Hypercapnic Tom

Drug Prohibition: Still Stupid

Recommended Posts

Vermont might legalize possession

Quote

The bill does not legalize buying and selling pot. A previous effort that would have created a market for recreational marijuana was vetoed last year by Republican Gov. Phil Scott. The bill approved Thursday is supposed to be a compromise with the governor's office, according to the Burlington Free Press, but Scott has not yet indicated whether he will sign the bill.

Immaculate possession, I suppose. Phil Scott doesn't want to create a market. And we don't already have one. People will just engage in immaculate possession.

Quote

Legislators as geographically and ideologically diverse as Rep. Rob Blum (R-Iowa) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) reacted to Sessions' announcement by calling for the feds to leave state-legal weed alone. And Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) announced he would delay nominations for Justice Department officials until Sessions offered a better explanation about what the policy shift will mean for states that have already legalized weed.

They're all free to clarify for Sessions what the law is on that subject. By passing one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone knows his history.

Quote

"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others."- Harry Anslinger, first Drug Czar.

That was then.
 

Quote

 

Here's the lesson in pharmacology and history Rep. Alford presented to some of his constituents: "Any way you say it, marijuana is an entry drug into the higher drugs," Alford said. "What you really need to do is go back in the '30s, when they outlawed all types of drugs...What was the reason why they did that?"

Gee, Rep. Alford, I guess we just don't know!

"One of the reasons why, I hate to say it, was that the African Americans, they were basically users and they basically responded the worst off to those drugs just because of their character makeup, their genetics and that. And so basically what we're trying to do is we're trying to do a complete reverse with people not remembering what has happened in the past."

 

Oh no. Only prohibition is standing between us and out of control black people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, jocal505 said:
1 hour ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

The "walk a line, touch your nose, watch my finger" type should work about as well for cannabis intoxication.

Do you have any qualifications to make this statement?

Yes. I inhaled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Yes. I inhaled.

So did I. But it didn't make me a toxicologist.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oregonian Overproduction
 

Quote

 

Williams doesn't appear to be threatening an immediate crackdown, and casual pot users are probably under no threat of federal prosecution. But he doesn't like the way Oregon is handling legalization, and he's doing the sort of fearmongering that officials tend to do when they're preparing to act:

We also know that even recreational marijuana permitted under state law carries ill-effects on public health and safety, as Colorado's experience shows. Since 2013, marijuana-related traffic deaths have doubled in Colorado. Marijuana-related emergency and hospital admissions have increased 35 percent. And youth marijuana use is up 12 percent, 55 percent higher than the national average. We must do everything in our power to avoid similar trends here in Oregon.

Funny, he notices those trends but fails to mention that Colorado has also seen a decline in opioid-related deaths since the state legalized marijuana, a contrast to the overdose crisis that the Justice Department is allegedly very concerned about. Medical marijuana use in New Mexico is also associated with reduced use of opioids. Perhaps Williams should consider the lives potentially being saved by all that pot being exported to other states?

While he's at it, maybe he should read Reason's Jacob Sullum explain that marijuana-related traffic deaths in Colorado have not in fact doubled and that marijuana use among teens in Colorado is actually going down, not up.

 

Gotta grab every power in sight to avoid those imaginary trends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Norway is aiming to decriminalise drugs. The UK should choose legalisation

In 2001 Portugal decriminalised all drugs. Last month the Norwegian parliament made clear its intentions to follow this lead. Republican senators across the Atlantic are openly defending the legalisation of marijuana. It’s high time the British government realised that it’s hopelessly out of step with sensible drug policy.

 

Decriminalisation ends criminal penalties for possessing small amounts of a drug for personal use, but all other aspects of the drug market remain illegal. For Norwegian advocates of harm reduction, this might seem like a big step forward. They are probably right.

Prison isn’t rehab, and a criminal record is a hammer blow to an ex-user’s career prospects. By contrast, decriminalisation makes it easier for problematic users to seek treatment, which leads to decreased use among vulnerable groups. This is what happened in Portugal, as shown by multiple studies – and may explain Portugal’s extremely low rate of overdose deaths. Portugal’s decriminalisation has also reduced the number of HIV-positive people addicted to drugs. This is a huge win for public health.

Decriminalisation was not the only option on the table for Norway, however. As Sveinung Stensland, deputy chairman of the Norwegian parliamentary health committee, put it: “It is important to emphasise that we do not legalise cannabis and other drugs, but we decriminalise.” That’s a shame: Norway would be better off if politicians opted for legalisation.

Decriminalisation is not a panacea: street dealers face no competition from regulated alternatives, and there is a risk that supply to the black market will at best remain unchanged. When the London borough of Lambeth, where I live, experimented with partial decriminalisation (or “de-penalisation”) between 2001 and 2002, a surge in street dealing depressed house prices, most prominently in areas with the highest concentrations of dealing. Lower house prices may sound like good news, but they fell because dealing reduced the local quality of life. The consequences of underground drug markets are well known: more violence, more crime and more dangerous drugs.

 

Commentators such as Peter Hitchens wrongly believe that these issues are the result of British police not fighting the war on drugs harshly enough – especially for cannabis. It’s true that our prohibition is lenient in comparison with some parts of the US. But I imagine most of the 11,970 people in prison for drug offences in 2016 would have raised their eyebrows at the suggestion that we operate under “de facto decriminalisation”.

xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg">

There’s appetite to reform the UK’s drug laws, but it has to be done right

Unlike decriminalisation, a legalised, regulated market would drive many street dealers out of existence. This is especially important for underage drug users because, unlike regulated shops and pharmacies, street dealers don’t ask for ID. They also tend to be unreliable sources of information on recommended dosage, and black market drugs are rarely pure. When I go to the pub, I know whether I’m getting beer or vodka; drug buyers on the street can only hope they’re getting what they’re paying for. The UK-based drug testing organisation The Loop has reported finding drugs laced with everything from concrete to crushed-up malaria tablets at music festivals.

Legalisation also opens up the opportunity for significant tax revenue, which could be used to fund treatment and addiction services properly. Recent estimates have suggested that a legal UK cannabis market alone could be worth nearly £7bn a year, raising £1.05bn in tax. And while decriminalisation is a blunt tool for all drugs, legalisation allows the government to tailor regulations to suit the potential harm levels of different substances. We don’t regulate alcohol in the same way as cigarettes, and we shouldn’t treat cannabis and MDMA in the same way as heroin.

Read more

Some parts of the world have attempted to compromise between decriminalisation and legalisation, with poor results. When I lived in Washington DC for a year after graduating, it was legal to grow and possess cannabis for personal consumption, but illegal to sell it. Within two weeks of arriving, I was offered a $20 bottle of water with a “free gift” of cannabis, on my morning commute.

There’s appetite to reform the UK’s drug laws, but it has to be done right. The public are ahead of politicians, with recent polling showing that more people support a legal, regulated cannabis market than oppose it. The government’s silence on this crucial issue is deafening. A few British politicians from across the spectrum, such as Paul Flynn, Nick Clegg and Crispin Blunt, agree with the public. I wish more would.

In the wake of Norway’s decision to decriminalise drugs, politicians from all parties should use this opportunity to take a different approach to our drug policy. By opting for legalisation, we can take the market out of the hands of criminals and raise some money for treating vulnerable users while we’re at it.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/18/norway-decriminalised-drugs-uk-chose-legalisation-policy?CMP=share_btn_tw

Sensible decision, prohibition has failed to eliminate anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump the Deregulator is Slashing Spending!

Quote

President Donald Trump is planning to slash the budget of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, in what marks his administration’s second attempt to gut the top office responsible for coordinating the federal response to the opioid crisis.

Actually, that's fake news an uncertain report.

I only wish it were true.

Moving a couple of federal grant programs to other agencies is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, SloopJonB said:
13 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

This is why libertarian logic is so fucking useless as a policy guide. It only seems to make sense if you don't know a goddam thing about how the world really works.

-DSK

Exactly.

Its biggest flaw is that it doesn't take human nature into account.

It operates on about the same level of wishful thinking as the hippies and their communes.

So do you guys support the Duopoly view of the war on cannabis?

I suspect you're both too smart.

How did Libertarians arrive at the correct conclusion on this issue so many decades before your elk? I think that people who believe in prohibition as a good solution don't know a goddam thing about how the world really works. Those of us who recognize the failure do know a thing or two. In fact, enough things to arrive at the right answer decades before the Duopoly.

How did that happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/24/2017 at 7:10 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:

VT Gov Phil Scott Vetoes Legalization

 

I guess the current version has unclear penalties for sales to minors.

No smoking out in vehicles with kids? Hard to believe it would be allowed and I can see the Governor's point.

Expanding and delaying the commission doesn't sound necessary. They've got until November to figure out how to tax and regulate it. It shouldn't take that long. Just foot dragging.

That was 2017, then this year:

On 1/7/2018 at 5:18 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Vermont might legalize possession

Immaculate possession, I suppose. Phil Scott doesn't want to create a market. And we don't already have one. People will just engage in immaculate possession.

They're all free to clarify for Sessions what the law is on that subject. By passing one.


And Gov Scott signed it.

He is very slowly recovering from his Reefer Madness.
 

Quote

 

Scott, a Republican who vetoed a previous legalization bill last May, is not keen on commercialization. In a message to the General Assembly, he expressed "mixed emotions" about signing the bill. "I personally believe that what adults do behind closed doors and on private property is their choice, so long as it does not negatively impact the health and safety of others, especially children," he said. But he added that he still has "reservations about a commercial system which depends on profit motive and market driven demand for its growth."

Still, Scott indicated that he might be open to going further in the future. "I look forward to the Marijuana Advisory Commission addressing the need to develop comprehensive education, prevention and highway safety strategies," he said. "There must be comprehensive and convincing plans completed in these areas before I will begin to consider the wisdom of implementing a commercial 'tax and regulate' system for an adult marijuana market. It is important for the General Assembly to know that—until we have a workable plan to address each of these concerns—I will veto any additional effort along these lines which manages to reach my desk."

 

This noble concern about the hazards of the profit motive and markets is not so evident when it comes to producers of legal drugs and sugary sodas. Or fuel dealers. Do gas stations sell alcohol up there like they do here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

So do you guys support the Duopoly view of the war on cannabis?

I suspect you're both too smart.

How did Libertarians arrive at the correct conclusion on this issue so many decades before your elk? I think that people who believe in prohibition as a good solution don't know a goddam thing about how the world really works. Those of us who recognize the failure do know a thing or two. In fact, enough things to arrive at the right answer decades before the Duopoly.

How did that happen?

Sorry, I'm not following somehow. What is "The Answer" that libertarians have arrived at?

FWIW I think the "War On Drugs" is a stupid idea and yet another wasteful product of lobbyist dictating policy. And I don't have an elk.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Sorry, I'm not following somehow. What is "The Answer" that libertarians have arrived at?

FWIW I think the "War On Drugs" is a stupid idea and yet another wasteful product of lobbyist dictating policy. And I don't have an elk.

-DSK

Ending the stupid drug war instead of voting for those who continue it is the brilliant answer we arrived at decades ago.

Continuing the stupid drug war is the Duopoly answer to the same problem. I think it's a stupid answer provided by people who don't know a goddam thing about how the world really works.

As for lobbyists dictating policy, the AMA was asked whether cannabis prohibition was a good idea in 1937. They said no and were dismissed because they didn't have anything useful to say. And prohibition went forward, despite the lobbyists.

I don't blame prison, police, or drug company lobbyists as much as I blame Duopoly voters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Ending the stupid drug war instead of voting for those who continue it is the brilliant answer we arrived at decades ago.

Continuing the stupid drug war is the Duopoly answer to the same problem. I think it's a stupid answer provided by people who don't know a goddam thing about how the world really works.

As for lobbyists dictating policy, the AMA was asked whether cannabis prohibition was a good idea in 1937. They said no and were dismissed because they didn't have anything useful to say. And prohibition went forward, despite the lobbyists.

I don't blame prison, police, or drug company lobbyists as much as I blame Duopoly voters.

And the effect of your blame is...........

You see everything in black and white. Yes or no. Go or stop. No such thing as velocity much less acceleration, much less other dimensions.

Which lobbyists where they listening to other than the AMA? Or do you think that there's only one set of lobbyists at a time?

And what problem is the "War On Drugs" solving? It is in fact a shuck on one set of Duopoly voters, the ones who want to hear comforting "law and order" messages about how we are smashing those evil pushers. So it solves a problem for one set of politicians who need a permanent problem they can always get a rise out of. It's also solves the problem of putting a whip in the hand of the employer class, you can always bust those uppity and troublesome folk among the worker class for their party methods. Finally, it offers job security for various gov't employees...... to be fair, by far the majority of them are quite sincere about taking drugs and pushers off the street and do a far better job than might be expected.

So, in all, you've got a veritable tide of special interest groups fighting the "War On Drugs."

There's a reason why we tell little children fairy tales. It's shows them a little of how the world works, gives them some mental armor against the fact that the Big Bad Wolf wins much of the times. Some people grow up believing in them literally, never understanding such a thing as "allegory," others forget them entirely.

Libertarians want to blame the rest of the world because their fairy tales are not popular, don't explain anything, and also don't come true.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fairy tale of legalization is gradually coming true. You already agreed that the drug war is stupid. Now I'm stupid and unrealistic for opposing it for decades and finally, slowly, winning?

But where it really matters to me, on issues like asset forfeiture and the security state (since the war on terror has largely supplanted the war on some drugs as an excuse for more government power), I still see the establishment from both halves of the Duopoly on one side and a few extremists, including the libertarian leaning ones, on the other. For example, the renewal of Section 702, which is of little interest except to weirdo's like Rand Paul and Ron Wyden.

5 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

And what problem is the "War On Drugs" solving? It is in fact a shuck on one set of Duopoly voters, the ones who want to hear comforting "law and order" messages about how we are smashing those evil pushers.

I agree that the R half is more to blame for expanding government power in the stupid drug war, but can't agree with this. Obama made it clear that he wasn't going to lead on this issue and prosecutions of dispensaries expanded under his administration, despite some progress and rhetoric to the contrary. And some pardons at the end, which I noted in this thread. But I have to say, seeing Obama's administration continue to enforce prohibition in much the same way as Bush's was more disappointing to me because D's at least talk like they know better. They just don't act like it. I expect that shit from Jeff Sessions' elk because he actually believes in prohibition. When those who claim not to believe in it enforce it anyway, it somehow seems worse to those of us who actually want to end the stupidity. And vote that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

The fairy tale of legalization is gradually coming true. You already agreed that the drug war is stupid. Now I'm stupid and unrealistic for opposing it for decades and finally, slowly, winning?

....    ...     ...     ...

Legalizing pot is "winning"??

I dunno if this is a good step or not, the tax revenue will certainly be welcome and it could make law enforcement a lot easier. But the world is a more complicated place that it was back when mary jane was legal and even used for menstrual cramps. We can make better rope, too.

Perhaps smoking a joint will become like having a beer. But the fact that alcohol has screwed up plenty of lives is not a good recommendation for throwing THC into the mix willy-nilly. And there are a heck of a lot of other drugs that certainly should not be made legal. Maybe you agree with Wofsey that heroin is OK because some people can handle it?

-DSK

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Legalizing pot is "winning"??

I dunno if this is a good step or not, the tax revenue will certainly be welcome and it could make law enforcement a lot easier. But the world is a more complicated place that it was back when mary jane was legal and even used for menstrual cramps. We can make better rope, too.

Perhaps smoking a joint will become like having a beer. But the fact that alcohol has screwed up plenty of lives is not a good recommendation for throwing THC into the mix willy-nilly. And there are a heck of a lot of other drugs that certainly should not be made legal. Maybe you agree with Wofsey that heroin is OK because some people can handle it?

-DSK

 

Yes, to me it is. The drug war has been the main source of what I view as unfavorable fourth amendment precedents, it supports dangerous black markets and associated gangs and crime, it's funded by policing for profit, and it had no rational basis when enacted.

I got a good decades-long look at the harm alcohol can do before my brother quit drinking a couple of years ago. None of it made me think the Temperance movement was right about alcohol prohibition. We had all the problems of alcohol, plus those created by the black market. The fact that alcohol prohibition screwed up so many lives is not a good recommendation for throwing cannabis into that mix, especially considering how much less harmful it is.

Beyond the recreational uses, legalizing would be winning big for people in the situation I was in a few years ago, watching as cannabis oil was the only thing that gave my dad any relief as he was dying with bone cancer. Treating him should not have been a crime, just as treating young Alexis, mentioned in this thread, should not be a crime. Looking at those situations and saying that making the best available treatment illegal isn't, to me anyway, throwing cannabis into the mix willy nilly. It's doing it for good reasons.

I wouldn't say heroin is ok, but it's true that some people do use it without any more harm than alcohol and I think Portugal's approach to those drugs is much wiser than ours. The black market isn't preventing our current opiod problem. It's making it worse because it makes treatment harder. Ending that stupidity seems a good idea to me. Yes, such a drug would need to be regulated and I'm in favor of treatment programs for addicts who want them but none of that means that criminal penalties are the wisest approach. They're not.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

...    ....   ...

I wouldn't say heroin is ok, but it's true that some people do use it without any more harm than alcohol ....    ...    ...

 

For while, sure. Some people destroy their lives with alcohol, but every single person who uses opiates recreationally will eventually destroy his life..... and most likely his family too.

"It's such a nice afternoon, I'll just have a little shot of heroin" said no productive happy person, ever.

I really try to give some credence to your stated beliefs but stuff like this makes it difficult.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

For while, sure. Some people destroy their lives with alcohol, but every single person who uses opiates recreationally will eventually destroy his life..... and most likely his family too.

"It's such a nice afternoon, I'll just have a little shot of heroin" said no productive happy person, ever.

I really try to give some credence to your stated beliefs but stuff like this makes it difficult.

-DSK

I was very patriotic in the 80's and expressed it by supporting mujahedeen freedom fighters economically. Hash and black tar opium. Didn't ruin my life.

So not every single person in my experience.

But going straight to heroin in a discussion about cannabis legalization is normal for big government folks from both halves of the Duopoly, so thanks for another demonstration that there's really no difference.

The path back to productivity and happiness doesn't lead through a prison, by the way. As I said, it leads through a rehab center, which is why Portugal is dealing with opiates so much more effectively and safely than we are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I was very patriotic in the 80's and expressed it by supporting mujahedeen freedom fighters economically. Hash and black tar opium. Didn't ruin my life.

So not every single person in my experience.

But going straight to heroin in a discussion about cannabis legalization is normal for big government folks from both halves of the Duopoly, so thanks for another demonstration that there's really no difference.

The path back to productivity and happiness doesn't lead through a prison, by the way. As I said, it leads through a rehab center, which is why Portugal is dealing with opiates so much more effectively and safely than we are.

There was already a discussion of heroin, I apologize for conflating. I have known a fair number of druggies in my time and I will say that not a single one of them didn't give up a lot for "the lifestyle." And the ones that got into the hard stuff to my certain knowledge, pretty much all ended up in the gutter if not jail. A sad record. Would you recommend smoking hash to pilots?

But I am certainly not "big government folks". That black tar opium must have caused some brain damage if you think I am.

You are determined to make enemies, argue needlessly, and generally be an ass. This is a big reason why Libertarians fail, it seems like a popular mindset among them.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

There was already a discussion of heroin, I apologize for conflating. I have known a fair number of druggies in my time and I will say that not a single one of them didn't give up a lot for "the lifestyle." And the ones that got into the hard stuff to my certain knowledge, pretty much all ended up in the gutter if not jail. A sad record. Would you recommend smoking hash to pilots?

Really? I know some people who smoke pot and it seems to have less negative effect on their lives than alcohol or even sugar. I can't think of a single person who I would say has given up a lot as a result of smoking pot.

I'm not in a gutter nor jail and you sorta know me. And whether you do or not, I know myself and other people who are not consistent with your experience. So I can't accept it as the only possible experience.

I wouldn't recommend smoking hash to anyone. I also wouldn't recommend prohibition to anyone. The one really isn't related to the other, though those arguing for the stupid drug war often conflate them. Opposing prohibition and promoting drug use are different things. I do the former and am accused of the latter by prohibitionists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/23/2018 at 8:19 AM, Steam Flyer said:

FWIW I think the "War On Drugs" is a stupid idea

Me too.

On 1/23/2018 at 11:34 PM, Steam Flyer said:

Legalizing pot is "winning"??

But that's pretty much exactly how Jeff Sessions' elk react when I say that I think the "War On Drugs" is a stupid idea.

As for the rest of the electorate, some drug warriors decided to pole them. Um, well, they're always doing that. But they decided to poll them.

Quote

Mason Dixon Polling & Strategy, the firm hired by SAM, asked 1,000 respondents which of four policies "best describes your preference on national marijuana policy." Sixteen percent chose "keep the current policy," while 29 percent preferred to "legalize the use of marijuana for physician-supervised medical use." Only 5 percent wanted to "decriminalize marijuana use by removing the possibility of jail time for possession and also allowing for medical marijuana, but keep the sale of marijuana illegal." Forty-nine percent were ready for full legalization, saying the federal government should "legalize the commercial production, use and sale of marijuana for recreational use, as they have done recently in several states."

By far the biggest slice agrees with me and disagrees with you and Jeff Sessions on this issue, at least based on your later statement.

Of course, this is another way to put it:

Quote

"Half of Americans now support alternatives to full legalization of recreational marijuana use," the anti-pot group Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) says in a press release about a poll it commissioned.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Gift of Weed in DC

Drug warriors are (I hope) slowly learning the same lesson so many communist governments have learned: you can abolish markets but you can't eliminate them.
 

Quote

 

Last month, some friends and I wanted to blaze after seeing Ron Funches at the DC Improv, so we pulled up the website for Red Eye Delivery, which is like Uber Eats except that it exclusively sells cookies.

I'm not talking about cannabis-infused edibles, here. These are regular ol' chocolate chip cookies, baked fresh every day from the same ingredients my grandmother used way back when. The difference between her cookies and Red Eye's cookies is that Red Eye's cookies cost $60 for a half dozen and you have to be 21 to order them.

An hour later, a delivery driver texted to say he was outside with our chocolate chip snacks. One of us went out, showed our ID, and picked up the order of cookies. After the transaction was completed, the driver presented us with an eighth of marijuana as a gift.

That sounds complicated, doesn't it?

The law is "as clear as they wanted to make it," says Joe Tierney, a D.C. resident who runs a guide to the District's pot scene called "Gentleman Toker."

 

Hey, nothing wrong with ten bucks for a cookie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cali Govt Seeking CannaBanking Solutions
 

Quote

 

...

Even under the more lax Obama administration rules, cannabusinesses had an exceedingly difficult time securing basic financial services such as checking accounts, business loans, and insurance policies. Sessions' move has made desperate policy solutions seem even more attractive.

However understandable the urge is, though, establishing a state-owned bank raises any number of practical, legal, and policy concerns. For starters, it could actually make it easier for the feds to crack down on state-legal marijuana businesses. Collecting the assets of all California cannabusinesses in one financial institution means the federal government could theoretically freeze the entire industry's assets in one fell swoop.

A similar scenario is playing out now for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients. Desperate for protection from immigration enforcement, countless people who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children handed over reams of personal information to the federal government when Obama was president. Now the executive branch is overseen by someone with a decidedly different view on immigration who can use the data to expedite deportations among that community.

Drayton says the marijuana industry is not unaware of this risk, and would try to guard against it, possibly by pushing for the creation of a series of smaller, local government–owned banks.

A state-owned cannabis bank would also pose a real risk to taxpayers, as a November 2017 report by Chaing's own Cannabis Banking Working Group makes clear. "The obstacles to creating a public financial institution are formidable, including the difficulty of getting deposit insurance, unknown start-up costs, investment likely to measure in the billions of dollars, and the probability of losses for several years or more that taxpayers would have to cover," reads the report, which recommends further study of the idea....

 

A much better answer would be for Congress to reschedule cannabis so that normal banks can act like this is a normal business.

Meanwhile, hat tip to San Francisco for wiping out thousands of cannabis convictions.

The law allows people to petition for retroactive sentencing but San Fran has only received a few of those petitions and is acting on the other cases without a petition. Which I hope is legal. I agree it's the right thing to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump Wants To Get Tough
 

Quote

 

...

What might the president mean by getting really tough on drug pushers? One clue might be his phone call to Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte last April. "I just wanted to congratulate you because I am hearing of the unbelievable job on the drug problem," Trump said. "Many countries have the problem, we have a problem, but what a great job you are doing and I just wanted to call and tell you that."

Duterte is indeed doing an "unbelievable job," according to Human Rights Watch. The group estimates that that Duterte's drug war has killed more than 12,000 drug suspects so far.

As big a blustering blowhard as our president is, I trust that he is not actually contemplating Duterte-style extrajudicial killings when he says "we have to get a lot tougher than we are." Nevertheless, it is clear that the president has learned nothing from the failures of the war on drugs. Over the past four decades, the government has spent more than trillion dollars, locked up millions of Americans, and undermined our civil liberties, especially our Fourth Amendment protections against search and seizure, to stop the drug trade. Despite all the resources wasted and lives lost, the prices of illicit drugs have generally declined.

...

In a stark contrast to Duterte's bloody anti-drug campaign, one country has shown that the way to win the drug war is to end it. Portugal has decriminalized all drug use and focuses instead on treatment. The annual rate drug of overdose deaths in Portugal is now 1 per 170,000 citizens. The figure is 33 times higher in the U.S., at 1 per 5,100 Americans. President Trump ought to make a congratulatory call to Portugal instead, and ask about the "great job" that country is doing in handling its drug dependence problems.

 

The reason Portugal's plan works and our plan always fails is that, despite Duopoly rhetoric, the "dealers" are not the problem.

Nancy Reagan had one thing right: it's users who are the problem. Because they're there, any dealer arrested is immediately replaced by the market. It's what markets do. Unfortunately for Nancy's plan, simply "not tolerating" them does nothing. Treating them and helping them return to a normal life helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sessions Says Cannabis is Opioid Gateway

He's right, but it's an exit gate, not an entry gate.

Quote

 

If marijuana use leads to opioid abuse, you might expect states where pot can be obtained legally to have a bigger opioid problem. Yet numerous studies have found the opposite:

  • A 2017 study published in Drug and Alcohol Dependence found that states that legalized medical marijuana reported on average 23 percent fewer hospitalizations for opioid addiction and 13 percent fewer hospitalizations for opioid overdoses.
  • A 2017 study found that New Mexico patients with chronic pain who enrolled in the state's medical marijuana program were likely to reduce their opioid dosage or even cease opioid use altogether.
  • A 2017 study in Colorado found that marijuana legalization "was associated with short-term reductions in opioid-related deaths."
  • A 2016 study published by the American Journal of Public Health reported that fatally injured drivers in car crashes were less likely to test positive for opioids in states with legal medical marijuana.
  • A 2016 study looking at prescriptions covered by Medicare found that "the use of prescription drugs for which marijuana could serve as a clinical alternative fell significantly once a medical marijuana law was implemented."
  • A 2014 JAMA study found that states with legalized medical marijuana had on average a nearly 25 percent lower mortality rate for opioids.

 

The

10 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

$6 billion to respond to the opioid crisis


that is included in the latest boondoggling bill can only make things worse under this man's guidance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/12/2015 at 7:51 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Still stupid
 

Quote

 

...The FDA cites one case where a 22-year-old man consumed a kratom mixture he ordered online along with an "unknown tablet." This consumption "was followed by an incident, during which the patient fell from a window of the first floor before going to bed" without receiving medical treatment. He was found dead the next morning, and the medical examiner determined that he choked on his vomit while he slept. The man had a history of mental illness, and a prescription drug history that included pipamperone (an antipsychotic used for treating schizophrenia), fluoxetine (an SSRI used to treat anxiety, OCD and depression), queiapine (another antipsychotic), olanzapine (another antipsychotic), etizolam (a benzodiazepine analog), pregabalin (a nerve pain medication often used to treat seizures), lorazepam (a benzodiazepine) and triazolam (a benzodiazepine used to treat severe insomnia that can also cause psychotic episodes). Oh, and he also used kratom...

...

Kratom is a popular alternative medicine for those suffering from chronic pain, opioid withdrawal, and mood disorders ranging from depression to PTSD. We don't know exactly why it's good for these ailments, or what the most effective dose is, or even how much is too much. But we have even less evidence that its limited risk merits criminalizing the behavior of hundreds of thousands of American consumers.


 

Anyone else notice that the FDA under Obama behaved just about like the FDA under Trump behaves?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FL considering some drug law changes

Our legislature is looking at scaling back our stupid mandatory minimums for drug crimes and reducing the size of our drug-free "school zones," both of which were sold as targeting "the big dealers" but in practice they turn out to target low level users.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The presidunce learning from Duterte....

President Trump suggested executing drug dealers to crack down on America’s opioid crisis.

“The drug dealers, the drug pushers, they’re really doing damage,” Trump said at an opioid event at the White House Thursday. “Some countries have a very, very tough penalty — the ultimate penalty. And by the way, they have much less of a drug problem than we do.”

“If you shoot one person, they give you life, they give you the death penalty,” Trump said. “These people can kill 2,000, 3,000 people, and nothing happens to them.”

http://time.com/5181830/president-trump-execute-drug-dealers-opiod-crisis/

Yup, that'll fixit......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The War On Okra - Exceedingly Stupid

Reminds me of a similar raid on my property years ago. In that case, the cops claimed to have thought that baby peach and lychee trees were cannabis plants. And that we put a big, black circle of ground cloth around each one to make them more visible from the air, apparently. (It was for wind protection.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The War On Pain Pills

Quote

To the extent that the crackdown on prescription analgesics has made them more expensive and harder to get, it has pushed opioid users toward more dangerous drugs. That helps explain why total opioid-related fatalities more than tripled from 2002 to 2016, even as illegal use of pain pills declined.

Puritans were sooo scared that people would get addicted to opioids just by taking some after surgery (which rarely happens) that they inadvertently created the current heroin/fentanyl problem. The solution to this drug war failure will be, of course, more drug war failures!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/13/2018 at 6:17 AM, random said:

So Tom, are you claiming that there is no prescription drug problem?

What gave you that idea? Can't be anything I posted.

I'm claiming that, as usual, prohibition is a failed approach to the problem of drug abuse. It makes the drugs and the law more dangerous for all of us and we should just stop with the criminal approach and go to a treatment approach.

Hounding doctors who have patients with legit pain needs is keeping more people in pain and diverting addicts to heroin laced with fentanyl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, random said:

 

"Many people think that abusing prescription drugs is safer than abusing illicit drugs like heroin because the manufacturing of prescription drugs is regulated or because they are prescribed by doctors. That's true, but it doesn't mean that these drugs are safe for someone who was not prescribed the drug or when they are taken in ways other than as prescribed. 

Prescription drugs can have powerful effects in the brain and body, and they act on the same brain sites as illicit drugs. Opioid painkillers act on the same sites in the brain as heroin; prescription stimulants have effects in common with cocaine. And people sometimes take the medications in ways that can be very dangerous in both the short and long term (e.g., crushing pills and snorting or injecting the contents). Also, abusing prescription drugs is illegal—and that includes sharing prescriptions with friends."

http://takeasprescribed.org/frequently-asked-questions/

It's polite to include a link.

Your point?

Prescription drugs are safer in every way than the black market. The vast majority of people who use them for pain do so safely. Those who abuse them are typically already using other drugs and already in financial/emotional/whatever trouble. Prohibition makes things worse for both groups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, random said:

Doctors are scored for their ability to push drugs.  People get addicted who otherwise would not be exposed.

They're going to score low in most cases because patients are Uncooperative about actually becoming addicted. We use pain pill as needed then stop. Often with leftovers still in the cabinet. I have some.

5 hours ago, random said:

Like banks don't need to be prohibited from doing bad shit.  Remember 2008?

I'm not an anarchist on drugs or banking/financial services. They do need regulation and the best one we've passed at fighting addiction was the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1907. We told people what was in that snake oil, and upon finding out that the answer was "morphine" they stopped using it in large numbers.

Pharmaceuticals and doctors are easy enough to regulate that we turned a bad oxycontin problem into a worse heroin/fentanyl problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Naxolone and moral hazard

Some new research suggests that making Naxolone available to heroin addicts doesn't save lives because it just encourages the addicts to engage in more risky behavior.
 

Quote

 

More to the point, the collectivist calculus of public health tends to obscure the moral issue raised by legal obstacles that make naloxone harder to obtain. The morally relevant level of analysis is not "society as a whole" but the individual who wants naloxone and the state that stands in his way. Naloxone indisputably saves people's lives, and it would be unconscionable to block access to it based on speculation about how the availability of that lifesaving option might affect other people's behavior. That is like banning seat belts or HIV treatment because the extra assurance they provide might encourage some people to behave more recklessly.

This is the logic of prohibition, which endangers the lives of drug users to deter people who otherwise might join them. One way it does that is by making drug potency unpredictable, which makes overdoses more likely, thereby increasing the need for naloxone. LePage is not wrong to think that making naloxone hard to get is consistent with this plan. He is wrong to think the plan is morally defensible.

 

The whole plan of making it too hard to be addicted to drugs should be replaced with plans to make it easier to stop being addicted to drugs.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, random said:

Big Pharma creates more drug addicts than criminals.  They are there to make even more money than last year to get their bonus's so addictive products is exactly what they are trying to produce. 

They also actively chase any MD who does not sell enough of the shit, and replace them with someone who will.

Umm, the crazy conspiracy thread is over here...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If any post belongs in this thread, it's this one:

9 hours ago, badlatitude said:

Boy, we are going to have a helluva doctor shortage soon.

 

"Donald Trump on Monday will release a plan to combat the opioid epidemic that includes the controversial move to use the death penalty for some drug dealers.

Trump will announce the Initiative to Stop Opioid Abuse during his first visit as president to New Hampshire, a state the opioid epidemic has hit hard and where 2016 presidential candidates, including Trump, discussed the issue of addiction at length.

The plan includes a mix of efforts that advocates have been supportive of in the past, such as expanding access to the gold standard of treatment for an opioid addiction and ensuring first responders are equipped with an opioid overdose reversal drug.

It also includes law enforcement measures, and addiction advocates have been urging the administration and lawmakers to steer away from a war-on-drugs approach they say hasn’t worked in the past.

“The opioid crisis is viewed by us at the White House as a nonpartisan problem searching for bipartisan solutions, and the Trump administration remains committed to fighting this epidemic from all fronts,” Kellyanne Conway, a counselor to the president, said on a call with reporters Sunday."

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/379049-trump-to-release-plan-addressing-opioid-epidemic-on-monday

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

There are lots of people on this planet that need killing.  ... The scumbag drug dealer selling heroine to kids.


Nah, it's a stupid idea, like most prohibition ideas. An overreaction to the knowledge that prohibition is doomed to fail.

Increasing severity of punishment isn't a good deterrent because of the very low risk of getting caught. The death penalty is insanely time-consuming and expensive to implement. And, last but not least, the death penalty is never necessary and unnecessary killing is always wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One way to confirm the stupidity of a big government idea:

Trump and Lindsey Graham Agree On It
 

Quote

 

Some drug dealers "will kill thousands of people in their lifetimes," Trump claimed at his New Hampshire event. "They'll be jailed for 30 days, or a year, or they'll be fined. And yet if you kill one person, you get the death penalty or you go to jail for life. If we're not going to get tough on drug dealers who kill thousands of people and destroy so many people's lives, we are just doing the wrong thing."

"This is about winning a very, very tough problem," he added. "Toughness is the thing they most fear."

...

Senators Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Friday that he is working with Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) on a bill to create new mandatory minimums for fentanyl, and possibly to write a new capital offense into federal drug law.

 

The thing they most fear is their competitors. Next would be customers who are actually narcs. In a distant third would be bumbling government officials waving meaningless threats that prohibition will suddenly start working if only we're "tough" enough to kill people unnecessarily.

But unnecessary killing isn't the only stupid big government idea that drug warriors love...
 

Quote

 

"The best way to beat the drug crisis is to keep people from getting hooked on drugs to begin with," Trump said. To that, he supports "spending a lot of money on great commercials showing how bad it is, so that kid's seeing those commercials during the right shows on television of wherever--the internet--when they see these commercials, they say, 'I don't want any part of it.'"

In 2006, the Government Accountability Office published a study on federally funded anti-drug advertising that suggested "exposure to the advertisements generally did not lead youth to disapprove of using drugs and may have promoted perceptions among exposed youth that others' drug use was normal."

 

$pending a bunch of our tax money on propaganda that the government's own GAO has proven was, if anything, counterproductive is another drug warrior triumph of hope over experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9th Circuit Refuses To Legislate From Bench
 

Quote

 

A lawsuit was filed in 2011 by Nevada resident S. Rowan Wilson after she tried to purchase a gun for self-defense and was denied based on a federal ban on the sale of guns to users of illegal drugs. Though marijuana has been legalized in some places on a state-by-state basis, it remains illegal under federal law. The court maintained that drug use “raises the risk of irrational or unpredictable behavior with which gun use should not be associated.”

Wilson claimed that she doesn’t actually use marijuana, she simply obtained a card to show her support for its legalization. The appeals court agreed with guidelines from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that firearms sellers should assume that medical marijuana card holders use the drug.

 

I have not read the opinion yet but it sounds right to me. Even assuming it can somehow be proven that Wilson doesn't use cannabis at all, the guidelines seem reasonable to me. There are not that many Uncooperative types who will get something like a cannabis card just to make a point about prohibition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, slug zitski said:

if  in the future this  citizen is judged to be weedy and unfit,  will they take the guy permit away ? 


Well, it happened before, so I don't see why it would not happen again.

The above case was from back in 2016 and I had forgotten that I posted about it in this thread.

Since then the Supreme Court told Mr. Wilson to shove it.

So the answer is: almost certainly. Of course, that's a different thing from taking the gun itself away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:


Well, it happened before, so I don't see why it would not happen again.

The above case was from back in 2016 and I had forgotten that I posted about it in this thread.

Since then the Supreme Court told Mr. Wilson to shove it.

So the answer is: almost certainly. Of course, that's a different thing from taking the gun itself away.

A gun owner should be required to carry an insurance policy that covers any damage caused by thier guns.

if this policy had to be renewed every year,  the  insurance industry would be very careful with who they issued policiies to.

this due diligence by the insurance industry would  de politicize the issue of permits  and help  relieve the burden from the gov.  authority responsible for issuing gun permits 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/30/2018 at 6:56 AM, slug zitski said:

A gun owner should be required to carry an insurance policy that covers any damage caused by thier guns.

That would be an interesting law to write to say the least. It might go like this:

If you're violating federal law by owning a gun and a medical cannabis card, you must enlist an insurance company to participate in this conspiracy to violate federal law along with you. (And then we'll seize all their assets.)

I think there might just be a step we need to take first. I mean other than the step of demonstrating some compelling governmental need to require such insurance and the step of saying Congress is regulating interstate commerce and the step of having the Supreme Court come along and correct them and inform them that they're really levying a tax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again Rand Paul and Ron Wyden make sense.
 

Quote

 

In 2013, only nine states had adopted laws regulating hemp production. Several months ago, the National Conference of State Legislatures reported that 34 states had passed legislation regulating hemp farming. Despite the federal ban, that number is growing. Earlier this month, Missouri's state senate voted to regulate hemp farming.

States where growing marijuana is legal (though still illegal under federal law) are leading domestic sources of hemp. As of 2106, there were around 400 industrial hemp operations in Colorado. Hemp acreage in Colorado grew from just over 2,000 in 2015 to 9,000 last year.

Besides ending an entirely pointless federal ban and helping to meet consumer demand, legalizing hemp would help ease the way for hemp farmers to do some of the things farmers need the opportunity to do if they want to succeed, including buying crop insurance or opening bank accounts, both of which the current federal ban can make difficult or impossible.

The Hemp Farming Act of 2018 will be co-sponsored by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).

 

And the Duopoly Establishment is still stuck on stupid...

Quote

 

In response to a question about legalizing marijuana from Vox's Ezra Klein, former prosecutor Kennedy responds:

So this one, um, this one's a tough one for me. My views are not do not exactly line up with my own state and it's something I'm struggling with.... [We] decriminalized it when I was in the court system, when I was trying cases, or shortly thereafter, if I remember the years right, in Massachusetts. When we decriminalized it it actually had a pretty big consequence for the way that Massachusetts prosecutors went about trying cases in terms of—because an odor of marijuana was, at last initially, because marijuana was an illegal substance, if you smelled it in a car, you could search a car. When it became decriminalized you couldn't do that. So that was the way that we hadn't—the base case that prosecutors used to search cars for under cover contraband, guns, knives, a whole bunch of other stuff, all of that got thrown out the window. That's not to say that's right or wrong, but that is to say that when that went through a public referendum, which is how that law was passed, I don't think anybody had [given] much though[t] to, you're actually gonna change one of the foundational principles for law enforcement that we use in our court system. [emphasis added by Savage]

 

That would be the "naughty smells" exception to the fourth amendment part of the foundation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sean said:

Well then.....

https://www.acreageholdings.com/news-release-board-of-advisors-appointment

Former Speaker of the House John Boehner and Former Governor of Massachusetts Bill Weld Join Leading Cannabis Company

Appointments Add Unmatched Experience to Acreage Holdings’ Board of Advisors

You don't get to be Speaker when he did without being true to the TeamR party line on drugs and Boehner was no exception.

It's good to see him coming around. I have to admit that a small and stupid part of me wishes his investment would meet a FAIR end. It's obviously an organization dedicated to violating federal law, and that's enough to get your assets seized and be forced to prove your innocence, according to TeamR drug warriors. It would be kind of fun to see it happen to one of them. Right up until I realize that such weapons are turned on my elk, not his.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sean said:

Well then.....

https://www.acreageholdings.com/news-release-board-of-advisors-appointment

Former Speaker of the House John Boehner and Former Governor of Massachusetts Bill Weld Join Leading Cannabis Company

Appointments Add Unmatched Experience to Acreage Holdings’ Board of Advisors

Boehner's statement:

I’m joining the board of #AcreageHoldings because my thinking on cannabis has evolved. I’m convinced de-scheduling the drug is needed so we can do research, help our veterans, and reverse the opioid epidemic ravaging our communities. @AcreageCannabis https://t.co/f5i9KcQD0W

Evolving is a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jerseyguy said:

Boehner's statement:

I’m joining the board of #AcreageHoldings because my thinking on cannabis has evolved. I’m convinced de-scheduling the drug is needed so we can do research, help our veterans, and reverse the opioid epidemic ravaging our communities. @AcreageCannabis https://t.co/f5i9KcQD0W

Evolving is a good thing.

I approve of his statement and just told that small, stupid part of myself to shut up and let him evolve instead of scolding him because he didn't do it much sooner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess Trump has stopped listening to Jeff Sessions on drug prohibition. That's good news, assuming he doesn't quickly change his mind.
 

Quote

 

"Since the campaign, President Trump has consistently supported states' rights to decide for themselves how best to approach marijuana," U.S. Sen. Cory Gardner (D-CO) said in a statement. "Late Wednesday, I received a commitment from the President that the Department of Justice's rescission of the Cole memo will not impact Colorado's legal marijuana industry. Furthermore, President Trump has assured me that he will support a federalism-based legislative solution to fix this states' rights issue once and for all."

In a briefing with reporters on Friday afternoon, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders confirmed the development, calling Gardner's statement "accurate."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More on Trump's "Cole memo" reversal
 

Quote

 

Trump “does respect Colorado’s right to decide for themselves how to best approach this issue,” White House legislative affairs director Marc Short said in an interview Friday. 

Gardner held up about 20 Justice nominees, a significant number considering Senate Republicans and the White House have for months accused Democrats of slowing down consideration of other Trump picks.

“Clearly, we’ve expressed our frustration with the delay with a lot of our nominees and feel that too often, senators hijack a nominee for a policy solution,” Short said. “So we’re reluctant to reward that sort of behavior. But at the same time, we’re anxious to get our team at the Department of Justice.”

A bill has not been finalized, but Gardner has been talking quietly with other senators about a legislative fix that would, in effect, make clear the federal government cannot interfere with states that have voted to legalize marijuana. 

“My colleagues and I are continuing to work diligently on a bipartisan legislative solution that can pass Congress and head to the President’s desk to deliver on his campaign position,” Gardner said.

 

So Gardner basically blackmailed Trump into supporting the Trump campaign position on this issue.

And Trump wouldn't have supported the Trump campaign position absent the pressure from Gardner.

The only legislative solution that will fix this problem is rescheduling cannabis. There can be no legal and regulated market in Schedule 1 drugs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joining Boehner in the Recovering Drug Warrior Camp is Chuck Schumer

Quote

"The time has come to decriminalize marijuana," Schumer says. "It's simply the right thing to do." In the Vice interview, Schumer said it's all about "freedom." After all, he said, "If smoking marijuana doesn't hurt anybody else, why shouldn't we allow people to do it and not make it criminal?"

He finally figured out that what libertarians have been saying to people like him for decades was actually right! Better late than never.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Ed Lada said:
16 hours ago, LenP said:

I don't think it will be easy or simple, just simpler than the ACA, which itself was exceedingly complex and had a difficult rollout. My point being, that even though it will be difficult, it is doable and worth doing. As far as the money, I have said many times before, we don't need to spend more just spend smarter. End the failed war on drugs, and divert that spending towards this. I realize that it will be more complex than that, and the people executing the WoD are not the same people we want doing this, but the overall spend could be shifted form one to the other, albeit with some bumps, disruptions, and issues as it happens. Still, very doable and worth doing. 

You are probably right about ending the failed 'War on Drugs". 


Careful, Ed. If "probably" goes to definitely as it has for Boehner and Schumer, you'll find yourself advocating the decades-old Libertarian position. In other words, you'll be an idiot under your own terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:


Careful, Ed. If "probably" goes to definitely as it has for Boehner and Schumer, you'll find yourself advocating the decades-old Libertarian position. In other words, you'll be an idiot under your own terms.

Tom, that's a leap of twisted logic that because I might advocate for a position held by Libertarians, that makes me a Libertarian.  I am my own idiot, thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ed Lada said:

Tom, that's a leap of twisted logic that because I might advocate for a position held by Libertarians, that makes me a Libertarian.  I am my own idiot, thank you.

It can become habit-forming, so watch out. Next thing you know, you'll start thinking gay marriage is OK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

It can become habit-forming, so watch out. Next thing you know, you'll start thinking gay marriage is OK.

A few more years of Trump, and we just might see the ranks of those who are skeptical of granting authority to the govt swell to record levels. 

In all seriousness, I think that Libertarian policy will become more mainstream due to the devaluation of the historic roles of govt and the devaluation of violence in general. We are trending towards national govt as incubator, with laws and monetary policy being run by code, and with people opting in to the legal and monetary frameworks they approve of. You can see the beginnings of it with Malta, Estonia, and recently Puerto Rico. Libertarianism may be one of those ideas that has been around for a long time, but only now becomes viable due to the tectonic shifts in technology we are seeing.

Just as people are becoming less attached to owning stuff, and trending towards platforms like Uber and AirBnB, I think we will see citizenship, money, and legal systems digitized. When that happens, no nation will be competing on having the most bureaucracy, the most restrictive laws on personal choices, the most capital expended on foreign adventurism, or the most intrusive govt policing. Think about it as liquidity in citizenship, the implications are enormous. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/25/2018 at 2:04 PM, Sean said:

A higher calling -

 

 

I wonder who made them insert "not affiliated with the Catholic Church" in there?

The prophet Peter Tosh said smoking weed was a sacrament to be performed constantly. The young one in the video appears to be one of his disciples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michigan Marihuana Ballot Initiative

Quote

An initiative that qualified for the ballot today would make Michigan the 10th state to legalize marijuana for recreational use and the first state in the Midwest to do so. The Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act, which voters will consider this November, would eliminate penalties for adults 21 or older who possess marijuana, grow it at home, or share it with other adults. It also would establish a state licensing system for commercial cultivation and distribution.

That spelling is rare these days. I've seen it on the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 and nowhere else I can recall. I figured they were just trying to get Americans to pronounce the word "hemp" in a scary, Mexican way and it wouldn't work if you put the "j" in there. Not sure why Michigan is doing it but it is funny to me for some reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff Sessions just can't figure out how to authorize cannabis research

Quote

Scientists who want to study marijuana in the United States currently have to obtain it from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, which relies on a single contractor at the University of Mississippi and has long been faulted for mediocre quality and a meager selection. Just as he did in October 2017, when Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) first pressed him in public about the issue, Sessions claimed to be working toward approving new applicants while offering a flimsy reason why his office has done nothing in more than a year. This time Sessions claimed approving new cannabis manufacturers could violate the U.N. Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs.

We can figure out how to manufacture and distribute a host of dangerous opiods but this plant has us stumped!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's right or wrong is important, just not as important as what happens to the tax money
 

Quote

 

A Reason investigation in December found that Tennessee's Drug-Free School Zone Act—which creates 1,000-foot drug-free zones radiating from schools, parks, libraries, and day cares—had covered large swaths of cities with enhanced sentencing areas. Thirty-eight percent of Memphis, for example, consists of drug-free zones. Those laws were rarely, if ever, used to prosecute sales of drugs to minors or on school grounds.

Instead, first-time offenders receive huge sentences—in one case, 15 years for an $80 bag of mushrooms—even if school isn't in session or if they just happened to be driving through a zone. The threat of an enhanced sentence gave prosecutors immense leverage to squeeze plea deals out of defendants. It also enticed police and confidential informants to set up drug deals inside the zones for the purpose of securing a drug-free zone charge.

There were also wide racial disparities in who received the enhanced sentences. Sixty-nine percent of inmates serving time for a drug-free school zone offenses were black, though blacks make up only 17 percent of the total Tennessee population.

Because of such concerns, a bill to shrink Tennessee's drug-free school zones from 1,000 feet to 500 feet was sailing through state legislature this year with bipartisan support. Both progressive groups and conservative groups, such as the American Legislative Exchange Council, supported the legislation.

But last week, the Tennessee House finance committee voted 9–13 to reject the bill after the Tennessee District Attorneys General Conference announced its opposition.

The Nashville Scene reports that the group's sudden switch came after the bill's Senate co-sponsor stripped provisions that would have used the projected savings from the smaller zones to fund 18 new paralegal positions in D.A. offices.

 

How are we supposed to fight the stupid drug war without more paralegals???

Quote

In testimony before the committee that day, Steve Crump, the elected DA for the 10th Judicial District and the legislative chair for the state DAs conference, said the conference felt the paralegal positions would help prosecutors find new ways to address the opioid epidemic.

There aren't any new ways. There's nothing new about keeping more people locked up for longer terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Has Boothy harmed no one, so far?


Not sure why this landed in the NY Guns thread, as I know of no allegations he harmed anyone using a gun.

He did say he was a cocaine dealer, so I figured this was the relevant thread. I don't know if he ever harmed anyone and I'm under the impression that it's all far in his past. Not quite as far as posting here, which he doesn't do any more. Why are you bringing him up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mickey Rat said:

It could be worse.

US Ally Is Executing People Over Drug Charges.

A policy that has been advocated by our own drug warriors...

On 8/30/2016 at 7:37 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Kill Them All

 

That's what Rodrigo Duterte is doing in the Phillipines. An admirable effort according to US drug warriors.

 

Quote

HRI identified 33 countries that authorize the death penalty for drug offenses, but it classified just seven—China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam, and Indonesia—as "high application states," meaning "the sentencing of people convicted of drug offences to death and/or carrying out executions are routine and mainstreamed part of the criminal justice system." Three of those countries—China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia—account for almost all known executions of drug offenders: 546 out of 549 in 2013.

 

...

 

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, the crime bill that former President Bill Clinton alternately brags about and apologizes for, authorized the death penalty for large-scale drug trafficking, a provision that has never been carried out. It probably never will, since it seems to be unconstitutional under Kennedy v. Louisiana, the 2008 case in which the Supreme Court said the Eighth Amendment requires that the death penalty be reserved for "crimes that take the life of the victim."

 

As far as William J. Bennett is concerned, that's a shame. Back in 1989, when he was running the Office of National Drug Control Policy under Clinton's predecessor, Bennett said "there's no moral problem" with beheading drug dealers—the preferred method in Saudi Arabia. Although beheading might be legally problematic, he said on Larry King Live, it would be "morally proportional to the nature of the offense." And Bennett ought to know, since he has a Ph.D. in philosophy. "I used to teach ethics," he told Larry King. "Trust me." The following year, Los Angeles Police Chief Daryl Gates took Bennett's logic a step further, telling a Senate committee that casual drug users "ought to be taken out and shot" as traitors in the war on drugs.

 

Although Rodrigo Duterte is sometimes compared to Donald Trump, he could be taking his cues from Bennett, Gates, and other American drug warriors who heartily endorsed lethal responses to nonviolent actions. Duterte's portrayal of meth addicts as subhuman and unworthy of life also has parallels in American propaganda. His main distinction is that he follows through on the murderous implications of his mindless anti-drug rhetoric—something voters apparently admire. The New York Times reports that "Mr. Duterte's crackdown has been hugely popular."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

States with Medical Cannabis Have Fewer Opiod Problems
 

Quote

 

The National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine says there's good evidence that cannabis is effective at treating pain for some conditions. So Bradford and three colleagues — including his scientist daughter — decided to see whether people who can get easy access to medical marijuana are less likely to get prescription opioids. The answer, they report in JAMA Internal Medicine, is yes.

"There are substantial reductions in opiate use" in states that have initiated dispensaries for medical marijuana, he says.

The researchers studied data from Medicare, which mostly covers people over the age of 65. (It was a convenient set of data and available to them at no cost.) They found a 14 percent reduction in opioid prescriptions in states that allow easy access to medical marijuana.

 

I had to see how the diehard drug warriors over at Free Republic reacted to this. There's change in the wind. Many reacted about the same way they have for the past couple of decades but there's a growing number of stories about how "my teetotaling preacher tried it for his wife's fibromyalgia and it worked" and stuff like that. The people telling those tales are being called fewer nasty names than in years past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/2/2018 at 5:41 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:


Not sure why this landed in the NY Guns thread, as I know of no allegations he harmed anyone using a gun.

He did say he was a cocaine dealer, so I figured this was the relevant thread. I don't know if he ever harmed anyone and I'm under the impression that it's all far in his past. Not quite as far as posting here, which he doesn't do any more.

WTF? How did this comment land here? Jeez Tom. I missed this, not cool man.

Quote

Why are you bringing him up?

Well, because of what happened on the day of the Palmer decision. You were crowing, Tom, and it got @RBooth_all excited. 

Quote

BOMBSHELL Tom Ray announces the Palmer decision by Judge Scullin

Tom Ray Posted 27 July 2014 - 03:19 AM

Victory In Palmer vs DC

Quote

In light of Heller, McDonald, and their progeny, there is no longer any basis on which this Court can conclude that the District of Columbia’s total ban on the public carrying of ready-to-use handguns outside the home is constitutional under any level of scrutiny. Therefore, the Court finds that the District of Columbia’s complete ban on the carrying of handguns in public is unconstitutional. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and enjoins Defendants from enforcing the home limitations of D.C. Code § 7-2502.02(a)(4) and enforcing D.C. Code § 22-4504(a) unless and until such time as the District of Columbia adopts a licensing mechanism consistent with constitutional standards enabling people to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms.4 Furthermore, this injunction prohibits the District from completely banning the carrying of handguns in public for self-defense by otherwise qualified non-residents based solely on the fact that they are not residents of the District.

(Tom Ray opines) And the last surviving bastion of a second amendment right that exists in the home only bites the dust. About time.

No, you can not completely prohibit citizens from bearing arms outside the home. That right can be regulated, but not extinguished.

On that day, after a two-year delay, that substitute judge had been pressured into a decision by the CATO-financed lead counsel, Alan Gura.  The surprising decision opened D.C. to any gun permit holder in the USA, immediately.

PERSONAL DRUG WAR   Seriously, Boothy wanted thirty gangbangers shot that day. CAN CITE. He had been making similar noises on our boards (about LA gangs wiping each other into extinction) with nary a correction.

The Palmer decision was vacated, but the same CATO effort had doubled down with a case called Wrenn, which succeeded in imposing must issue on D.C. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, jocal505 said:

The Palmer decision was vacated, but the same CATO effort had doubled down with a case called Wrenn, which succeeded in imposing must issue on D.C.

Cite for "Palmer" being vacated.

Cite for "Wrenn" happening because of the Palmer "loss"

Shouldn't be to hard for you Joe. At least it will be easier then finding your "Tom trashes MLK" (lie? distortion?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/8/2018 at 9:38 AM, jocal505 said:

 Seriously, Boothy wanted thirty gangbangers shot that day. CAN CITE.

Well? Stop being coy about it. After all:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, bpm57 said:

Well? Stop being coy about it. After all:

 

 

Boothy had an openly vigilante mindset which was pretty much accepted on Political Anarchy. He posted about five or more different friends who had died of gun mayhem. Boothy was a loud and crude FFL, and had a collection. He changed his name to RBooze, moved to AZ in a drought, and bought land he had never seen, where game was plenty.

Boothy hated criminal fuk-stiks, and wanted to shoot them. Our Boothy had had an adventuresome background dealing nose candy in LA. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Boothy had an openly vigilante mindset which was pretty much accepted on Political Anarchy. He posted about five or more different friends who had died of gun mayhem. Boothy was a loud and crude FFL, and had a collection. He changed his name to RBooze, moved to AZ in a drought, and bought land he had never seen, where game was plenty.

Boothy hated criminal fuk-stiks, and wanted to shoot them. Our Boothy had had an adventuresome background dealing nose candy in LA. 

Losing focus already, Joe? You said:

On 5/8/2018 at 9:38 AM, jocal505 said:

CAN CITE.

So do so.

I mean it hasn't been that long since you said:

I'm still waiting for that DA report that vacated a judges ruling. You claimed it, Joe, provide some evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/8/2018 at 3:54 PM, Sean said:

Sessions’ brilliant idea to end the opioid crisis - http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/In-Tampa-visit-Attorney-General-Jeff-Sessions-recommends-aspirin-over-opioids-for-pain-relief_165258353

In Tampa visit, Attorney General Jeff Sessions recommends aspirin over opioids for pain relief

At least the FDA head is a bit better
 

Quote

 

"The feedback we received affirmed for us that as we address this crisis, we wouldn't lose sight of the needs of Americans living with chronic pain or coping with pain at the end of life," Gottlieb writes on the FDA's blog. "We've heard the concerns expressed by these individuals about having continued access to necessary pain medication, the fear of being stigmatized as an addict, challenges in finding health care professionals willing to work with or even prescribe opioids, and sadly, for some patients, increased thoughts of or actual suicide because crushing pain was resulting in a loss of quality of life."

Gottlieb said the FDA is "focused on striking the right balance between reducing the rate of new addiction while providing appropriate access to those who need these medicines." He conceded that "opioids are the only drugs that work for some patients," including "patients with metastatic cancer or severe adhesive arachnoiditis."

 

And from my list of things I know but DEFINITELY should not:

When those opiods quit working, cannabis oil will work on that metastatic cancer pain problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

High times!

EXCLUSIVE: De Blasio to tell NYPD to stop arresting New Yorkers for smoking pot in public

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/mayor-de-blasio-prepare-new-york-marijuana-legalization-article-1.4000084

Excerpt -

Mayor de Blasio will tell the NYPD to stop arresting people for public pot smoking — and launch a new group to officially prepare the city for the outright legalization of marijuana in New York

De Blasio, who has long opposed making recreational pot legal, now says he thinks legalization is inevitable and is creating an official task force to get ready for the day when that happens and implement the new law.

While pot remains illegal, Hizzoner will direct the NYPD to give summonses to people they catch smoking in public instead of arresting them, his aides said Sunday.

That policy change will be part of a 30-day review the mayor announced last week to address the massive racial disparity in marijuana arrests.

 
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sean said:

De Blasio, who has long opposed making recreational pot legal, now says he thinks legalization is inevitable and is creating an official task force to get ready for the day when that happens and implement the new law.

It's nice to see long time drug warriors from both halves of the Duopoly finally coming around to the libertarian position on this issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Right To Try" Passes Congress
 

Quote

 

By a vote of 250-169, the House passed federal "Right to Try" legislation, pushed by the Arizona-based libertarian Goldwater Foundation. This bill allows patients with what the government classifies as a "life-threatening" illness or condition to get access to drugs that have completed the first stage of clinical trial but are not yet fully approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

Most states have such laws on the books, but the federal government itself has lagged behind them in giving citizens permission to try experimental medication sooner if they're dying.

 

Because if you're dying and desperate and want to find someone who thinks you, not the government, should have more control over your options, you're going to have to go to libertarians to push the Duopoly into allowing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judge Rules FL Medical Cannabis Law Unconstitutional

With another hat tip to one of my least favorite people, John Morgan. Thanks again for all the $peech, John.

Quote

 

About 71 percent of Florida voters had approved Amendment 2 in 2016, authorizing the use of marijuana as a medical treatment for people with debilitating conditions. But in a bill implementing the amendment the following year, lawmakers limited the scope of its use to only oils, sprays, tinctures, vaping and edibles.

Lawmakers excluded smoking as a method for medical treatment, arguing that smoking would be a "backdoor attempt" at allowing recreational use.

Gievers heard arguments in a one-day trial last week for the case, which was brought against the state last July by John Morgan, an Orlando attorney who also financed the campaign behind the successful constitutional amendment.

His suit, filed on behalf of two patients and two advocacy organizations, asked the court to invalidate the implementing law passed by the Florida Legislature and signed by Gov. Rick Scott.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/25/2018 at 8:42 PM, SloopJonB said:
On 5/25/2018 at 8:11 PM, mad said:

How did we go from UK knife law to Tom’s.22 discussion?

Every thread ends up discussing his fucking .22


Not this one.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites