By Bob Gaydos

A national marijuana policy is needed.

One trait of a good leader is the ability to identify an injustice and take action to rectify it.

With one stroke of his pen, President Joe Biden recently demonstrated how to use the power of his office to do just that. In the process, he also reminded Americans that a president’s primary duty is to act for the greater good of all the people rather than to constantly seek personal benefit. (A welcome reminder.)

   Biden’s pardon of more than 6,500 Americans convicted on federal marijuana possession charges was a dramatic statement of policy change and a welcome redress of past bias in enforcing drug laws. Coming out of the blue, as it did, it could also be a factor in the coming midterm elections.

    It’s a big deal.

    Even though none of those pardoned was still in prison, Biden’s pardon sent a message: It is well past time to revamp the nation’s laws regarding marijuana use on a national level and to redress the long-standing racial bias in enforcement of the laws. At a time when many states are taking action individually to legalize the use of marijuana, for recreational as well as medicinal purposes, the president’s action brought a welcome national focus to the issue. 

    “While white and black and brown people use marijuana at similar rates, black and brown people have been arrested, prosecuted and convicted at disproportionate rates,” Biden said. “Just as no one should be in a federal prison solely due to the possession of marijuana, no one should be in a local jail or state prison for that reason, either.”

    Of course, presidents don’t write laws; Congress and state legislatures do. Biden’s message was meant as a wakeup call to those bodies that a cohesive, national policy on marijuana is long overdue and makes much more sense than our current hodge-podge of state laws.

    Biden was unambiguous in what he thinks should be done. His words:

     “First: I’m pardoning all prior federal offenses of simple marijuana possession. There are thousands of people who were previously convicted of simple marijuana possession who may be denied employment, housing, or educational opportunities as a result. My pardon will remove this burden.

     “Second: I’m calling on governors to pardon simple state marijuana offenses. Just as no one should be in federal prison solely for possessing marijuana, no one should be in a local jail or state prison for that reason, either.

    “Third: We classify marijuana at the same level as heroin — and more seriously than fentanyl. It makes no sense. I’m asking Secretary (Xavier) Becerra (Health and Human Services) and the attorney general to initiate the process of reviewing how marijuana is scheduled under federal law.”

    Clear and concise.

    The so-called “war on drugs,” begun by President Richard Nixon in 1969, was, among other things, theoretically supposed to focus on “prevention of new addicts, and the rehabilitation of those who are addicted.” For the most part, that health-oriented focus has been ignored for half a century as the federal government fought a losing battle focused primarily on getting rid of drugs and locking up users (especially non-white marijuana users) as well as sellers.

    As Nixon’s henchman, John Ehrlichman, subsequently revealed, the real purpose of Nixon’s “war on drugs” was to criminalize blacks and hippies and their leaders. It was political.

    Now, more than a trillion dollars later, another president has issued a sensible call for a review of one of the more glaring failures of that misbegotten war. 

      Biden has done what he can do. It’s up to lawmakers  to write fair and honest laws regarding marijuana. A majority of Americans support this. While the lawmakers are at it, it’s also well past time to recognize drug addiction as a health issue, not a crime issue. Reducing the demand for drugs might prove to be a more effective strategy than simply trying to reduce the supply.

    Of course, this approach might put a crimp in some politicians’ campaign messages, but it would clearly be for the greater good of all the people.

rjgaydos@gmail.com

Bob Gaydos is writer-in-residence at zestoforange.com.

By Bob Gaydos

Cracker Barrel’s Impossible sausage offended some customers.

  What happens when politicians lose all interest in looking for solutions to the challenges facing the people they represent and become focused simply on retaining power by getting the votes of as many of those people as possible in any way possible? What if that includes inventing problems that don’t exist and creating societal conflict to attract voters who fear they might lose something (they’re not sure what) if they vote for the wrong person?

      You get a food fight. Literally and figuratively.

      One of the more absurd results of this form of politicking — embraced enthusiastically by virtually the entire Republican Party — is the recent “controversy” that erupted over an addition to the menu at Cracker Barrel restaurants.

     The folksy, country-style chain recently added a plant-based sausage — the Impossible Sausage— as an option for breakfast. It did not replace any of the traditional pork items, but rather, was just an addition. Something new.

     No matter. The reaction from some of the conservative diners was, well, outrage:

— “All the more reason to stop eating at Cracker Barrel. This is not what Cracker Barrel was to be all about.”

— “I just lost respect for a once great Tennessee company.”

— “If I wanted a salad … I would in fact order a salad … stop with the plant-based ‘meat’ crap.”

— “Oh No … the Cracker Barrel has gone WOKE!!! It really is the end times …” 

    In other words, how dare they tarnish “our” restaurant with “their” food?

    This, in the land of freedom of choice. Hundreds of texts and tweets criticizing a company which, by the way, has previously been called on the carpet for discrimination against gays and blacks. Not exactly a bastion of liberal thought, at least in the past.

    In this case, though, the company admitted it thought the Impossible Sausage was a sensible business decision “at a time when more than ever, consumers are seeking plant-based options that are better for them.”

      “Better for them.” Imagine, a restaurant chain being criticized for offering something that might be better for some of its customers.

     Actually, some customers said they “couldn’t even tell the difference” between the Impossible and the regular sausage. More liberal customers appreciated it for the dining option and the contribution to fighting global warming and cruelty to animals — issues that apparently don’t exist for the majority of Republican politicians and many of their voters.

     But hang on. If you think this food fight was something, the next one could be really messy. “Animal House” messy.

      It seems food companies are experimenting with, and even beginning to produce, what they call “non-meat meat.”

       No, this is not any of that “plant-based meat crap,” as that Cracker Barrel customer complained. “Non-Meat meat” is also known as lab-grown meat, which sounds even less appetizing. The burning question, of course, is, “Is it really meat? Or what?”

    I guess you might call it “meat-based meat.“ Shades of “Brave New World,” I can’t believe I just wrote that sentence. The best explanation I found so far for this new food offering is that scientists are able to painlessly collect a small sample of muscle cells from a living animal (cow, pig, fish), cultivate the sample to grow outside of the animal’s body and eventually shape the grown sample into cuts of, well, meat or fish or poultry or pork.

     No breeding. No huge factory farms. No slaughterhouses. No over-fishing. Much smaller herds. Far less methane gas. Less water pollution. Same great taste. That’s the concept.

     The process has already begun to move out of the laboratories, which were necessary for research, and into more traditional production facilities. No word yet on when non-meat meat burgers will be available for widespread consumption, but as a fan of Burger King’s Impossible Whopper, I’m likely to give it a try.

      The question I have is, while this process is obviously healthier for the animals, is it any healthier for the human consumers? In other words, for people who stay away from beef and bacon for example, for health reasons, will non-meat meat offerings be any healthier for them? Early reports say the product will still be an excellent source of protein, but producers will be able to control the amount of cholesterol and fat, which would be a plus. More, I guess, will be revealed.

   In the meantime, I won’t even try to explain this for the folks who are angry at Cracker Barrel, except to say that, since non-meat meat is technically meat, it is not vegan. So you don’t have to worry about being, God forbid, “woke,” if you try it. 

rjgaydos@gmail.com

Bob Gaydos is writer-in-residence at zestoforange.com.