen. Today, it's hard to ignore the echoes of Prohibition in the drug-related mayhem along our southern border. Over the past 15 months, there have been 7,200 drug-war deaths in Mexico alone, as the government there battles an army of killers that would scare the pants off Al Capone.
Now U.S. officials are warning that the vandals may be headed in this direction. Too late: They're already here. And they're in a good position to take over organized crime in this country as well.
After decades of trying to stem the influx of illegal narcotics into the United States, it's clear that the drug war, like Prohibition, has led us into a gruesome blind alley. Drugs are cheaper than ever before and you can buy them anywhere. As Mexico's cash-starved government struggles to keep up the good fight, the drug barons rake in more than enough to buy political protection and military power while still maintaining profit margins beyond imagining. And what's driving this desperate struggle may be the ubiquitous
weed:
Southwestern lawmen say that marijuana accounts for two-thirds of the cartels' income.
At last, the spectacular violence in Mexico has captured everybody's attention, and in an eerie replay of the end of alcohol prohibition, we may at last be witnessing the final act in the war on drugs.
One hint of a shifting wind came in February, when a state legislator from San Francisco introduced a bill to tax, regulate and legalize adult use of cannabis. This sort of grandstanding is always met with derision, and this was no exception. But then something strange
happened: California's chief tax collector said that the measure would bring in $1.3 billion a year and save another $1 billion on enforcement and incarceration. In a state facing an $18 billion deficit, suddenly nobody was laughing.
Four days later Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, who's no legalizer, said that he, too, thinks we should take another look at marijuana prohibition. "The most effective way to establish a virtual barrier against the criminal activities is to take the profit out of it," he told a U.S.
Senate subcommittee.
The next day, U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced a minor policy shift with enormous implications: The federal government would no longer go after groups that supply medical marijuana in the
13 states where it is legal. The Drug Enforcement Administration had been raiding dispensaries routinely, and dozens of patients and growers are behind bars today despite their legal status in California's eyes. Now that threat has vanished for those who comply with state law. For California, this amounts to de facto legalization.
At his recent cyberspace town hall meeting, President Obama fielded a question about whether legalizing marijuana would improve the economy. "No,"
he replied as the audience giggled. But that answer sheds no light on his actual thinking. Obama has already called the drug war an "utter failure."
And since he himself is an admitted ex-toker, it's hard to believe that he'd cancel some kid's college education over a crime he got away with.
Of course, resistance to marijuana legalization remains rock solid in Washington among those who can't face the failure of prohibition. But that has more to do with politics than science. The Department of Health and Human Services says that there are 32 million drug abusers in the country, but that includes 25 million marijuana smokers. If you strike them from the list, how do you justify spending $60 billion a year in this economy trying to stop 2 percent of the population from being self-destructive? It would be dramatically cheaper to follow the Swiss example: Provide treatment for all who want it, and supply the rest with pure drugs under medical supervision.
When we erected an artificial barrier between alcohol producers and consumers in 1920, we created a bonanza more lucrative than the Gold Rush.
The staggering profits from illegal booze gave mobsters the financial power to take over legitimate businesses and expand into casinos, loan sharking, labor racketeering and extortion. Thus we created the major crime syndicates
-- and the U.S. murder rate jumped tenfold.
Fortunately, the Roaring '20s were interrupted by the Crash of '29, and when the money ran out, the battle against booze was a luxury we could no longer afford. Prohibition was repealed in 1933, and over the next decade the U.S.
murder rate was cut in half.
Today it's back up where it was at the peak of Prohibition -- 10 per 100,000
-- a jump clearly connected to the war on drugs. And anyone who's watching what's going on south of the border can see that we're headed for an era of mayhem that would make Meyer Lansky and Frank Costello weak in the knees.
Profits from the Mexican drug trade are estimated at about $35 billion a year. And since the cartels spend half to two-thirds of their income on bribery, that would be around $20 billion going into the pockets of police officers, army generals, judges, prosecutors and politicians. Last fall, Mexico's attorney general announced that his former top drug enforcer, chief prosecutor Noe Ramirez Mandujano, was getting $450,000 a month under the table from the Sinaloa cartel.
The cartel can of course afford to be generous -- Sinaloa chief Joaquin Guzman recently made the Forbes List of Billionaires.
The depth of Guzman's penetration into the United States was revealed a few weeks ago, when the DEA proudly announced hundreds of arrests all over the country in a major operation against the "dangerously powerful" Sinaloa cartel. One jarring detail was the admission that Mexican cartels are now operating in 230 cities inside the United States.
This disaster has been slowly unfolding since the early 1980s, when Vice President George H.W. Bush shut down the Caribbean cocaine pipeline between Colombia and Miami. The Colombians switched to the land route and began hiring Mexicans to deliver the goods across the U.S. border. But when the Mexicans got a glimpse of the truckloads of cash headed south, they decided that they didn't need the Colombians at all. Today the Mexican cartels are full-service commercial organizations with their own suppliers, refineries and a distribution network that covers all of North America.
As we awaken to the threat spilling over our southern border, the reactions are predictable. In addition to walling off the border, Congress wants to send helicopters, military hardware and unmanned reconnaissance drones into the fray -- and it wants the Pentagon to train Mexican troops in counterinsurgency tactics.
Our anti-drug warriors have apparently learned nothing from the past two decades. A few years ago we trained several units of the Mexican army in counterinsurgency warfare. They studied their lessons, then promptly deserted to form the Zetas, a thoroughly professional narco hit squad for the Gulf cartel, which offered considerably better pay.
Over the past eight years, the Mexican army has had more than 100,000 deserters.
The president of Mexico rightly points out that U.S. policy is at the root of this nightmare. Not only did we invent the war on drugs, but we are the primary consumers.
The obvious solution is cutting the demand for drugs in the United States.
Clearly, it would be the death of the cartels if we could simply dry up the market. Unfortunately, every effort to do this has met with resounding failure. But now that the Roaring '00s have hit the Crash of '09, the money has vanished once again, and we can no longer ignore the collateral damage of Prohibition II.
Writing last month in the Wall Street Journal, three former Latin American presidents -- Fernando Henrique Cardoso of Brazil, Cesar Gaviria of Colombia and Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico -- declared the war on drugs a failure.
Responding to a situation they say is "urgent in light of the rising levels of violence and corruption," they are demanding a reexamination of U.S.-inspired drug policies.
Two weeks ago, a conservative former superior court judge in Orange County told the Los Angeles Times that legalization was the only answer, and of 4,400 readers who responded immediately, the Times reported that "a staggering 94 percent" agreed with him.
This is another pivotal moment in U.S. history, strangely resonant with 1933. The war on drugs has been a riveting drama: It has given us great television, filled our prisons and employed hundreds of thousands as guards, police, prosecutors and probation officers. But the party's over.
Here is a glimpse of what lies ahead if we fail to end our second attempt to control the personal habits of private citizens. Listen to Enrique Gomez Hurtado, a former high court judge from Colombia who still has shrapnel in his leg from a bomb sent to kill him by the infamous drug lord Pablo Escobar. In 1993, his country was a free-fire zone not unlike Mexico today, and Gomez issued this chilling -- and prescient -- warning to an international drug policy conference in Baltimore:
"The income of the drug barons is greater than the American defense budget.
With this financial power they can suborn the institutions of the State, and if the State resists . . . they can purchase the firepower to outgun it. We are threatened with a return to the Dark Ages."
Ending prohibition won't solve our drug problem. But it will save us from something far worse. And it will put drug addiction back in the hands of the medical profession, where it was being dealt with successfully -- until we called in the cops.
Enclosed is a copy of an op-ed piece written by my friend Mike Gray that will appear tomorrow in the Washington Post. It is as incisive as anything I have seen, and deserves maximum distribution.
Please help us do so. This bus is moving, and Drug Probition's days of inflicting misery upon us and the rest of the world are numbered.
Good luck to us all.
Judge Jim
**************************************
THE WASHINGTON POST
Sun, 12 Apr 2009
Contact: letters@washpost.com
Website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/
WE TRIED A WAR LIKE THIS ONCE BEFORE
by Mike Gray
In 1932, Alphonse Capone, an influential businessman then living in Chicago, used to drive through the city in a caravan of armor-plated limos built to his specifications by General Motors.
Submachine-gun-toting associates led the motorcade and brought up the rear.
It is a measure of how thoroughly the mob mentality had permeated everyday life that this was considered normal.
Capone and his boys were agents of misguided policy. Ninety years ago, the United States tried to cure the national thirst for alcohol, and it led to an explosion of violence unlike anything we'd ever seen. Today, it's hard to ignore the echoes of Prohibition in the drug-related mayhem along our southern border. Over the past 15 months, there have been 7,200 drug-war deaths in Mexico alone, as the government there battles an army of killers that would scare the pants off Al Capone.
Now U.S. officials are warning that the vandals may be headed in this direction. Too late: They're already here. And they're in a good position to take over organized crime in this country as well.
After decades of trying to stem the influx of illegal narcotics into the United States, it's clear that the drug war, like Prohibition, has led us into a gruesome blind alley. Drugs are cheaper than ever before and you can buy them anywhere. As Mexico's cash-starved government struggles to keep up the good fight, the drug barons rake in more than enough to buy political protection and military power while still maintaining profit margins beyond imagining. And what's driving this desperate struggle may be the ubiquitous
weed:
Southwestern lawmen say that marijuana accounts for two-thirds of the cartels' income.
At last, the spectacular violence in Mexico has captured everybody's attention, and in an eerie replay of the end of alcohol prohibition, we may at last be witnessing the final act in the war on drugs.
One hint of a shifting wind came in February, when a state legislator from San Francisco introduced a bill to tax, regulate and legalize adult use of cannabis. This sort of grandstanding is always met with derision, and this was no exception. But then something strange
happened: California's chief tax collector said that the measure would bring in $1.3 billion a year and save another $1 billion on enforcement and incarceration. In a state facing an $18 billion deficit, suddenly nobody was laughing.
Four days later Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, who's no legalizer, said that he, too, thinks we should take another look at marijuana prohibition. "The most effective way to establish a virtual barrier against the criminal activities is to take the profit out of it," he told a U.S.
Senate subcommittee.
The next day, U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced a minor policy shift with enormous implications: The federal government would no longer go after groups that supply medical marijuana in the
13 states where it is legal. The Drug Enforcement Administration had been raiding dispensaries routinely, and dozens of patients and growers are behind bars today despite their legal status in California's eyes. Now that threat has vanished for those who comply with state law. For California, this amounts to de facto legalization.
At his recent cyberspace town hall meeting, President Obama fielded a question about whether legalizing marijuana would improve the economy. "No,"
he replied as the audience giggled. But that answer sheds no light on his actual thinking. Obama has already called the drug war an "utter failure."
And since he himself is an admitted ex-toker, it's hard to believe that he'd cancel some kid's college education over a crime he got away with.
Of course, resistance to marijuana legalization remains rock solid in Washington among those who can't face the failure of prohibition. But that has more to do with politics than science. The Department of Health and Human Services says that there are 32 million drug abusers in the country, but that includes 25 million marijuana smokers. If you strike them from the list, how do you justify spending $60 billion a year in this economy trying to stop 2 percent of the population from being self-destructive? It would be dramatically cheaper to follow the Swiss example: Provide treatment for all who want it, and supply the rest with pure drugs under medical supervision.
When we erected an artificial barrier between alcohol producers and consumers in 1920, we created a bonanza more lucrative than the Gold Rush.
The staggering profits from illegal booze gave mobsters the financial power to take over legitimate businesses and expand into casinos, loan sharking, labor racketeering and extortion. Thus we created the major crime syndicates
-- and the U.S. murder rate jumped tenfold.
Fortunately, the Roaring '20s were interrupted by the Crash of '29, and when the money ran out, the battle against booze was a luxury we could no longer afford. Prohibition was repealed in 1933, and over the next decade the U.S.
murder rate was cut in half.
Today it's back up where it was at the peak of Prohibition -- 10 per 100,000
-- a jump clearly connected to the war on drugs. And anyone who's watching what's going on south of the border can see that we're headed for an era of mayhem that would make Meyer Lansky and Frank Costello weak in the knees.
Profits from the Mexican drug trade are estimated at about $35 billion a year. And since the cartels spend half to two-thirds of their income on bribery, that would be around $20 billion going into the pockets of police officers, army generals, judges, prosecutors and politicians. Last fall, Mexico's attorney general announced that his former top drug enforcer, chief prosecutor Noe Ramirez Mandujano, was getting $450,000 a month under the table from the Sinaloa cartel.
The cartel can of course afford to be generous -- Sinaloa chief Joaquin Guzman recently made the Forbes List of Billionaires.
The depth of Guzman's penetration into the United States was revealed a few weeks ago, when the DEA proudly announced hundreds of arrests all over the country in a major operation against the "dangerously powerful" Sinaloa cartel. One jarring detail was the admission that Mexican cartels are now operating in 230 cities inside the United States.
This disaster has been slowly unfolding since the early 1980s, when Vice President George H.W. Bush shut down the Caribbean cocaine pipeline between Colombia and Miami. The Colombians switched to the land route and began hiring Mexicans to deliver the goods across the U.S. border. But when the Mexicans got a glimpse of the truckloads of cash headed south, they decided that they didn't need the Colombians at all. Today the Mexican cartels are full-service commercial organizations with their own suppliers, refineries and a distribution network that covers all of North America.
As we awaken to the threat spilling over our southern border, the reactions are predictable. In addition to walling off the border, Congress wants to send helicopters, military hardware and unmanned reconnaissance drones into the fray -- and it wants the Pentagon to train Mexican troops in counterinsurgency tactics.
Our anti-drug warriors have apparently learned nothing from the past two decades. A few years ago we trained several units of the Mexican army in counterinsurgency warfare. They studied their lessons, then promptly deserted to form the Zetas, a thoroughly professional narco hit squad for the Gulf cartel, which offered considerably better pay.
Over the past eight years, the Mexican army has had more than 100,000 deserters.
The president of Mexico rightly points out that U.S. policy is at the root of this nightmare. Not only did we invent the war on drugs, but we are the primary consumers.
The obvious solution is cutting the demand for drugs in the United States.
Clearly, it would be the death of the cartels if we could simply dry up the market. Unfortunately, every effort to do this has met with resounding failure. But now that the Roaring '00s have hit the Crash of '09, the money has vanished once again, and we can no longer ignore the collateral damage of Prohibition II.
Writing last month in the Wall Street Journal, three former Latin American presidents -- Fernando Henrique Cardoso of Brazil, Cesar Gaviria of Colombia and Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico -- declared the war on drugs a failure.
Responding to a situation they say is "urgent in light of the rising levels of violence and corruption," they are demanding a reexamination of U.S.-inspired drug policies.
Two weeks ago, a conservative former superior court judge in Orange County told the Los Angeles Times that legalization was the only answer, and of 4,400 readers who responded immediately, the Times reported that "a staggering 94 percent" agreed with him.
This is another pivotal moment in U.S. history, strangely resonant with 1933. The war on drugs has been a riveting drama: It has given us great television, filled our prisons and employed hundreds of thousands as guards, police, prosecutors and probation officers. But the party's over.
Here is a glimpse of what lies ahead if we fail to end our second attempt to control the personal habits of private citizens. Listen to Enrique Gomez Hurtado, a former high court judge from Colombia who still has shrapnel in his leg from a bomb sent to kill him by the infamous drug lord Pablo Escobar. In 1993, his country was a free-fire zone not unlike Mexico today, and Gomez issued this chilling -- and prescient -- warning to an international drug policy conference in Baltimore:
"The income of the drug barons is greater than the American defense budget.
With this financial power they can suborn the institutions of the State, and if the State resists . . . they can purchase the firepower to outgun it. We are threatened with a return to the Dark Ages."
Ending prohibition won't solve our drug problem. But it will save us from something far worse. And it will put drug addiction back in the hands of the medical profession, where it was being dealt with successfully -- until we called in the cops.
Mike Gray, the chairman of Common Sense for Drug Policy, is the author of "Drug Crazy: How We Got Into This Mess and How We Can Get Out."
Monday, April 6, 2009
That’s the short and long of it - Judge Jim Gray
There is an old saying that being in a rut is like being in a grave without end. Of course, in some ways it is, simply and purely, beneficial to have a set routine. Why? Because it helps to conserve effort and also helps to get some things done efficiently.
But sometimes it is also productive to look around and be able, willing, and ready to change your routine.
Upon reflection, there really is no fast and hard way we should live our lives. Of course, there will always be a difference between wrong and right, and some guidelines will be written down inexorably in white and black (although that still leaves lots of things in our “gray area”).
But surprisingly enough, a change in our perspective will sometimes enable us to roll and rock around the clock with unimagined vigor.
So are you caught in a rut that tends to make you tired and sick of your daily life? Could you decrease your strain and stress, and at the same time increase your take and give?
Think about this, because I’ll bet you can quickly come up with some insights that will allow you to deal and wheel in your rejuvenated life like you have never dealt and whelt before.
One change that could re-invigorate your life would be to do something you have never even thought about doing before. For example, how about regularly going on hikes with your family? I use a guide titled “Best Easy Day Hikes” by Randy Vogel to make my selections here in Orange County, and my favorite is the 2.7-mile round-trip hike to Holy Jim Falls, which begins just off Live Oak Canyon Road. But there are lots of guide books to easy and fun hikes everywhere.
Or take a trip to somewhere really different that you have never even thought about going to. Why always be on the narrow and straight?
For example, expose yourself to a different world by going to a Bluegrass Festival. Google tells me that there will be festivals this year in Harlan, Ky., on June 25 to 27; Gettysburg, Penn., on May 14 to 17 and Aug. 20 to 23; and Luray, Va., on July 30 to Aug. 1. Or go to the National Storytelling Festival in Jonesborough, Tenn., on Oct. 2 through 4.
Go to one of these festivals, by crook or hook. They are just the balanced and fair things to help you take off the chain and ball of boredom, and reduce the tuck and nip of your mundane world.
The same approach to considering different options can also be used effectively in your business. It only makes sense and dollars. Because businesses can also have a tendency unthinkingly to use the same old forth and back, instead of using a balanced and fair consideration of different and new ideas. In fact this new open-minded approach could give your business a new easy and free path to more productivity. Some people may fight you nail and tooth along the way, but try to persist.
For example, how about considering the use of an alternative work schedule for your employees? For some companies, having employees work 10 hours per day for four days per week, instead of the traditional eight hours for five days per week, would increase productivity. And that change can often make your employees happier, while at the same time reducing overtime costs. So this could be a truly final and smart approach for your company, and just because “we have never done that before,” does not mean that it will not work.
Or what about employing a system of bonuses based upon increased net sales per month? As we see throughout the world, incentives matter, and often the way to find justice and truth in the workplace for employees and employers alike is to institute such a system of incentives. Most times it will work, and you will probably receive lots of appreciative ahs and oohs from your employees along the way. Spread the word clear and loud for everyone to be imaginative, because the list of possibilities is endless.
So that is the short and long of it. Rosencrantz does not always have to be mentioned before Guildenstern, or Mutt before Jeff, or sweet before sour. Instead, look right and left to see if you have fallen into a dried and cut rut in your personal or professional life. It’s not a question of evil and good.
In fact, you will find that many people have willingly come from far and near to adopt this true and tried approach to help them get past the halls of mirrors and smoke to find a more balanced and fair way to live in the now and here.
And you can too.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court. He can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or at www.JudgeJimGray.com.
But sometimes it is also productive to look around and be able, willing, and ready to change your routine.
Upon reflection, there really is no fast and hard way we should live our lives. Of course, there will always be a difference between wrong and right, and some guidelines will be written down inexorably in white and black (although that still leaves lots of things in our “gray area”).
But surprisingly enough, a change in our perspective will sometimes enable us to roll and rock around the clock with unimagined vigor.
So are you caught in a rut that tends to make you tired and sick of your daily life? Could you decrease your strain and stress, and at the same time increase your take and give?
Think about this, because I’ll bet you can quickly come up with some insights that will allow you to deal and wheel in your rejuvenated life like you have never dealt and whelt before.
One change that could re-invigorate your life would be to do something you have never even thought about doing before. For example, how about regularly going on hikes with your family? I use a guide titled “Best Easy Day Hikes” by Randy Vogel to make my selections here in Orange County, and my favorite is the 2.7-mile round-trip hike to Holy Jim Falls, which begins just off Live Oak Canyon Road. But there are lots of guide books to easy and fun hikes everywhere.
Or take a trip to somewhere really different that you have never even thought about going to. Why always be on the narrow and straight?
For example, expose yourself to a different world by going to a Bluegrass Festival. Google tells me that there will be festivals this year in Harlan, Ky., on June 25 to 27; Gettysburg, Penn., on May 14 to 17 and Aug. 20 to 23; and Luray, Va., on July 30 to Aug. 1. Or go to the National Storytelling Festival in Jonesborough, Tenn., on Oct. 2 through 4.
Go to one of these festivals, by crook or hook. They are just the balanced and fair things to help you take off the chain and ball of boredom, and reduce the tuck and nip of your mundane world.
The same approach to considering different options can also be used effectively in your business. It only makes sense and dollars. Because businesses can also have a tendency unthinkingly to use the same old forth and back, instead of using a balanced and fair consideration of different and new ideas. In fact this new open-minded approach could give your business a new easy and free path to more productivity. Some people may fight you nail and tooth along the way, but try to persist.
For example, how about considering the use of an alternative work schedule for your employees? For some companies, having employees work 10 hours per day for four days per week, instead of the traditional eight hours for five days per week, would increase productivity. And that change can often make your employees happier, while at the same time reducing overtime costs. So this could be a truly final and smart approach for your company, and just because “we have never done that before,” does not mean that it will not work.
Or what about employing a system of bonuses based upon increased net sales per month? As we see throughout the world, incentives matter, and often the way to find justice and truth in the workplace for employees and employers alike is to institute such a system of incentives. Most times it will work, and you will probably receive lots of appreciative ahs and oohs from your employees along the way. Spread the word clear and loud for everyone to be imaginative, because the list of possibilities is endless.
So that is the short and long of it. Rosencrantz does not always have to be mentioned before Guildenstern, or Mutt before Jeff, or sweet before sour. Instead, look right and left to see if you have fallen into a dried and cut rut in your personal or professional life. It’s not a question of evil and good.
In fact, you will find that many people have willingly come from far and near to adopt this true and tried approach to help them get past the halls of mirrors and smoke to find a more balanced and fair way to live in the now and here.
And you can too.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court. He can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or at www.JudgeJimGray.com.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Quiet conscience makes one strong - by Judge Jim Gray
Last week we discussed the importance of returning to American values. This is truly important because, in many ways, our great country is now at a crossroads. Will we continue to build upon the values that helped to make us great, including a reliance upon our native ingenuity, creativity, and work ethic? Or will we get soft and look evermore toward bigger government to take care of us?
Today we are facing daunting challenges to our economic way of life. So it’s naturally important for our general feelings of economic confidence to believe that government is “doing something” positive about the situation. But this also brings upon us the risk that we, and the government, will see government as the solution to our problems. And that is a dangerous course to take for our future, and for the future of our children.
Alexis de Tocqueville, after his famous tour of the United States in 1831, drew attention to this problem when he said that people are constantly excited by two conflicting passions: they want to be led, and they wish to remain free. So people strive to satisfy them both at once, and that leads to irresolvable problems. Then de Tocqueville went on to anticipate the time that democracy would eventually collapse. He said that would occur when the people’s elected officials finally learned that they could bribe the people into voting for them with the people’s own money.
We are close to that situation today. It is time for us both to be aware of this fact, and to take action to assure it doesn’t happen. How can this be done? First by understanding that government is not the answer to our problems. In fact, as stated by President Ronald Reagan, in many ways government really is the problem because it tends to destroy private initiative.
Second, we must not accept mediocrity or laziness — in any one or any thing, beginning with ourselves. I once had a clerk who had a hand-written sign on her desk that said “If it’s to be, it’s up to me.” This means, among other things, that if a system, or a government program, is not working, it is up to us to fix it.
For example, if a television program is harmful for our children because it shows too much violence or sexual content, don’t rely upon government to act: Monitor what your children watch, and turn off the television if the program is unsuitable. If there is no money in making television programs that cater to violence or sex, Hollywood will make different types of shows.
In addition, each of us can help to change our social morays. That means, among other things, that if a male, regardless of age, fathers a child, that male is responsible for the child’s support and upbringing. Every time! Our mores should be that a real man supports his family. But somehow society has allowed our social mores to be accepting of out-of-wedlock births and single motherhood. So, since it is our country, it is our responsibility to change away from that acceptance.
As a trial judge with 25 years of experience on the bench, I can also tell you that today we have many too many of our young people locked up. These are our children, so what is the matter with us?
Most of the problems are caused by a failure to have positive mentors and other role models for our children. We must realize that someone will always mentor our children.
And if it is not from their parents, debate teachers, basketball coaches, or YMCA instructors, children will get their mentoring from gang leaders, drug dealers, or even people like Charles Manson. Say what you will, Manson was brilliant at “mentoring” his “family,” and there are many people in our world today just like him. But give our children another vision, and the children will discover another way.
Let’s also help more to get government and its never-ending laws more out of our lives. For example, no employers hire people so they can discriminate against and harass them for racial, gender, or sexual-preference reasons, and then fire them. That makes no sense in real life. In fact, in almost every case, the employers have already “passed the test” by hiring those employees. So we should change our laws to allow an employer to fire any employee within the first year of two – for any reason at all.
What would be the result of changing this employment law? More of these protected classes of people would have jobs. Today, if an employer gets sued for discrimination, that employer, whether found liable or not, is likely to think: “Who needs it? Why should I take a risk in the future by hiring such a person?” But if there were this period of immunity to see if the employee was able to be productive, even if the original employee didn’t work out, the employer would not be deterred from hiring someone similar in the future. So this law actually works against equality in employment.
There is a story that, at the close of our Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was asked what type of government the delegates had agreed upon for our country. He responded: “A Republic, if you can keep it.” Our Founding Fathers established for us a government ruled by law, but based upon the individual “We the People” as the sovereign.
But each of us must do our part. If we don’t vote and oversee government, some special interest will. If we don’t monitor and mentor our children, and provide them with productive visions of the future, they will be more likely to become unproductive and antisocial. And if we are not vigilant, even in these turbulent economic times, we will lose our cherished Republic.
As Anne Frank wrote in her diary, which became a literary classic: “A quiet conscience makes one strong.” She is right. We need that quiet conscience now. We must rely on ourselves and our innate abilities and ethics to overcome our problems of today. And we must not give in to the false but seductive allure that the answer lies with the all-knowing and all-protective government.
If it’s to be, it’s up to me.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.JudgeJimGray.com.
Today we are facing daunting challenges to our economic way of life. So it’s naturally important for our general feelings of economic confidence to believe that government is “doing something” positive about the situation. But this also brings upon us the risk that we, and the government, will see government as the solution to our problems. And that is a dangerous course to take for our future, and for the future of our children.
Alexis de Tocqueville, after his famous tour of the United States in 1831, drew attention to this problem when he said that people are constantly excited by two conflicting passions: they want to be led, and they wish to remain free. So people strive to satisfy them both at once, and that leads to irresolvable problems. Then de Tocqueville went on to anticipate the time that democracy would eventually collapse. He said that would occur when the people’s elected officials finally learned that they could bribe the people into voting for them with the people’s own money.
We are close to that situation today. It is time for us both to be aware of this fact, and to take action to assure it doesn’t happen. How can this be done? First by understanding that government is not the answer to our problems. In fact, as stated by President Ronald Reagan, in many ways government really is the problem because it tends to destroy private initiative.
Second, we must not accept mediocrity or laziness — in any one or any thing, beginning with ourselves. I once had a clerk who had a hand-written sign on her desk that said “If it’s to be, it’s up to me.” This means, among other things, that if a system, or a government program, is not working, it is up to us to fix it.
For example, if a television program is harmful for our children because it shows too much violence or sexual content, don’t rely upon government to act: Monitor what your children watch, and turn off the television if the program is unsuitable. If there is no money in making television programs that cater to violence or sex, Hollywood will make different types of shows.
In addition, each of us can help to change our social morays. That means, among other things, that if a male, regardless of age, fathers a child, that male is responsible for the child’s support and upbringing. Every time! Our mores should be that a real man supports his family. But somehow society has allowed our social mores to be accepting of out-of-wedlock births and single motherhood. So, since it is our country, it is our responsibility to change away from that acceptance.
As a trial judge with 25 years of experience on the bench, I can also tell you that today we have many too many of our young people locked up. These are our children, so what is the matter with us?
Most of the problems are caused by a failure to have positive mentors and other role models for our children. We must realize that someone will always mentor our children.
And if it is not from their parents, debate teachers, basketball coaches, or YMCA instructors, children will get their mentoring from gang leaders, drug dealers, or even people like Charles Manson. Say what you will, Manson was brilliant at “mentoring” his “family,” and there are many people in our world today just like him. But give our children another vision, and the children will discover another way.
Let’s also help more to get government and its never-ending laws more out of our lives. For example, no employers hire people so they can discriminate against and harass them for racial, gender, or sexual-preference reasons, and then fire them. That makes no sense in real life. In fact, in almost every case, the employers have already “passed the test” by hiring those employees. So we should change our laws to allow an employer to fire any employee within the first year of two – for any reason at all.
What would be the result of changing this employment law? More of these protected classes of people would have jobs. Today, if an employer gets sued for discrimination, that employer, whether found liable or not, is likely to think: “Who needs it? Why should I take a risk in the future by hiring such a person?” But if there were this period of immunity to see if the employee was able to be productive, even if the original employee didn’t work out, the employer would not be deterred from hiring someone similar in the future. So this law actually works against equality in employment.
There is a story that, at the close of our Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was asked what type of government the delegates had agreed upon for our country. He responded: “A Republic, if you can keep it.” Our Founding Fathers established for us a government ruled by law, but based upon the individual “We the People” as the sovereign.
But each of us must do our part. If we don’t vote and oversee government, some special interest will. If we don’t monitor and mentor our children, and provide them with productive visions of the future, they will be more likely to become unproductive and antisocial. And if we are not vigilant, even in these turbulent economic times, we will lose our cherished Republic.
As Anne Frank wrote in her diary, which became a literary classic: “A quiet conscience makes one strong.” She is right. We need that quiet conscience now. We must rely on ourselves and our innate abilities and ethics to overcome our problems of today. And we must not give in to the false but seductive allure that the answer lies with the all-knowing and all-protective government.
If it’s to be, it’s up to me.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.JudgeJimGray.com.
Former judge fired up on making pot legal - Steve Lopez
All right, tell me this doesn't sound a little strange:
I'm sitting in Costa Mesa with a silver-haired gent who once ran for Congress as a Republican and used to lock up drug dealers as a federal prosecutor, a man who served as an Orange County judge for 25 years. And what are we talking about? He's begging me to tell you we need to legalize drugs in America.
DISCUSS: Should drugs be legal?"Please quote me," says Jim Gray, insisting the war on drugs is hopeless. "What we are doing has failed."
As far as I can tell, Gray is not off his rocker. He's not promoting drug use, he says for clarification. Anything but. If he had his way, half the revenue we would generate from taxing and regulating drugs would be plowed back into drug prevention education, and there'd be rehab on demand.
So here he is in coat and tie -- with a U.S. flag lapel pin -- eating his oatmeal and making perfect sense, even when talking about the way President Obama flippantly dismissed a question about legalizing marijuana last week during a White House news conference.
"Politicians get reelected talking tough regarding the war on drugs," says Gray. "Do you want to hear the speech? Vote for Gray. I will put drug dealers in jail and save your children."
I had gone to visit Gray in part to discuss his support for a bill introduced last month by Democratic San Francisco Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, who is calling for marijuana to be regulated and taxed much like alcohol.
Does the bill have a chance?
I wouldn't bet a pack of Zig-Zag rolling paper. It's a provocative idea that gets dusted off now and again, but the usual reaction is either ridicule or sober concern about sending the wrong message to youths, among others, and making substance abuse a greater problem than it already is.
But take a look at the world, people.
Mexican drug lords are better armed than police and killing thousands who don't buy into the corruption -- with the violence crashing our borders -- and American enemies abroad are financed by the opium trade.
Ten days ago I visited a Los Angeles elementary school where students practice dropping to the floor and making themselves as flat as pancakes to avoid stray bullets from the gang-infested neighborhood, and drugs play a role in that violence. On Wednesday I strolled through downtown Los Angeles and marijuana smoke filled the air, a mocking reminder of the impossible task of eradicating drugs, despite the trillions spent and the thousands of people we've locked away in our jails and prisons.
Bravo to Hillary Rodham Clinton, says Gray, for admitting last week that American demand for drugs is responsible for the bloodshed in Mexico.
"But she got the facts right and the solution wrong," he says, just as everyone else has in a war that's been escalating for decades.
Gray was on the Municipal Court bench in the 1980s when he took his first hit from the reform pipe. The vast majority of the cases coming before him were alcohol-related, he said, and he was able to divert defendants into screening and recovery. But he couldn't do the same in drug cases, and he was frustrated, both in Municipal Court bench and later on the Superior Court bench.
"Our jails are filled with low-level users who sold to support the habit," says Gray, who believes that the tougher the criminal justice system gets on drug offenders, the fewer resources it has to go after rapists, robbers and other criminals.
In 1992 he called a news conference in Santa Ana and stated his case for legalized drugs. In Orange County, that was like coming out in favor of communism and nose rings, but Gray never flinched from insisting that the drug war was a waste of tax dollars and that it was putting too many citizens and police in harm's way. He became a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition and wrote the book "Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It." "His book drives a stake through the heart of the failed war on drugs," says a back-cover blurb from Walter Cronkite.
Gray, by the way, is a former Peace Corps volunteer and Navy lawyer who now counts himself a Libertarian, all of which reminds us why we love California. He says his conservative roots make him the best man for the campaign to legalize drugs.
"Who better than a conservative judge in a conservative county who's never used any form of illicit drugs?" he asks.
When Ammiano's bill was introduced, Gray was invited to the news conference by the openly gay Democrat.
"I have received standing ovations from the ACLU and the Young Republicans of Orange County," says Gray. "It crosses all political lines."
Not everyone thinks he's citizen of the year, though. Gray says he's often asked about sending the wrong message, and he responds with a reality check. Anyone who wants illegal drugs can easily get them, but doing so may put them in harm's way. Wouldn't it be smarter to sell the drugs at government stores, so advertising could be outlawed, taxes collected on one of California's biggest cash crops and drug gangs eradicated?
If Gray had his way, no one under 21 could buy drugs. But anyone older than that could legally buy marijuana -- which, he says, causes nowhere near the amount of death and disease as alcohol. The state would need to see how that works, he said, before moving on to legalizing the sale of harder drugs. Sure, he says, legalization might lead to more toking at first, but he believes drug use would wane when it was no longer forbidden and the novelty wore off.
I'm not sure I agree with that point, but I say we give it a try, and I do buy into Gray's argument about who the winners are in the current system.
First, there are the drug lords in Mexico and beyond. Then the drug gangs that peddle the stuff here. Next come the law enforcement agencies, prison contractors and prison guards, which use the war on drugs to demand more resources. And finally, there are the politicians who have wooed voters since the Nixon administration by pledging to support the war on drugs.
"My personal opinion," says Gray, "is that we couldn't have done worse if we tried."
steve.lopez@latimes.com
I'm sitting in Costa Mesa with a silver-haired gent who once ran for Congress as a Republican and used to lock up drug dealers as a federal prosecutor, a man who served as an Orange County judge for 25 years. And what are we talking about? He's begging me to tell you we need to legalize drugs in America.
DISCUSS: Should drugs be legal?"Please quote me," says Jim Gray, insisting the war on drugs is hopeless. "What we are doing has failed."
As far as I can tell, Gray is not off his rocker. He's not promoting drug use, he says for clarification. Anything but. If he had his way, half the revenue we would generate from taxing and regulating drugs would be plowed back into drug prevention education, and there'd be rehab on demand.
So here he is in coat and tie -- with a U.S. flag lapel pin -- eating his oatmeal and making perfect sense, even when talking about the way President Obama flippantly dismissed a question about legalizing marijuana last week during a White House news conference.
"Politicians get reelected talking tough regarding the war on drugs," says Gray. "Do you want to hear the speech? Vote for Gray. I will put drug dealers in jail and save your children."
I had gone to visit Gray in part to discuss his support for a bill introduced last month by Democratic San Francisco Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, who is calling for marijuana to be regulated and taxed much like alcohol.
Does the bill have a chance?
I wouldn't bet a pack of Zig-Zag rolling paper. It's a provocative idea that gets dusted off now and again, but the usual reaction is either ridicule or sober concern about sending the wrong message to youths, among others, and making substance abuse a greater problem than it already is.
But take a look at the world, people.
Mexican drug lords are better armed than police and killing thousands who don't buy into the corruption -- with the violence crashing our borders -- and American enemies abroad are financed by the opium trade.
Ten days ago I visited a Los Angeles elementary school where students practice dropping to the floor and making themselves as flat as pancakes to avoid stray bullets from the gang-infested neighborhood, and drugs play a role in that violence. On Wednesday I strolled through downtown Los Angeles and marijuana smoke filled the air, a mocking reminder of the impossible task of eradicating drugs, despite the trillions spent and the thousands of people we've locked away in our jails and prisons.
Bravo to Hillary Rodham Clinton, says Gray, for admitting last week that American demand for drugs is responsible for the bloodshed in Mexico.
"But she got the facts right and the solution wrong," he says, just as everyone else has in a war that's been escalating for decades.
Gray was on the Municipal Court bench in the 1980s when he took his first hit from the reform pipe. The vast majority of the cases coming before him were alcohol-related, he said, and he was able to divert defendants into screening and recovery. But he couldn't do the same in drug cases, and he was frustrated, both in Municipal Court bench and later on the Superior Court bench.
"Our jails are filled with low-level users who sold to support the habit," says Gray, who believes that the tougher the criminal justice system gets on drug offenders, the fewer resources it has to go after rapists, robbers and other criminals.
In 1992 he called a news conference in Santa Ana and stated his case for legalized drugs. In Orange County, that was like coming out in favor of communism and nose rings, but Gray never flinched from insisting that the drug war was a waste of tax dollars and that it was putting too many citizens and police in harm's way. He became a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition and wrote the book "Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It." "His book drives a stake through the heart of the failed war on drugs," says a back-cover blurb from Walter Cronkite.
Gray, by the way, is a former Peace Corps volunteer and Navy lawyer who now counts himself a Libertarian, all of which reminds us why we love California. He says his conservative roots make him the best man for the campaign to legalize drugs.
"Who better than a conservative judge in a conservative county who's never used any form of illicit drugs?" he asks.
When Ammiano's bill was introduced, Gray was invited to the news conference by the openly gay Democrat.
"I have received standing ovations from the ACLU and the Young Republicans of Orange County," says Gray. "It crosses all political lines."
Not everyone thinks he's citizen of the year, though. Gray says he's often asked about sending the wrong message, and he responds with a reality check. Anyone who wants illegal drugs can easily get them, but doing so may put them in harm's way. Wouldn't it be smarter to sell the drugs at government stores, so advertising could be outlawed, taxes collected on one of California's biggest cash crops and drug gangs eradicated?
If Gray had his way, no one under 21 could buy drugs. But anyone older than that could legally buy marijuana -- which, he says, causes nowhere near the amount of death and disease as alcohol. The state would need to see how that works, he said, before moving on to legalizing the sale of harder drugs. Sure, he says, legalization might lead to more toking at first, but he believes drug use would wane when it was no longer forbidden and the novelty wore off.
I'm not sure I agree with that point, but I say we give it a try, and I do buy into Gray's argument about who the winners are in the current system.
First, there are the drug lords in Mexico and beyond. Then the drug gangs that peddle the stuff here. Next come the law enforcement agencies, prison contractors and prison guards, which use the war on drugs to demand more resources. And finally, there are the politicians who have wooed voters since the Nixon administration by pledging to support the war on drugs.
"My personal opinion," says Gray, "is that we couldn't have done worse if we tried."
steve.lopez@latimes.com
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Judge Jim Gray supports Assemblyman Tom Ammiano’s proposed AB 390
Assemblyman Jose Solario
State Capitol Sacramento, California 95814
Re: Support for AB 390
Dear Jose:
As a trial court judge in the Orange County Superior Court with more than 23 years of active service, I support Assemblyman Tom Ammiano’s proposed AB 390.
The objections that the opponents of this forward-thinking bill generally cite are, first, that marijuana causes harm to the user and to society, and second, that the bill would “send the wrong message to our children.” But the reality of the situation is that, first, marijuana is already abundant in California, and the rest of the country as well, so whatever harm it would cause is basically already upon us, and that, second, society would no more be encouraging or condoning children or anyone else to use marijuana by instituting these changes than it now encourages or condones anyone to drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes.
But many other harms directly caused by our present system would be materially reduced by the program that would be established by AB 390, once federal law were to be changed to allow it to be implemented. These include the fact, as stated by the Honorable Betty Yee, chair of the State Board of Equalization, that the strictly regulated and controlled distribution of marijuana to adults over the age of 21 would bring in about $1.3 billion in additional tax revenue to our state.
Government estimates that presently illicit marijuana today is a $14 billion per year business in California alone, and, of course, that is untaxed revenue. Since AB 390 would undercut the present retail price of marijuana by about 50 percent, even with the $50 surcharge per ounce and applicable sales taxes, it would still generate this much-needed tax revenue. But in addition it would also save our taxpayers at least $1 billion that now we spend in a futile effort to eradicate marijuana and prosecute and incarcerate non-violent marijuana users.
In 2008, California authorities seized about 2.9 million marijuana plants with an estimated wholesale value of $11.6 billion in 542 raids. (In spite of this “success,” marijuana was still our state’s largest cash crop.) But the money that we spent on these raids could be saved, because by undercutting the price, AB 390 will do what the eradication efforts could not: come close to putting the Al Capones of the marijuana world out of business.
In addition, today there are literally thousands of people in our state prisons because they did nothing but smoke marijuana. These were people who were on parole, with the condition that they use no form of illicit substance. But if they smoked marijuana at all they would either fail to appear for the drug testing or be tested positive. So either way they would be re-incarcerated. And often this has caused their families to go back onto welfare. Holding people accountable for their actions instead of punishing the mere smoking of marijuana would save taxpayers a sizeable amount of money.
But even more importantly, AB 390 will make marijuana less available for our children! Today it is easier for our children to get marijuana, if they want to, than it is a six-pack of beer. Why is that? Because the alcohol is controlled and regulated by the government, and marijuana is controlled and “regulated” by illegal drug dealers, and they don’t ask for i.d.! As a consequence, no alcohol is offered for sale on high school campuses, but marijuana, including free samples to get them started, is offered to our children consistently.
Furthermore, today children are not being recruited to sell Coors beer or Jack Daniels bourbon, but they are routinely being recruited by adults to sell marijuana. Why would anyone do such a thing? Because then everyone makes more money! And to whom do these children sell their drugs? To people like us? No, they unfailingly sell the marijuana to their peers, thus recruiting more children to a lifestyle of marijuana usage and marijuana selling. As a trial court judge, I have seen this happen time and time again. It is not a pretty sight, and it is all caused directly by our present system.
Children are solicited to join juvenile street gangs for the same reason. And it works! Why? Because they want to be a “part of the action” in making money off the sale of illicit marijuana. So if passed and put into operation, AB 390 would probably be the most effective anti-gang legislation to have been enacted in a decade.
Finally, I believe AB 390 should be amended to allow hemp, which is the stalk and seeds of the marijuana plant, and which can be manipulated so that they have no mind-altering properties whatsoever, to be treated like cotton or any other industrial crop. The industrial history of hemp goes back thousands of years, and the crops to be manufactured from it are another story in themselves. But today California’s merchants are required to import their raw hemp materials from countries like Canada and England, to the disadvantage of all of us in California. So that hindrance to competition for our industries must be addressed and changed.
Certainly no system is perfect, but AB 390 is a major step in the right direction. That is why I so strongly support its passage, and also why I recommend that you and your colleagues give it your fullest favorable consideration and assistance.
Naturally if I can be of further assistance in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me either on my cell phone at xxx-xxx-xxxx, or by e-mail at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net.
Best personal regards,
James P. Gray
Judge of the Superior Court (Ret.)
www.judgejimgray.com
State Capitol Sacramento, California 95814
Re: Support for AB 390
Dear Jose:
As a trial court judge in the Orange County Superior Court with more than 23 years of active service, I support Assemblyman Tom Ammiano’s proposed AB 390.
The objections that the opponents of this forward-thinking bill generally cite are, first, that marijuana causes harm to the user and to society, and second, that the bill would “send the wrong message to our children.” But the reality of the situation is that, first, marijuana is already abundant in California, and the rest of the country as well, so whatever harm it would cause is basically already upon us, and that, second, society would no more be encouraging or condoning children or anyone else to use marijuana by instituting these changes than it now encourages or condones anyone to drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes.
But many other harms directly caused by our present system would be materially reduced by the program that would be established by AB 390, once federal law were to be changed to allow it to be implemented. These include the fact, as stated by the Honorable Betty Yee, chair of the State Board of Equalization, that the strictly regulated and controlled distribution of marijuana to adults over the age of 21 would bring in about $1.3 billion in additional tax revenue to our state.
Government estimates that presently illicit marijuana today is a $14 billion per year business in California alone, and, of course, that is untaxed revenue. Since AB 390 would undercut the present retail price of marijuana by about 50 percent, even with the $50 surcharge per ounce and applicable sales taxes, it would still generate this much-needed tax revenue. But in addition it would also save our taxpayers at least $1 billion that now we spend in a futile effort to eradicate marijuana and prosecute and incarcerate non-violent marijuana users.
In 2008, California authorities seized about 2.9 million marijuana plants with an estimated wholesale value of $11.6 billion in 542 raids. (In spite of this “success,” marijuana was still our state’s largest cash crop.) But the money that we spent on these raids could be saved, because by undercutting the price, AB 390 will do what the eradication efforts could not: come close to putting the Al Capones of the marijuana world out of business.
In addition, today there are literally thousands of people in our state prisons because they did nothing but smoke marijuana. These were people who were on parole, with the condition that they use no form of illicit substance. But if they smoked marijuana at all they would either fail to appear for the drug testing or be tested positive. So either way they would be re-incarcerated. And often this has caused their families to go back onto welfare. Holding people accountable for their actions instead of punishing the mere smoking of marijuana would save taxpayers a sizeable amount of money.
But even more importantly, AB 390 will make marijuana less available for our children! Today it is easier for our children to get marijuana, if they want to, than it is a six-pack of beer. Why is that? Because the alcohol is controlled and regulated by the government, and marijuana is controlled and “regulated” by illegal drug dealers, and they don’t ask for i.d.! As a consequence, no alcohol is offered for sale on high school campuses, but marijuana, including free samples to get them started, is offered to our children consistently.
Furthermore, today children are not being recruited to sell Coors beer or Jack Daniels bourbon, but they are routinely being recruited by adults to sell marijuana. Why would anyone do such a thing? Because then everyone makes more money! And to whom do these children sell their drugs? To people like us? No, they unfailingly sell the marijuana to their peers, thus recruiting more children to a lifestyle of marijuana usage and marijuana selling. As a trial court judge, I have seen this happen time and time again. It is not a pretty sight, and it is all caused directly by our present system.
Children are solicited to join juvenile street gangs for the same reason. And it works! Why? Because they want to be a “part of the action” in making money off the sale of illicit marijuana. So if passed and put into operation, AB 390 would probably be the most effective anti-gang legislation to have been enacted in a decade.
Finally, I believe AB 390 should be amended to allow hemp, which is the stalk and seeds of the marijuana plant, and which can be manipulated so that they have no mind-altering properties whatsoever, to be treated like cotton or any other industrial crop. The industrial history of hemp goes back thousands of years, and the crops to be manufactured from it are another story in themselves. But today California’s merchants are required to import their raw hemp materials from countries like Canada and England, to the disadvantage of all of us in California. So that hindrance to competition for our industries must be addressed and changed.
Certainly no system is perfect, but AB 390 is a major step in the right direction. That is why I so strongly support its passage, and also why I recommend that you and your colleagues give it your fullest favorable consideration and assistance.
Naturally if I can be of further assistance in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me either on my cell phone at xxx-xxx-xxxx, or by e-mail at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net.
Best personal regards,
James P. Gray
Judge of the Superior Court (Ret.)
www.judgejimgray.com
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Back to American fundamentals - by Judge Jim Gray
My friend Louis E. Carabini said in his book “Inclined to Liberty” that “There are those inclined to liberty, and those inclined to mastery.” Among other things, he explains that the answer to most of our economic problems today is more freedom and liberty, instead of less. Why? Because they work, and these are the fundamentals that have helped to make our country great. And for the good of our children, and our grandchildren, we must go back to them!
Contrary to the arguments of many detractors, this does not mean that “anything goes.” Absolutely to the contrary. Instead it means that we have reasonable laws, and that we enforce those laws — for everybody. That includes anti-trust and other anti-competitive laws, as well as truth in advertising and lending, and the enforcement of contracts and warranties. And it also means that we must enforce reasonable regulations to guard against some people’s innate proclivity illegally to cut corners and even engage in fraud.
But otherwise, we simply must go back to the time when we put into practice the traditional American values of self-reliance, which meant that people had to find creative ways to support themselves.
This will be facilitated by such things as relaxing some of the regulations against street vendors, allowing people to cut hair without encumbering license requirements, allowing more competition in taxicab businesses (even at airports and other lucrative locations), and allowing parents to decide whether their neighbors or others can perform child care activities. And this should be done without undue government interference, other than requiring the purveyors to be bonded or insured.
Why would these things be helpful? For two reasons. First, many more goods and services would become available at a much lower cost, and more people would be employed in providing them.
Second, some of these goods and services are being provided now, but through the “underground” economy. This means that presently there is no insurance available when things go wrong, and no sales or income taxes being paid to the government.
This approach would also result in government being much less intrusive, and, all importantly, much less expensive. That would be a good thing, because governments do not produce wealth. Instead, governments take wealth from some people, keep a good deal of it for themselves, and then redistribute the rest to others. As a result, those from whom wealth is taken spend large resources trying to figure out a way to keep more of it, and those who receive it have more incentives to appear to be more “deserving” for a handout by being unable to take care of themselves. So overall today there are fewer incentives to produce goods and services, and fewer incentives for people to get into productive activities.
Had this suggested approach been in effect for the past decade, our country would not have our present economic difficulties. Think of it this way: Even today, our consumer prices are not that high. In the 1950s, a silver dollar that weighed one ounce purchased about 5 gallons of gasoline. And it still does today: One ounce of silver is worth about $12.80 on the open market, and will still purchase about 5 gallons of gasoline. So the price of gasoline has not increased — only the inflation that has been overseen by government intrusion and mismanagement has.
Furthermore, this ethic of being “deserving” has pitted lots of different classes of people against each other, which results in the unproductive “them” versus “us,” or “villains” versus “victims” mentality. This situation is, of course, promoted by politicians in their desire to find and use scapegoats in their appeal for votes. Start listening for this typecasting in your everyday life, such as the “poor,” on the one hand, as opposed to the “filthy rich,” “selfish rich,” or “greedy rich,” on the other. Supporting these appeals leads us down the road to large government, economic stagnation, and socialism.
Is that where we want to go? I answer that question by passing along to you two different stories. The first was from a friend of mine who experienced the Soviet Union’s brand of socialism. He said in that world it was not at all unusual to see a mile-long freight train loaded with logs passing another mile-long freight train also loaded with logs but going in the opposite direction. I suppose this also happens in a free-market as well, but certainly not as often.
The second story was told to me by one of the justices on our courts of appeal. He said that before the fall of the Soviet Union he had traveled to Moscow and stayed in the nicest hotel in the city. At that time everyone had a job; that was not a problem. And it was the job of one of the men in the hotel to plug in his vacuum cleaner and vacuum the rug in the lobby. So that is what he did, every morning. Unfortunately, the vacuum cleaner had broken down months before, and there were no spare parts. Nevertheless, he would plug it in every morning and “vacuum” the rug. In short, governments do not perform well in running an economy, and we want to stay as far away from our government running ours as we can.
In this time of economic trouble, I agree that it is important for the general population to see and believe that our federal government is doing something positive. That will help to restore confidence. But otherwise, the answer is not for the government to procure even more of a mastery over us, spend even more of our money, or take over more of our economy. Instead, we must go in the other direction and revert to the fundamentals that made us strong in the first place. This thought was well summed up by a cowboy poem that I read this past week in the Los Angeles Times, and which ends as follows:
So in essence what I’m saying,
“I’ve a plan to bail us out,
of all the troubles we are in,”
I hope you’ll hear me out.
When we have the next election,
it is time to take a stand.
Let’s send Washington some leaders
who make their living off the land.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of “Wearing the Robe — the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts.” He can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.JudgeJimGray.com.
Contrary to the arguments of many detractors, this does not mean that “anything goes.” Absolutely to the contrary. Instead it means that we have reasonable laws, and that we enforce those laws — for everybody. That includes anti-trust and other anti-competitive laws, as well as truth in advertising and lending, and the enforcement of contracts and warranties. And it also means that we must enforce reasonable regulations to guard against some people’s innate proclivity illegally to cut corners and even engage in fraud.
But otherwise, we simply must go back to the time when we put into practice the traditional American values of self-reliance, which meant that people had to find creative ways to support themselves.
This will be facilitated by such things as relaxing some of the regulations against street vendors, allowing people to cut hair without encumbering license requirements, allowing more competition in taxicab businesses (even at airports and other lucrative locations), and allowing parents to decide whether their neighbors or others can perform child care activities. And this should be done without undue government interference, other than requiring the purveyors to be bonded or insured.
Why would these things be helpful? For two reasons. First, many more goods and services would become available at a much lower cost, and more people would be employed in providing them.
Second, some of these goods and services are being provided now, but through the “underground” economy. This means that presently there is no insurance available when things go wrong, and no sales or income taxes being paid to the government.
This approach would also result in government being much less intrusive, and, all importantly, much less expensive. That would be a good thing, because governments do not produce wealth. Instead, governments take wealth from some people, keep a good deal of it for themselves, and then redistribute the rest to others. As a result, those from whom wealth is taken spend large resources trying to figure out a way to keep more of it, and those who receive it have more incentives to appear to be more “deserving” for a handout by being unable to take care of themselves. So overall today there are fewer incentives to produce goods and services, and fewer incentives for people to get into productive activities.
Had this suggested approach been in effect for the past decade, our country would not have our present economic difficulties. Think of it this way: Even today, our consumer prices are not that high. In the 1950s, a silver dollar that weighed one ounce purchased about 5 gallons of gasoline. And it still does today: One ounce of silver is worth about $12.80 on the open market, and will still purchase about 5 gallons of gasoline. So the price of gasoline has not increased — only the inflation that has been overseen by government intrusion and mismanagement has.
Furthermore, this ethic of being “deserving” has pitted lots of different classes of people against each other, which results in the unproductive “them” versus “us,” or “villains” versus “victims” mentality. This situation is, of course, promoted by politicians in their desire to find and use scapegoats in their appeal for votes. Start listening for this typecasting in your everyday life, such as the “poor,” on the one hand, as opposed to the “filthy rich,” “selfish rich,” or “greedy rich,” on the other. Supporting these appeals leads us down the road to large government, economic stagnation, and socialism.
Is that where we want to go? I answer that question by passing along to you two different stories. The first was from a friend of mine who experienced the Soviet Union’s brand of socialism. He said in that world it was not at all unusual to see a mile-long freight train loaded with logs passing another mile-long freight train also loaded with logs but going in the opposite direction. I suppose this also happens in a free-market as well, but certainly not as often.
The second story was told to me by one of the justices on our courts of appeal. He said that before the fall of the Soviet Union he had traveled to Moscow and stayed in the nicest hotel in the city. At that time everyone had a job; that was not a problem. And it was the job of one of the men in the hotel to plug in his vacuum cleaner and vacuum the rug in the lobby. So that is what he did, every morning. Unfortunately, the vacuum cleaner had broken down months before, and there were no spare parts. Nevertheless, he would plug it in every morning and “vacuum” the rug. In short, governments do not perform well in running an economy, and we want to stay as far away from our government running ours as we can.
In this time of economic trouble, I agree that it is important for the general population to see and believe that our federal government is doing something positive. That will help to restore confidence. But otherwise, the answer is not for the government to procure even more of a mastery over us, spend even more of our money, or take over more of our economy. Instead, we must go in the other direction and revert to the fundamentals that made us strong in the first place. This thought was well summed up by a cowboy poem that I read this past week in the Los Angeles Times, and which ends as follows:
So in essence what I’m saying,
“I’ve a plan to bail us out,
of all the troubles we are in,”
I hope you’ll hear me out.
When we have the next election,
it is time to take a stand.
Let’s send Washington some leaders
who make their living off the land.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of “Wearing the Robe — the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts.” He can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.JudgeJimGray.com.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Exploring new worlds: winemaking - by Judge Jim Gray
It’s easy to have a small fortune in the winemaking business, I’m told. All you have to do is to start with a large fortune.
But for years I have wondered about this seemingly mysterious process in the world of winemaking that begins with cultivation, and ends in gratification. So I asked my good friend Ron Kohut, who had moved to Santa Rosa a few years ago and is now the winemaker of his own Renegade Winery, about some of the things on my mind. My first question was about wine pricing.
What is the difference between an expensive bottle of wine and one that is more moderately priced?
“Paying a lot of money for a bottle of wine is usually a waste of money,” he said. “Personally I am reluctant to spend more than $30 for a bottle of wine, and then only if it’s a Cabernet Sauvignon or Pinot Noir that I know.
The futility of selecting wines by price can easily be demonstrated with what is known as a “blind tasting.” In a gathering of friends — and be sure to include those self-appointed wine “experts,” who are the people who nod gravely, with faces pensive, when sipping wine — set up the tasting.
Have four bottles of California Chardonnays and one French Chablis in the $7, $11, $15, $25, and $35 price ranges. Then cover the bottles, and have everyone try to rank the wines by price. For extra fun, ask if they can identify the French wine, as well as the “Reserve” wine, especially since the term “Reserve” has no controlled or legal meaning in the United States.
Most people can identify the $7 bottle of wine. But after that, all bets are off. Most of your friends will confidently conclude that the “best” tasting wine is both French and the most expensive. But when the bags are removed, the best-tasting wine is usually the $15 wine from California. And the dedicated wine snob will not perform any better in this tasting than anyone else.
Skeptical? Give it a try.
And while you’re at it, ask your friends about the “aromas” of wine. Buy a copy of the Wine Spectator, or similar wine magazine, and also several of the wines mentioned in the “reviews” section that list several aroma components for the wines. Then, at the same party, ask your friends to list the aromas they experience when they swirl and then sip their wines.
The listing, of course, should be done on a piece of paper, and not aloud. Afterwards, collect the papers. Normally, no two descriptions or aromas will be alike, and none will match those identified in the review.
But that is not surprising. Ron says that he has often sent his wines out to several reviewers and received back their aroma listings. And he has yet to receive back the same, or even similar, listings by these professionals for the same wine.
So is all of this aroma business a lot of hoopla? Actually not. Anne Noble, of the University of California at Davis, has created an “aroma wheel” for wines that can be purchased online. And Anne can, in fact, accurately identify many aroma components in a wine.
But for the casual wine consumer, much of the pricing and discussions of aroma are mostly just marketing. A good bottle of wine in a friendly or romantic setting is a hard experience to beat. And when it comes down to it, selecting a wine should be no more complicated than finding a wine you like at a price you are comfortable paying.
So, how are the wines priced? Most likely, the wines in the $11 and $15 price ranges are produced by large commercial wineries that must consistently deliver an easily drinkable wine. That is why, for example, the Kendal-Jackson Chardonnay is the most widely sold wine-by-the-glass in the United States.
In the higher price ranges, there are certainly some exceptional wines. But you have to know what you are buying. And that means doing some research. Furthermore, it also means that consumers are not hitting the search functions on their iPhones when standing in front of an array of wines at the supermarket to help them select their wines. So, unless you know something about wine, paying more than $15 to $20 for a bottle of wine is likely to be a disappointment. In fact, in many instances, you will only be paying for successful marketing.
Finally, I asked him about the glamour of winemaking. “It’s not exactly glamorous!” Ron laughed. “It’s a long arduous journey that just begins with the harvesting of the very best grapes. Then there’s the crush, fermentation, filtering, and, finally, bottling. There are a lot of mistakes that can be made during each stage of the process.”
Yes, it is a labor of passion, my good friend said, but it also can be unexpectedly fun. He recalled a time when he had a mobile bottling unit set up at his winery, but no workers to operate the eight-person system.
“I called my friends,” Ron said, “and they all came.” Why not? Who would turn down an opportunity to participate in the birth of a great wine. “It took a long time,” he continued, “but we bottled a great Zinfandel, and had some good cheese and music while we worked. And we turned it into a big party.”
The bottom line is that winemaking itself is not as glamorous as wine drinking. The folks in the vineyards and wineries work hard and take many risks in order to deliver that bottle of wine that serves as the centerpiece for most celebrations. Wine marketing is even harder. But we all can enjoy those people’s labors by grabbing our special someones and a nice bottle of wine, and heading out for a picnic. And we can let the wine’s aromas take us where they will.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.JudgeJimGray.com.
But for years I have wondered about this seemingly mysterious process in the world of winemaking that begins with cultivation, and ends in gratification. So I asked my good friend Ron Kohut, who had moved to Santa Rosa a few years ago and is now the winemaker of his own Renegade Winery, about some of the things on my mind. My first question was about wine pricing.
What is the difference between an expensive bottle of wine and one that is more moderately priced?
“Paying a lot of money for a bottle of wine is usually a waste of money,” he said. “Personally I am reluctant to spend more than $30 for a bottle of wine, and then only if it’s a Cabernet Sauvignon or Pinot Noir that I know.
The futility of selecting wines by price can easily be demonstrated with what is known as a “blind tasting.” In a gathering of friends — and be sure to include those self-appointed wine “experts,” who are the people who nod gravely, with faces pensive, when sipping wine — set up the tasting.
Have four bottles of California Chardonnays and one French Chablis in the $7, $11, $15, $25, and $35 price ranges. Then cover the bottles, and have everyone try to rank the wines by price. For extra fun, ask if they can identify the French wine, as well as the “Reserve” wine, especially since the term “Reserve” has no controlled or legal meaning in the United States.
Most people can identify the $7 bottle of wine. But after that, all bets are off. Most of your friends will confidently conclude that the “best” tasting wine is both French and the most expensive. But when the bags are removed, the best-tasting wine is usually the $15 wine from California. And the dedicated wine snob will not perform any better in this tasting than anyone else.
Skeptical? Give it a try.
And while you’re at it, ask your friends about the “aromas” of wine. Buy a copy of the Wine Spectator, or similar wine magazine, and also several of the wines mentioned in the “reviews” section that list several aroma components for the wines. Then, at the same party, ask your friends to list the aromas they experience when they swirl and then sip their wines.
The listing, of course, should be done on a piece of paper, and not aloud. Afterwards, collect the papers. Normally, no two descriptions or aromas will be alike, and none will match those identified in the review.
But that is not surprising. Ron says that he has often sent his wines out to several reviewers and received back their aroma listings. And he has yet to receive back the same, or even similar, listings by these professionals for the same wine.
So is all of this aroma business a lot of hoopla? Actually not. Anne Noble, of the University of California at Davis, has created an “aroma wheel” for wines that can be purchased online. And Anne can, in fact, accurately identify many aroma components in a wine.
But for the casual wine consumer, much of the pricing and discussions of aroma are mostly just marketing. A good bottle of wine in a friendly or romantic setting is a hard experience to beat. And when it comes down to it, selecting a wine should be no more complicated than finding a wine you like at a price you are comfortable paying.
So, how are the wines priced? Most likely, the wines in the $11 and $15 price ranges are produced by large commercial wineries that must consistently deliver an easily drinkable wine. That is why, for example, the Kendal-Jackson Chardonnay is the most widely sold wine-by-the-glass in the United States.
In the higher price ranges, there are certainly some exceptional wines. But you have to know what you are buying. And that means doing some research. Furthermore, it also means that consumers are not hitting the search functions on their iPhones when standing in front of an array of wines at the supermarket to help them select their wines. So, unless you know something about wine, paying more than $15 to $20 for a bottle of wine is likely to be a disappointment. In fact, in many instances, you will only be paying for successful marketing.
Finally, I asked him about the glamour of winemaking. “It’s not exactly glamorous!” Ron laughed. “It’s a long arduous journey that just begins with the harvesting of the very best grapes. Then there’s the crush, fermentation, filtering, and, finally, bottling. There are a lot of mistakes that can be made during each stage of the process.”
Yes, it is a labor of passion, my good friend said, but it also can be unexpectedly fun. He recalled a time when he had a mobile bottling unit set up at his winery, but no workers to operate the eight-person system.
“I called my friends,” Ron said, “and they all came.” Why not? Who would turn down an opportunity to participate in the birth of a great wine. “It took a long time,” he continued, “but we bottled a great Zinfandel, and had some good cheese and music while we worked. And we turned it into a big party.”
The bottom line is that winemaking itself is not as glamorous as wine drinking. The folks in the vineyards and wineries work hard and take many risks in order to deliver that bottle of wine that serves as the centerpiece for most celebrations. Wine marketing is even harder. But we all can enjoy those people’s labors by grabbing our special someones and a nice bottle of wine, and heading out for a picnic. And we can let the wine’s aromas take us where they will.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.JudgeJimGray.com.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
The way government should be - by Judge Jim Gray
Recently I was able to meet Orange County Treasurer and Tax Collector Chriss Street and take a tour of his offices. I was genuinely impressed with what he is doing, and wanted to pass along my findings to you as an example of the way I believe government should be.
Chriss was sworn in to these positions on Dec. 5, 2006. The first time I heard of Chriss Street was when he and John Moorlach sounded the alarms about former Treasurer Bob Citron and his speculative investments. Moorlach originally ran against Citron for treasurer and lost, and then successfully ran for a seat on the Board of Supervisors. Then Street ran for Citron’s former position, and won.
The Offices of the Treasurer and Tax Collector are authorized to have a total staff of 120 employees and send out about 880,000 property tax bills each year. They are also required to collect the tax money, invest it prudently, and make it available for county agencies partially to finance their budgets. In other words, this is the life blood of the county government and a big operation.
When he came on board, Street utilized a totally new management style in his new office, thereby taking a slow, impersonal and even dull office to one that is now vibrant, cost-effective, and service-oriented. He did this by turning his employees into a team, and incorporating other practical incentives into their work life.
For example, everyone is on a first-name basis, starting with Chriss himself. He also removed all of the private offices where managers and other workers were shielded from their fellow workers and installed nice, semi-private cubicles. He also updated their computers and computer programs to make accurate information more readably available. In addition, all workers have a laptop and a Blackberry, so that they can carry out some of their functions from home. And if the staff can reduce the amount of time that it takes to answer 99% of the telephone calls from their clients (which is the public) down below 7 seconds, everyone can enjoy casual clothing days at work.
Have his efforts been successful? Here is the good part. Secured tax collection, which is revenue that is secured by deeds of trust on real property, has increased by $317 million, and unsecured revenue for this year increased by $6.3 million and for the past year by $3.6 million. All of that has allowed an additional $161 million to be allocated to the county’s schools, and an additional $37.6 million to various county agencies. By comparison, Orange County now has a 96.5% property tax collection rate, compared to 92% for San Bernardino and 91% for Riverside Counties.
Additional good news is that between fiscal years 2006/2007 and 2008/2009, his office has actually returned $4 million of its own budget back to the county. Name me any other governmental agency anywhere that has done anything close to that. And even though he is allotted 120 workers, without firing anybody, Chriss’ offices now only employ 92 workers.
And has his staff been able to wear casual clothing to work? Recently yes, almost all of the time, because the telephone wait time that averaged 50 seconds in fiscal year 2005/2006 was reduced to 7 seconds in fiscal year 2007/2008.
By the way, since the phones are answered more efficiently and the callers’ questions responded to more accurately, the number of calls has been reduced. This means that the staff required to answer those calls has accordingly been reduced from 29 to about 16.
During the time Chriss Street has been there, his office has been forced to increase fees or “cost recoveries” in 14 different areas, such as delinquent taxes and Mello Roos. But it has also been successful in reducing two others. And where it took about 105 days to refund overpayments of taxes when he began, which was a violation of state laws, this is now accomplished within three weeks.
Finally, the office is functioning so well now that it is actually “hiring out” to do work for other county agencies. For example, the Orange County Health Care Agency has delegated the task of collecting money for animal licenses to the Office of the Treasurer.
And Chriss is also now in negotiations with the county probation office as well as four different cities to do some of their billing and remittance work.
Chriss Street’s approach to government has worked so well that he is trying to share it in a new book he is writing titled “The Third Way,” which is scheduled to be published by Seven Locks Press. The book focuses on the successful approach of using leadership and cooperation instead of confrontation to stop turmoil and in-fighting and to become a team. Personally, I hope that all managers in government get a copy.
So in this time of so many failures of government, I am overjoyed to report that there is one county agency that is working like government should. And this comment comes from a Libertarian!
If you want to learn more for yourself, call Chriss Street at (714) 834-3411 and make arrangements to take your own tour. Like any good public servant, Street enjoys being open and encourages honest feedback.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author or Wearing the Robe: the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2009), and can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or through his website at www.JudgeJimGray.com.
Chriss was sworn in to these positions on Dec. 5, 2006. The first time I heard of Chriss Street was when he and John Moorlach sounded the alarms about former Treasurer Bob Citron and his speculative investments. Moorlach originally ran against Citron for treasurer and lost, and then successfully ran for a seat on the Board of Supervisors. Then Street ran for Citron’s former position, and won.
The Offices of the Treasurer and Tax Collector are authorized to have a total staff of 120 employees and send out about 880,000 property tax bills each year. They are also required to collect the tax money, invest it prudently, and make it available for county agencies partially to finance their budgets. In other words, this is the life blood of the county government and a big operation.
When he came on board, Street utilized a totally new management style in his new office, thereby taking a slow, impersonal and even dull office to one that is now vibrant, cost-effective, and service-oriented. He did this by turning his employees into a team, and incorporating other practical incentives into their work life.
For example, everyone is on a first-name basis, starting with Chriss himself. He also removed all of the private offices where managers and other workers were shielded from their fellow workers and installed nice, semi-private cubicles. He also updated their computers and computer programs to make accurate information more readably available. In addition, all workers have a laptop and a Blackberry, so that they can carry out some of their functions from home. And if the staff can reduce the amount of time that it takes to answer 99% of the telephone calls from their clients (which is the public) down below 7 seconds, everyone can enjoy casual clothing days at work.
Have his efforts been successful? Here is the good part. Secured tax collection, which is revenue that is secured by deeds of trust on real property, has increased by $317 million, and unsecured revenue for this year increased by $6.3 million and for the past year by $3.6 million. All of that has allowed an additional $161 million to be allocated to the county’s schools, and an additional $37.6 million to various county agencies. By comparison, Orange County now has a 96.5% property tax collection rate, compared to 92% for San Bernardino and 91% for Riverside Counties.
Additional good news is that between fiscal years 2006/2007 and 2008/2009, his office has actually returned $4 million of its own budget back to the county. Name me any other governmental agency anywhere that has done anything close to that. And even though he is allotted 120 workers, without firing anybody, Chriss’ offices now only employ 92 workers.
And has his staff been able to wear casual clothing to work? Recently yes, almost all of the time, because the telephone wait time that averaged 50 seconds in fiscal year 2005/2006 was reduced to 7 seconds in fiscal year 2007/2008.
By the way, since the phones are answered more efficiently and the callers’ questions responded to more accurately, the number of calls has been reduced. This means that the staff required to answer those calls has accordingly been reduced from 29 to about 16.
During the time Chriss Street has been there, his office has been forced to increase fees or “cost recoveries” in 14 different areas, such as delinquent taxes and Mello Roos. But it has also been successful in reducing two others. And where it took about 105 days to refund overpayments of taxes when he began, which was a violation of state laws, this is now accomplished within three weeks.
Finally, the office is functioning so well now that it is actually “hiring out” to do work for other county agencies. For example, the Orange County Health Care Agency has delegated the task of collecting money for animal licenses to the Office of the Treasurer.
And Chriss is also now in negotiations with the county probation office as well as four different cities to do some of their billing and remittance work.
Chriss Street’s approach to government has worked so well that he is trying to share it in a new book he is writing titled “The Third Way,” which is scheduled to be published by Seven Locks Press. The book focuses on the successful approach of using leadership and cooperation instead of confrontation to stop turmoil and in-fighting and to become a team. Personally, I hope that all managers in government get a copy.
So in this time of so many failures of government, I am overjoyed to report that there is one county agency that is working like government should. And this comment comes from a Libertarian!
If you want to learn more for yourself, call Chriss Street at (714) 834-3411 and make arrangements to take your own tour. Like any good public servant, Street enjoys being open and encourages honest feedback.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author or Wearing the Robe: the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2009), and can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or through his website at www.JudgeJimGray.com.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Treating pot like alcohol - by Judge Jim Gray
I recently participated in a news conference in San Francisco with Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, Chairwoman Betty Yee of the State Board of Equalization, and Oakland City Councilwoman Rebecca Kaplan to support Assembly Bill 390, which would treat marijuana like alcohol in California. San Francisco Sheriff Michael Hennessey also supports the bill.
AB 390 would allow adults older than 21 to buy, own and use marijuana sold in accordance with a specified state plan. The bill would also require the product to be subject to a tax surcharge of $50 an ounce, in addition to normal sales taxes.
Importantly, the bill further strengthens the penalties for anyone selling, possessing, or using marijuana near a school, and continues to hold people accountable for their actions, such as driving under its influence.
Today, even though it is still illegal, marijuana is the largest cash crop in California. In fact, marijuana is estimated today to be a $14-billion yearly crop; the No. 2 crop in our state is grapes. Further, it is easier today for our children to get marijuana, if they want to, than a six-pack of beer.
How do I know that? Because I ask them — and you should too! — Because today’s sellers of marijuana don’t ask for ID.
As we have discussed in this column before, treating marijuana like alcohol would have five results, and all of them would be beneficial.
First, we taxpayers would save about $1 billion that we now spend each year in a transparently futile effort to eradicate marijuana, and to prosecute and incarcerate non-violent marijuana users.
Second, we could tax the stuff, and, according to the estimate of the State Board of Equalization, could generate at least $1.33 billion in revenue each year.
But the third result would dwarf the first two because, as we have discussed, this program would make marijuana less available for our children than it is today.
Fourth, any ambiguity about medical marijuana dispensaries would be eliminated.
And fifth, we would be able to revitalize the hemp industry. This is not a minor result because hemp, which is the stalk and seeds of the marijuana plant and which can be manipulated to have no mind-altering properties whatsoever, has a multitude of practical usages.
For example, farmers can produce four times the amount of paper pulp from an acre of hemp as they can from an acre of trees. Other products such as plywood, lacquer, rope, gunny sacks, mulch, and fuel more efficient than corn are also made from hemp. Furthermore, today you can go to stores like Trader Joe’s and buy a lip balm made from hemp, as well as hemp-seed granola, which is quite nutritious and flavorful. But under our present policy, our merchants are required to import their raw material from radical countries like Canada and England, where their farmers have been allowed to grow hemp for years.
There would probably also be two additional results.
The first would be a tendency to increase the usage of marijuana for adults. This would probably last for six months to a year, until the novelty wore off. For example, in Holland, where anyone 16 or older can use marijuana and hashish, the minister of health reported that his country has only half the marijuana usage per capita than we do here — both for adults and for teenagers.
Then he went on to explain why, when he said that “We have succeeded in making pot boring.” Of course, we glamorize it, and set up a huge profit motive for others to get us to use it.
Finally, it is clear that the laws of a society are an indication of its values. So changing our laws might indicate to some people that the usage of marijuana was “no big deal.” But as a practical matter, just because we repealed alcohol prohibition did not mean that society recommended people go out and drink a martini, or even a beer. It simply was understood as a statement that society was going to address the issue of alcohol distribution and usage in a different manner. In fact, just because cigarettes are not illegal for adults does not mean that society condones their usage. The same would be true for marijuana.
Surveys show that, despite its illegality, about 25 million people in our country use marijuana regularly today, and about 100 million Americans have tried it at one point in their lives. That includes former President Clinton, and also President Obama who, when asked while on the campaign trail if he had ever inhaled, responded by saying “I thought that was the whole idea.” It also includes about half of the top 10% of the students in my 1971 graduating class at USC Law School, and to my knowledge all of them have been successful in life.
AB 390 expressly acknowledges that this program would still be a violation of federal law, so it would not go into effect until 30 days after those federal laws had been changed. But if the voters of California were to approve this bill, it could not help but influence a change at the federal level.
How can we as a state and a country continue to be so blind to reality? The entire country of Mexico is now being terrorized by violence and corruption from drug lords. But this is not caused by drugs: It is instead caused by drug money. Worse yet, it is our drug money that is causing the harm! And that same violence and corruption are increasingly spilling over the border into our country.
Under our present system of marijuana prohibition, we could not achieve more harmful results if we tried. The availability of marijuana both to us and to our children is up; the presence of violence and corruption is up and rising; the number of people’s lives that are being ruined by them or their parents being sent to jail and prison is up; and none of the vast profits that are made by the sale of marijuana are being taxed. In addition, since we only have limited criminal justice resources, getting “tough” on marijuana prosecutions means that we have gotten “soft” on all other prosecutions, including robbery, rape and murder.
In that regard, you should also be aware that at this moment there are thousands of people filling up our jails and prisons who have done nothing but smoke marijuana. The reason is that it is always a condition of probation or parole for the subject not to use any form of illicit substances. Therefore, if people on probation or parole smoke even one marijuana cigarette, that substance will stay in their systems and be detectable by urinalysis for up to 30 days. Then if they either fail to report for drug testing, or if they test positive, they are almost automatically taken back into custody. That not only costs us taxpayers about $30,000 per inmate per year, it also frequently places that inmate’s family back on the welfare roles.
So now is the time for you to help. Please contact your representatives, such as Assemblyman Chuck DeVore at (916) 319-2070, Assemblyman Van Tran at (916) 319-2068, Sen. Tom Harman at (916) 651-4035 or Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger at (916) 445-2841, and tell them that they should support AB 390. And please contact your family and friends and ask them to do the same.
I have never used marijuana. Furthermore, I never intend to do so, unless it would be recommended to me by my physician to relieve some form of harmful medical condition. You probably feel the same way. But if you don’t and you, like millions of others in our country, would use marijuana, you are probably doing so already. So in that event at least you will not be required to associate with criminals to obtain the stuff, and will not automatically be a criminal yourself. And along the way, you can help us to balance our state budget.
JAMES P. GRAY can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.JudgeJimGray.com.
AB 390 would allow adults older than 21 to buy, own and use marijuana sold in accordance with a specified state plan. The bill would also require the product to be subject to a tax surcharge of $50 an ounce, in addition to normal sales taxes.
Importantly, the bill further strengthens the penalties for anyone selling, possessing, or using marijuana near a school, and continues to hold people accountable for their actions, such as driving under its influence.
Today, even though it is still illegal, marijuana is the largest cash crop in California. In fact, marijuana is estimated today to be a $14-billion yearly crop; the No. 2 crop in our state is grapes. Further, it is easier today for our children to get marijuana, if they want to, than a six-pack of beer.
How do I know that? Because I ask them — and you should too! — Because today’s sellers of marijuana don’t ask for ID.
As we have discussed in this column before, treating marijuana like alcohol would have five results, and all of them would be beneficial.
First, we taxpayers would save about $1 billion that we now spend each year in a transparently futile effort to eradicate marijuana, and to prosecute and incarcerate non-violent marijuana users.
Second, we could tax the stuff, and, according to the estimate of the State Board of Equalization, could generate at least $1.33 billion in revenue each year.
But the third result would dwarf the first two because, as we have discussed, this program would make marijuana less available for our children than it is today.
Fourth, any ambiguity about medical marijuana dispensaries would be eliminated.
And fifth, we would be able to revitalize the hemp industry. This is not a minor result because hemp, which is the stalk and seeds of the marijuana plant and which can be manipulated to have no mind-altering properties whatsoever, has a multitude of practical usages.
For example, farmers can produce four times the amount of paper pulp from an acre of hemp as they can from an acre of trees. Other products such as plywood, lacquer, rope, gunny sacks, mulch, and fuel more efficient than corn are also made from hemp. Furthermore, today you can go to stores like Trader Joe’s and buy a lip balm made from hemp, as well as hemp-seed granola, which is quite nutritious and flavorful. But under our present policy, our merchants are required to import their raw material from radical countries like Canada and England, where their farmers have been allowed to grow hemp for years.
There would probably also be two additional results.
The first would be a tendency to increase the usage of marijuana for adults. This would probably last for six months to a year, until the novelty wore off. For example, in Holland, where anyone 16 or older can use marijuana and hashish, the minister of health reported that his country has only half the marijuana usage per capita than we do here — both for adults and for teenagers.
Then he went on to explain why, when he said that “We have succeeded in making pot boring.” Of course, we glamorize it, and set up a huge profit motive for others to get us to use it.
Finally, it is clear that the laws of a society are an indication of its values. So changing our laws might indicate to some people that the usage of marijuana was “no big deal.” But as a practical matter, just because we repealed alcohol prohibition did not mean that society recommended people go out and drink a martini, or even a beer. It simply was understood as a statement that society was going to address the issue of alcohol distribution and usage in a different manner. In fact, just because cigarettes are not illegal for adults does not mean that society condones their usage. The same would be true for marijuana.
Surveys show that, despite its illegality, about 25 million people in our country use marijuana regularly today, and about 100 million Americans have tried it at one point in their lives. That includes former President Clinton, and also President Obama who, when asked while on the campaign trail if he had ever inhaled, responded by saying “I thought that was the whole idea.” It also includes about half of the top 10% of the students in my 1971 graduating class at USC Law School, and to my knowledge all of them have been successful in life.
AB 390 expressly acknowledges that this program would still be a violation of federal law, so it would not go into effect until 30 days after those federal laws had been changed. But if the voters of California were to approve this bill, it could not help but influence a change at the federal level.
How can we as a state and a country continue to be so blind to reality? The entire country of Mexico is now being terrorized by violence and corruption from drug lords. But this is not caused by drugs: It is instead caused by drug money. Worse yet, it is our drug money that is causing the harm! And that same violence and corruption are increasingly spilling over the border into our country.
Under our present system of marijuana prohibition, we could not achieve more harmful results if we tried. The availability of marijuana both to us and to our children is up; the presence of violence and corruption is up and rising; the number of people’s lives that are being ruined by them or their parents being sent to jail and prison is up; and none of the vast profits that are made by the sale of marijuana are being taxed. In addition, since we only have limited criminal justice resources, getting “tough” on marijuana prosecutions means that we have gotten “soft” on all other prosecutions, including robbery, rape and murder.
In that regard, you should also be aware that at this moment there are thousands of people filling up our jails and prisons who have done nothing but smoke marijuana. The reason is that it is always a condition of probation or parole for the subject not to use any form of illicit substances. Therefore, if people on probation or parole smoke even one marijuana cigarette, that substance will stay in their systems and be detectable by urinalysis for up to 30 days. Then if they either fail to report for drug testing, or if they test positive, they are almost automatically taken back into custody. That not only costs us taxpayers about $30,000 per inmate per year, it also frequently places that inmate’s family back on the welfare roles.
So now is the time for you to help. Please contact your representatives, such as Assemblyman Chuck DeVore at (916) 319-2070, Assemblyman Van Tran at (916) 319-2068, Sen. Tom Harman at (916) 651-4035 or Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger at (916) 445-2841, and tell them that they should support AB 390. And please contact your family and friends and ask them to do the same.
I have never used marijuana. Furthermore, I never intend to do so, unless it would be recommended to me by my physician to relieve some form of harmful medical condition. You probably feel the same way. But if you don’t and you, like millions of others in our country, would use marijuana, you are probably doing so already. So in that event at least you will not be required to associate with criminals to obtain the stuff, and will not automatically be a criminal yourself. And along the way, you can help us to balance our state budget.
JAMES P. GRAY can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.JudgeJimGray.com.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
My Movitation - Judge Jim Gray's response to a letter
Dear Mark,
Thank you for the note. I worked hard on the book with the hope that it would increase a full, open and honest discussion of this critical area.
When I became a trial court judge at the end of 1983, I had no particular thoughts about drug laws one way or the other, except to enforce them. That is what I had done as a Navy JAG attorney, and that is what I did as a federal prosecutor in Los Angeles.
Then the thing that struck me first in this area when I was on the bench was that alcohol-related offenses were the largest problem area that we faced, and we were doing almost nothing about it. So I helped to establish what was probably the first Drug Court in the country. We screened every drinking driver that came into our
courts to determine who were the alcoholics (We called them "High Risk Problem Drinkers," but they knew what we meant.), and then placed them onto a program
that required total abstinance from alcohol. We were successful in keeping 65 % of these people off alcohol for 8 months, which was as long as I was able to keep
statistics. We also received letters from, for example, wives that told us they were going to divorce their husbands because of their drinking. But now that they were
on our program, thank you, because you have given me my husband back. We didn't need to receive too many of these letters to know that we were on to something
good.
So with this experience, it did not take me long to realize that we were facing similar problems with the other mind-altering, sometimes addicting drugs. And that jail and prison was not the answer. What worked was four things: education, prevention and treatment, positive economic incentives to do what was socially acceptable, and individual responsibility for one's actions. But trying to control what people put into their bodies was not working. And along the way, the drug money problems were dwarfing the actual drug problems.
So, being a fairly clean-cut, conservative judge in a conservative county who had never used any form of illicit drug, I decided that few people could cause others to listen to the message more than I could. (It certainly was not a "career-enhancing" thing to do.) So in April of 2001, I actually held a press conference, and I spoke out about my conclusions as publicly as I could. And I continue to do so today.
So please use whatever your personal experiences and observations are, and help us to discuss this critically important issue. The beheadings in Mexico have almost nothing to do with drugs: they are all about drug money. And so are a large number of other problems with violence, corruption, disregard for the law, supporting terrorism, and directly leading our children into a lifestyle of drug usage and drug selling. Drug money is the major problem, and still we refuse even to discuss the issue.
And I would be interested in your thoughts, both in general, and about my book.
Thank you again for the note, and Good Luck to us all.
Thank you for the note. I worked hard on the book with the hope that it would increase a full, open and honest discussion of this critical area.
When I became a trial court judge at the end of 1983, I had no particular thoughts about drug laws one way or the other, except to enforce them. That is what I had done as a Navy JAG attorney, and that is what I did as a federal prosecutor in Los Angeles.
Then the thing that struck me first in this area when I was on the bench was that alcohol-related offenses were the largest problem area that we faced, and we were doing almost nothing about it. So I helped to establish what was probably the first Drug Court in the country. We screened every drinking driver that came into our
courts to determine who were the alcoholics (We called them "High Risk Problem Drinkers," but they knew what we meant.), and then placed them onto a program
that required total abstinance from alcohol. We were successful in keeping 65 % of these people off alcohol for 8 months, which was as long as I was able to keep
statistics. We also received letters from, for example, wives that told us they were going to divorce their husbands because of their drinking. But now that they were
on our program, thank you, because you have given me my husband back. We didn't need to receive too many of these letters to know that we were on to something
good.
So with this experience, it did not take me long to realize that we were facing similar problems with the other mind-altering, sometimes addicting drugs. And that jail and prison was not the answer. What worked was four things: education, prevention and treatment, positive economic incentives to do what was socially acceptable, and individual responsibility for one's actions. But trying to control what people put into their bodies was not working. And along the way, the drug money problems were dwarfing the actual drug problems.
So, being a fairly clean-cut, conservative judge in a conservative county who had never used any form of illicit drug, I decided that few people could cause others to listen to the message more than I could. (It certainly was not a "career-enhancing" thing to do.) So in April of 2001, I actually held a press conference, and I spoke out about my conclusions as publicly as I could. And I continue to do so today.
So please use whatever your personal experiences and observations are, and help us to discuss this critically important issue. The beheadings in Mexico have almost nothing to do with drugs: they are all about drug money. And so are a large number of other problems with violence, corruption, disregard for the law, supporting terrorism, and directly leading our children into a lifestyle of drug usage and drug selling. Drug money is the major problem, and still we refuse even to discuss the issue.
And I would be interested in your thoughts, both in general, and about my book.
Thank you again for the note, and Good Luck to us all.
Judge Jim Gray
Exploring new worlds: cooking - By Judge Jim Gray
This past Valentine’s Day I decided to offer to do what I had not done for about 30 years — cook a nice meal for my wife. The idea was well received. So I went to some of the finer markets around and purchased some sea scallops, and fresh vegetables, and lemons, garlic and flat parsley for a nice sauce. I also pulled out a nice “saved” bottle of wine, and then, with my wife’s patient guidance, prepared our dinner.
The whole evening was a success. And, enlightened by that experience, I realized that cooking fits all the criteria that we have been discussing about exploring new worlds, because it is a unique experience, and a complete world unto itself.
The first lesson in my life on the subject was taught to me by my father. He used to say that the most important ingredient in the make-up of a good cook was to have an appreciative audience. I cannot think of any people who are good cooks that only cook for themselves, and I’ll bet that you can’t either. So if you want to experience good cooking you should be genuinely appreciative of the cook.
Cooking is really divided into two categories: commercial and domestic. Commercial covers people being paid to cook for others, and includes those who work in restaurants and catering services, and are hired to cook in other people’s homes. In that regard, there is a real difference between being a cook and being a chef.
A cook is basically a technician, while a chef is more of an artist. And at its most aesthetic, cooking is an art that stimulates a sensual experience involving taste, smell, sight and mouth feel. Therefore, by combining skill, experience, imagination and a caring of choosing fresh ingredients and different cooking techniques, being a chef can be a highly creative process.
Nevertheless, there can be problems in commercial cooking, because often it is the desire of many chefs only to have a good presentation and taste in the final product. But too often that can omit a concern about nutrition, additives like MSG and other flavor enhancers, and the amount of butter, cream and fats in the meals. So for the most part, health-conscious people should either limit their exposure to this type of meal or be really selective.
The benefits of domestic good cooking are enormous. Of course, everyone likes to eat, and cooking with fresh ingredients tastes better (once you allow your taste buds to recover from an excess of salt and other flavor enhancers), and it is certainly healthier. Buying local also means that the foods will likely be fresher, greener and exposed to fewer pollutants from transportation.
My wonderful mother was a great cook. Not gourmet, but she used fresh ingredients, and always added her special touches and garnishes that eternally demonstrated her love and caring for us. In addition, we would always sit down together for breakfast and dinner, and have formal candlelight dinners in the dining room on Sundays. After dinner, we would often wash the dishes together (this was before dishwashers), and frequently would sing together while we worked. This furnished us with great togetherness, great bonding, and great memories!
Probably each of us has special recollections of favorite recipes that we associate with particular holidays and other good times. And all of these times were directly made possible by the efforts of the cooks. In addition, communal efforts, such as picnics and potluck dinners where everyone has a stake (steak?) in the success of the event, materially add to the happy socializing both during the preparation and the consumption of the food. And it is not an accident that many good things in life are centered on a good meal.
Each summer my family picked fresh peaches from our tree, and then worked together to make hand-churned peach ice cream. In my mind, this is the best ice cream I will ever have because of the wonderful memories. Other families make preserves, tamales, canned fruit and many other foods together, with the same resulting memories. And all are made possible by the caring cook.
Other additional benefits are that food cooked at home is almost always less expensive than the ready-to-eat products. And, with an appreciative audience, it is much more fulfilling for the preparers. In fact, it also gives a new spouse something extra to brag about to both parents and in-laws. (And caring family members always overlook the times the new bride roasts the neck and giblets in the oven alongside the chicken while still in the plastic bag.)
A friend of mine who is a gourmet cook has told me about his procedure in food preparation. He first finds a new recipe, either in a cookbook or, increasingly, on the Internet. Then he sits down and visualizes from start to finish how he will do the job, including which pans to use, which oil, which ingredients and from where, etc. Then he will get everything out, and do all measurements as appropriate before he even starts to cook. Finally, as he progresses he will wash all of his cooking implements immediately after he has finished with them. This means that when his gourmet meal is completed, he and his wife are only facing a wonderful meal, and not a messy kitchen.
This procedure sounds good to me, and I recommend it to you.
Some recent and positive developments in cooking are that general education about nutrition is increasing in our society, as represented by the Food Network on television and the increased availability of cooking classes, with the result that things such as sodas, potato chips and doughnuts are more often being replaced by vitamin waters, fresh fruits and granola bars; aluminum pans, which often leach out harmful metals into our foods, are increasingly being replaced by ceramic and iron ones, which do not; more farmers’ markets and other stores featuring fresh fruits and vegetables are being found everywhere; and becoming a chef is increasingly being considered to be an honorable profession.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.JudgeJimGray.com.
The whole evening was a success. And, enlightened by that experience, I realized that cooking fits all the criteria that we have been discussing about exploring new worlds, because it is a unique experience, and a complete world unto itself.
The first lesson in my life on the subject was taught to me by my father. He used to say that the most important ingredient in the make-up of a good cook was to have an appreciative audience. I cannot think of any people who are good cooks that only cook for themselves, and I’ll bet that you can’t either. So if you want to experience good cooking you should be genuinely appreciative of the cook.
Cooking is really divided into two categories: commercial and domestic. Commercial covers people being paid to cook for others, and includes those who work in restaurants and catering services, and are hired to cook in other people’s homes. In that regard, there is a real difference between being a cook and being a chef.
A cook is basically a technician, while a chef is more of an artist. And at its most aesthetic, cooking is an art that stimulates a sensual experience involving taste, smell, sight and mouth feel. Therefore, by combining skill, experience, imagination and a caring of choosing fresh ingredients and different cooking techniques, being a chef can be a highly creative process.
Nevertheless, there can be problems in commercial cooking, because often it is the desire of many chefs only to have a good presentation and taste in the final product. But too often that can omit a concern about nutrition, additives like MSG and other flavor enhancers, and the amount of butter, cream and fats in the meals. So for the most part, health-conscious people should either limit their exposure to this type of meal or be really selective.
The benefits of domestic good cooking are enormous. Of course, everyone likes to eat, and cooking with fresh ingredients tastes better (once you allow your taste buds to recover from an excess of salt and other flavor enhancers), and it is certainly healthier. Buying local also means that the foods will likely be fresher, greener and exposed to fewer pollutants from transportation.
My wonderful mother was a great cook. Not gourmet, but she used fresh ingredients, and always added her special touches and garnishes that eternally demonstrated her love and caring for us. In addition, we would always sit down together for breakfast and dinner, and have formal candlelight dinners in the dining room on Sundays. After dinner, we would often wash the dishes together (this was before dishwashers), and frequently would sing together while we worked. This furnished us with great togetherness, great bonding, and great memories!
Probably each of us has special recollections of favorite recipes that we associate with particular holidays and other good times. And all of these times were directly made possible by the efforts of the cooks. In addition, communal efforts, such as picnics and potluck dinners where everyone has a stake (steak?) in the success of the event, materially add to the happy socializing both during the preparation and the consumption of the food. And it is not an accident that many good things in life are centered on a good meal.
Each summer my family picked fresh peaches from our tree, and then worked together to make hand-churned peach ice cream. In my mind, this is the best ice cream I will ever have because of the wonderful memories. Other families make preserves, tamales, canned fruit and many other foods together, with the same resulting memories. And all are made possible by the caring cook.
Other additional benefits are that food cooked at home is almost always less expensive than the ready-to-eat products. And, with an appreciative audience, it is much more fulfilling for the preparers. In fact, it also gives a new spouse something extra to brag about to both parents and in-laws. (And caring family members always overlook the times the new bride roasts the neck and giblets in the oven alongside the chicken while still in the plastic bag.)
A friend of mine who is a gourmet cook has told me about his procedure in food preparation. He first finds a new recipe, either in a cookbook or, increasingly, on the Internet. Then he sits down and visualizes from start to finish how he will do the job, including which pans to use, which oil, which ingredients and from where, etc. Then he will get everything out, and do all measurements as appropriate before he even starts to cook. Finally, as he progresses he will wash all of his cooking implements immediately after he has finished with them. This means that when his gourmet meal is completed, he and his wife are only facing a wonderful meal, and not a messy kitchen.
This procedure sounds good to me, and I recommend it to you.
Some recent and positive developments in cooking are that general education about nutrition is increasing in our society, as represented by the Food Network on television and the increased availability of cooking classes, with the result that things such as sodas, potato chips and doughnuts are more often being replaced by vitamin waters, fresh fruits and granola bars; aluminum pans, which often leach out harmful metals into our foods, are increasingly being replaced by ceramic and iron ones, which do not; more farmers’ markets and other stores featuring fresh fruits and vegetables are being found everywhere; and becoming a chef is increasingly being considered to be an honorable profession.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.JudgeJimGray.com.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Different worlds: scuba diving - by Judge Jim Gray
If you want to visit a truly different, fascinating, varied and colorful world, try scuba diving. Yes, it can be dangerous, so you should not venture below the surface with a tank of air unless you get certified. But once this is done, you will be entering a wonderful if not magical new world.
Scuba stands for self-contained underwater breathing apparatus, and consists of a tank of compressed air, which is strapped to your back, air hoses and a regulator for breathing. The original “aqua lung” scuba gear was co-discovered by Jacques Cousteau in 1943, and he went on to study all forms of life in the water and to become a pioneer in marine conservation and photography.
My first duty station when I was in the Navy was the U.S. Naval Air Station in Guam, and it was there that I became certified in scuba diving. In fact, I quickly formed the belief that the best part of Guam was under water. We could dive — always with a partner — on coral reefs, and a World War I freighter that sank in the harbor. And, because most of the “action” occurs at night, we also took underwater flashlights and made some night dives.
At that time, I hunted for shells and retrieved coral from the reefs that I still display on my shelves at home. I wouldn’t do that anymore because of the increased fragility of the reefs. At that time I knew some divers who would actually take a crow bar to large coral heads and pry them up while looking for shells, because the critters housed in the shells tended to hide under the coral. But it was tremendously destructive of the coral reefs, and in most places that practice has long since been prohibited.
I was also able to dive in the best spot in the world for scuba, which is the Truk (or Chuuk) Lagoon, in the Caroline Islands. This 50-by-30-mile lagoon surrounded by coral reefs was the base of naval operations for the Japanese in the South Pacific during World War II. But in 1944 the Allies attacked and sank about 12 Japanese warships, 32 merchant ships, and hundreds of aircraft, and people can now dive on them. And since the government has prohibited the removal of anything from the area, the ships and airplanes are mostly still the way they were back then. It is a fascinating thing to do!
We dove down to the Fujikawa Maru, which is a six-hold armed freighter. Still found in one of the holds was an actual Zero, which is a Japanese fighter airplane that was being transported intact. So we were actually able to sit in the cockpit of this plane, and that was an experience I will never forget. There also was lots of machinery in the hold of the ship, including an old outboard motor that I will always remember.
I also vividly remember diving in about 30 feet of water around the large guns on the bow of the same ship. But the guns had large coral heads growing on them, and several colorful fish were lazily swimming all around them. So to see this ship of war with all of its guns surrounded by such an idyllic and peaceful situation was something that will always be burned in my memory as the most ironic scene of my life.
After being discharged from the Navy I have only been diving one time in my life, and that was in Laguna Beach. Even though it was August, we still had to wear a wet suit because the water below about 10 feet was cold. And the water was not nearly as clear, or the fish as colorful, or the scenery as interesting as in the other areas I had been. We did explore the world of the kelp beds, and that was interesting. But not interesting enough to bring me back.
I do understand that the diving on the other side of Catalina Island is fun, and more colorful. In addition, divers can also go spear fishing or hunting for lobsters, so maybe some day.
Basically, the only dangerous things about scuba diving are getting panicked from lack of experience in unusual situations, or diving too deep for too long without taking proper steps for decompression. Both of these underscore the need to get certified, so that you can enjoy this wonderful activity safely.
But otherwise, experiencing the wonders of life beneath the seas is one of life’s most interesting adventures. So even if scuba diving itself is not in your future, please treat yourself by going to a warm-water climate, putting on a mask and snorkel, resting on the top of the water, and just quietly observing what is going on below. You will be able to see almost as much as a diver, because below 30 feet the sunlight begins to fade and so do the colors. Or at the very least go on one of the glass-bottomed boat excursions (and not just at Disneyland) and experience these wonders first hand. You will never be sorry.
Finally, if you want to learn more about underwater conservation, please visit the Nature Conservancy at www.nature.org, the Cousteau Society at www.Cousteau.org, or other similar websites. We all need to do what we can to protect and preserve these amazing, fascinating and diverse underwater lands.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.JudgeJimGray.com.
Scuba stands for self-contained underwater breathing apparatus, and consists of a tank of compressed air, which is strapped to your back, air hoses and a regulator for breathing. The original “aqua lung” scuba gear was co-discovered by Jacques Cousteau in 1943, and he went on to study all forms of life in the water and to become a pioneer in marine conservation and photography.
My first duty station when I was in the Navy was the U.S. Naval Air Station in Guam, and it was there that I became certified in scuba diving. In fact, I quickly formed the belief that the best part of Guam was under water. We could dive — always with a partner — on coral reefs, and a World War I freighter that sank in the harbor. And, because most of the “action” occurs at night, we also took underwater flashlights and made some night dives.
At that time, I hunted for shells and retrieved coral from the reefs that I still display on my shelves at home. I wouldn’t do that anymore because of the increased fragility of the reefs. At that time I knew some divers who would actually take a crow bar to large coral heads and pry them up while looking for shells, because the critters housed in the shells tended to hide under the coral. But it was tremendously destructive of the coral reefs, and in most places that practice has long since been prohibited.
I was also able to dive in the best spot in the world for scuba, which is the Truk (or Chuuk) Lagoon, in the Caroline Islands. This 50-by-30-mile lagoon surrounded by coral reefs was the base of naval operations for the Japanese in the South Pacific during World War II. But in 1944 the Allies attacked and sank about 12 Japanese warships, 32 merchant ships, and hundreds of aircraft, and people can now dive on them. And since the government has prohibited the removal of anything from the area, the ships and airplanes are mostly still the way they were back then. It is a fascinating thing to do!
We dove down to the Fujikawa Maru, which is a six-hold armed freighter. Still found in one of the holds was an actual Zero, which is a Japanese fighter airplane that was being transported intact. So we were actually able to sit in the cockpit of this plane, and that was an experience I will never forget. There also was lots of machinery in the hold of the ship, including an old outboard motor that I will always remember.
I also vividly remember diving in about 30 feet of water around the large guns on the bow of the same ship. But the guns had large coral heads growing on them, and several colorful fish were lazily swimming all around them. So to see this ship of war with all of its guns surrounded by such an idyllic and peaceful situation was something that will always be burned in my memory as the most ironic scene of my life.
After being discharged from the Navy I have only been diving one time in my life, and that was in Laguna Beach. Even though it was August, we still had to wear a wet suit because the water below about 10 feet was cold. And the water was not nearly as clear, or the fish as colorful, or the scenery as interesting as in the other areas I had been. We did explore the world of the kelp beds, and that was interesting. But not interesting enough to bring me back.
I do understand that the diving on the other side of Catalina Island is fun, and more colorful. In addition, divers can also go spear fishing or hunting for lobsters, so maybe some day.
Basically, the only dangerous things about scuba diving are getting panicked from lack of experience in unusual situations, or diving too deep for too long without taking proper steps for decompression. Both of these underscore the need to get certified, so that you can enjoy this wonderful activity safely.
But otherwise, experiencing the wonders of life beneath the seas is one of life’s most interesting adventures. So even if scuba diving itself is not in your future, please treat yourself by going to a warm-water climate, putting on a mask and snorkel, resting on the top of the water, and just quietly observing what is going on below. You will be able to see almost as much as a diver, because below 30 feet the sunlight begins to fade and so do the colors. Or at the very least go on one of the glass-bottomed boat excursions (and not just at Disneyland) and experience these wonders first hand. You will never be sorry.
Finally, if you want to learn more about underwater conservation, please visit the Nature Conservancy at www.nature.org, the Cousteau Society at www.Cousteau.org, or other similar websites. We all need to do what we can to protect and preserve these amazing, fascinating and diverse underwater lands.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.JudgeJimGray.com.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Different worlds: white water rafting - by Judge Jim Gray
My all-time favorite vacation activity is white water rafting. If you are not afraid of the water, or of getting wet, and you love the out-of-doors, you should try it!
White water rafting combines many good things, such as natural beauty, tranquillity, marvelous scenery, experiencing “the wild,” companionship, history — and moments of genuine excitement.
The rapids on rivers are generally classified in order of danger from 1 to 5, with Level 1 being the most tame. Level 6 and above are considered too dangerous to be navigated. Level 1 and below rapids are considered to be “float trips.” Level 2 and 3 rapids are relatively mild, but enough to give you some exhilaration. These trips are perfect for the novice, younger children and “people who don’t want to get their hair wet.” I have been on some of those as one- or two-day trips on the San Juan River near Durango, the Lower Kern River, which is below Lake Isabella and east of Bakersfield, the Snake River south of the Grand Tetons, and the American River right above Folsom Lake near Sacramento. They were all fun, but the best was the American River.
The most spectacular river-rafting trip I have taken was through the Grand Canyon on the Colorado River. This trip had lots of Level 4 and 5 rapids, and, not surprisingly, some of the most beautiful scenery imaginable. But in addition, you can take side trips to wonderful waterfalls, abandoned mines, hot springs, and other notable and interesting locations. And excitement? We were on a “J-Rig” inflatable boat, which the Army Seabees use as temporary bridges. They were equipped with 35-horsepower outboard motors and would handle about 18 to 20 people. But when we hit some of the rapids, it would really “get our attention,” to the extent that it would move the boat almost 45 degrees in the air. In short, we had a great time.
Other longer trips I have taken that I would strongly recommend to you are the Middle Fork and the Main Fork of the Salmon River in Idaho, the Selway River in Idaho, and the Upper Kern River, which is above Lake Isabella. I have also heard that there are great trips on the Rogue River in Oregon and the Green River in Utah, and of course there are many others as well.
But the fun is not just on the river. Every company I have traveled with has been people-oriented and has cooked wonderful meals. An added plus is that you will have time to yourself in camp to fish, take a nap, go hiking in wildlife areas, or just joke and converse with good people.
The boats you will take will vary. By far the largest I have seen are the J-Rigs on the Colorado. Otherwise you will usually choose either to be on an oar boat, where one guide sits in the middle and does all the work with two long oars, or a paddle boat, which is usually smaller and each of the six to eight passengers and the one guide in the back must paddle. I much prefer to be paddling, since it allows me to be much more a part of the river and the trip. Of course, some people take their own individual kayaks, but they should either stay in milder water or be quite a bit more experienced.
In most of the trips you will sleep on the ground, either in a tent or out in the open. You will have a pad beneath you, and if you have a sandy beach, it can be soft. Or you can take a fold-up cot with you to get off the ground. That is what I do because at this point in my life I don’t feel I should have to continue to prove my masculinity by sleeping on the ground. But don’t let that deter you.
I will end this column with a story that was passed along to me by the owner of the rafting company that took us through the Main Fork of the Salmon River. On the last evening of our trip while by the camp fire, we asked the owner who his all-time favorite customer had been on the river. He said that this was an easy question to answer.
Once he received a letter from a woman from back East who told him that she was then 85 years old, but had always wanted to go river rafting, and she asked if she could be included. He responded that if she would provide a letter from her doctor that it was all right, he would take her along. Almost by return mail he received another note from the woman telling him for the first time that she was also blind, but enclosing the appropriate doctor’s note. In addition, she said that she had an 81-year-old friend with her own doctor’s approval that wanted to come along as well.
So they both came on the trip. As you can imagine, everyone rallied to help her on the boat and in camp, and to explain what was happening. In short, this nice woman and everyone else had a great time. But finally the owner asked her why if she had always wanted to go river rafting she had waited until she was 85. She responded that for the last 40 years her husband and all of her children had been against the idea. But they were all dead now, so she decided to give it a try. For many people like me and maybe like you, river rafting is a different world, and one of life’s most fun things to do. So try it this summer. Don’t wait until you are 85 and blind.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Superior Court in Orange County, the composer of the high school musical “Americans All,” that will soon be playing in Hawkinsville, Georgia and Greenville, South Carolina, and can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or through his website at www.JudgeJimGray.com.
White water rafting combines many good things, such as natural beauty, tranquillity, marvelous scenery, experiencing “the wild,” companionship, history — and moments of genuine excitement.
The rapids on rivers are generally classified in order of danger from 1 to 5, with Level 1 being the most tame. Level 6 and above are considered too dangerous to be navigated. Level 1 and below rapids are considered to be “float trips.” Level 2 and 3 rapids are relatively mild, but enough to give you some exhilaration. These trips are perfect for the novice, younger children and “people who don’t want to get their hair wet.” I have been on some of those as one- or two-day trips on the San Juan River near Durango, the Lower Kern River, which is below Lake Isabella and east of Bakersfield, the Snake River south of the Grand Tetons, and the American River right above Folsom Lake near Sacramento. They were all fun, but the best was the American River.
The most spectacular river-rafting trip I have taken was through the Grand Canyon on the Colorado River. This trip had lots of Level 4 and 5 rapids, and, not surprisingly, some of the most beautiful scenery imaginable. But in addition, you can take side trips to wonderful waterfalls, abandoned mines, hot springs, and other notable and interesting locations. And excitement? We were on a “J-Rig” inflatable boat, which the Army Seabees use as temporary bridges. They were equipped with 35-horsepower outboard motors and would handle about 18 to 20 people. But when we hit some of the rapids, it would really “get our attention,” to the extent that it would move the boat almost 45 degrees in the air. In short, we had a great time.
Other longer trips I have taken that I would strongly recommend to you are the Middle Fork and the Main Fork of the Salmon River in Idaho, the Selway River in Idaho, and the Upper Kern River, which is above Lake Isabella. I have also heard that there are great trips on the Rogue River in Oregon and the Green River in Utah, and of course there are many others as well.
But the fun is not just on the river. Every company I have traveled with has been people-oriented and has cooked wonderful meals. An added plus is that you will have time to yourself in camp to fish, take a nap, go hiking in wildlife areas, or just joke and converse with good people.
The boats you will take will vary. By far the largest I have seen are the J-Rigs on the Colorado. Otherwise you will usually choose either to be on an oar boat, where one guide sits in the middle and does all the work with two long oars, or a paddle boat, which is usually smaller and each of the six to eight passengers and the one guide in the back must paddle. I much prefer to be paddling, since it allows me to be much more a part of the river and the trip. Of course, some people take their own individual kayaks, but they should either stay in milder water or be quite a bit more experienced.
In most of the trips you will sleep on the ground, either in a tent or out in the open. You will have a pad beneath you, and if you have a sandy beach, it can be soft. Or you can take a fold-up cot with you to get off the ground. That is what I do because at this point in my life I don’t feel I should have to continue to prove my masculinity by sleeping on the ground. But don’t let that deter you.
I will end this column with a story that was passed along to me by the owner of the rafting company that took us through the Main Fork of the Salmon River. On the last evening of our trip while by the camp fire, we asked the owner who his all-time favorite customer had been on the river. He said that this was an easy question to answer.
Once he received a letter from a woman from back East who told him that she was then 85 years old, but had always wanted to go river rafting, and she asked if she could be included. He responded that if she would provide a letter from her doctor that it was all right, he would take her along. Almost by return mail he received another note from the woman telling him for the first time that she was also blind, but enclosing the appropriate doctor’s note. In addition, she said that she had an 81-year-old friend with her own doctor’s approval that wanted to come along as well.
So they both came on the trip. As you can imagine, everyone rallied to help her on the boat and in camp, and to explain what was happening. In short, this nice woman and everyone else had a great time. But finally the owner asked her why if she had always wanted to go river rafting she had waited until she was 85. She responded that for the last 40 years her husband and all of her children had been against the idea. But they were all dead now, so she decided to give it a try. For many people like me and maybe like you, river rafting is a different world, and one of life’s most fun things to do. So try it this summer. Don’t wait until you are 85 and blind.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Superior Court in Orange County, the composer of the high school musical “Americans All,” that will soon be playing in Hawkinsville, Georgia and Greenville, South Carolina, and can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or through his website at www.JudgeJimGray.com.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Discovering new worlds: fly fishing - by Judge Jim Gray
If you stop and think about it, there are many separate and complete worlds all around us that are just waiting to be discovered.
So in the next few weeks I will share with you some of the worlds that I have discovered, with the hope that you will be sufficiently interested to discover them for yourself. And I also request that you share some of the worlds you have discovered with the rest of us as well.
Some of my discovered worlds are fly fishing, scuba diving, different forms of music, traveling, white-water rafting, and reading. In the weeks to come, we will be discussing each of those worlds and maybe more. But first on the list is fly fishing.
I consider myself to be an “advanced novice” fly fisherman. Before I got into it, I considered this to be an “elitist” activity that was more trouble than it was worth. But after learning a little bit about it and taking a few fly fishing trips, now I consider it to be one of the most enjoyable and satisfying pastimes I have ever encountered.
The purpose of fly fishing is, of course, to fool the fish into thinking that your offering with a hook hidden in it is their lunch. “Dry” flies are imitations of insects that are found around a body of water searching for food, sometimes crawling on the water or dipping or falling into it. “Wet” flies usually imitate water-born insects as they swim to the surface to emerge as adults before they fly away.
But fish are not dumb. They can see your offering and often detect if it has any flaws. They can also see and hear you and, depending upon the water conditions, they can see your line as well. So you must sneak up on the fish, make your lure look realistic, and make your line inconspicuous.
In addition, fish are generally lazy. They want to gather as much food as they can without expending too much energy along the way. Face the facts, there are not too many calories to be found for a fish in eating a mayfly or caddisfly. So if your fly is too far away, or the fish have to swim too far against the current to get to it, the strike probably will not be made.
So there is a real challenge to fly fishing — and that is just to get the original strike. You will probably be fishing with a barbless hook, so you will be forced to keep some tension on the line or the fish will easily throw the hook. Barbless hooks are used because most good fly fishing is “catch and release,” due to the conviction that “fish are too valuable just to be caught once.” In addition, you will also probably be fishing with low test line, so if you put too much pressure upon it, the line or leader (the tippet) will break.
Furthermore there is a real technique to casting, controlling and positioning your fly. Everything you use is lightweight, so you cannot “force” the fly into the right spot. Instead you must work up to it by a series of practice or “false” casts. But as we have seen, placement is critical. For example, in a river the fish will often be found behind some rocks that will give them relief from the current, but still keep them close enough to the current to see and strike at food as the current washes it by. So the people fishing want to drift their flies in the current, but close to the slower water where the fish are. Similarly, fish will hide under trees or fallen branches to be in cooler water. But it can be hard to cast your lightweight fly into such places. In fact, there have been many times in which I have “caught” more trees on my fishing expeditions than fish.
But in addition to the challenges and excitement, there is also a genuine peace to be found in fly fishing. By definition, when I am standing by or in a river in Colorado, Idaho, the Eastern Sierras, or almost any other venue, I am in a wonderful place.
Furthermore, when I fish I am quiet and left alone with my thoughts, and often at these times I have felt more in harmony and at one with my surroundings than I have ever felt anywhere else. Just the give and take with the river, the trees, the rocks and, yes, the fish can bring a tranquillity that is unmatched.
If you are interested in expanding your horizons to include fly fishing, there are numbers of instructors available almost anywhere, and there are also lots of books to assist you as well. The book I used was “Essential Fly Fishing” by Tom Meade, but there are many others.
In addition, do yourself a favor and read “The River Why,” which is a novel by David James Duncan. This is actually one of the funniest books I have ever read, and it will also give you a good understanding and appreciation of fly fishing.
So I hope you open your thoughts to fly fishing, and I invite you to share your experiences with the rest of us. It really is a separate world that is different, exciting, challenging, tranquil and satisfying. And it is one that I am deeply blessed and grateful to have encountered.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.JudgeJimGray.com.
So in the next few weeks I will share with you some of the worlds that I have discovered, with the hope that you will be sufficiently interested to discover them for yourself. And I also request that you share some of the worlds you have discovered with the rest of us as well.
Some of my discovered worlds are fly fishing, scuba diving, different forms of music, traveling, white-water rafting, and reading. In the weeks to come, we will be discussing each of those worlds and maybe more. But first on the list is fly fishing.
I consider myself to be an “advanced novice” fly fisherman. Before I got into it, I considered this to be an “elitist” activity that was more trouble than it was worth. But after learning a little bit about it and taking a few fly fishing trips, now I consider it to be one of the most enjoyable and satisfying pastimes I have ever encountered.
The purpose of fly fishing is, of course, to fool the fish into thinking that your offering with a hook hidden in it is their lunch. “Dry” flies are imitations of insects that are found around a body of water searching for food, sometimes crawling on the water or dipping or falling into it. “Wet” flies usually imitate water-born insects as they swim to the surface to emerge as adults before they fly away.
But fish are not dumb. They can see your offering and often detect if it has any flaws. They can also see and hear you and, depending upon the water conditions, they can see your line as well. So you must sneak up on the fish, make your lure look realistic, and make your line inconspicuous.
In addition, fish are generally lazy. They want to gather as much food as they can without expending too much energy along the way. Face the facts, there are not too many calories to be found for a fish in eating a mayfly or caddisfly. So if your fly is too far away, or the fish have to swim too far against the current to get to it, the strike probably will not be made.
So there is a real challenge to fly fishing — and that is just to get the original strike. You will probably be fishing with a barbless hook, so you will be forced to keep some tension on the line or the fish will easily throw the hook. Barbless hooks are used because most good fly fishing is “catch and release,” due to the conviction that “fish are too valuable just to be caught once.” In addition, you will also probably be fishing with low test line, so if you put too much pressure upon it, the line or leader (the tippet) will break.
Furthermore there is a real technique to casting, controlling and positioning your fly. Everything you use is lightweight, so you cannot “force” the fly into the right spot. Instead you must work up to it by a series of practice or “false” casts. But as we have seen, placement is critical. For example, in a river the fish will often be found behind some rocks that will give them relief from the current, but still keep them close enough to the current to see and strike at food as the current washes it by. So the people fishing want to drift their flies in the current, but close to the slower water where the fish are. Similarly, fish will hide under trees or fallen branches to be in cooler water. But it can be hard to cast your lightweight fly into such places. In fact, there have been many times in which I have “caught” more trees on my fishing expeditions than fish.
But in addition to the challenges and excitement, there is also a genuine peace to be found in fly fishing. By definition, when I am standing by or in a river in Colorado, Idaho, the Eastern Sierras, or almost any other venue, I am in a wonderful place.
Furthermore, when I fish I am quiet and left alone with my thoughts, and often at these times I have felt more in harmony and at one with my surroundings than I have ever felt anywhere else. Just the give and take with the river, the trees, the rocks and, yes, the fish can bring a tranquillity that is unmatched.
If you are interested in expanding your horizons to include fly fishing, there are numbers of instructors available almost anywhere, and there are also lots of books to assist you as well. The book I used was “Essential Fly Fishing” by Tom Meade, but there are many others.
In addition, do yourself a favor and read “The River Why,” which is a novel by David James Duncan. This is actually one of the funniest books I have ever read, and it will also give you a good understanding and appreciation of fly fishing.
So I hope you open your thoughts to fly fishing, and I invite you to share your experiences with the rest of us. It really is a separate world that is different, exciting, challenging, tranquil and satisfying. And it is one that I am deeply blessed and grateful to have encountered.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or via his website at www.JudgeJimGray.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
+a.jpg)
