Hypercapnic Tom

Drug Prohibition: Still Stupid

Recommended Posts

A prominent member of the board was also deeply concerned about the effects of second hand smoke on the populace. He forgot to mention the numbers of those killed by it, like those by tobacco.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Treating addicts is "accomodating" them
 

Quote

 

When I see a liberal newspaper columnist like the Chicago Tribune's Dahleen Glanton parroting the arguments of Maine Gov. Paul LePage—who made national headlines in 2016 by vetoing over-the-counter access to naloxone, on the grounds that making the overdose reversal drug widely available would simply enable opioid users to get high again—I wonder how we can move the conversation about drug addiction out of the late 1980s and into what should be a more compassionate present.

One way to do that might be to put opioid addiction in the context of some other conditions that lie at the intersection of psychology and physiology. Consider Type 2 Diabetes. There's evidence that people are genetically predisposed to developing insulin resistance, but we also know it's possible to reverse symptoms with behavioral modifications. Should we stop "accommodating" type 2 diabetics by providing them with access to insulin and metformin? Probably not: Behavior modification "works" in less than two percent of the type-2 diabetic population (and not at all for type-1 diabetics, who require insulin medication to stay alive regardless of what they eat or how much they exercise).

What about hypertension? It's also reversible with dietary changes and exercise! But just as with diabetes patients (and metabolic diseases in general), long-term compliance with lifestyle changes is poor. Increasing cardiovascular exercise can lower cholesterol. Are we excessively accomodating people by giving them statins?

If you have any of those diseases and are offended by the suggestion that your sickness is your fault, or by the idea that providing you with medications allows you to continue living in such a way that makes medication necessary, imagine how you'd feel if I or someone else—your governor, say, or a prominent columnist at your city's most widely read newspaper—suggested that your medicines are a crutch and making them available to you sets a bad example for people who don't already have your condition.

 

But prohibition and punishment are the American way! Also: .22!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hemp and Hops: A Good Mix
 

Quote

 

In a lot of ways, hemp and hops seem like they're just meant to go together. After all, they share common ancestors, common flavor profiles, and common recreational uses, says Tom Hembree, the co-founder of the Dad and Dudes Breweria in Aurora, Colorado.

At the end of 2012, the state voted to legalize recreational marijuana. Since shortly after, Dad And Dudes has been out front in the effort to develop and market a beer made with cannabis. The next batch of brew infused with cannabidiol (CBD) oil, a non-psychoactive compound extracted from cannabis, is almost ready to be put in cans. For Hembree, hemp and other cannabis byproducts like CBD are "just another hop essence."

If only it were that simple.

...

But brewers are generally not interested in making beers that will also get you high. That's partially because mixing alcohol and THC is difficult to do in a predictable way, and partially because there's currently not much of a market for crossfading. But it's mostly because there would be no way to get those products to consumers. There aren't any dispensaries with liquor licenses, nor are liquor stores and bars authorized to sell pot—and it's not clear if there ever will be.

So when brewers reach for cannabis, they are looking for something else: terpenes.


 

An interesting biology lesson follows.

Bottom line: they would be a good mix if not for stupid prohibition laws.

Share this post


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

.. our drug war is very stupid but drug regulations are not. We had "snake oil" salesmen who were really selling morphine and we had a growing problem right up until they had to say what was in it, then the problem largely went away. It was our only successful regulatory reduction in addiction, though drug warriors are hoping for another any time soon.

 

12 hours ago, jzk said:

I would like to hear your plan for drug regulations without enforcement.  Maybe in the drug thread?

The regulation that worked to reduce addiction (the Pure Food and Drug Act) did require enforcement. I can't think of one that would not. Sorry, I have no such plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/2/2018 at 12:41 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:
3 hours ago, RKoch said:

Opioids are unfortunately easy to purchase in the US...they're a big problem. 

They are less of a problem in Portugal than they are here.

Just sayin'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Mike in Seattle said:

and now, , news bit hit piece funded by drug agencies and the feds says Oregon RAMPANT overproduction is feeding black market ,,

https://www.oregonlive.com/marijuana/index.ssf/2018/08/new_report_finds_rampant_pot_o.html#incart_river_index

Fixerated.
 

Quote

 

A comprehensive marijuana analysis has been a touchy political subject in Oregon. A draft report by Oregon State Police obtained last year by The Oregonian/OregonLive came under sharp criticism from the agency's brass and Gov. Kate Brown. The governor's staff characterized the draft as flawed, inaccurate and incomplete.

State officials dropped efforts to revise or finalize the document; it was revived by the anti-trafficking organization, a federally funded outfit that helps manage law enforcement resources in high-intensity drug trafficking areas throughout the state. The report issued this week was written by the same analyst behind last year's state police report.


 

Uh huh. I translate that as, "Cops whose budget depends on prohibition don't like cutting it and distort the effects. Get stuffed by the Governor. Get revived by the feds."

Quote

It concluded that the glut of cannabis in Oregon isn't only fueling the illegal trade, but also driving down prices. Since 2016, the market has seen a 50 percent price drop -- a trend that has hit Jackson, Josephine and Lane counties particularly hard.

The black market established a price. As predicted, the legal market is more efficient and less risky, so the price has fallen. So it no longer compensates for the risk of the black market, as it did in the past. That's what is supposed to happen. If legal producers had a business plan that depended on that old, black market price, they're going to go out of business just like the black market.

Quote

Between July 2017 and March 2018, law enforcement seized nearly $1.7 million in proceeds coming into Portland International Airport from the illegal cannabis trade after alleging, but not proving, it was from the illegal cannabis trade.

Fixerated again. And that link leads to the motivation behind the police report that the feds want re-spun. The police don't want drug enforcement budgets cut and they don't want to stop looting property from people who have not been charged with a crime and then keeping that property for their agency.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Connecting "dots" from those stories gave Rat smell for me too.

" Since 2016, the market has seen a 20% price drop"   for the farmers

Advertised retail prices haven't, 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Mike in Seattle said:

Connecting "dots" from those stories gave Rat smell for me too.

" Since 2016, the market has seen a 20% price drop"   for the farmers

Advertised retail prices haven't, 

 

The Oregon market is still wildly distorted by prohibition elsewhere and by their own regulations and taxes. If it ever gets to be like every other kind of farming, it will be like every other kind of farming: dirty, difficult, risky, and with financial returns that don't justify that risk. I think that's particularly true of cannabis because it's so easy to grow. People will grow it just because they love to do it and if they sell some, great. If not, also great. Like I do with lychees.

If you're a commercial farm growing lychees, how do you compete with a guy like me who gives zero fucks about whether it ever makes any money?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should have mentioned in the squeezed/retail ,  the State gets their cut off the top

retail, distribution & the farmer get the leftovers.

 

:)  I could pay you only slightly more than zero fucks and smuggle them into a state where lychees are illegal.

Share this post


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

Cracking down on prescription opioids and heroin has led to increasing fentanyl deaths.

So Congress wants to crack down on prescription opioids and heroin some more. Because that's working so well. Just ignore the declining problem in Portugal.

Remember the saying 'We had to destroy that village to save it'? Guess what - you're now living in that village.....

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Overdose Numbers Spike Past 85 In New Haven As Three Men Are Arraigned On Charges Related To The ODs; Police Say Suspect Handed Out K2

ban high capacity.... Can we get a gun grabbers in here to tell us what to ban?

Share this post


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

Our State AG is by and large a worthless pos, but every once in a while she gets something right. Early on in office she undertook to shut down the 'pill mills',  which were bogus 'pain centers', often in strip mall store fronts,  that existed merely to give anyone who walked in the door a script for Oxys, etc.  There would be long lines out front before the office opened in the AM, usually there was little or no medical examination. It was just drug-dealing with the thinnest veneer of legality. The AG was mostly successful in shutting them down, and I have to give her credit for that even though I don't much like her.

Looking at post 533, I'd say give credit for sending them to die on fentanyl instead of sending them for treatment. Well, I'd use the word "blame" instead of "credit" because I think prohibition is a stupid, dangerous failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Candidate $peak$ for medical cannabis industry, Wells Fargo terminates bank account
 

Quote

 

...

Nikki Fried, a former medical marijuana lobbyist, is running for commissioner of agriculture and consumer services. The Democrat has made marijuana a top priority in her campaign, promising on her website to be a "fierce advocate for patient access to medical marijuana." Because of her devotion to cannabis, Fried received several donations from people in the medical marijuana industry.

About a month after filing to run and opening a campaign account with Wells Fargo in June, Fried received an email from the company informing her that her account was being closed. "As part of the onboarding of the client," the message noted, "it was uncovered some information regarding the customers [sic] political platform and that they are advocating for expanding patient access to medical marijuana." In a follow-up letter, Wells Fargo cited "banking risks" to formally terminate its relationship with Fried.

 

Having customers' accounts seized for violating federal law is indeed a banking risk and her donors are engaged in an ongoing conspiracy to violate federal law. One I support, but I can't blame Wells Fargo for looking at the law, the risks involved, and telling her to take a hike.

It might cause me to vote for her.

I've never heard of her but liked some of what I saw on her issues page.

It's not particularly impressive to me when a lawyer writes a sentence like this one:

Quote

Me and my staff will implement proper protections to shield consumers from scams and pursue fraud to the fullest extent of the law.

Me will implement protections?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What To Do About Potheads?
 

Quote

 

...

Whether drug users want the government to intervene in their lives, and if so, how, are questions policy makers rarely ask. When we're surveyed at all, we're asked about our behaviors, not our preferences. This is also true of indigent people and people diagnosed with mental illnesses. If you reside in the place where all three of those circles overlap, it is very likely that no health professional or lawmaker has ever asked what you want, only what you did, or are doing, and what you would be willing to sacrifice in order to keep or regain your freedom.

That's better than being treated as a villain, but not by much.

Lowrey thinks more policy makers should hear from people like me. So what do I think they should do, regarding cannabis, for people like me? To me? About me? Please, for the love of God, do nothing.

Perhaps my answer would be different if marijuana were the only thing that I tended to use in excess. But it's not, nor is it for the other people I know who have a problem with pot. To a one, all of us struggle with either anxiety or depression and with other addictions. I used to binge eat and to drink way too much. Other pot smokers I know have struggled with both of those problems. States and the federal government should not make policy around my pot use, any more than they should make policy around my ice cream consumption. It should not be overly difficult for tens of millions of adults to buy marijuana legally because hundreds of thousands of us can't handle our shit.

...

We may be worse off if we choose cannabis, but I doubt we will be worse off than the millions of people who have been variously arrested, charged, and incarcerated in the name of keeping the rest of us safe from ourselves.

 

If a question begins with the words "what to do about..." it really doesn't matter what follows. No matter what it is, the last answer statists want to hear is, "Nothing."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prohibition Synergy

Quote

A pregnant woman who shot and killed an intruder who attacked her in her Arkansas home is facing felony gun possession charges -- even though authorities ruled that the shooting was justified -- due to a prior marijuana conviction.

...

When Stancoff came back and knocked on the door a short time later, Noble opened the door, and he shoved her back inside, according to the report.

Once inside, the man tackled her and began trying to cover her mouth with his hand, which she thought smelled of chemicals, the report states. He then started hitting her in the face with his fist.

After she was able to break free, Noble grabbed a pistol off the coffee table and shot the man three times before running to her neighbor's apartment and telling her to call 911, according to the report....

Drug warriors would say she should have just laid back and thought of England.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The floggings will continue until morale improves
 

Quote

 

"Supervised consumption sites" are spaces where people can obtain sterile syringes and inject drugs in the presence of medical personnel who can save them if they overdose. They can also get referrals for treatment.

Several cities, including Philadelphia, New York, and San Francisco, have moved toward opening such facilities. But the Justice Department is threatening to marshal its powers against them.

...

If you don't know what you're putting into your arm, the chance of an overdose is especially high. These facilities can test drugs for fentanyl, a synthetic opioid that is far more powerful than heroin. Having a nurse on hand to monitor your condition can be the difference between dying from the bad drugs and surviving.

To Rosenstein, this option amounts to "facilitating illicit drug use" and signaling that "the government thinks illegal drugs can be used safely." His alternative is to keep illegal drug use as dangerous as possible, in the earnest hope of deterring people from getting high.

But punitive policies have been tried, with disastrous consequences. The number of drug offenders behind bars is 12 times higher today than in 1980, but illegal drug use has risen steadily over the past two decades. The number of fatalities from drug overdoses has doubled since 2008 and quadrupled since 2000.

 

We've got a fentanyl problem because of the crackdown on "pill mills."

 

Share this post


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

The floggings will continue until morale improves
 

We've got a fentanyl problem because of the crackdown on "pill mills."

 

<sarcasm>

The problem with illegal drugs is that they're not lethal enough. If you could get the lethality up to something like a 95% likelihood of dying, the drug addict problem would self-cure in quick time.

Now a win-win would be a lower level of lethality that didn't damage any important organs in the process. Then supervised injecting rooms would be a truly excellent thing. Get high, OD & die, it's straight off to the organ banks for you.....

</sarcasm>

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

The problem with illegal drugs is that they're not lethal enough.

That's not the intent but that's the result of prohibition. Fentanyl is the current example. If you're a smuggler, concentrated is good. More $ per trunkload.

And in the legal arena, we have low alcohol beer, decaf coffee, low tar cigarettes, etc. Because in a legal market, consumer demand for safer products can trump what's easiest to smuggle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/17/2018 at 1:36 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:

I think prohibition is a stupid, dangerous failure.

This is quite a sweeping generalization. RPG's are prohibited, which sets up a healthy situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

This is quite a sweeping generalization. RPG's are prohibited, which sets up a healthy situation.

Yet in Europe  they treat the people not the drug, and it works much better. Do you want me to list all the sites? or do you know how to use google? Maybe you can expand your own mind by looking it up for your self.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Update to Oklahoma’s new medical marijuana law. The Counsel for the Medical Board is under investigation for sending herself threatening  emails. The Board itself is accused of meeting in secret before the public meeting to decide on the matter, a clear violation of the law. The Attorney General has said the Boards revisions to the initiative were not legal and clearly contrary to the will of the people, they will not be implemented.

Oklahoma City is experiencing a commercial realestate boom as all the old industrial space is being snapped up for commercial grow operations.

The Southern Baptists are beside themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, chum said:

The Counsel for the Medical Board is under investigation for sending herself threatening  emails.

That's good comedy!

https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/crimewatch/read-the-threatening-emails-investigators-allege-health-department-attorney-sent/article_6e4ecb66-1fad-5075-9713-f46a16480da5.html

Especially this one:

Quote

Email: "you appear distinguished in glasses. Wear them for the camera."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, she just sortof imploded over the whole issue. I feel bad for her actually, obviously some deeper issues going on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sessions Ignores 15th Letter From Congress

Asking him to explain why no cannabis research can be approved when other (more dangerous) drugs are approved for research routinely.
 

Quote

 

In short, Sessions has refused not only to allow the DEA to process these applications, but also to explain to Congress, applicants, or the public why he's interfering in regulatory actions that are routine for companies seeking to manufacture schedule I and II substances other than cannabis.

At an April Senate hearing, Sessions said approving new research cannabis manufacturers could violate the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotics. This is almost certainly not true, and several other signatory countries—the United Kingdom and Israel among them—have managed to reconcile their cannabis research policies with the U.N. agreement without stifling innovation or research. To date, this remains the only argument Sessions has publicly offered for interfering in the application review process.

 

Drug warriors have been reduced to "The UN won't let us" in their reefer madness. On any other issue, these same people would finish the sentence properly. "The UN won't let us, so fuck the UN."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great piece in the NY Times on how the DEA is making the opioid problem worse

 

Quote

 

The problem begins with poor design. A brainchild of Richard Nixon’s “war on drugs,” the agency sought to cut off supplies of drugs on the black market, here and abroad. But in passing the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, Congress also gave the agency broad authority over how prescription opioids and other controlled substances were classified, produced and distributed. The agency was supposed to curb problematic drug use, but failed to do so because its tactics were never informed by public health or addiction science.

...

The agency’s enforcement strategies, and the support it has lent to local and state police departments, have also fueled abusive police tactics including dangerous no-knock-raids and ethnic profiling of drivers. It has eroded civil liberties through the expansion of warrantless surveillance, and overseen arbitrary seizures of billions of dollars of private property without any clear connection to drug-related crimes. These actions have disproportionately targeted people of color, contributing to disparities in mass incarceration, confiscated property, and collective trauma.

...

As the engine of overdose deaths shifted from prescription drugs to heroin, the D.E.A. turned to its supply-reduction playbook. This resulted in a major uptick in heroin seizures and high-profile prosecutions, which encouraged traffickers to create more compact, potent drugs. In a single year, from 2014 to 2015, deaths involving the synthetic opioid fentanyl and its analogues almost doubled, setting the stage for its current role as the principal driver of overdose fatalities.

 

Prohibition continues to do only one thing well: divide people. As Eva Dent in this thread:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FBI Confirms: Drug War Still Stupid
 

Quote

 

Most of the media attention will be on whether violent crime is up or down (it's down). But there's another important story in those numbers: The number one reason that people get arrested is drugs. In 2,017 there were 1.6 million arrests for "drug abuse violations." That's more than were arrested for violent crimes (518,000) or property crimes (1.25 million).

Drill down even further into the FBI stats and we see how absurdly lopsided drug-war enforcement is in the United States. Of those drug arrests, only 15 percent included charges of manufacturing and sales. Fully 85 percent of drug arrests were about simply having and/or using them.

And even as the march to decriminalize and legalize marijuana marches forward, in 2017 it was still the number one drug for getting arrested. Nationwide, 36.7 percent of drug arrests were for marijuana possession. That works out to 587,000 people arrested in a single year, just for pot.

 

Duopoly drug warriors always say they're battling hard drug dealers but the arrest numbers tell the real story when about 1/3 of them are for cannabis possession.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FDA vs DEA on CBD
 

Quote

 

A letter from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) reveals that medical reviewers at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) believe the federal government should lift its ban on cannabidiol, a cannabis-derived compound commonly marketed as CBD.

...

In a fight between scientists and drug cops, however, the drug cops win. The Controlled Substances Act, passed in 1970, empowers the attorney general to disregard recommendations from HHS. If Attorney General Jeff Sessions' ongoing obstruction of cannabis research is any indication, it is likely that the DEA will, for the foreseeable future, resist a broad rescheduling of CBD.

 

From General Anarchy:

On 9/22/2018 at 12:27 PM, hobot said:

CBD Oil!

I've been using it for a month now (degenitive arthritis, both hips are done), it's helped with pain reduction and I sleep through the night pretty much.

IMG_20180904_125959946.jpg


You and many like you are unknown. That's why there's no known medical use for the stuff you're using medically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reefer Madness Kills California Cannabeers

Quote

 

...

The bill strikes a blow against the innovative pot cocktails that had been springing up in California, where marijuana has been legal for recreational uses since January 1. In April, L.A. Weekly profiled several Los Angeles–area bars where mixologists were experimenting with using cannabidiol (CBD) oil in drinks. Though CBD does not contain tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the psychoactive component present in marijuana, it has a calming effect and adds a new twist to traditional cocktails.

 

Those concoctions were ruled illegal by the state's Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control in July. The agency issued new rules banning the sale of alcoholic beverages made with cannabis or cannabis-derived oils, and the bill signed by Brown codifies those existing rules.

The bill was backed by a predictable mix of law enforcement and public health groups, but it faced no significant opposition. The County Health Executives Association of California, which submitted comments to the state Senate about the bill, warned that "combining the relatively unknown effects of cannabis with the known sedative effects of alcohol may have devastatingly unpredictable and harmful impacts on Californians."

...


 

OMG! We just don't know WHAT might happen if people mix their alcohol with a bit of THC-free CBD oil! But people seem to want to do it, so better ban it, just in case. Because it has something to do with the dreaded killer, marijuana, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Violence is not made of drugs. Violence does not form up the desire for drugs,  and violence is not made of drugs.

The Department of Redundancy Department approves this statement.

But prohibition programs spawn violent black markets. Always have, always will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ted Cruz proves that prohibition causes stupidity as well as violence
 

Quote

 

Cruz's criticism of O'Rourke's views on drug policy have been only slightly more nuanced. To his credit, Cruz still takes a federalist approach to marijuana, saying states should be free to legalize it without interference from Washington. That stance is consistent with Cruz's avowed respect for the Constitution and with public opinion. Last year a Quinnipiac University poll found that 75 percent of Americans, including 59 percent of Republicans, opposed "enforcing federal laws against marijuana" in the 29 states that "have already legalized medical or recreational marijuana." Another Quinnipiac survey conducted last April found that 61 percent of Texas voters think recreational use of marijuana should be legal. Even the Texas Republican Party has endorsed eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana possession.

Rather than swimming against the marijuana tide, Cruz portrays O'Rourke as a crazy extremist who wants to legalize all drugs. "Reasonable minds, perhaps, can differ on whether marijuana should be illegal," Cruz told reporters in May, "but what Congressman O'Rourke introduced was a resolution for the City Council to take up legalizing all narcotics, legalizing everything, legalizing heroin, legalizing deadly opioids....This country is facing a crisis—an opioid crisis...and in light of that growing tragedy, Congressman O'Rourke's radical proposal to legalize all narcotics is a suggestion that might be very popular up at Berkeley. It might be popular in far-left circles, but it doesn't reflect the values of Texans. Texans don't want to see heroin and deadly opioids legalized and our kids able to just walk in to the corner store and buy them."

Cruz was referring to O'Rourke's support, as an El Paso city councilman, for an "honest, open national debate on ending the prohibition on narcotics." O'Rourke added that recommendation to a 2009 resolution about drug war violence, and here is how he explained it at the time: "I'm not saying that we need to do that—to end the prohibition. I think we need to have a serious discussion about doing that, and that may, in the end, be the right course of action." In his 2011 book Dealing Death and Drugs: The Big Business of Dope in the U.S. and Mexico, O'Rourke claimed he mainly had in mind marijuana, which he erroneously referred to as a "narcotic" (consistent with longtime government practice). Although I wish O'Rourke were mounting a broader critique of the war on drugs, it clearly is not accurate to say he wants to "legalize all narcotics," and Cruz's bit about kids buying heroin at the corner store makes him sound like a mindless drug warrior circa 1985.

 

Note to Ted: your kids can buy opioids today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Massive loss for drug warriors

Is calling him "massive" a form of fat shaming? Oh well.
 

Quote

 

Chris Christie, the former governor of New Jersey and a longtime, outspoken opponent of marijuana legalization, appears to have endorsed the idea that states should be free to set their own policies for weed. In a video posted Monday at Marijuana Moment, a pro-legalization site that covers pot policy developments, Christie can be heard saying that "states have the right to do what they want to do on this," in response to a question about marijuana.

That's a lukewarm endorsement but a major shift for the former federal prosecutor, who promised during the 2016 Republican presidential primaries that he would, if elected, swiftly crack-down on states that had legalized weed in contradiction to federal law.

 

He reminds me a great deal of Trump. Here's the list of principles by which both men operate:

1. What looks best for me at the moment?

It's not a long list. It also makes analysis of his behavior rather straightforward. He no longer thinks it is in his interest to be a hard core drug warrior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That article concludes by noting that Christie can probably read polls.

Quote

 

Two-thirds of Americans now support legalizing marijuana, the highest percentage ever in Gallup's ongoing decades-long series of national polls on the topic.

When Gallup first polled Americans on legal marijuana in 1969, just 12 percent said they were in favor. As recently as 2005, barely a third of Americans were on board.

Support for legalization has spiked considerably in several key demographics over the past year. For example, there has been a nine-point increase among older Americans, with 59 percent of those aged 55 and over now saying it is time to end marijuana's criminalization.

And Republican support is rising as well, with 53 percent backing legal marijuana this year as compared to 51 percent in 2017, the first year the poll found a majority of GOP voters in favor.

 

My experience with friends and family is that those older people are having medical problems and are finding relief using cannabis products. A whole bunch of them who most emphatically would NOT have been among the 12% back in 1969 are rubbing cannabis-derived cream on their hands for arthritis, for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 Things Canada Got Right
 

Quote

 

Another important advantage of the Canadian approach is modest marijuana taxes, which help displace the black market. The national government is imposing an excise tax of 10 percent or one dollar per gram, whichever is greater, and giving the provinces 75 percent of the revenue.

That's in addition to standard sales taxes, which range from 5 percent to 15 percent. Still, the effective tax rates are substantially lower than in jurisdictions such as California and Washington, where steep taxes have made it hard for licensed merchants to compete with illegal dealers. An industry analyst recently told The New York Times that heavy taxes and burdensome regulation in California make legal marijuana something like 77 percent more expensive than marijuana sold by unlicensed dealers.

High purchase ages, like high taxes, help sustain the black market. In the U.S., all nine states that have legalized recreational use have set the minimum age for purchase or possession at 21, corresponding to the drinking age. The upshot is that most college-age adults, two-fifths of whom use marijuana, cannot do so legally.

Canada also used the rule for alcohol as a benchmark, but it has a lower drinking age. The national minimum for both alcohol and marijuana is 18, and most provinces have added a year to that cutoff.

 

There's no way that a black market price should be able to beat a legal market price.

The only way that can happen is if the people making the rules for legal businesses see only two possible ways that bureaucrats might interact with a business: tax more and regulate more.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

5 Things Canada Got Right
 

There's no way that a black market price should be able to beat a legal market price.

The only way that can happen is if the people making the rules for legal businesses see only two possible ways that bureaucrats might interact with a business: tax more and regulate more.

 

Happens here in Australia with tobacco. Push the legal price high enough and you create an opening for the black marketers.

This is strictly an observation - I don't smoke, haven't done for over 40 years and nobody I socialise with smokes either. I approve of suppressing smoking, just - push the price too high and a black market always appears.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blessed Bipartisan Unity!
 

Quote

 

Two candidates fighting for a seat in the Pennsylvania legislature are rushing to oppose a lifesaving solution to the opioid crisis. Needless to say, that's not how they're describing their policy platforms.

In the race to represent the 177th District, which includes Philadelphia, both Democrat Joe Hohenstein and Republican Patty-Pat Kozlowski want voters to know that they're strongly opposed to supervised injection facilities (SIFs), also called safe injection sites.

 

Of course, they're united in stupidity when it comes to this issue.

Quote

Earlier this year, Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kennedy announced plans to implement supervised injection facilities (SIFs), also called safe injection sites, around the city. An estimated 1,200 Philly residents died from overdose deaths in 2017—four times the city's number of homicides.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shrooms Are Good
 

Quote

 

The only reference to psilocybin on the Food and Drug Administration's website appears in the agency's Bad Bug Book: Handbook of Foodborne Pathogenic Microorganisms and Natural Toxins, where the psychedelic compound is described as a "neurotoxin" found in mushrooms. But according to the FDA, psilocybin is also a "breakthrough therapy" for major depression.

That designation, which the company seeking approval of psilocybin as a medicine announced this week, means "preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies." Based on that evidence, the FDA agrees to "expedite the development and review of such drug."

The FDA's dueling portrayals of psilocybin as a scary fungal neurotoxin and a promising treatment for depression are part of a broader story about forbidden drugs, including MDMA, marijuana, and LSD, whose benefits scientists are once again studying with government approval after decades of neglect. The rehabilitation of these substances, which may ultimately make them available as prescription drugs, is a far cry from the pharmacological freedom that libertarians favor. But it represents a welcome return to empiricism in an area of public policy long driven by irrational prejudice.

 

Well, they're at least promising, for a neurotoxin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 How about a little race-baiting this morning? We have Tom Ray for that.  :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

I'm so fucking stupid I can't develop an opinion on this topic so I just attack the messenger.

Yes, it's obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

Yes, it's obvious.

If you race-bait the same guy for 3.5 years, across forty threads, you are attacking that messenger. Hmm, race-baiting is a poor offensive weapon, IMO. (Ask Kelly Ann.)

 

Hi there, Tom, old sport. You have race-baited me for 3.5 years (can cite.) You really went at it this week, with daily race-baiting. Good job. Your own input shows that not even Dylann  Roof could enlighten your approach.

Quote

Your grand-child figure will find this TR activity on the internet, after googling your name. She will ask her mother what race-baiting is. I wish I could be there to hear the answer.

I am ready to draw the race-baiting out of you forever, as long as the motivation remains a part of you. I once went to the wall for MLK, mate, and this is more of the same.

Share this post


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

I finally figured out that mentioning mass murderers over and over incites more mass murderers, who are very politically convenient.

Yes, that's also obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You had a nice, well-developed thread going, talking to yourself about drugs. Then the race-baiting began kinda following you around. 

And not stupid, but ignorant is the guy who mentions Japan during suicide discussions. Ignorant is the man who refers to MLK in terms of guns. Ignorant is the man who would claim that federal funding for gun vioence research is not denied. Ignorant is the man who can't speak the truth, as he sees it, about The Standard Model. Ignorant is the man who can't quote Miller well, in the face of those who do. 

And ignorant are the race-baiters. But neither of us is stupid.

You crack me up Tom. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 States Voting On Cannabis Prohibition.

Michigan, N Dakota, Missourah, and Utah.

Utah?
 

Quote

 

In an interview with Roll Call this month, Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) described Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's dismay upon hearing that voters in Utah seem set to approve medical marijuana when they go to the polls on November 6. "I said that even Utah is most likely going to legalize medical marijuana this year," Gardner recalled. "McConnell looks and me, and he goes, 'Utah?' [He had] this terrified look. And as he says that, Orrin Hatch walks up, and Mitch looks at Orrin and says, 'Orrin, is Utah really going to legalize marijuana?' And Orrin Hatch folds his hands, looks down at his feet, and says, 'First tea, then coffee, and now this.'"

Notwithstanding opposition from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, polls indicate that nearly two-thirds of Utah voters think patients should be able to use marijuana if their doctors recommend it.

 

It's hard to tell whether Orrin means to be funny sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ecstasy Helps PTSD Patients

Quote

MAPSA newly published study of MDMA-assisted psychotherapy for people diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder illustrates the striking results that led federal regulators to expedite the process for approving the drug, which has been banned since 1985, as a prescription medicine. One year after the last of three MDMA sessions, three-quarters of the 25 subjects who completed the study, reported today in the Journal of Psychopharmacology, no longer qualified for a PTSD diagnosis.

"Screw all those veterans and their scary memories! Someone might get an illegal smile from this stuff so it must be banned"

(Likely drug warrior quote)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not convinced about Ecstasy use.

Two things come to mind

  1. there is a syndrome called 'loss of magic' where long term users report the effects reduce as use increases.
  2. there is a comedown from E, don't ask me how I know.  For every smile there is an equal and opposite frown.

Perhaps micro-dosing is different but I doubt it.

More interesting and more effective for PTSD are LSD and Mushrooms.  They do not develop dependencies and there is no price to pay for the experience if managed well.

Have a read about research on them recently.

 

Share this post


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

More interesting and more effective for PTSD are LSD and Mushrooms.  They do not develop dependencies and there is no price to pay for the experience if managed well. 

Have a read about research on them recently. 

Sounds like a good idea. Where might I find info about shrooms?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, random said:

So you know all about it then.

A bit more than I should, perhaps. Just being sarcastic because I have mentioned both recently in this thread.

Lots of naughty drugs seem helpful for mental problems.

I never actually tried Ecstasy but had friends in college who did it a LOT. If it helps someone who isn't helped by shrooms or pot or acid or any other naughty thing, I don't see the problem. There are tolerance and side effect issues? Name a drug without those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shrooms and LSD are not addictive, in fact they are the opposite.  After a 'heroic dose' of shrooms some people take months or years to digest what happened.  Some have life long positive benefits from just one treatment.

As far as I know, the side effects of shrooms are an awareness that all things are connected, a loss of the fear of death, and a general feeling of happiness.   Oh, and the loss of desire to take them anytime soon.  Sounds like a dangerous drug indeed.

Edit: For those curious, anyone who dies not having tried Ecstasy is a fuckwit.   I do not recommend the drug for regular use but given that it is not habit forming.   I have experienced pure Ecstasy hanging-ten over the end of a surfboard on a crystal clear still day watching the sandbank pass under me as if I was flying, followed closely by an E with friends.  It has to be experienced. 

I intend to do it when I am incapacitated and dying.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

4 States Voting On Cannabis Prohibition.

Michigan, N Dakota, Missourah, and Utah.

Utah?
 

It's hard to tell whether Orrin means to be funny sometimes.

 

Utahans - particularly in Salt Lake City - are generally pretty pragmatic.  At one point, Salt Lake City had the second highest percentage of gays and lesbians in the US because the Mormons there were very good about providing free health care to AIDS sufferers.  They also have a very high veteran population.  It doesn't surprise me that they'd be inclined to legalize drugs for medicinal use. The weirder Mormans were actually pushed toward the west deserts/Nevada and northern Arizona.

 

Share this post


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

After a 'heroic dose' of shrooms some people take months or years to digest what happened.  Some have life long positive benefits from just one treatment.

As far as I know, the side effects of shrooms are an awareness that all things are connected, a loss of the fear of death, and a general feeling of happiness.   Oh, and the loss of desire to take them anytime soon.

I can confirm only the last one by referencing my list of things I know but should not.

Share this post


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

Flying the pig of steel avatar and you ask? You're fake.

What, you thought I was the real Pig of Steel? 

That's fuckin funni

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/1/2018 at 5:24 PM, Crop42 said:

I stick to a point of view read on cannasos.com that it should be a responsible usage and only by those who really need it.

Buy an ad.

Attempted RICO Abuse Fails
 

Quote

 

Last week a Denver jury rejected RICO claims by a couple who complained that an indoor marijuana cultivation facility had impaired their enjoyment of their property and reduced its value. Michael and Hope Reilly, who own a horse ranch in Pueblo County, said a nearby warehouse (right) where state-licensed cultivator Parker Walton grows marijuana had spoiled their view, generated noise and unpleasant odors, and offended them with its flagrant violation of federal law. During the three-day trial, Walton's lawyer, Matthew Buck, presented evidence that the warehouse was not the source of the smell that bothered the Reillys and noted that the value of their property has been rising in recent years.

...

The jury took just a few hours to decide that the Reillys had failed to show Walton's operation was the proximate cause of any injury to them. University of Denver law professor Sam Kamin thinks the verdict will take some wind out of efforts by opponents of legalization to use RICO lawsuits as a weapon against cannabusinesses.

 

This is the problem with a Swiss Army Knife of a law that was alleged to be needed to go after mobsters.

The targets turn out to mostly not be mobsters.

When TeamR types want to abuse the law, they'll say cannabusinesses are mobsters. TeamD types target churches.

This lawsuit was just harassment by people who lost at the ballot box and decided to file a frivolous claim in court. The original dismissal was correct and it would not have been reinstated but for RICO provisions that "we need to go after mobsters."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good thread. Plenty intelligent, so far.

How well will race baiting work in this thread? It kinda dumbs down the conversation, I find.

dred, Dylann burning flag.JPG

Share this post


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

Tom talking to himself is not a good sign.

The fight against the Duopoly's stupid prohibition program isn't nearly as lonely as it once was, but I admit that the change is a bit difficult to detect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drug Warriors Took A Beating Yesterday
 

Quote

 

These races were not close. Legalization won in Michigan by nearly 12 points, while the medical marijuana measures won by 14 points in Oklahoma, by more than six points in Utah, and by 31 points in Missouri.

...

The only defeat for marijuana reform last night came in North Dakota, where voters just two years ago approved medical use by a whopping 28-point margin. They clearly were not ready to take the next step, although two-fifths of them said yes to a sweeping ballot initiative that aimed to legalize all peaceful marijuana-related activities (except for sales to minors) and create a system of automatic expungement for people convicted of such offenses.

 

And best of all, we got rid of that stupid drug warrior, Sessions. Not the AG, though getting rid of that stupid drug warrior is a cause for celebration.

I mean the OTHER Sessions.
 

Quote

 

At some point, Congress will have to officially recognize what's going on by reconciling federal law, which still prohibits marijuana in any form for any purpose, with state laws that tolerate medical or recreational use. The most straightforward approach I've seen is the Respect State Marijuana Laws Act, a one-sentence bill sponsored by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) that makes the federal marijuana ban inapplicable to anyone acting in compliance with state law. I was on a drug policy panel with Rohrabacher last week at Reason's 50th anniversary celebration, and he seemed confident that President Trump, who has repeatedly said states should be free to set their own marijuana policies, is prepared to sign that bill or something similar.

The chances that such a bill will get through the House have improved since yesterday. "This was the first election in our lifetimes where the federal results were more important than the state results, from the perspective of marijuana policy nationally," Marijuana Policy Project co-founder Rob Kampia writes. "The Democratic takeover of the U.S. House was the most important outcome, because the House speaker, committee chairs, and subcommittee chairs will all be Democrats for the first time since 2010, with a majority of Democrats populating literally all House committees and subcommittees. While members of Congress in both major parties have become increasingly supportive of good marijuana legislation, approximately 90% of Democrats—and only 25% of Republicans—support such legislation generally."

Emblematic of this shift was the defeat of House Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions (R-Texas), an unreconstructed drug warrior whom Kampia calls "the sphincter who has constipated all marijuana bills and amendments in the House in recent years." Sessions was defeated by Democrat Colin Allred, a medical marijuana supporter who has criticized Sessions' anti-pot prejudices.

 

Hee hee. That's a colorful and accurate way to put it and sphincter is just a funny word. Apologies for another partisan rant promoting TeamR.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oklahoma decided to release the names and physical address of all authorized growers this week. The first burglary happened within 24 hours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, chum said:

Oklahoma decided to release the names and physical address of all authorized growers this week. The first burglary happened within 24 hours.

Brilliant.

The quick reaction suggests they probably just stole weed.

But with a handy list like that one, drug warriors who want to steal the whole property now have a target list too. Still a federal crime. Equitable sharing and all that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/30/2018 at 4:11 AM, dogballs Tom said:

Sounds like a good idea. Where might I find info about shrooms?

https://www.businessinsider.com/psychedelics-depression-anxiety-alcoholism-mental-illness-2017-1

FDA recently approved Johns Hopkins large scale human study of psilocybin for depression.  Imperial College of Medicine in London has been doing this for quite some time for depression and addiction.  There have been quite a few controlled medical studies by highly reputable universities with very positive results including quantitative imaging showing huge increases in brain bloodflow and neural activity.  

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/182410/magic-mushrooms-reset-brains-depressed-patients/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, EquusAsinusDomesticus said:

FDA recently approved Johns Hopkins large scale human study of psilocybin for depression. 

Must be an interesting job. "Go find us lots of depressed humans who want to shroooom out!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A doctor who takes medical marijuana sues for the right to own a tool

Uh oh. How divisive of him.

 

Quote

 

The dealer asked the physician if he used marijuana. Roman said he did.

"The doc answered that question truthfully," said Roman's attorney, John Weston. "And the dealer said, 'I can't sell you a gun.'"

A 1968 law forbids anyone who uses marijuana from owning or using a firearm. In 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the federal prohibition does not violate the Second Amendment.

The fucking useless NRA has remained silent on the issue, as usual. A spokeswoman did not respond Thursday to requests for comment.

 

OK, so I might have edited the last paragraph for accuracy just a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A spike similar to 1993 is now occuring, relating to the peak gun sales of 2016. Except now the guns are high-end, of larger caliber, and hold many more rounds. The technology of the Larry Pratt violence ramped up.

Quote

In recent years, a fresh uptick in homicides has raised alarms again. The national murder rate rose by 10 percent in 2015, then another 8 percent in 2016. This July, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a research brief highlighting how firearm homicides fueled the rise, jumping 31 percentduring those two years.

https://www.thetrace.org/2018/08/guns-supply-shock-crack-epidemic-murder-rates/

Regarding the crack cocaine years, the researchers feel that drugs brought guns, and guns alteredthe behavior of the inner city culture.

Quote

 The three economists looked at murders of family members and intimate partners by young black men, along with suicides among the same population during the years after crack arrived. They found sharp increases in both fatal shootings of loved ones and gun suicides — but no similar increase in suicides or domestic murders by other means. “The increase in gun-related domestic violence murders shows that the increased availability of guns changed the technology of settling disputes and hence increased the murder rate,” Moore and his colleagues wrote.

https://www.thetrace.org/2018/08/guns-supply-shock-crack-epidemic-murder-rates/

 

cocaine or guns.png

Share this post


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

Think any court will overturn the schedule 1 drug list?

No and I can't think of a basis for doing so.

The courts won't rescue us. At some point, the Duopoly will have to admit that libertarians have been right about this for a long time, heroin and cannabis really are different, and they need to fix their fuckup.

There are various examples on this forum of how easy it is for the Duopoly to admit that libertarians have been right all along. If you haven't noticed them, I can summarize: don't hold your breath.

Share this post


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

Regarding the crack cocaine years, the researchers feel that drugs brought guns, and guns alteredthe behavior of the inner city culture.

They're close. Drug prohibition brought guns because when you're in an illegal business the guns of the police don't protect you.

Back when we had alcohol prohibition, that "drug brought guns" too. Except it's obvious now that it wasn't the drug, but the prohibition of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

They're close. Drug prohibition brought guns because when you're in an illegal business the guns of the police don't protect you.

Back when we had alcohol prohibition, that "drug brought guns" too. Except it's obvious now that it wasn't the drug, but the prohibition of it.

It's not that obvious, at all. Amsterdam had half a dozen wild chapters which followed their pioneer drug legalization. It was a tough road that never did sort out, too.

Whatever the legalize drug theory may be, whatever the U.S. history may be, gunz got involved with inner city drug culture, and the culture adopted gun violence, and the violence convoluted. Maturity and de-escalation were not in play, but immaturity and volatility were, with a horrendous outcome. What to do?

A few behavior changes, featuring the lack of confrontation, and certain non-violent patterns, can un-learn the outcome of the misguided drug war. 

Very cool. This behavior keys off of the core ideas of the SCLC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Whatever the legalize drug theory may be, whatever the U.S. history may be, gunz got involved with inner city drug culture, and the culture adopted gun violence, and the violence convoluted. Maturity and de-escalation were not in play, but immaturity and volatility were, with a horrendous outcome. What to do?

Maybe look at how violence is involved in black markets and decide the black markets cause more trouble than legal markets?

That's been the case in Portugal.

Of course, gun grabberz have always followed in the legal trails blazed by drug warriors so I can see why someone like yourself might want drug prohibition to continue blazing those trails.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

Of course, gun grabberz have always followed in the legal trails blazed by drug warriors so I can see why someone like yourself might want drug prohibition to continue blazing those trails.

The good discussion had just begun, and then you slimed on me. Why lead any discussion with some wild, offensive assumption about the beliefs of another?

You have some interesting defense mechanisms, including dogballs, mis-characterization, and racebaiter poo slinging. And you are impressed with yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/20/2018 at 6:12 AM, jocal505 said:
On 11/20/2018 at 5:51 AM, dogballs Tom said:

Maybe look at how violence is involved in black markets and decide the black markets cause more trouble than legal markets?

That's been the case in Portugal.

The good discussion had just begun, and then you slimed on me. Why lead any discussion with some wild, offensive assumption about the beliefs of another?

Perhaps I was wrong about your legal goals.

So let's focus on the good discussion.

Your post was about "Whatever the legalize drug theory may be," and that's a large part of it right there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/20/2018 at 3:12 AM, jocal505 said:

(from dogballs) Of course, gun grabberz have always followed in the legal trails blazed by drug warriors so I can see why someone like yourself might want drug prohibition to continue blazing those trails.

You were wondering why certain community members have you on ignore. Look at this stuff. You are ignore worthy.

DEBATE CLUB TOM (can't repeat opponent's actual position, causing worthless interchanges)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I admit that I can indeed see why gun grabbers would enjoy the favorable legal precedents set by the drug war.

That's a statement about me, not you.

So it can't be "sliming" you since it is not even about you.

You can say something about yourself by commenting on that subject.

Do you think it's a good thing that we have drug warriors to blaze legal trails for gungrabbers to follow?

Or, since drug prohibition involves lots of non-gun stupidity, comment on something other than guns for once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mandatory Stupidity
 

Quote

 

In 2014, 26-year-old Tennessee resident Chris Young was sentenced to life in federal prison for a drug offense. The judge in his case had no choice but to sentence him to die behind bars under an obscure "three strikes" law for prior drug crimes after prosecutors filed what's known as an 851 notice.

The filing, known for the section of the U.S. Code from which it's derived, was originally intended to give prosecutors leeway to avoid some of the harshest mandatory minimums on the books. But as the drug war expanded, the threat of an 851 filing became a prosecutorial bullying tactic used to dissuade defendants from exercising their constitutional right to a jury trial. It also ties the hands of judges, taking away any discretion they have over sentencing, and has sent hundreds of drug offenders to prison for life. Congress may take up reforms soon—but only if "tough-on-crime" conservative senators and President Trump's new acting attorney general don't scuttle the legislation.

'The sentence that everybody knows is coming is certainly more harsh than is necessary.'

Young has since become the poster child for criminal justice reforms that would limit the length of those sentencing enhancements. And one of his strongest supporters is Kevin Sharp—the judge who was forced to sentence him to death behind bars. Sharp dealt with a lot of drugs and guns cases as a U.S. district judge in Tennessee, and Chris Young's case was in many ways not unusual.

Young was a peripheral figure in the bust of large drug ring. Yet even though he was facing serious charges for cocaine trafficking, he rejected the plea deal that federal prosecutors dangled in front of him.

Prosecutors responded by filing an 851 notice against him, using two prior low-level crack cocaine offenses that he'd caught when he was 18 and 19 years old. The combined weight of the drugs in Young's previous convictions amounted to about 7.5 grams, or roughly the weight of three pennies.

 

When the judge who sentenced the guy is one of his big supporters, the law is likely wrong. These judges have seen a few sob stories.

The nature of the "plea deal" was probably, "help us lock up these people who can reach out from prison and kill you or we'll lock you up for life." Talk about an offer one CAN refuse, if one enjoys breathing.

Not that I blame prosecutors for offering that deal. That's what they're hired to do and they'd be negligent if they didn't do it.

The problem is that we think we're going to win this stupid drug war by locking people up and we're just not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Studying" the costs of legalization

To drug warriors, that means:

Quote

conflating correlation with causation and counting every purported cost to which a number can be attached, no matter how implausibly, while ignoring every benefit except for tax revenue and the increased value of Colorado homes since legalization (which suggests the state has not turned into the drug-addled dystopia predicted by prohibitionists).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites