Contemplating California's Drug Policy

Growing up in the Midwest with a conservative health teacher for a mom, I always held a pretty strong opinion against recreational drugs. Active in D.A.R.E. and youth, drug use was never something I was really able to understand.

Then I moved to California. The basic view here is drastically different; in California, possession of up to 28.5 g of marijuana constitutes only a $100 fine and no jail time, while the same amount in Illinois can mean 1 year of incarceration and a steep $2,500 fine. Recently the nation's (and particularly California's) policies have opened up for more discussion then has been allowed in the past, and for a surprising reason: the economic crisis. Many argue that the decriminalization of marijuana will draw in huge quantities of revenue for the state through taxes and decreased cost of punishment for offenders. Now even our governor has stated that he thinks it is time to open discussion on the matter, though he is not yet actively supporting the idea.

Instead of discussing whether or not this is morally a good idea, an always heated debate, let’s discuss how this might affect the state (if the former is more interesting to you, feel free to click this link). Though it is a very different situation, one example we can look to is the decriminalization of drugs in Portugal in 2001. The Cato Institute put together a study on the effects decriminalization had on Portugal in the five years after the new regulations were passed. After eight years, the results are clear: the change has been a success. Drug use among teens declined, rates of HIV infections from sharing needles decreased by 17%, and those seeking treatment for drug addiction doubled. Currently, the percentage of Americans who have tried cocaine is higher than the percentage of Portuguese who have tried marijuana. Since the situation and culture of the two countries is very different, it is hard to tell if these same changes would be seen in the United States.

On a more practical, everyday standpoint, things might not change too much. Following Portugal’s model, marijuana would not be legalized but simply decriminalized. Therefore possession and use would still be against the law, but not be criminal offenses. Drug trafficking is an exception (still a criminal offense). In this way, California has almost kept pace with Portugal. While the average person does not have legal access to it, it has been legalized for medical purposes. However, the US government has only recently allowed this; several cases where distributors complied with California but not federal laws are still being prosecuted.

Because of our different culture in the US, it seems unlikely that we would be able to take the exact same path- California will not simply begin to look the other way, but will place regulations, age limits, and other various rules on its sale and use. However, we can see that “high” would not become a way of life for the average Joe after decriminalization. While it would certainly become more easily accessible, smoke shops would not suddenly pop up all over the place (although in the current state, Los Angeles already has a few). Realistically, those with a moral opposition to pot will continue to decline to smoke and those who participate in it will simply enjoy it without the threat of punishment. Proposed bills in California to legalize marijuana have included an age limit of 21, the same as the current legal drinking age.

Considering that from 2005-2007 the US government spent an estimated $10 million on raids in California alone, the decriminalization could go a long way toward helping our current budget crisis. Combine that with $1.3 billion that CA tax collectors estimate tax on marijuana sales could bring in each year and our state’s budget could be drastically changed. Orange County Supreme Court Justice James Gray estimates that the cessation of prosecution against non-violent offenders could save another $1 billion a year for the state. $2.3 billion a year could hire teachers, fix roads, or just decrease the amount taxes have to be raised.

Few seem to be able to put up an argument that from a monetary standpoint, the decriminalization of marijuana could be anything but beneficial. Instead, all arguments focus on the fact that we have enough mind-altering substances on the market for society to handle right now. Judging by Portugal’s example, state revenues would go up. The country has given offenders the option of therapy, though it is not mandatory. This will mean some increased cost, but drastically less than incarceration has in the past. Decreased income in the form of fines will also be inconsequential when compared to the money saved by the decrease in raids and court costs.

Current budget reform plans have relied heavily on raising taxes, and specifically raising sales tax until it is the highest state rate in the US. While this kind of measure may work in the short run, long term it is going to do nothing to draw in more businesses that can help to create more revenue for the state. Politicians are aware of this, which explains why they are thinking outside the box to try to get out of this budget crisis. Legalizing the sale and possession of cannabis is just one potential part of a solution.

It may seem that despite these possible benefits for the state, we are still a long way from legalizing it. However, many facts about cannabis have recently become more widely accepted. Most now consider the potentially adverse effects of marijuana to be drastically less than alcohol. The harmful threats are now mostly linked to its role as a “gateway drug.” It is true that many are still wary of the potential drawbacks that could come from the decriminalization of marijuana, but a recent poll said that 56% of voters would support legalizing it. We may not be as far as we once thought. While it may be clear that it would be a clever financial decision for the state, only time will tell how it could affect the state’s moral code.

Manny Busted

By a funny coincidence, the day after I choose to write a post about Manny, he tests positive for illegal substances. I couldn't have made my timing any better.

It's a bit too soon to tell what the city's reaction will be at this point; the sports pundits seem to agree that it is a shame for the Dodgers, that he is just another in a recent history filled with baseball stars relying on outside help to gain an edge over the competition. But what does Joe Dodgerfan think?

Those purchasing their Mannywood tickets for $99 can't be too happy. Will he go to the game anyway? Will he decline to root, root root for the home team, or just sullenly complain about the replacement from the stands?

Mannywood

Not surprisingly, the LA Dodgers have found a creative way to capitalize off their new favorite player, Manny Ramirez. Fans choosing to buy tickets in sections 51 through 53, the sections closest to Manny's left field position, will pay $99 (99 being Manny's number) for a pair of tickets, along with a tshirt with the phrase "I was in Mannywood."

If this new promotion was not enough to make the rest of the team green with envy, at least two new murals have been installed downtown, featuring large pictures of Manny Ramirez with the phrase "Mannywood." Considering this is only his second season on the team, this kind of response seems almost overenthusiastic.

This was my mentality when I walked in to my first Dodger game this season. I was not a big Manny fan, he was overrated, and frankly his pants were a few sizes too big. Then on his first time up to bat he cranked one out of the park and the crowd went wild. I have to admit, I now see what all the fuss is about.

Click here to see a video showing a little of the energy that surrounds this guy.

Literary Los Angeles

Books, particularly used books, have long been a passion of mine. Since I read The Hobbit in the 4th grade, I haven't been able to get my hands on enough. Libraries and used book stores have always held a peculiar romance for me; something about poring through the same pages as someone before you, knowing I could be getting the same emotion from it or something completely different. It can be quite thrilling. So, upon arrival in Los Angeles, I attempted to find the cool bookstores around town. I had difficulty finding anything that looked interesting; few used book stores, but a plethora of specialty stores. I don't collect antique books worth thousands of dollars and books on Hollywood or homosexuality don't hold more interest than any other subject. I quickly made the assumption that Los Angeles is not a book town.

Recently I've put this theory into question. The Los Angeles Times Festival of Books was held this past weekend on UCLA's campus. I was not only surprised that the event was being thrown, but who knew thousands of bibliophiles would flock in. Of course the authors, rare books, and book accessories (like book jackets) will be a draw for some, but last year over 130,000 people attended.

Still, one festival does not a book town make. Many attendees probably came from other areas, and this is only one weekend a year. Any town this size should be able to get attendance up for one literary event a year.

But following that thought, I realized LA does have some interesting draws for bookworms. So many interesting authors wrote from or about Los Angeles; one of my personal favorites is Ray Bradbury, who also wrote a great article about a great bookstore in Long Beach (which closed last year). Now that I live in Los Angeles, I have so much fun reading Phillip Marlowe (2nd only to Sherlock Holmes) stories, all of which take place in LA. That's not to mention all the libraries LA has to offer. The Central Library just happens to be my favorite place in the entire city. It is so beautiful! Yesterday I had the chance to visit the Santa Monica library and I was really surprised at everything it has to offer.

It might take a little extra effort to find, but LA can offer a reader a great experience.

Changes in Los Angeles

I've only lived here a few years, but I can see a huge difference in LA's downtown.  I remember hearing about the push to bring more residents downtown, but I didn't understand why this was necesarry, why people didn't live there in the first place.  The more I saw the more I understood- traffic is almost always impossible, restaurants and entertainment areas are few and far between, and safety tends to be a bit of a concern.  

Just as I was starting to experience the real downtown- the hole in the wall restaurants, the street art, the architecture, and the little shops- it changed on me.  LA Live moved in, Ralphs got remodeled, and pubilc transportation will even be simplified soon when the Gold Line is in place.  

My feelings are verified by a recent survey done by downtownla.com.  I have to admit I did not read all 70 pages, but here is the jist: downtown is longer simply a place where people work, it is becoming a destination.  People are coming downtown to visit.  Residents are asking for larger chain stores, like Targets or Trader Joes, to meet the new boom.  No telling what this means for the current residents.  Likely many will be pleased at the new opportunities, but it may have some disadvantages as well.  Los Angelinos will have to wait and see.

What's Good for the Getty?

The Getty Museum, the art museum with the largest budget around, has not been immune to the economic woes shaking the US and the global marketplace. The LA Times recently published an article detailing the budget issues at the museum, along with the staff’s reaction to the changes being made to deal with the crisis. The museum relies heavily on profits from its investments to expand, but the investments have taken a huge hit, losing $2 billion since mid-2007. Layoffs, pay cuts, and the deferment of future purchases are a few of the ways the foundation is dealing with the current crisis. The article also references the Silence Dogetty blog, a blog forum for Getty employees to anonymously comment on conditions at the Getty.

The arts are an important staple to Los Angeles, and the struggles going on at The Getty mean that other venues will be having difficulties as well. This probably isn’t a huge surprise’ during tough economic times, donations drastically drop. This is especially true for the arts. When wallets start getting thinner, supporting the arts becomes a lower priority. For this reason, venues around LA are struggling to keep their operations at the usual high level.

Not just the fine arts are taking a hit; in November, the Music Center in Los Angeles announced cancellations for its summer schedule due to a lack of funds. The Nederlands Dance Theater I will have to wait until the economy improves before they can play Los Angeles.

Film Festivals, which have been growing in popularity in my recent memory, have been closing. Although it may be partially due to the recent overabundance of festivals (note my reference to their rising popularity), the process of weeding out the unecessaries (like New Jersey's Wildwood by the Sea Film Festival) has certainly been sped up by the lack of extra capital floating around.

A quick read of the Silence Dogetty blog shows what the typical US worker feels about reductions in their own workplace. After a first round of layoffs last year, accompanied by a December email expressing the intention of future layoffs, a group of employees created this anonymous forum to articulate their feelings on the unfair working conditions at the Getty. According to James M. Wood, the Getty Trust’s President, the cuts were not a money saving measure but an effort to “reallocate” resources.

So what are the money saving measures? The chief investment officer is focusing on liquidity, lowering investment in expensive projects and neglecting to purchase assets that will be hard to move out later. Basically, this comes down to a minimization on temporary exhibitions and fewer additions to the museum.

Silence Dogetty has another suggestion: lowering the salaries of its highest executives. The newest poll shows that the voters agree,

20% on $500k plus, 15% for $300 - 499K, 10% on $100 - 299K: 81 (67%)
10% on all exempt salaries only: 8 (6%)
5% on all non-exempt and exempt salaries: 11 (9%)
No salary reductions: 20 (16%)

Considering that those who visit the blog are most likely sensitive to staff cuts at the Getty, these results are not surprising. It is even less surprising in the context of the US right now; the trend seems to be toward a redistribution of wealth.

One thing I love about the way the Getty and its staff are dealing with the crisis is never once suggesting a raise in prices. Though visiting the Getty Villa is currently free of charge, no one has yet brought up the possibility of a new entrance fee. The admission fee at the Getty Museum has never been mentioned as flexible. In these times, it is more important than ever to include those from all walks of life in the arts.

Despite the downturn in the economy, art fairs and promotions continue on. Three SoCal art fairs occurred in January alone. The feel of these events may be moving a bit from buying to speculating, but attendance remains high. According to Stephen Cohen, an L.A. Photography dealer, "It's a buyer's market. We expect a big turnout, but it might be that a lot of people are looking, holding on to their money or getting an idea of what to buy when they have some to spend."

Film festivals aren’t dying out either. Despite cutbacks, all sponsors will be returning to this year’s Los Angeles Film Festival. The Los Angeles Music Center received the largest ever donation to support dance in the US. Although the economy has lowered the importance of the arts on the priority lists of many, the donor, Ms. Glorya Kaufman, found inspiration in our situation for her donation. "It's the perfect time," Kaufman said, "because everyone is starting to get into the doldrums. They're not spending money, not doing this, not doing that. What this does is, we can have music on the Music Center courtyard, we can have little bands and people learning to dance. . . . Everyone is happy dancing."

This is a very interesting approach to the recession. It’s hard for me to decide how I feel about it- on the one hand, $20 million could go pretty far in providing jobs, feeding the hungry, or other stereotypically noble pursuits. On the other hand, I have to agree that the recession will be much easier to weather if people are dancing.

So where do I live now?

The LA Time has a fun little project going on right now- in an attempt to create a standard name for every district in LA county, they have set up a suggested zoning/naming and asking for requests for improvements. Currently, I am located in Exposition Park... if my suggestions go through, I will be living somewhere else entirely. While I may still have some qualms about the exact division lines, I am quite anxious for the paper to complete its goal.


I've gotten a bit frustrated n the past, when friends are incapable of telling me where a restaurant is. "It's in, I don't know... Silverlake?" Los Angeles is too sprawling and too varied to be considered one unit; it needs to be broken up. Lines must be drawn and labels must be applied. That is just LA.

Who knows if the plan will work or if the names will stick, but getting directions will sure be a lot easier if it does.

Voting results!

Last night's election brought in a few unexpected results, but for the most part things came out as one would expect. Mayor Villagrosa was reelected, but by a fairly narrow margin when one considers the size of his budget and the fact that he had no serious contenders to defend his title against. In this case, the results might speak volumes more than the final outcome.

The two measure mentioned in this article, E and B, are of a little more interest to me. Measure E would have increased the city council's ability to use money to provide incentives attracting new businesses to Los Angeles. While bringing in more jobs is certainly important, I don't think raising taxes at the expense of current businesses is the correct way to do it.

Measure B was designed to increase funding for increasing the infrastructure for solar power in Los Angeles. The LA Times credits the loss to the fact that the bill would have favored work by utility as opposed to by local businesses.

Theater re-vamp

I am actually really excited about this project, an initiative to revitalize the theater district downtown. I always get a little nostalgic when I walk there, funny since I wasn't around yet when the theaters were still open. But the theaters continue to stand, unoccupied or being used as small stores.

Bringing Broadway Back is aiming to put these building back to their original use. The plans look pretty amazing- the Eastern Building downtown has become my favorite and these seem to be going along with that feel. A few weeks ago the project organized a walk along Broadway, and I am looking forward to getting feedback on the project's progress.

If you want to get involved, check out the above link or the Facebook group.

My favorite thing about the project? It looks like it's working with downtown, not trying to cover it up. All the storefronts will be facing the street, the word "high-class" has never been thrown around in reference to the apartments that will be placed above the theater, and they are already getting the community involved. Very exciting!

LA Live

With all the buzz centering around the opening of the new LA Live, I've started asking myself how I feel about it. At first, everything seems to be pretty fantastic. An impressive array of restaurants and attractions has been lined up: Katsuya, the Yardhouse, Lucky Strike, the Grammy Museum. Something to please any taste, entertain the most finicky of upper-middle class consumers. Its proximity to the Staples Center should profit both by attracting customers of one to the other. The architecture of both seems to complement the other, though perhaps this is not a coincidence as they were both designed by the same company.

I will admit; every time I go downtown I am as transfixed by the bright lights of the new Nokia Center as anyone. I stop at the light at Figueroa and 11th and get a little excited at the neon glow emitted into the straight. That being said, it's always a little bit awkward; you really have to crane your neck to get a solid glimpse of the area. Now that new storefronts are opening along Figueroa, it is starting to feel a little more connected to the area, but it remains clear that the idea of LA Live is not to draw people into downtown. LA Live is meant to draw people into LA Live, and get them to stay there for as long as possible.

Keeping itself at a distance from downtown might not be a bad thing, but I feel like it is a missed opportunity. The one thing LA Live had going for it, as opposed to other destination shopping areas like The Grove or Universal Citywalk, the Nokia Center is just a few minutes walk from myriad restaurants, stores, cafes, libraries, and businesses. By keeping themselves separate from downtown they might be ensuring that their customers do not wander off to another area, but they are also effectively guaranteeing that no one will wander in on a day spend downtown. Perhaps the idea is that few like to pass their days here; while it is true that some might not feel comfortable walking the streets of downtown, many might if they had one safe, central location with which to start or end. Keeping an avenue toward downtown open might have been an effective way to benefit both LA live and downtown. Now it is just one of an Angelino's many options instead of something new.

While the ease of parking will certainly feel like a blessing to many who visit, it is just another way to keep from becoming involved with the city. You can drive downtown, park, and never see anything off the main street. This could create yet another potential problem with the new opening: traffic. Maybe I am the only one who has noticed, but traffic downtown was already horrible on game days. Imagine now that not only sporting events, but concerts and shows are going on a few times a week. Increased traffic is not only going to encourage patrons to ignore downtown, but to discourage it's regulars from continuing to visit. The city of Los Angeles did require the developers to use some of their budget to help offset the effects of increased traffic of the area (widening on and off ramps, posting signs to warn travellers of the increased traffic in the downtown area) but this will only serve to lessen the effects, not override them.

Another disadvantage to inserting LA Live into downtown is the increased cost of housing for current residents. Luxury housing is being placed above the venues at the Nokia Center, and is going in around it as well. Expensive housing rarely coexists next to the cheap and affordable. Funding that many hoped would go toward creating affordable housing for the lower classes was instead put to use revitalizing the "Figueroa Corridor." The affordability of home in the downtown area had already become a bit of a problem, but this new development is pretty shameless in its lack of attempts to accommodate those it is displacing.

However, L.A. Live does have the potential to do some good things for the surrounding area. Downtown has never been much of a draw for tourists; though there are several attractions that many would enjoy visiting, it is not incredibly welcoming to outsiders. The mess of one-way streets and familiar restaurant names keeps many from venturing in that direction. L.A. Live might be just what the doctor ordered to get the streets bustling again. The neon lights will brighten up the area, making it feel a little safer, if incredibly more commercial. Many have suggested it might end up a bit like Times Square in New York City; a place for tourists that a local might go on occasion, but only rarely. The parade of swanky chain restaurants will more than likely begin to feel tiresome to the seasoned Angelino, but those here for a only a brief time will appreciate the slight sense of adventure they get from eating out in Los Angeles while avoiding the possibility of picking a bad place.

At the very least, this will bring more tourists downtown. While they are there, it is very likely they will be more willing to explore the downtown sights they would not normally have made time for. This can bring in more revenue to the area that it has previously been missing. It is entirely possible that this gradual attraction of visitors will slowly add to the reputation of downtown until tourism becomes a large source of revenue for the area. While I am not itching for it to become another Hollywood, with streets lined with kitsch-y shops with murals depicting celebrities on every wall, bringing money in to the community has the potential to benefit a wide range of people.

At this point, it is hard to say what the long term effects of the Nokia Center will be on downtown LA. But despite my official controversial stance on this development, I have to admit: I am pretty excited. As I said, I already enjoy driving by it, and construction hasn't even completed yet. The thing that thrills me most is probably the movie theaters going in- theaters here are few and far between. The options now are one with three screens in the University Village, the AMC Magic Johnson on Crenshaw, and the Laemmele Grand with four screens downtown. For a city famous for its connection to the movie business, it is a little difficult to actually find a place to view those movies. It is unlikely I will be wiling to pay their high prices for a run of the mill movie, it will be nice to have the option of seeing something I am really interested in without driving for an hour.

Aside from the benefits of a new movie theater, I feel pretty strongly that the glamour of L.A. Live will not take long to wear off. For a while the idea of bowling at LuckyStrike will seem exciting, but soon the reality of enforcing a dress code at a bowling will be realized for the absurdity that it is. The next time I have family visiting I will be tempted to take them to The Yardhouse, but after that I will probably feel the need to take them somewhere that isn't flooded with other tourists. Soon it will be just another piece of Los Angeles that I drive by on my way down Fig.

Zoodango

Oh my goodness fantastic.

I grew up on a farm. Roads meet once every country mile. While I love Los Angeles, it's a bit overwhelming sometimes. I love exploring the city and finding new places, but online maps and my GPS have a tendency to take me in roundabout ways, direct me to alleys, or simply the wrong destination.

So here is the exciting news: Zoodango, the online mapping tool developed by a former contestant on The Apprentice, is now available for Los Angeles! Its already being used by hip cats in Portland, San Francisco, and Seattle, now it can be used here.

It works a lot like other mapping tools, but it lists sites of entertainment in any neighborhood. Restaurants, cafes, hotels, and bars are all here. I can't wait to try out some of these new places!

Bellflower's Water Situation

Water has always been a hot issue for Los Angelinos, something even this outsider knows from movies like Chinatown. It seems the problem still exists today, as evidenced by recent events unfolding in the suburb of Bellflower.

Complaints against the current water situation in the town had been going on for years- glasses of cloudy water were presented as challenges at council meetings. The city finally stepped in to take over the water supply, a project that cost the city 8 million dollars with the promise of many more expenses to come. Residents saw a stark increase in their water bill, and many were not happy that they had no say in whether or not to take this cost.

This seems like a tough situation: unacceptable water before, unacceptable prices now. I know very little about the water supplies accessible to Los Angeles, only that we completely waste the LA River (yes, LA has a river. You saw it in Grease). It just makes me sad that water, a liquid covering more than 2/3 of our planet and completely essential to everyday life, can't be made affordable for every citizen.

What's fair for Fairey?

You are probably all familiar with this image by now; it has been plastered on buttons and walls for months. The image that did so much for President Barack Obama's campaign has lately fallen under some controversy. Designed by LA based street artist Shepard Fairey, the image was based on an original photograph by an AP photogropher. Fairey, the AP, and Mannie Garcia (the photogropher) are all currently claiming their rights to the image.

Fairey is now suing the AP, hoping a judge will decide that he did not create this poster in a violation of copyright law. Fair use is a bit of a touchy issue for me, but this seems pretty clear. Had Fairey taken the original image and simply pasted the text "hope" across the bottom, this poster would not have had the same effect. While the image might be based on a photograph, the idealistic feeling emanated by it is a product of Fairey's play on color and style. According to this article, Garcia didn't realize the poster was based on his photograph until months after the fact.

See more works by Shepard Fairey here.

Is pomegranate the new cranberry?

According to this article published by the Los Angeles Business journal, the directors of POM's are taking companies like Coca Cola and Tropicana to court for allegedly lying about the pomegranate content of some of their beverages. POM apparently has a history of being litigious.

You've heard of POM- you can't enter a grocery store in Southern California without seeing the name. At the Ralph's near where I live, an entire column in the refrigerated aisle is devoted to nothing but Pom products. Teas, seeds, and juices containing key amounts of pomegranate come in any variety you can imagine. Which leads me to my next question: are pomegranates the new cranberry?

Cranberries are now being paired with grapes, apples, oranges, peaches, turkey, chocolate, and others. I'm not exactly sure when the cranberry salesman started peddling his products so strongly, but it will be interesting to see how these two juggernauts of the fruit market duke it out.

Nature, or lack thereof

Looking at the LA Times website today, I came across this article about the decline in the number of stables in Southern California. I was originally drawn to the piece because, well, I am a girl and have therefore always wanted a pony. While the article was depressingly devoid of pictures of pretty horses, one sentiment in the article made a lot of sense to me.

Los Angeles is not what you would call an "outdoorsy" city. Any time I bring this up, natives are quick to mention the easy drive to the mountains or the beach- best of both worlds. I am quick to point out that they might make that trip once a year. Los Angeles has so much natural beauty; sunshine and warmth radiate in the city year round. One would think this natural environment would be enough to draw Los Angelinos outdoors for activities like hiking, kite flying, or even horseback riding. The urban sprawl just keeps expanding, however, and it gets harder and harder to fit in green activities in the city. To quote the article quoting a woman named Mary Benson, "we are separated from the land. . . . People are afraid of the dirt. They are afraid of the dark. They have no sense of their place in the natural world."

This also happens to be the subject of one of my favorite pieces of art in Los Angeles, Not A Cornfield. Basically, an artist planted corn in what was once a contaminated piece of land in downtown Los Angeles. After just once growing season, the corn had replenished the land with nutrients and it is now going to become a public park. I realize this has nothing to do with horses, but it's part of the same idea.

Maybe this is just the perspective of a farm girl, but people need plants. I think people, especially in Los Angeles, forget that everything they eat had to be grown, had to come from somewhere. I remember hearing one girl comment that we should get rid of daylight savings because "Who farms anymore?" While the plight of the Southern California equestrian is not particularly crucial to me, it just reminds me of the distinctively removed feel of the city.

People need plants.