OK, now that the voters have told the politicians in Sacramento in the recent election that they oppose the continual raising of their taxes, and also disapprove of the way government has handled our finances, where we should go from here?
My definite view as a Libertarian continues to be that instead of raising taxes, we should reduce the size and expense of government, and require it to be more responsible and prudent in the way our tax money is being spent.
Prior to the recent election, our governor was quoted as saying that if the ballot initiatives did not pass, governments would probably be forced to sell such facilities as the Los Angeles Coliseum, Orange County fairgrounds and San Quentin Prison. Finally a good idea! Well, the initiatives failed decisively, so let’s start by doing exactly that!
Why should governments own sports facilities or fairgrounds in the first place? If there is public interest and support for such facilities, the private sector will furnish and maintain them — and much more efficiently. And that would also allow us to disband the Coliseum Commission, which, you will recall, was so “successful” that it chased away such profitable tenants as the Los Angeles Rams and the UCLA football team!
With regard to closing San Quentin, from my perspective as a veteran trial court judge, there are far, far too many people in prison today than there should be. For example, we now have literally thousands of people in prison for doing nothing but smoking marijuana, at a cost to the taxpayer of about $30,000 per inmate per year. This is something we can no longer afford.
Officials in the law enforcement community constantly say that we never put anyone in prison simply for using marijuana, but that is not true. Why? Because when inmates are placed on parole for prior offenses, it is always with the condition that they use no form of illicit substances.
So if they smoke marijuana, even once, that is detectable by drug testing for about 30 days, and failing their drug test almost automatically puts them back into prison. Of course, this often also puts their families back on welfare as well — with all of this being at taxpayer expense.
On this subject, I often quote Pat Nolan, who is a former ultra-conservative assemblyman from Glendale who was convicted of an election fraud offense and sentenced to two years in prison.
He said upon his release that “We have many too many people in prison who do not belong there.” Then he went on to say that “We should put people in prison who we are afraid of, not people we’re mad at.” That is good advice.
Along those lines, since prison is always the most expensive option, I would also give serious consideration to the release of many prison inmates who are now elderly and frail. It costs taxpayers about $100,000 per year to keep those people in prison because of their high medical expenses, and most of them couldn’t actually hurt someone else at all — even if they wanted to.
I would also release many non-violent drug offenders from prison, such as those who were using marijuana and various other drugs. As a practical matter, if their drug usage does not harm anyone but themselves, they should not be in prison in the first place. What they have is a medical problem, not a criminal justice problem. But I would also make drug treatment available for anyone who requested it, since this would further reduce the costs to taxpayers in the long run.
We should also consider the release of many people who have been imprisoned for ridiculously long periods of time for non-violent drug offenses due to our mandatory minimum sentencing laws. Many of these people are women who ended up dating boyfriends who sold drugs and got them involved tangentially in their illicit business. Yes, they made a mistake and they have paid for it, but they are not a threat to our safety or well being. And five years in prison will serve as just as much deterrence and punishment as 10 or 20 years.
Historically, California from its inception until the year 1980 built only 13 state prisons. But since then, with the escalation of the war on drugs, we now have 33. Each prison costs hundreds of millions of dollars to build, and continues to cost additional hundreds of millions to staff. Because of its age, San Quentin is one of the most expensive prisons to maintain, so it would be a logical candidate to be the first one to be closed. And in addition, since it is on the waterfront just north of San Francisco, selling that property would bring in lots of revenue.
Picture this valuable property on the bay becoming a luxury resort or condominium complex, with a marina for boats. Then think of the property and sales taxes that this property would consistently generate. As a practical matter, San Quentin could become a new Catalina or Newport Coast. Why should we waste this valuable location on felons?
So yes, governor, closing San Quentin Prison would be the right thing to do! In fact, by following Nolan’s recommendation we could also close several other prisons as well, all without any material risk to our safety!
As a further matter, we should pass sunset laws for each of our governmental agencies, which is what I suggested in one of my earlier columns. That would mean that each governmental agency would be required to get an affirmative vote from the legislature every five or six years before its funding would be renewed.
Agencies that could not show productive results from their past activities, and positive and workable plans for the future, would have their funding either seriously reduced or even abolished. This routinely occurs in the private sector, so shouldn’t we adopt the same accounting approach in government? Continuing with bureaucracies that are not productive is a luxury that we can no longer afford — if we ever could. Think of the tax money we could save.
So that is my vision for the future in these difficult economic times. What’s yours? When contemplating that question, remember that although there is a definite need for governments to provide such things as police and fire protection, a justice system, and a stable form of currency, governments themselves do not produce wealth. If there is a need for goods and services, that need will be met by the private sector.
Instead, governments only take money from their citizens, keep a lot of it, and then distribute the rest of it to others. In my mind, individual people are in a much better position to decide how best their money should be spent.
So you decide where we go from here, because it is your choice.
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, May 24, 2009
Reworking prison system could save us - by Judge Jim Gray
OK, now that the voters have told the politicians in Sacramento in the recent election that they oppose the continual raising of their taxes, and also disapprove of the way government has handled our finances, where we should go from here?
My definite view as a Libertarian continues to be that instead of raising taxes, we should reduce the size and expense of government, and require it to be more responsible and prudent in the way our tax money is being spent.
Prior to the recent election, our governor was quoted as saying that if the ballot initiatives did not pass, governments would probably be forced to sell such facilities as the Los Angeles Coliseum, Orange County fairgrounds and San Quentin Prison. Finally a good idea! Well, the initiatives failed decisively, so let’s start by doing exactly that!
Why should governments own sports facilities or fairgrounds in the first place? If there is public interest and support for such facilities, the private sector will furnish and maintain them — and much more efficiently. And that would also allow us to disband the Coliseum Commission, which, you will recall, was so “successful” that it chased away such profitable tenants as the Los Angeles Rams and the UCLA football team!
With regard to closing San Quentin, from my perspective as a veteran trial court judge, there are far, far too many people in prison today than there should be. For example, we now have literally thousands of people in prison for doing nothing but smoking marijuana, at a cost to the taxpayer of about $30,000 per inmate per year. This is something we can no longer afford.
Officials in the law enforcement community constantly say that we never put anyone in prison simply for using marijuana, but that is not true. Why? Because when inmates are placed on parole for prior offenses, it is always with the condition that they use no form of illicit substances.
So if they smoke marijuana, even once, that is detectable by drug testing for about 30 days, and failing their drug test almost automatically puts them back into prison. Of course, this often also puts their families back on welfare as well — with all of this being at taxpayer expense.
On this subject, I often quote Pat Nolan, who is a former ultra-conservative assemblyman from Glendale who was convicted of an election fraud offense and sentenced to two years in prison.
He said upon his release that “We have many too many people in prison who do not belong there.” Then he went on to say that “We should put people in prison who we are afraid of, not people we’re mad at.” That is good advice.
Along those lines, since prison is always the most expensive option, I would also give serious consideration to the release of many prison inmates who are now elderly and frail. It costs taxpayers about $100,000 per year to keep those people in prison because of their high medical expenses, and most of them couldn’t actually hurt someone else at all — even if they wanted to.
I would also release many non-violent drug offenders from prison, such as those who were using marijuana and various other drugs. As a practical matter, if their drug usage does not harm anyone but themselves, they should not be in prison in the first place. What they have is a medical problem, not a criminal justice problem. But I would also make drug treatment available for anyone who requested it, since this would further reduce the costs to taxpayers in the long run.
We should also consider the release of many people who have been imprisoned for ridiculously long periods of time for non-violent drug offenses due to our mandatory minimum sentencing laws. Many of these people are women who ended up dating boyfriends who sold drugs and got them involved tangentially in their illicit business. Yes, they made a mistake and they have paid for it, but they are not a threat to our safety or well being. And five years in prison will serve as just as much deterrence and punishment as 10 or 20 years.
Historically, California from its inception until the year 1980 built only 13 state prisons. But since then, with the escalation of the war on drugs, we now have 33. Each prison costs hundreds of millions of dollars to build, and continues to cost additional hundreds of millions to staff. Because of its age, San Quentin is one of the most expensive prisons to maintain, so it would be a logical candidate to be the first one to be closed. And in addition, since it is on the waterfront just north of San Francisco, selling that property would bring in lots of revenue.
Picture this valuable property on the bay becoming a luxury resort or condominium complex, with a marina for boats. Then think of the property and sales taxes that this property would consistently generate. As a practical matter, San Quentin could become a new Catalina or Newport Coast. Why should we waste this valuable location on felons?
So yes, governor, closing San Quentin Prison would be the right thing to do! In fact, by following Nolan’s recommendation we could also close several other prisons as well, all without any material risk to our safety!
As a further matter, we should pass sunset laws for each of our governmental agencies, which is what I suggested in one of my earlier columns. That would mean that each governmental agency would be required to get an affirmative vote from the legislature every five or six years before its funding would be renewed.
Agencies that could not show productive results from their past activities, and positive and workable plans for the future, would have their funding either seriously reduced or even abolished. This routinely occurs in the private sector, so shouldn’t we adopt the same accounting approach in government? Continuing with bureaucracies that are not productive is a luxury that we can no longer afford — if we ever could. Think of the tax money we could save.
So that is my vision for the future in these difficult economic times. What’s yours? When contemplating that question, remember that although there is a definite need for governments to provide such things as police and fire protection, a justice system, and a stable form of currency, governments themselves do not produce wealth. If there is a need for goods and services, that need will be met by the private sector.
Instead, governments only take money from their citizens, keep a lot of it, and then distribute the rest of it to others. In my mind, individual people are in a much better position to decide how best their money should be spent.
So you decide where we go from here, because it is your choice.
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 .
My definite view as a Libertarian continues to be that instead of raising taxes, we should reduce the size and expense of government, and require it to be more responsible and prudent in the way our tax money is being spent.
Prior to the recent election, our governor was quoted as saying that if the ballot initiatives did not pass, governments would probably be forced to sell such facilities as the Los Angeles Coliseum, Orange County fairgrounds and San Quentin Prison. Finally a good idea! Well, the initiatives failed decisively, so let’s start by doing exactly that!
Why should governments own sports facilities or fairgrounds in the first place? If there is public interest and support for such facilities, the private sector will furnish and maintain them — and much more efficiently. And that would also allow us to disband the Coliseum Commission, which, you will recall, was so “successful” that it chased away such profitable tenants as the Los Angeles Rams and the UCLA football team!
With regard to closing San Quentin, from my perspective as a veteran trial court judge, there are far, far too many people in prison today than there should be. For example, we now have literally thousands of people in prison for doing nothing but smoking marijuana, at a cost to the taxpayer of about $30,000 per inmate per year. This is something we can no longer afford.
Officials in the law enforcement community constantly say that we never put anyone in prison simply for using marijuana, but that is not true. Why? Because when inmates are placed on parole for prior offenses, it is always with the condition that they use no form of illicit substances.
So if they smoke marijuana, even once, that is detectable by drug testing for about 30 days, and failing their drug test almost automatically puts them back into prison. Of course, this often also puts their families back on welfare as well — with all of this being at taxpayer expense.
On this subject, I often quote Pat Nolan, who is a former ultra-conservative assemblyman from Glendale who was convicted of an election fraud offense and sentenced to two years in prison.
He said upon his release that “We have many too many people in prison who do not belong there.” Then he went on to say that “We should put people in prison who we are afraid of, not people we’re mad at.” That is good advice.
Along those lines, since prison is always the most expensive option, I would also give serious consideration to the release of many prison inmates who are now elderly and frail. It costs taxpayers about $100,000 per year to keep those people in prison because of their high medical expenses, and most of them couldn’t actually hurt someone else at all — even if they wanted to.
I would also release many non-violent drug offenders from prison, such as those who were using marijuana and various other drugs. As a practical matter, if their drug usage does not harm anyone but themselves, they should not be in prison in the first place. What they have is a medical problem, not a criminal justice problem. But I would also make drug treatment available for anyone who requested it, since this would further reduce the costs to taxpayers in the long run.
We should also consider the release of many people who have been imprisoned for ridiculously long periods of time for non-violent drug offenses due to our mandatory minimum sentencing laws. Many of these people are women who ended up dating boyfriends who sold drugs and got them involved tangentially in their illicit business. Yes, they made a mistake and they have paid for it, but they are not a threat to our safety or well being. And five years in prison will serve as just as much deterrence and punishment as 10 or 20 years.
Historically, California from its inception until the year 1980 built only 13 state prisons. But since then, with the escalation of the war on drugs, we now have 33. Each prison costs hundreds of millions of dollars to build, and continues to cost additional hundreds of millions to staff. Because of its age, San Quentin is one of the most expensive prisons to maintain, so it would be a logical candidate to be the first one to be closed. And in addition, since it is on the waterfront just north of San Francisco, selling that property would bring in lots of revenue.
Picture this valuable property on the bay becoming a luxury resort or condominium complex, with a marina for boats. Then think of the property and sales taxes that this property would consistently generate. As a practical matter, San Quentin could become a new Catalina or Newport Coast. Why should we waste this valuable location on felons?
So yes, governor, closing San Quentin Prison would be the right thing to do! In fact, by following Nolan’s recommendation we could also close several other prisons as well, all without any material risk to our safety!
As a further matter, we should pass sunset laws for each of our governmental agencies, which is what I suggested in one of my earlier columns. That would mean that each governmental agency would be required to get an affirmative vote from the legislature every five or six years before its funding would be renewed.
Agencies that could not show productive results from their past activities, and positive and workable plans for the future, would have their funding either seriously reduced or even abolished. This routinely occurs in the private sector, so shouldn’t we adopt the same accounting approach in government? Continuing with bureaucracies that are not productive is a luxury that we can no longer afford — if we ever could. Think of the tax money we could save.
So that is my vision for the future in these difficult economic times. What’s yours? When contemplating that question, remember that although there is a definite need for governments to provide such things as police and fire protection, a justice system, and a stable form of currency, governments themselves do not produce wealth. If there is a need for goods and services, that need will be met by the private sector.
Instead, governments only take money from their citizens, keep a lot of it, and then distribute the rest of it to others. In my mind, individual people are in a much better position to decide how best their money should be spent.
So you decide where we go from here, because it is your choice.
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, May 18, 2009
We have art all around us in Newport - by Judge Jim Gray
Do you agree with me that being surrounded with art and cultural opportunities enhances and stimulates our daily lives? Well, the good news is that, living in and near Newport Beach, we have those things all around us. But the less than good news is that many people are not aware of that fact, other than seeing the bushes on Coast Highway in Corona del Mar that have been shaped into the form of dolphins.
Much of the credit for the art around us goes to the Newport Beach City Arts Commission, which was formed in 1974. It is composed of seven volunteers who are appointed by the City Council, and serve up to two four-year terms.
Their formal function is to act in an advisory capacity to the City Council on all matters pertaining to artistic, aesthetic and cultural aspects of the city. Therefore, the commission recommends the adoption of such ordinances, rules and regulations as it deems necessary for the administration and preservation of fine arts and performing arts, and all of the historical, aesthetic and cultural aspects of the community. The group’s meetings are at 5 p.m. the second Thursday of each month at the Newport Beach Central Library Conference Room.
The commission also oversees the providing of grant money from the city to art organizations that have a connection to the city. Some of the recipients have been the Newport Beach Film Festival, Opera Pacific, local ballet companies, Pacific Symphony and Stop Gap Theatre.
Those are the formal functions. But that’s really just the beginning, because the commission also puts on Summer Concerts in the Parks, arts educational programs, Shakespeare by the Sea, and art exhibitions in the City Hall and the Central Library. And it also worked closely with local volunteers on the design and installation of the McFadden Square Centennial Legacy Monument near the Newport Pier.
So when it comes down to it, the commission really represents genuine community spirit in action, and demonstrates a passion to bring an art element into our public lives. And it is successful in its efforts. In fact, it is unusual to have so much activity in the arts in such a relatively small city.
For example, Summer Concerts in the Park has been going on for nine years, admission is free and the concerts are family friendly. This summer the concerts are scheduled at Mariners Park on July 19 with “Night & Days with Kevin Spirtas,” and at Bonita Canyon Sports Park on Aug. 23 with the Susie Hansen Latin Band. Both concerts are on Sundays, and begin at 6 p.m. This year’s Shakespeare productions are scheduled to be “Love’s Labour’s Lost” on Aug. 1, and “As You Like It” on Aug. 2, and both will also be at Bonita Canyon Sports Park, and begin at 7 p.m. But you will probably want to arrive early for each event and enjoy a picnic dinner — and don’t forget to bring your children and some friends!
In addition to the performing arts, the commission every year sponsors a “Juried Art Show.” This event accepts work from any artists who reside within about 50 miles of Newport. The commission volunteers set up the artwork, and then it is judged by two art professionals. Thereafter all of the artwork is for sale to the general public, with portions going both to the artists and to the Newport Beach Arts Foundation, which is a local nonprofit dedicated to enhancing arts in our city. And at the end of the event there is a ceremony with prizes awarded.
Before I inquired into the work of the arts commission I was simply unaware of the existence of the wonderful McFadden Square Centennial Legacy Monument. So I went to the Newport Pier, right in front of the dory fishermen’s market, and took a look.
It made me feel proud, and I’m sure you will feel the same.
The motto of the monument is “Remembering the Past; Acknowledging the Present; Looking Toward the Future,” and it is made up of a sea-green sphere that depicts some of the most important aspects of the city’s history.
In fact, you can follow the city’s “footsteps through time,” beginning with its founding by the four McFadden brothers as the “new port,” its incorporation in 1906, and all the way up to the present.
The institutions that are featured are the red cars, Rendezvous Ballroom, dory fishermen, Fun Zone, Balboa and Newport piers, surfing, the McFadden brothers and John Wayne.
As the commission Chairwoman Robyn Grant told me, our city cannot be just made up of beautiful beaches and parks, and world-class shopping and restaurants, it also needs to be immersed in art, because art entertains, enriches and enhances our lives. She is right, and she and her fellow volunteers have truly increased the quality of life for everyone in our area.
So take advantage of their efforts. Go to a summer concert or one of the nights of Shakespeare, devote a few minutes next time you are at the Central Library or City Hall to view the work of the local artists on display, or take a walk down by the Newport Pier and experience the history of our great city at McFadden Square.
And join me in giving each of the members of the City Arts Commission a hearty, well-deserved, and continual chorus of appreciation.
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 .
Much of the credit for the art around us goes to the Newport Beach City Arts Commission, which was formed in 1974. It is composed of seven volunteers who are appointed by the City Council, and serve up to two four-year terms.
Their formal function is to act in an advisory capacity to the City Council on all matters pertaining to artistic, aesthetic and cultural aspects of the city. Therefore, the commission recommends the adoption of such ordinances, rules and regulations as it deems necessary for the administration and preservation of fine arts and performing arts, and all of the historical, aesthetic and cultural aspects of the community. The group’s meetings are at 5 p.m. the second Thursday of each month at the Newport Beach Central Library Conference Room.
The commission also oversees the providing of grant money from the city to art organizations that have a connection to the city. Some of the recipients have been the Newport Beach Film Festival, Opera Pacific, local ballet companies, Pacific Symphony and Stop Gap Theatre.
Those are the formal functions. But that’s really just the beginning, because the commission also puts on Summer Concerts in the Parks, arts educational programs, Shakespeare by the Sea, and art exhibitions in the City Hall and the Central Library. And it also worked closely with local volunteers on the design and installation of the McFadden Square Centennial Legacy Monument near the Newport Pier.
So when it comes down to it, the commission really represents genuine community spirit in action, and demonstrates a passion to bring an art element into our public lives. And it is successful in its efforts. In fact, it is unusual to have so much activity in the arts in such a relatively small city.
For example, Summer Concerts in the Park has been going on for nine years, admission is free and the concerts are family friendly. This summer the concerts are scheduled at Mariners Park on July 19 with “Night & Days with Kevin Spirtas,” and at Bonita Canyon Sports Park on Aug. 23 with the Susie Hansen Latin Band. Both concerts are on Sundays, and begin at 6 p.m. This year’s Shakespeare productions are scheduled to be “Love’s Labour’s Lost” on Aug. 1, and “As You Like It” on Aug. 2, and both will also be at Bonita Canyon Sports Park, and begin at 7 p.m. But you will probably want to arrive early for each event and enjoy a picnic dinner — and don’t forget to bring your children and some friends!
In addition to the performing arts, the commission every year sponsors a “Juried Art Show.” This event accepts work from any artists who reside within about 50 miles of Newport. The commission volunteers set up the artwork, and then it is judged by two art professionals. Thereafter all of the artwork is for sale to the general public, with portions going both to the artists and to the Newport Beach Arts Foundation, which is a local nonprofit dedicated to enhancing arts in our city. And at the end of the event there is a ceremony with prizes awarded.
Before I inquired into the work of the arts commission I was simply unaware of the existence of the wonderful McFadden Square Centennial Legacy Monument. So I went to the Newport Pier, right in front of the dory fishermen’s market, and took a look.
It made me feel proud, and I’m sure you will feel the same.
The motto of the monument is “Remembering the Past; Acknowledging the Present; Looking Toward the Future,” and it is made up of a sea-green sphere that depicts some of the most important aspects of the city’s history.
In fact, you can follow the city’s “footsteps through time,” beginning with its founding by the four McFadden brothers as the “new port,” its incorporation in 1906, and all the way up to the present.
The institutions that are featured are the red cars, Rendezvous Ballroom, dory fishermen, Fun Zone, Balboa and Newport piers, surfing, the McFadden brothers and John Wayne.
As the commission Chairwoman Robyn Grant told me, our city cannot be just made up of beautiful beaches and parks, and world-class shopping and restaurants, it also needs to be immersed in art, because art entertains, enriches and enhances our lives. She is right, and she and her fellow volunteers have truly increased the quality of life for everyone in our area.
So take advantage of their efforts. Go to a summer concert or one of the nights of Shakespeare, devote a few minutes next time you are at the Central Library or City Hall to view the work of the local artists on display, or take a walk down by the Newport Pier and experience the history of our great city at McFadden Square.
And join me in giving each of the members of the City Arts Commission a hearty, well-deserved, and continual chorus of appreciation.
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, May 3, 2009
‘The meaning is in the shadows’ - by Judge Jim Gray
The receptionist where I work recently loaned me a book about homelessness titled “The Meaning is in the Shadows,” by Peter McVerry, who is a Jesuit priest in Ireland.
Although as a judge I have dealt for a long time with issues of homeless people, I never before saw them in as realistic a light as presented in this book. But now I see that McVerry is right, society mostly sweeps the entire homelessness issue out of our view, which leaves it hidden in the shadows.
Revealingly, McVerry argues that the hardest part of homelessness is actually not sleeping without a bed, or being cold at night, or even being completely bored with nothing to do and nowhere to go. Instead, the hardest part is having the fact pushed upon them continually that if they were to die right now, no one would care — or even really notice. And that fundamental fact defines their lives, and takes away their dignity and their hope.
This situation often leads people to try to escape the pain of their everyday lives by using illicit drugs. Doing that enables them to feel miserable only some of the time, instead of all of the time. But unfortunately it often also leads them to getting hooked on the drugs, which brings on many added problems.
In addition, 25% of the people nationwide who are homeless are generally diagnosed with severe mental health problems, and probably another 25% have similar problems that are undiagnosed. Of course, the largest mental health facility in Orange County, and almost all other counties, is the county jail. But this is the most expensive way to deal with mental illness, and it does untold damage to these mentally fragile people.
Obviously, it is hard to obtain consistent statistics on the subject of homelessness. But a study was conducted showing that on Jan. 25, 2007, there were 3,649 people in homeless shelters in Orange County, and that the average homeless person enters into a shelter about seven times per year.
Of those studied, 56% were female and 44% male, and about 370 were diagnosed as being severely mentally ill, 150 had the AIDS virus, 675 were veterans, 330 were chronic substance abusers, and 250 were chronically homeless.
Of course, those numbers have probably increased with these recent problems in our economy, and this also does not include those people who had no shelter at all.
Our county’s Housing and Community Services Department reports that the homeless are often wrongly portrayed just as panhandlers asking for money. On the contrary, the homeless population here mostly consists of working families and individuals. Nevertheless, many live in cars, parks, motels, under bridges, and in homeless shelters, trying to maintain their dignity while they struggle to survive. And, just like in Ireland, they mostly remain hidden.
But the most notable problem we are facing today which we have not seen before in our history is the number of children who are homeless. In the time period of 2007 to 2008, our county Department of Education identified a total of 16,422 children and youth (pre-K to 12th grade) who were homeless. Their definition of homelessness was different from Housing and Community Services because it included 15,175 who were in doubled or tripled-up housing due to economic hardship.
But it also included 388 children living in homeless shelters, 60 living in cars, parks or campgrounds, and 787 in motels. Not surprisingly, the school districts in Santa Ana and Anaheim had the most homeless children, with 6,731 and 3,259, respectively, but the Newport-Mesa district had 115.
So what should be done about this situation? As a Libertarian, the first thing I want to make clear is that we should not be required to do anything.
But we will respond to the needs of these people voluntarily because we want to, not because we have to. Why? Because that is the type of people we are. So we should provide them with a safety net below which they should not be allowed to fall.
But having said that, the answer is also not to reward panhandling. I confess that I am not always able to stop myself, particularly for down-and-out women (I know this is sexist), but I try. Basically, it does not serve anyone’s best interest to support begging on the streets. Instead, I tell these people that I make donations to the Orange County Rescue Mission, and this great organization can provide them with food boxes and groceries, as well as more long-term care and assistance. So they should go there (They are located at One Hope Drive, Tustin, CA 92782). Nevertheless, when I make that comment, I try to greet the people pleasantly, look them in the eye, and treat them like the human beings they are. And I recommend you do the same. We cannot expect to breed or maintain respect for our society from the homeless unless society also shows respect for them.
Traditionally when the American people are confronted by a problem there is an outpouring of support. But today, American charitable giving is under attack because the federal government is reducing the tax deductions for those gifts, and at the same time is increasing its own funding in these same charitable areas. That means that we are sending our tax dollars to Washington, where they are then “magnanimously” distributed by politicians. No one gains by this system except the politicians, and this practice should be curtailed.
Homelessness is not an issue that should stay in the shadows. Yes, Orange County has 68 emergency and transitional shelters that currently offer 3,400 beds, as well as another 1,875 supportive housing beds in other facilities, so some of the temporary needs of these people are being met. But whether for humane, religious, or even practical reasons, we should keep ourselves aware of the homelessness issue by keeping it out in the open. And as caring Americans we should be sure that the fundamental needs of homeless people are met, especially in these difficult economic times.
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, www.JudgeJimGray.com.
Although as a judge I have dealt for a long time with issues of homeless people, I never before saw them in as realistic a light as presented in this book. But now I see that McVerry is right, society mostly sweeps the entire homelessness issue out of our view, which leaves it hidden in the shadows.
Revealingly, McVerry argues that the hardest part of homelessness is actually not sleeping without a bed, or being cold at night, or even being completely bored with nothing to do and nowhere to go. Instead, the hardest part is having the fact pushed upon them continually that if they were to die right now, no one would care — or even really notice. And that fundamental fact defines their lives, and takes away their dignity and their hope.
This situation often leads people to try to escape the pain of their everyday lives by using illicit drugs. Doing that enables them to feel miserable only some of the time, instead of all of the time. But unfortunately it often also leads them to getting hooked on the drugs, which brings on many added problems.
In addition, 25% of the people nationwide who are homeless are generally diagnosed with severe mental health problems, and probably another 25% have similar problems that are undiagnosed. Of course, the largest mental health facility in Orange County, and almost all other counties, is the county jail. But this is the most expensive way to deal with mental illness, and it does untold damage to these mentally fragile people.
Obviously, it is hard to obtain consistent statistics on the subject of homelessness. But a study was conducted showing that on Jan. 25, 2007, there were 3,649 people in homeless shelters in Orange County, and that the average homeless person enters into a shelter about seven times per year.
Of those studied, 56% were female and 44% male, and about 370 were diagnosed as being severely mentally ill, 150 had the AIDS virus, 675 were veterans, 330 were chronic substance abusers, and 250 were chronically homeless.
Of course, those numbers have probably increased with these recent problems in our economy, and this also does not include those people who had no shelter at all.
Our county’s Housing and Community Services Department reports that the homeless are often wrongly portrayed just as panhandlers asking for money. On the contrary, the homeless population here mostly consists of working families and individuals. Nevertheless, many live in cars, parks, motels, under bridges, and in homeless shelters, trying to maintain their dignity while they struggle to survive. And, just like in Ireland, they mostly remain hidden.
But the most notable problem we are facing today which we have not seen before in our history is the number of children who are homeless. In the time period of 2007 to 2008, our county Department of Education identified a total of 16,422 children and youth (pre-K to 12th grade) who were homeless. Their definition of homelessness was different from Housing and Community Services because it included 15,175 who were in doubled or tripled-up housing due to economic hardship.
But it also included 388 children living in homeless shelters, 60 living in cars, parks or campgrounds, and 787 in motels. Not surprisingly, the school districts in Santa Ana and Anaheim had the most homeless children, with 6,731 and 3,259, respectively, but the Newport-Mesa district had 115.
So what should be done about this situation? As a Libertarian, the first thing I want to make clear is that we should not be required to do anything.
But we will respond to the needs of these people voluntarily because we want to, not because we have to. Why? Because that is the type of people we are. So we should provide them with a safety net below which they should not be allowed to fall.
But having said that, the answer is also not to reward panhandling. I confess that I am not always able to stop myself, particularly for down-and-out women (I know this is sexist), but I try. Basically, it does not serve anyone’s best interest to support begging on the streets. Instead, I tell these people that I make donations to the Orange County Rescue Mission, and this great organization can provide them with food boxes and groceries, as well as more long-term care and assistance. So they should go there (They are located at One Hope Drive, Tustin, CA 92782). Nevertheless, when I make that comment, I try to greet the people pleasantly, look them in the eye, and treat them like the human beings they are. And I recommend you do the same. We cannot expect to breed or maintain respect for our society from the homeless unless society also shows respect for them.
Traditionally when the American people are confronted by a problem there is an outpouring of support. But today, American charitable giving is under attack because the federal government is reducing the tax deductions for those gifts, and at the same time is increasing its own funding in these same charitable areas. That means that we are sending our tax dollars to Washington, where they are then “magnanimously” distributed by politicians. No one gains by this system except the politicians, and this practice should be curtailed.
Homelessness is not an issue that should stay in the shadows. Yes, Orange County has 68 emergency and transitional shelters that currently offer 3,400 beds, as well as another 1,875 supportive housing beds in other facilities, so some of the temporary needs of these people are being met. But whether for humane, religious, or even practical reasons, we should keep ourselves aware of the homelessness issue by keeping it out in the open. And as caring Americans we should be sure that the fundamental needs of homeless people are met, especially in these difficult economic times.
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, www.JudgeJimGray.com.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Choices at twilight time - Judge Jim Gray
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.
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 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
+a.jpg)
