I don’t have a problem with sick people having access to cannabinoid drugs; I have a problem with legalizing marijuana. Pot is not medicine and tagging it “medicinal” is a ruse to obscure a new surge toward comprehensive legalization.

First, let’s stipulate what’s already on the table. Basically, advocates say pot doesn’t hurt you or society. Opponents say it does. No matter how many reports the advocates or opponents cite, there are plenty of contradictory findings. While the studies are inconclusive, the advantage goes to the opponents. That’s why marijuana is still illegal and there is still a controversy after 40 years of study and debate.

In 1972 we put the “California Marijuana Initiative” on the ballot and it failed. The people of the state were asked, “Do you want to legalize pot?” The answer was “No.”

In 1996 we approved the “Compassionate Use Act,” once again through the initiative process. This time the people of the state were asked, “Do you think sick people should be able to use marijuana to feel better?” Who doesn’t consider himself to be a compassionate human being? Our empathy led to an inescapable result in the vote: yes (I am caring).

We unwittingly thought “medical marijuana” was a real medicine, like something you would take for blood pressure, cholesterol or asthma. But it’s still just pot, and the “Compassionate Use Act” turned out to be something quite different.

In summary, Proposition 215 said anyone with any illness or condition or even symptom for which marijuana provides relief may obtain and use marijuana without legal penalty.

The only condition is that a physician provides a documented recommendation. Sounds more like the “Convenient Use Act.”

Chronic pain, migraine, PMS, depression and many more issues for which getting high would make one feel better are acceptably convenient uses. Apparently there are compassionate doctors in the state who would, for their patients’ well being, recommend a little weed. In fact, Jeff Clark, president of the Upper Kern County chapter of NORML (wow man, somebody was loaded when they came up with that acronym), estimated there are 30,000 “medical marijuana” users in Kern County!

Applying the term “medical” to pot is like claiming medicinal status for White Willow bark, except marijuana is an illegal Schedule I hallucinogen. A doctor’s recommendation is not a prescription because marijuana is not medicine. It is nothing like picking up your lovastatin at the pharmacy. It is merely a note qualifying you for exemption from prosecution for possessing and/or using an illegal folk remedy ... because we are compassionate, of course.

According to the Food and Drug Administration, smoking or ingesting pot “has no currently accepted or proven medical use in the United States and is not an approved medical treatment.” And no one is running trials to get the FDA’s imprimatur.

An Institute of Medicine report states that smoked marijuana is a crude drug delivery system that exposes patients to a significant number of harmful substances and “if there is any future of marijuana as a medicine, it lies in its isolated components ....”

Here’s the kicker, THC, one of the active chemicals in pot, has been shown to be effective in the relief of nausea, but not the myriad symptoms, conditions and syndromes for which adherents claim relief. Let’s face it. It’s the smoking, not the THC, that is at issue here. This whole charade is a subterfuge for comprehensive legalization, not just “compassionate use.”

Now some opportunistic and mercenary advocates are rising up among California’s politicians. Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, sees pot as a goldmine of tax revenue and has proposed a bill to legalize recreational use. Even Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger thinks it’s time to look at legalizing marijuana, especially for the fiscal benefits.

It is hard for me to imagine our leaders are so shortsighted and unprincipled. And yet we hear them say that a billion dollars a year in tax revenue awaits — for First Five, senior medical care and support for homeless families.

Are you as revolted as I am by their artless attempt to seduce our support for something so unwholesome? What if we were to fold under the pressure? California would still have a budget shortfall of tens of billions of dollars. We would have implemented a virtually irrevocable social policy as an impotent response to a temporary economic problem. And our leaders would still need to find two-dozen more vices to legalize, regulate and tax to close the budget gap!

So-called medical marijuana is a con. Smokers just want to smoke. We were duped into taking a step toward legalization based on our inherent humanitarianism. Political leaders are pressuring us to go farther with dollar signs twinkling in their eyes. We need to push back. We need to say no!

— Ric Llewellyn is one of four conservative community columnists whose work appears here every Saturday. These are the opinions of Llewellyn, not necessarily The Californian’s. You can e-mail him at rllewellyn@bakersfield.com.
Next week: Ralph Bailey.

The public school system is a mess. Though it has never worked in the past, the thought is to throw more money at it. Over the years, billions of dollars have been earmarked for California schools.

In 2008, Kern County voters approved every school bond measure proposed. But here we are again, bemoaning the tattered condition of our school facilities, notifying teachers of layoffs and canceling graduation ceremonies.

In most other areas of life we are loath to accept a monopoly. We complain around the water cooler that our electric bills are too high and we don't have a choice. But with our schools we just keep spending money on what seems to be the only game in town.

It's time to have a choice. Not the kind of "choice" we have now, but real options when it comes to the character and quality of the education of our children. Now we choose one single parent's address over another's to get into the better school. Now we exercise "choice" by creatively exploiting inter-district transfers. Or we choose to bear the additional financial burden of putting our kids in a private school.

It's time to let parents choose a single-gender school, a religious school, or a progressive alternative school. It's time to let parents choose a school not plagued by violence, a school known for dynamic teachers, a school with the right sports program. It's time to destroy the limitations oppressing some kids because their neighborhood is poor. It's time to incentivize school funding, and I don't mean through some wishy-washy Academic Performance Index. How many kids will we sacrifice while Kern County schools are getting their acts together?

It's time for school vouchers. With a voucher, the parents shop for a school that fits their philosophy, their vision of the future, their system of values, their academic priorities. Across town or next door, it doesn't matter. Public or private, it doesn't matter. Secular or religious, it doesn't matter. Rich neighborhood or poor neighborhood, it doesn't matter.

With vouchers, good schools will be fully funded and mediocre schools will have an undeniable and immediate incentive to become good schools. Disinterested teachers will be motivated to engage their students and provide a "product" worth buying. Exceptional teachers will flourish and be empowered to practice their profession fully.

A voucher system will encourage focused spending where the "consumer" is looking for value. There will be no need to spread resources so thin that no one is well served. Instead, each school will budget to fulfill its mission. Imagine the contentment of the students, parents and teachers when they all experience exactly what they expected from their educational experience!

A voucher system would not abolish academic performance standards, but it might make the way we think about academic performance obsolete. School vouchers would not abolish the administrative system we have in place, but it might make it easier to administer the system.

I am disappointed to say that most people think school vouchers are a bad idea. Some think that it would cause the collapse of our public school system. Well, it is a striking testimony to the educational peril in which we find ourselves to suggest that given the choice, parents would abandon what we have and choose an "experiment" instead.

It's time for school vouchers. If California won't do it, maybe Kern County can. Let's begin to explore opportunities for educational excellence for our kids' sakes.