is THIS an example of cognitive dissonance?

ANOTHER AMAZING HEADLINE from The Seattle Times (August 6, 2013, page B4): “Pot consultant advises, warns City Council.” And what do we find? Cognitive dissonance?

“Mark Kleiman, a UCLA professor and head of BOTEC Analysis, told council members on Monday that INCREASED law enforcement against illegal dealers could be helpful to the state’s new legal recreational marijuana system—even if that enforcement leads to short-term racial disparities in prosecuting cases.”

Mr. Kleiman also discussed the possible waste of warehouse space that would be dedicated to marijuana cultivation in the city of Seattle.

“Kleiman spoke more, though, about reasons for the city and state to step up law enforcement against illegal dealers in order to gain market share and tax revenues for the legal system.”

All of the emphasis above (caps and italicization) is mine. Conclusions about what this means—I have a really BIG problem with the term “short-term” being used in addressing “racial disparities” that have existed for generations of black Americans—are yours.

But read the whole piece and do a little research—even if there ain’t a whole lot on BOTEC on the internet . . .

Postscriptually

The article—not the headline—was by Bob Young. He wrote: “The state’s top pot consultant offered two main bits of advice to the Seattle City Council, which is poised to create regulations for legal pot businesses that may allow 50,000-square-foot growing operations in the city’s industrial areas.

Mark Kleiman, a UCLA professor and head of BOTEC Analysis, told council members on Monday that increased law enforcement against illegal dealers could be helpful to the state’s new legal recreational-marijuana system—even if that enforcement leads to short-term racial disparities in prosecuting cases.

And, Kleiman said, he’s concerned the city’s zoning plan for legal pot could leave empty buildings in manufacturing areas because it’s unlikely Seattle would ever become a long-term growing haven.”

Hah . . .