Cacoethesic Tom

Drug Prohibition: Still Stupid

Recommended Posts

Las Vegsterdam
 

Quote

 

More than two years after Nevada legalized marijuana for recreational use, Las Vegas will soon become one of the few jurisdictions in the country to license cannabis consumption lounges. The lack of locations where visitors can legally consume the marijuana they can legally buy has been especially glaring in Las Vegas, which attracts 43 million tourists a year and is home to the world's largest cannabis emporium.

This month the Las Vegas City Council approved an ordinance authorizing licenses for "social-use venues," which must be physically separated from pot stores and may not sell alcohol.

...

The Reno Gazette Journal reports that Acres Cannabis, which operates a 19,000-square-foot store at 2320 Western Avenue, plans to open a consumption space that "will include a concert hall and full-service kitchen launched with the Morton family," founders of the Morton's steakhouse chain. Acres CEO John Mueller brags that "you're going to see an elevated experience over something you've seen in Amsterdam or these little boutique places" in cities such as San Francisco.

The casino and resort industry remains leery of marijuana, which is still federally illegal. The Nevada Gaming Control Board has warned that pot-friendly casinos could lose their licenses. Now the prospect of a better-than-Amsterdam experience for visitors who want to use marijuana threatens to draw business away from resorts and nightclubs that are not allowed to welcome cannabis consumers.

"What they're really trying to target are the tourists coming into Las Vegas," Councilman Stavros Anthony, a gaming industry ally who cast the sole vote against allowing cannabis lounges, told the Gazette Journal. "That's really where the money is. That's always where it's been. These consumption lounges are really the first attempt to gather in the tourists that want to smoke marijuana here in Nevada."...

 

Why no alcohol?

Councilman Anthony's objections all sound like reasons to support the idea to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom must be bitterly disappointed that the thread about himself is a complete dud.  Even poor Tom hasn’t bumped it  in months.  So he resorts to talking to himself hoping people will quote him and engage in conversation.

Its a desperate attempt to reach out for help and it’s 

SAD!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/20/2017 at 6:14 AM, Importunate Tom said:

The Problem With Search Warrants On Leashes

If a well-trained drug sniffing dog named Kilo alerts on a car in Colorado, it's not a search and might just indicate the presence of legal weed so it doesn't justify a search. Oops.
 

Colorado Supreme Court confirms that searchers require warrants, even if they're on leashes

Quote

Drug-sniffing dogs in states that have legalized marijuana should be worried about their job security in light of a decision that the Colorado Supreme Court issued yesterday. Confirming the 2017 judgment of a state appeals court, the justices said an alert by a dog trained to detect marijuana as well as other drugs no longer provides probable cause for a search in Colorado, where possessing an ounce or less of cannabis has been legal for adults 21 or older since 2012. Furthermore, the court ruled in Colorado v. McKnight, deploying such a dog itself counts as a search and therefore requires probable cause to believe a crime has been committed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a good result but stupidity still abound in the drug war.

A 69-Year-Old Great-Grandmother Was Arrested at Disney World for Carrying CBD Oil

Quote

She uses it for her arthritis.

She's not alone. I know similar scofflaws. I don't know anyone as stupid as a drug warrior who actually supports this kind of nonsense, but there are plenty of those too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were several articles on our stupid drug war published on 4/20 this year but I missed a funny:

Inhalation Status Reports

Now that Carlos Danger is back on the scene, I've been hoping we are not once again subjected to his dick pics. Now that I know it exists, I'm hoping we don't see Hickenlooper's nude selfie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you like your pain relief to be socially acceptable or to work better?

Quote

...a new study by Jacob Miguel Vigil, Psychology Associate Professor at University of New Mexico, and Sarah See Stith, Economics Assistant Professor at University of New Mexico, published on the Scientific Reports journal on Tuesday, revealed that THC exhibited the “strongest correlation with therapeutic relief, compared to the more socially acceptable chemical found in cannabis, CBD (cannabinol).”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NY and Illinois are UNDOING SOMETHING

Taking slightly different approaches and I'll quibble with some of them at some point when the failures become obvious, but for now hat tip for joining the states that are already involved in a yuge conspiracy to violate federal law.

Still need to get rid of the stupid federal prohibition laws so that banks, insurers, and other businesses can deal with these new businesses without risk of winding up in the FAIR Act thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/17/2019 at 9:02 AM, Fakenews said:

Tom must be bitterly disappointed that the thread about himself is a complete dud.  Even poor Tom hasn’t bumped it  in months.  So he resorts to talking to himself hoping people will quote him and engage in conversation.

Its a desperate attempt to reach out for help and it’s 

SAD!

Do know the definition of "importunate"?  Hey, it looks like there are a shitload of good links in this thread, as opposed to the typical sad ironically self-referential mocking-frenzy posts.  Like yours!  Perhaps Impish Tom is simply curating information on behalf of a worthy cause.  Drug prohibition is still stupid... and here is lots of evidence of that fact. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bacq2bacq said:

Perhaps Impish Tom is simply curating information on behalf of a worthy cause.  

there are 252 views per month of this thread or less than 10 per day, of which probably half are Tom's.  It may be worthy and I certainly believe it is, but it's an abject failure if Tom's actually trying to reach anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

there are 252 views per month of this thread or less than 10 per day, of which probably half are Tom's.  It may be worthy and I certainly believe it is, but it's an abject failure if Tom's actually trying to reach anyone.

I visit this thread to post in it and to read on the rare occasions when someone other than me posts.

No, I don't go back and look at my posts, much less go back and repeatedly look at them.

Your attempt to imagine what I might do is, once again, an abject failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

it's an abject failure if Tom's actually trying to reach anyone.

"How infinitessimal is the importance of anything I do. How infinitely important it is that I do it."

Many people find it difficult to deal with Voltaire's assertion, but this is an infinitely importunate repository of Tom's links. ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fentanyl Madness is a lot like Reefer Madness

In that it's a buncha BS conjured up to scare people into DOING SOMETHING stupid.
 

Quote

 

Congress is racing to address a problem toxicologists say probably doesn't exist: the dangers to emergency responders of incidental exposure to the powerful drug fentanyl.

A bill introduced by Reps. Conor Lamb (D–Pa.), David Joyce (R–Ohio), and David Trone (D–Md.) would use federal money to fund local police purchases of portable drug screening devices. Front and center in much of the advocacy for the bill is the alleged risk of the synthetic opiate fentanyl to police and emergency medical responders who come in contact with it at drug busts and overdose scenes.

Thus the Toledo Blade editorial board calls for passing the bill at once, saying "police, firefighters, and other first responders are in jeopardy if they come into contact with even a minute trace of the drug."

An NPR station in upstate New York spoke to John Anton, police chief of DeWitt, New York, who is haunted by fears of his officers accidentally overdosing. "Fentanyl is just so deadly they'll just go unconscious, and then CPR has to be administered," Anton told NPR. "And I worry about them every day getting exposed to fentanyl, getting it on their clothes, bringing it home to their families, getting it on their boots and so forth."

 

OMG! Even a molecule will have you instantly addicted and changed for life!

Or not.
 

Quote

 

Harvard Medical School professor and emergency room physician Jeremy Samuel Faust offered a reason to be skeptical. Every toxicologist he spoke to agreed that skin contact from brushing a shirt, even if complicated by bringing fingers to mouth or some similar misstep afterward, would not cause such symptoms. The very detail that made the episode so riveting—that it took an enormous quantity of naloxone (four doses) before he woke up—undercuts rather than reinforces the story.

"When a medication with well-established and consistent efficacy such as naloxone does not work at its usual dose, it's usually because we are treating the wrong illness—we've made a diagnostic error—not because the known treatment is flawed." If a therapy that has been well established as reliably treating opiate overdose did not work, even at escalating dosages, it's because opiate overdose is most likely not what he was suffering from.

Many of the bipartisan sponsors and supporters of H.R. 2070 seem unaware that any doubt lingers over the panic stories.

 

Deflating panic stories that are used to push stupid prohibition programs is not popular. It's the main reason the Duopoly are united in hating libertarians.

But I'm an importunate fuck and don't care at all what you people think of me, so popular isn't part of the equation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Illinois Overcomes Reefer Madness

Quote

Illinois legislators passed a pot legalization bill on Friday. The legislation allows adults to possess up to 30 grams of recreational marijuana, and it grants clemency for those convicted of lower-level pot-related crimes. The bill is now headed to Gov. J.B. Pritzker, who is expected to sign it.

Yuge hat tip for them.
 

Quote

 

While the state House was in debate hours earlier, Rep. Anthony DeLuca (D–Chicago Heights) whipped out a pan and an egg in an effort to convince his colleagues to vote against the bill. Cracking the egg open, he compared the scrambled display to someone's brain while under the influence.

DeLuca is referring to an infamously dumb anti-drug video of the '80s. (If you haven't seen that one, you may have seen the over-the-top follow-up starring Rachael Leigh Cook. No worries, she's since made up for it.)

DeLuca added that his colleagues should think. Think of the children. His children and their own. Ah, yes. Opposing compassionate reform for the sake of the children.

He also urged colleagues to consider the impact that the bill will have on black and Latino communities. OK: Though white people have similar usage rates and higher rates of drug dealing, blacks and Latinos are far more likely to be searched, arrested, and receive harsh mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes. Sounds like a good reason for those communities to support reform.

 

Yuge dunce cap for DeLuca.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the ways prohibition erodes fourth amendment rights
 

Quote

 

New Hampshire, like almost every other state, has a prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) that keeps track of controlled substances deemed to have abuse potential. Recognizing the sensitive nature of that information, the state requires that law enforcement agencies obtain a probable-cause warrant before looking at it. The Drug Enforcement Administration does not like that rule, preferring to obtain whatever records it wants with an administrative subpoena. The clash between state law and the DEA's demands is at the center of a case in which the agency argues that patients do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in PDMP records—an argument that the American Civil Liberties Union debunks in a brief it filed last week.

Michelle Ricco-Jonas, a New Hampshire Board of Pharmacy program manager who is the custodian of the state's PDMP database, is challenging a subpoena for two years of a patient's records that the DEA served last June. In January a federal judge sided with the DEA, and New Hampshire is now asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit to reverse that decision.

Relying on the "third party doctrine," the DEA argues that it does not need a warrant because examining PDMP records does not qualify as a search under the Fourth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that no warrant is required to peruse information that people voluntarily share with third parties such as banks and phone companies. But last year in Carpenter v. United States, the Court declined to extend the third-party doctrine to cellphone location data, noting that such information is collected automatically and "provides an intimate window into a person's life." The ACLU, joined by the New Hampshire Medical Society, argues that Carpenter's logic clearly applies to information about the medications people take.

The ACLU brief notes that patients do not in any meaningful sense consent to the collection of their prescription records. If they seek medical treatment and it involves the prescription of a drug covered by New Hampshire's PDMP law, that information is automatically added to the database, where it stays for three years.

 

I agree with the ACLU's position, as I often do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FDA Has 'Critical Questions' About Safety of CBD Products
 

Quote

 

Cannabis-derived food and drink selections—from CBD-infused beer to cheeseburgers with "special sauce"—are increasingly en vogue at restaurants and cafés across the country. But they're against the law.

Although CBD—or cannabidiol—is extracted from cannabis plants, it contains little to no THC, so you don't get high from it. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which currently prohibits the use of nutritional items imbued with the compound, held its first hearing Friday on how it will be regulated.

 

Whew! Good thing beer and cheeseburgers are not nutritional items.
 

Quote

 

But legislation around the products remains thorny, even after the 2018 Farm Bill removed hemp from the controlled substances list, effectively legalizing CBD nationwide. The FDA still regulates various aspects of certain hemp products—hence their moratorium on CBD-infused food, which is rarely enforced but still on the books. States also have some murky rules: In Florida, for instance, a 69-year-old woman was arrested outside Disney World's Magic Kingdom for having CBD oil in her purse. She uses it for her arthritis.

"When hemp was removed as a controlled substance, this lack of research, and therefore evidence, to support CBD's broader use in FDA-regulated products, including in foods and dietary supplements, has resulted in unique complexities for its regulation, including many unanswered questions related to its safety," said Staples.

So is CBD a miracle panacea, a placebo, or something to avoid entirely? The jury's still out, though the World Health Organization reports that it doesn't pose health risks and isn't addictive. Some people in the industry think CBD is here to stay with or without FDA approval, as vendors peddle cannabidiol-infused supplements, gummies, and beverages with growing regularity. They often flout federal regulations and local laws to do so.

 

The woman at Disney world is far from alone in thinking CBD oil relieves her arthritis. I know of a cadre of such lawbreakers in a prestigious Sarasota retirement home.

Maybe they're just fooling themselves but one thing's certain: they won't stop.

The lack of research is largely because "hemp" is not a different plant from the Schedule 1 plant we know as marijuana. That one is still as controlled as they get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like tom's thread. Big thanks to anyone who has ever grown or purchased original market weed. It (pot) might not be here to "legalize" without you.  Too bad most of it is grown with synthetic fertilizers that contain and transmute heavy metals to the ingested material.  Darwin Award to everyone who doesn't insist on non-chemical bud. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As noted previously, the stupid drug war is not just dangerous to fourth amendment rights and property rights. It spawns attacks on the first amendment as well, the latest in Seattle.
 

Quote

 

Hempfest, the annual "protestival" that has been held in Seattle every summer for the last 27 years, relies on payments by sponsors to help cover its expenses. Now that marijuana is legal in Washington, state-licensed cannabusinesses, which have an interest in supporting the legal reforms promoted at Hempfest, should be a reliable source of revenue. But under a new interpretation of state limits on marijuana advertising, the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) says such companies may not display "any sign" that refers to them at Hempfest, even in connection with purely informational activities aimed at promoting debate about marijuana policies. In a lawsuit filed yesterday in Thurston County Superior Court, Hempfest and two marijuana retailers argue that the new rule violates their rights to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom to petition for redress of grievances under both the First Amendment and the state constitution.

...

The WSLCB had previously agreed that "the use of a business trade name on a booth, or identified as part of a sponsorship level, would not constitute a violation of marijuana advertising laws and rules." It therefore told its licensees that they "can use tradename/business names at the event without the need for required marijuana warnings, as required on product advertising."

But under the new interpretation, announced in April, that WSLCB says licensees "cannot directly or indirectly be responsible for the placing of a sign or advertisement for marijuana businesses" at events like Hempfest. It adds that "licensees may attend these events or have a non-commercial sign as long as the licensee and/or the message does not reference or otherwise promote a marijuana licensed business or its products."

...

Even before this expansion, Washington's marijuana advertising restrictions seemed constitutionally suspect under the logic of Lorillard Tobacco v. Reilly, the 2001 case in which the U.S. Supreme Court overturned state restrictions on outdoor tobacco ads. Those rules, like Washington's, were aimed at shielding minors from ads for products they are not legally allowed to consume. The Court nevertheless held that the restrictions swept too broadly, barring outdoor tobacco advertising from "a substantial portion of Massachusetts' largest cities" and in some places amounting to "nearly a complete ban on the communication of truthful information about smokeless tobacco and cigars to adult consumers." But the Court also has held that the First Amendment does not protect "commercial speech related to illegal activity," which, as far as the federal government is concerned, includes producing and selling marijuana.

 

 

Seems to me that "purely informational activities aimed at promoting debate about marijuana policies" falls more under political $peech related to illegal activity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Entheogenic Plants Are OK In Oakland

I had to look it up.

Quote

An entheogen is a class of psychoactive substances that induce any type of spiritual experience aimed at development. The term entheogen is often chosen to contrast recreational use of the same drugs.

I guess a spiritual experience is OK as long as it isn't fun. Typical Puritan drug war crap.
 

Quote

 

Oakland's ordinance is more sweeping than Denver's decriminalization initiative, which only applied to various psychedelic mushrooms.

The law that just passed in Oakland decriminalizes "entheogenic plants", which includes not only mushrooms, but also ayahuasca, peyote, and iboga.

...

The ordinance was a joint effort by Councilman Noel Gallo and local advocacy group Decriminalize Nature Oakland (DNO).

"I'm thrilled. I'm glad that our communities will now have access to the healing medicines and we can start working on healing our communities," said DNO co-founder Nicolle Greenheart to the San Francisco Chronicle after the vote.

 

I healed myself a bit years ago. It was fun, so I guess it didn't count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maryland Says Edible Cannabis Products Are OK

As long as they're not fun.
 

Quote

 

Medical marijuana was made available for legal distribution in Maryland in 2017. In February the Maryland General Assembly created a work group with the purpose of studying the potential of legalizing marijuana for recreational uses.

The Baltimore Sun reports that, "The bipartisan group will make recommendations at the end of December that could be used to develop bills for the 2020 legislative session."

Opponents of extending medical marijuana legalization to include edibles argue that this will encourage recreational use and pave the way for full legalization.

"I don't want to deprive anyone of their medication, but let's treat this like medicine, not make little gummy bears out of it," Sen. Robert Cassilly (R-Harford County) told the Sun. "You're just flirting with legalization."

The Maryland Medical Cannabis Commission said it will likely take the rest of the year to develop rules for the "packaging, labeling, marketing, and appearance of edible cannabis products," with the goal being "to ensure the safety of minors."

In other states with legal marijuana, similar attempts to micromanage the edible market have been offered in the name of shielding youth from harm.

 

Prohibitionists are always claiming to protect the children.

I vaguely recall being a teenager. One thing I remember was that it was harder to get a person with a known location and a license to sell me alcohol than it was to get a black marketeer to sell me cannabis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How Legal Weed Is Killing America’s Most Famous Marijuana Farmers
 

Quote

 

...

In an ideal season, Mulder’s farm produces about 1,000 pounds of cannabis, an amount that should earn him $1.5 million. After taxes, fees and farm operating expenses, Mulder can expect about $100,000 in net income. It has afforded him enough money to own his own house and set aside a retirement account and a college fund for his children. No longer an outlaw like his parents, Mulder is the very picture of middle-class respectability. He has served on the local school board for a decade without anyone batting an eye at how he earns a living.

In theory, business should have gotten better for Mulder after voters passed Proposition 64 in 2016, legalizing recreational marijuana. But the opposite has happened.

The costs of shifting his farm from California’s loosely regulated medical marijuana program into the stringent legal market have been high. Mulder actually lost money last year—the worst loss his farm has ever experienced—and he had to dip into his retirement fund and his children's college fund to keep from closing. A few years ago, his retirement savings totaled over $80,000. After last year, he says, he has about $500 left.

Mulder is not alone. As industrial-sized growers in places like California’s famously fertile Central Valley have flooded the market, the price of legal marijuana has plummeted by more than half.

...

 

This reminds me of a man I met years ago in Jamaica. He had a little restaurant that could not have made much money. He also had a patch or two up in the hills above Negril. Pretty sure that's how he fed his family.

I was a libertarian nutcase way back then and said something about favoring legalization.

He just looked at me like I must be the stupidest person on earth and said, "Couldn't get no price for it, mon."

Welcome to farming, Mr. Mulder.

Quote

In other industries, startup costs or unexpected regulation changes are funded by small-business loans. In the marijuana industry, however, access to loans is almost impossible to come by. Cannabis’ status as a Schedule I drug means the federal government considers it as dangerous as heroin, and consequently banks won’t open accounts, issue loans, or open lines of credit for businesses in the industry. Farmers can’t apply for crop insurance, either, or file for bankruptcy if their farm collapses.

Umm...almost. Businesses can get loans and insurance but criminal enterprises can't. Congress has to change the law first.

Quote

While it enjoys widespread support in the U.S. House—165 members from both parties have already signed on to co-sponsor the bill, and it is backed by the American Banking Association—its passage isn’t guaranteed in the Senate. Since pushing through a legalization of hemp (the nonpsychoactive cousin of cannabis that is being used as a substitute crop in tobacco country) in the 2018 Farm Bill, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has said he will not bring a cannabis legalization bill to the floor. If McConnell doesn’t block a vote in the full Senate, though, the banking bill has support on both sides of the aisle, including five Republicans, among them Rand Paul of Kentucky, Kevin Cramer of North Dakota and Cory Gardner of Colorado, as well as Democrats such as Kamala Harris of California and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and lawmakers from states where cannabis is still illegal, such as Senator Tim Kaine (D-Va.).

Mitch is regrettably believable on the bolded part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hat Tip to Sen Gillibrand
 

Quote

 

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) unveiled a comprehensive marijuana reform plan on Wednesday that involves legalizing the drug nationwide, expunging non-violent convictions and requiring that private and federal health insurers to cover medical cannabis.

The 2020 Democratic presidential candidate also said she would immediately deschedule marijuana, allow cannabis businesses to access financial services and impose an excise tax on legal sales that would fund programs designed to help communities that have been disproportionately impacted by prohibition.

In a Medium post, the senator walked through the details of her proposal, emphasizing the importance of social equity and creating a regulatory system that protects patients, boosts the economy and normalizes the industry. She said ending federal marijuana prohibition “will be a top priority of my presidency.”

“As president, I will immediately deschedule marijuana as a controlled substance, and start working to not only heal the damage done by racist drug laws, but tap into the medical and economic opportunity that legal marijuana offers,” Gillibrand wrote.

 

Lots of big changes there from the last election cycle when, as I noted with chagrin in this thread, the best Duopoly candidate on this issue was Donald Trump. And what he said wasn't all that good during the campaign, after which he got worse.

Glad to see that whacko libertarian ideas have finally taken the TeamD Presidential field by storm.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hat Tip To AOC
 

Quote

 

The House of Representatives may vote before the end of the week to lift a longstanding legal barrier to scientific research into both marijuana and psychedelic drugs like ecstasy and magic mushrooms.

An amendment offered by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) would abolish a rider that's been attached to federal spending bills since 1996 prohibiting federal spending on "any activity that promotes the legalization of any drug or other substance in Schedule I" of the Controlled Substances Act. In effect, the rider is a ban on all research into the benefits and risks of many recreational drugs, because any institution—like a university—that tried to research a Schedule I drug could lose its federal funding for unrelated projects.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/31/2019 at 7:07 AM, Importunate Tom said:

Going to Burning Man? That's probable cause.

And about as likely to be effective as any other aspect of drug prohibition.

Going to Burning Man is still probable cause

But the private security requirement from the above post has been dropped. Not really great news, since it just means BLM and other cops will do the warrantless searching.
 

Quote

 

Back in March, the BLM issued a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that contained a provision troublesome to Fourth Amendment fans: the event would be required, as a permit condition, to hire a private security firm with the power to search any citizen who wanted to enter the event—with neither warrant nor probable cause—and turn them over to the cops if contraband were found.

Today, after a legally required comment period, the final version of that EIS has been issued, in a volume one and volume two. While the BLM is no longer insisting that Burning Man organizers hire security, the agency says it reserves the power to search anyone entering the event and arrest them for what they might find. In their public reasoning, the agency conflates security concerns about weapons and the desire to punish people for trying to transport illegal drugs.

...

John Wesley Hall, a practicing trial lawyer and author of the book Search and Seizuresaid in a phone interview today that public gatherings such as football and baseball games often allow for searches as a security precaution, but that arrests for drugs discovered in a search undertaken with a security pretext might be challengeable in court. Hall also said the very threat of this practice on the part of the BLM might possibly create standing for a Burning Man ticket holder to sue to prevent the practice on Fourth Amendment grounds. That said, there are no certain results in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence until specific cases are before specific judges.

...

The BLM insists in the EIS that even a drug search has a security nexus, claiming—without providing detailed evidence of significant violence connected to illegal drug use—that "attempting to stem violent participant behavior without addressing illegal drug use will not have a significant impact on participant or law enforcement safety."

 

Makes me wonder if alcohol is allowed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Safehouse or Crackhouse?
 

Quote

 

...

In the city of Philadelphia, overdose deaths are concentrated in the neighborhood of Kensington, where a supervised injection site known as Safehouse is slated to open.

At Safehouse, drug users will be invited to drop in and inject themselves with drugs like heroin. If they overdose, supervising staff will administer the overdose reversal drug Naloxone, often known by the brand name Narcan. The facility will also provide clean needles and a sanitary environment.

But Safehouse is technically in violation of the so-called "crack house" statute, which was part of the federal Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. In early 2019, the DOJ preemptively sued Safe House and its executive director, Jeanette Bowles, a move that will make it easier to begin making arrests if the project moves forward.

"We don't supply anybody with drugs, we don't touch drugs, [and] none of our personnel do," says former Pennsylvania Governor and former Mayor of Philadelphia Ed Rendell. "If you're an addict and you want to use the safe house, you have to bring whatever drug it is you're using to the site."

Rendell sits on the board of the nonprofit that's behind Safehouse, and he's been instrumental in building support for the project.

"The senators and congressmen who developed the crack house statute never in a million years thought about volunteer medical personnel standing by while someone injecting themselves ready to… reverse the effects of the overdose," says Rendell. "Do you think they thought for a minute that that activity should be criminal?"

 

Unfortunately, my guess is that the answer to former Mayor Rendell's question is yes. Congress could have excluded drug treatment facilities but did not. So they thought treatment should be criminal and the only SOLution that is acceptable is prohibition.
 

Quote

 

There are over 120 supervised injection sites across the globe. Safehouse is modeled after Insite, a supervised injection site in Vancouver Canada.

"We're asking the federal government to use their prosecutorial discretion and not make an arrest for violation of a statute that never meant to cover this type of activity," Rendell told Reason. "We'll go ahead with it and maybe…[we'll] wind up in federal prison."

It's not the first time Rendell has squared off with authorities for policies intended to help addicts. In 1992, when he was mayor of Philly, a group of activists opened a needle exchange called Prevention Point to combat the AIDs epidemic.

When Rendell signed an order allowing it to proceed, he received a call from the state health commissioner, who said he would be arresting anyone involved with the program.

"I said 'Mr. Secretary, come to 212 City Hall, that's my office, and arrest me first because I'm the one who sent those people out and told them they would be left alone,'" says Rendell.

 

Hat tip to Rendell and the other contumacious people who resist the stupid drug war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, badlatitude said:
15 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

They're all slow learners.  Anyone who hasn't been growing weed for decades is a slow fucking learner.

What's your position about the rest of the illegal drugs, Tom? 

One word: Portugal

I have repeatedly pointed out that they're having better results than we are at the moment, especially with opiods.

14 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:
14 hours ago, badlatitude said:

One word: Portugal

Obviously, to anyone who studies the issue.

 

Tom, what do you think about blow, heroin, hallucinogens, stimulants, etc.?  decrim? Legalize and regulate?  Just legalize?  What's the plan?

What I think about those drugs is a complete mystery to people who ask questions without reading, so it's no surprise you're asking again.

I'd suggest posts 703, 709, not 714, 715, 716, 739, 745, and 751 from this page to start. There's also the rest of the thread.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Senators Schumer and Cotton Want To Double Down On Failure

The usual Duopoly answer to drugs persists: we need more power and most of all more federal funding.

Quote

That’s why we’ve introduced the Fentanyl Sanctions Act, a bipartisan bill that would give U.S. law enforcement the tools it needs to combat opioid trafficking into the United States, particularly from China. Our bill would require the imposition of sanctions on criminal organizations that traffic these drugs into the United States, the financial institutions that assist them and the drug manufacturers that supply them. The legislation would also urge diplomatic efforts with U.S. partners to establish multilateral sanctions against foreign traffickers, and authorize new streams of funding across the U.S. government to combat opioid trafficking.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cory Booker On UNDOING SOMETHING
 

Quote

 

...

President Barack Obama ended his two terms in office having issued more than 1,700 commutations. But it took Obama a long time to do so. More than 500 of those commutations came during his last week in office.

That's partly because the Obama administration put together a burdensome, bureaucratic process that depended on the cooperation and participation of the Department of Justice while also relying on federal prosecutors themselves to show leniency towards the very people they threw in prison. If not for the Obama administration's guidelines, thousands more could have been released before his term ended if the process had been more efficient.

Today, Booker announced that if he is elected president, he would on his very first day in office launch "the most sweeping clemency initiative in more than 150 years," an approach that could impact more than 17,000 nonviolent federal drug prisoners.

According to a piece he posted at Medium, Booker would target three classes of prisoners: People in federal prison for marijuana-related offenses; people who are serving sentences that would have been reduced under the First Step Act passed by President Donald Trump if the act had been retroactive; and anybody still serving time because of sentencing disparities between crack cocaine and powder cocaine convictions.

Booker intends to revise the Obama administration's process, speeding it up by moving much of the work from the Department of Justice to a new Executive Clemency Panel within the White House. The process would therefore no longer be as dependent on prosecutors filtering cases for review.

...

 

Ending the stupid drug war wasn't much of a priority for Obama, who almost never spoke about it and fiddled around the edges at the end of his second term.

Booker is right that undoing the work of prosecutors isn't really a job that should be left up to those prosecutors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vets Who Use Medical Marijuana Shouldn't Have to Give Up Second Amendment Rights

Nor should recreational users of cannabis, any more than we take second amendment rights away from recreational users of more dangerous drugs like alcohol.
 

Quote

 

Meanwhile, Pennsylvania has tried to circumvent the federal law by refusing to share with federal agencies the registry of people who hold medical marijuana cards.

"Pennsylvania regulators … will no longer make a new medical marijuana registry available on the state's computer system for law enforcement, making it less likely someone's participation will be flagged during federal gun-purchase background checks," AP reported in January 2018.

 

Good for the contumacious Pennsylvanians.
 

Quote

 

A few federal lawmakers have begun to take note of the problem.

In an interview with Marijuana Moment last December, Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) complained that ATF considers "any user of marijuana" to be "an unlawful user of marijuana." Massie has also tweeted his support for removing the marijuana question from the ATF form altogether.

Massie is not alone in Congress in wanting to fix this law. In April of this year, Rep. Alex Mooney (R-WV) introduced legislation that would allow medical marijuana patients to be exempted from the question when purchasing a firearm.

Bill H.R. 2071 states that, "an individual shall not be treated as an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance based on the individual using marihuana for a medical purpose in accordance with State law."

 

I swear I didn't edit that one.

I do find it funny that they've reverted to the spelling used in the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937.

Whether or not those guys will find any support across the aisle depends on whether TeamD can tolerate something that might permit an otherwise verboten gun purchase. I'm not holding in my bong hit on that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

San Francisco, like Philly, is still trying to get a safe injection site for addicts

Quote

...San Francisco leaders would like to build SIFs in the city to help deal with the significant problem they have of homeless people injecting drugs in public. To reduce the risk that site operators would be prosecuted, last year state lawmakers crafted a bill that would guarantee that people running a permitted SIF in San Francisco wouldn't be arrested by local or state police. That bill passed through both the state's Assembly and Senate, but when it got to Gov. Moonbeam, he vetoed it. In his veto letter, he argued that the state needed to have the power to coercively force mandatory treatment on people addicted to drugs.

OK, so I couldn't resist editing just a bit.

Moonbeam's view is widely shared but misguided. The life-wrecking coercive powers of government seem to me more likely to stop people from getting help because, well, wrecking your life is not an attractive SOLution to anything.
 

Quote

 

If the bill eventually passes, unfortunately the city will still have the federal government and Department of Justice to deal with. A U.S. attorney in Philadelphia is taking the city to court to try to get a federal judge to rule that a SIF they're proposing there would violate federal "crackhouse" statutes.

It seemed as though there might have been some possible interest in federal lawmakers in some reforms here. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D–Wash.) had introduced an amendment to an appropriations bill that would have stopped the Department of Justice from spending money trying to fight states and cities from establishing SIFs. Seattle is also attempting to build SIFs there. But Jayapal has since withdrawn her amendment and her office did not respond to request for comment about the amendment.

 

The link is to another article, not her actual proposal, but the proposal is darn short and to the point as legislative proposals go:
 

Quote

 

At the end of division A (before the short title), insert the following:

SEC. ll. None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to prohibit States and localities from establishing or implementing safe consumption sites.

 

I wonder why she withdrew it?

My guess is that our political landscape is still dominated by Puritans like Moonbeam on this issue, who continue to believe that the threat of a criminal conviction is an appropriate treatment tool for addicts. In other words: gotta get elected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom-boy.  If I lived in the same county as you, I would want a safe injecting room.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/25/2015 at 6:36 AM, Importunate Tom said:

Not to worry, prohibition is still stupid and counterproductive and I will continue to chronicle the many ways in which that is true.

Tom, Tom, Tom...  Did you forget how effective criminalizing drugs has been in keeping "those people" down?  And what about all the for-profit prisons?  Their profits would tank if we legalized recreational drug use.  And then there's the pharmaceutical companies.  It is they, and not the independent drug pusher, who are ordained to making profits off of drugs and get people hooked on them.

So stop trying to destroy the oppression Nixon worked so hard to create.  And please, you need to promote profits at all costs.  Just think of all those stock portfolios that might be hurt if you don't.

Share this post


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

So stop trying to destroy the oppression Nixon worked so hard to create. 

You give him more credit than he is due.

He and Erlichman were just continuing a legacy that started the same year Nixon graduated law school, as noted in this thread a few years ago.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More Evidence Of Failure
 

Quote

 

"I'm going to create borders," Donald Trump promised while running for president in 2016. "No drugs are coming in. We're gonna build a wall."

Halfway through his term, the president's faith in "the border wall" as a way of blocking the "pipeline for vast quantities of illegal drugs" was unabated, even as spoilsports noted that the supply comes in mainly through legal points of entry, making the wall irrelevant. And if stopping drugs at the southern border is a tall order, the prospect of intercepting them before they get there is even dimmer, as a study published recently in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences demonstrates.

"The U.S. government's own assessments have long showed that interdiction has at best only an ephemeral impact on retail prices and supply," note University of Alabama geographer Nicholas Magliocca and his seven co-authors. "Wholesale cocaine prices in the United States have dropped significantly since 1980, deaths from cocaine overdose are rising, and the dismal rate at which counterdrug forces intercept cocaine shipments is well documented."

Critics cite two major reasons why interdiction fails: Pushing down drug trafficking in one place makes it pop up elsewhere (the "balloon effect"), and the threat of seizures scatters traffickers across a wider area (the "cockroach effect"). Magliocca and his collaborators built a computer model, NarcoLogic, that reproduces these phenomena and predicts cocaine trafficking patterns similar to what actually happened from 2001 to 2014, when the locus of smuggling operations shifted to Central America in response to interdiction efforts in Mexico and the eastern Caribbean.

NarcoLogic assumes that law enforcement agencies allocate their resources in a way they think will help them hit annual seizure targets (the current practice), while traffickers respond to those decisions, balancing profit against risk. Direct smuggling routes reduce operating costs but increase risk, while indirect routes with multiple nodes reduce risk but drive up costs. The interaction of these incentives, Magliocca et al. say, underpins a "complex adaptive system" that encourages the movement and spread of drug trafficking along with the collateral damage it causes, including "narco-fueled violence and corruption, infusion of unparalleled amounts of cash and weapons, dispossession and seizure of land from rural communities, and extensive and rapid environmental destruction."

In other words, the researchers write, "narcotrafficking is as widespread and difficult to eradicate as it is because of interdiction, and increased interdiction will continue to spread traffickers into new areas, allowing them to continue to move drugs north."

 

But Senators Schumer and Cotton, along with President Trump, believe that if we just spend more money we will soon start winning.

We won't.

And yes, I'm as sorry as usual for posting more Koch-$pon$ored Trump cheerleading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Support Growing For Libertarian Approach To Cannabis In Florida
 

Quote

 

A strong majority of voters — 65% to 30% — want to see marijuana legalization in Florida.

The results were reported Thursday by the Quinnipiac University Poll, a showing the pollsters called "an all-time high in the state" on the marijuana issue.

Voters’ views have changed significantly. In May 2016, Florida voters were split with 56% in favor and 41% opposed. In November 2013, it was much closer, with 48% in favor and 46% opposed.

...

Legalization was supported by almost every demographic group: men (69%), women (62%), voters age 18-34 (89%), voters 65 and older (52%), white voters (66%), black voters (66%), Hispanic voters (68%), Democrats (78%), and independent voters (72%).

Republicans were evenly divided 48% to 48%.

Support for sales "in your community" were about the same for every group. However, black voters were less supportive of sales, at 53%.

 

Polling shows TeamR is still about half in favor of poling the electorate by refusing to end the stupid war on weed, but that's an improvement over past years. And a yuge improvement over the 1980's, when I first started paying attention to this issue.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada continues to make weed boring.

Hemp houses could be greener, fire-resistant and built like Lego

So hat tip for that. But as a Floridian, I have to wonder about other properties of these blocks. Such as: how do they react to being repeatedly soaked and steamed and how do they react to a strong pressure washer? You know, FL summer stuff. Heat index is something like 110 for today, for those who wish to feel better about February.

Share this post


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

of these blocks. Such as: how do they react to being repeatedly soaked and steamed

How does pine framing like that treatment?

Share this post


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

How does pine framing like that treatment?

Depends on the pine. Both my house and my guest house are frame built. The guest house was built in 1931 of a now-extinct kind of pine. It reacts by turning hard like steel and will break woodworking tools. One of two houses in the county that I know of that did not have water inside after hurricane Charlie. The main house is a 2006 and modern wood reacts by rotting, but only if the siding fails to keep the daily summer thunderstorms out.

 

Share this post


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

The whole Libertarian ethos sounds great as long as you don't have to apply it to the real world. Then you have to start justifying all sorts of flights of fantasy.


Seems to me our views have taken over TeamD Presidential politics, so if you want to vote against us on the drug war your best choice next time around is likely to be Trump. Winning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stites Rats Rider Passes
 

Quote

 

Last Thursday the House of Representatives resoundingly approved a spending rider that would bar the Justice Department from interfering with the implementation of state laws allowing the production, distribution, and consumption of marijuana for medical or recreational use. The amendment, a broader version of a rider that has protected state medical marijuana programs since 2014, was supported by 62 percent of the legislators who voted, including 41 Republicans as well as 226 Democrats.

...

Amendment No. 17 to the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2020, introduced by Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), says "none of the funds made available by this Act to the Department of Justice may be used" to "prevent" states from "implementing their own laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of marijuana." It applies to the District of Columbia, the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands as well as the 47 states that have legalized some form of cannabis for medical or recreational use.

...

Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.) spoke against the rider. "Under the Controlled Substances Act," he noted, "the Drug Enforcement Administration defines Schedule I drugs as having no current acceptable medical use and a high potential for abuse. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, there is no scientifically recognized medical benefit from smoking or eating marijuana plants. Claims of benefits from smoked or ingested marijuana are anecdotal and generally outright fabrications. It is established by fact that such marijuana use has real health and real social harms."

...

The 41 Republicans who sided with Blumenauer rather than Aderholt included freshman congressmen such as Kelly Armstrong (N.D.), Troy Balderson (Ohio), and Russ Fulcher (Idaho) as well as longtime marijuana reformers such as Justin Amash (Mich.), Thomas Massie (Ky.), Tom McClintock (Calif.), and Don Young (Alaska). They represent one-fifth of the Republicans who cast a vote.

We don't know yet whether Blumenauer's amendment will be part of the final appropriations bill approved by both houses of Congress....

 

Rep Aderholt and the 80% of TeamR congresscritters that voted no are correct on one point: By keeping the Schedule 1 classification, Congress is ordering the Justice Dept to do what this rider orders it not to do.

To me, that's a good reason to take on the Controlled Substances Act directly and deschedule, or at least reschedule, cannabis.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/6/2019 at 5:51 AM, Importunate Tom said:

As noted previously, the stupid drug war is not just dangerous to fourth amendment rights and property rights. It spawns attacks on the first amendment as well, the latest in Seattle.
 

 

Seems to me that "purely informational activities aimed at promoting debate about marijuana policies" falls more under political $peech related to illegal activity.

Good news for the first amendment at Hempfest

Quote

"After hearing from and working with stakeholders in the licensee community, WSLCB understood that Bulletin 19-01 did not fully answer all of the licensees' questions and raised some additional concerns," the board says in a bulletin published yesterday. "Accordingly, this Bulletin clarifies and supersedes Bulletin 19-01." The WSLCB now wants licensees to know that "educational, informational or advocacy literature and/or signs which incorporate a licensee's business trade name at events held within 1000′ of restricted entities will not be considered advertising, so long as that signage, sponsorship, and literature is non-commercial in nature, e.g., does not involve the solicitation of business, descriptions of products sold at stores, [or] lists of products sold, or refer to prices of products."

So talking about stupid drug war policies is OK but making money isn't. At least it's some progress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:
20 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:

That was the refrain of the Temperance movement and also Saint Nancy's Just Say No campaign. The problem is that forcing others to agree just doesn't work and just does create a violent, corrupting black market.

When other prohibited things like murder and rape become mainstream, then you might have a point.


The difference, and the reason so many refuse to obey Puritans like yourself,  has to do with harming other people. We have a "booze, what ya drinking" thread in GA. People just having a bit of fun with a very dangerous drug. And, for the most part, hurting no one.

A "who ya killing" or "who ya raping" thread would be a whole different matter. If it were the same, you'd have a point someplace other than the top of that dunce cap. But you don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh oh. Once you start sipping that cannabis-infused Kool Aid, it quickly gets out of control.

John Hickenlooper's Bragging About the Pot Legalization Measure He Opposed Shows That Reality Can Change People's Minds
 

Quote

 

"We were the first state to legalize marijuana," former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper said toward the end of last Thursday's Democratic presidential debate, "and we transformed our justice system in the process." That statement was part of a paragraph in which the relatively moderate Hickenlooper highlighted his progressive accomplishments. As he put it:

You don't need big government to do big things. I know that because I'm the one person up here who's actually done the big progressive things everyone else is talking about. If we turn towards socialism, we run the risk of helping to re-elect the worst president in American history.

There is much truth to that, but it was pretty chutzpadik for Hickenlooper to implicitly take credit for marijuana legalization in Colorado, since he opposed it at the time and has only gradually come around to the view that it was not the disaster he anticipated.

 

I'm glad to see Johnny Come Lately join the libertarian side of this issue, even if he was dragged to it by the people of his state.
 

Quote

 

Hickenlooper announced his opposition to Amendment 64, Colorado's legalization initiative, in September 2012, two months before 55 percent of voters approved it. "Colorado is known for many great things—marijuana should not be one of them," Hickenlooper said. "Amendment 64 has the potential to increase the number of children using drugs and would detract from efforts to make Colorado the healthiest state in the nation. It sends the wrong message to kids that drugs are OK."

As late as October 2014, when Hickenlooper was running for re-election against a Republican who opposed legalization, he called voters "reckless" for approving Amendment 64. But by then Hickenlooper, to his credit, was beginning to acknowledge that the effects of legalization were not as bad as he thought they would be.

...

Hickenlooper's shift reflects Colorado's experience with legalization, which has been neither "reefer madness" nor "pot paradise," as The New York Times puts it in a recent story. While cannabis consumption among adults is up, the Times notes, "state surveys do not show an increase in young people smoking pot." Furthermore, according to a study reported in the Journal of Cannabis Research last month, "permitting or not permitting recreational cannabis dispensaries in a community does not appear to change student cannabis use or perceptions towards cannabis."

...

In the Times article, some Colorado residents complain about aspects of legalization that bother them, including odors from grow facilities and uncomfortable conversations with their children. But a 2016 poll found that only 36 percent of voters favored repealing Amendment 64, while most thought legalization's net effects had been positive or neutral. A 2017 survey found that 65 percent of Colorado voters supported legalization—up 10 percentage points from the 2012 election results.

Marijuana is by no means harmless, but neither is prohibition. Coloradans, now including John Hickenlooper, continue to prefer the costs of legalization to the costs of trying to forcibly prevent cannabis consumption.

 

I think the TeamD conversion this election cycle just reflects an ability to read polls, and the tipping point seems to be when about 2/3 of voters realize that prohibition is more dangerous than cannabis. But whatever the reason, I'm glad to see Johnny Come Lately's conversion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Starting To Talk About Cannabis Prohibition in Congress
 

Quote

 

Several sources who did not wish to be be identified shared with Marijuana Moment the names of witnesses expected to soon receive formal invitations to testify before the panel on Wednesday, July 10. Given the backgrounds of these individuals, it seems apparent that committee members will be discussing not whether the U.S. should end federal cannabis prohibition, but will focus primarily on how to do it.

Witnesses are anticipated to include Malik Burnett, a physician at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health who previously served as the Washington, D.C. policy manager at the Drug Policy Alliance’s Office of National Affairs, where he helped lead a successful ballot initiative campaign to legalize cannabis in the nation’s capital in 2014.

Baltimore State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby, who announced in January that her office would no longer prosecute cannabis possession cases and would work to clear the records of certain individuals with prior marijuana convictions, is also being invited to testify.

David Nathan, a physician and board president of the pro-legalization group Doctors for Cannabis Regulation (DFCR), will also appear before the committee.

He told Marijuana Moment that he looks “forward to discussing the evidence-based health effects of cannabis, the failure of prohibition, the inadequacy of decriminalization, and the public health and social justice benefits of effective regulation.”

“DFCR physicians have successfully fought for legalization in states around the country,” Nathan said. “Now DFCR is proud to advocate for the broad majority of Americans—both Republicans and Democrats—who want our government to remove cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act and finally end the specter of federal interference with state cannabis laws.”

Finally, Neal Levine, CEO of Cannabis Trade Federation, will be the minority witness—which is noteworthy in and of itself, as Levine advocates for legalization, while one might expect the minority Republican party to invite someone who shares an opposing perspective on ending prohibition.

 

So there won't be anyone called to defend the Reefer Madness point of view. It wasn't that long ago that no one from the anti drug war point of view would be called by either half of the Duopoly. This also wasn't long ago at all:
 

Quote

 

In March, a bipartisan bill that would provide protections for banks that service cannabis businesses cleared the House Financial Services Committee following a hearing on the issue, and a full floor vote on that legislation could be coming soon.

Unlike the new Judiciary hearing, the minority witnesses at the Financial Services and Small Business hearings—representatives of the prohibitionist group Smart Approaches to Marijuana and the Heritage Foundation, respectively—opposed legalization.

 

The "smart" approach is to make sure legal businesses can't access banking, insurance, and other financial services.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/18/2019 at 7:22 AM, Importunate Tom said:

CBD Madness
 

Quote

 

Last week New York City's health department, long the bane of food freedom supporters, banned city restaurants from adding cannabidiol—a compound found in both cannabis and hemp that's commonly known as "CBD"—as an ingredient in food or drinks they sell.

CBD products, purported to offer health benefits to consumers, also offer quite a premium for sellers. A coffee at Bushwick's Caffeine Underground costs $2.50. A CBD-infused coffee—presumably the same coffee with a couple drops of CBD added—will set you back $6.00.

New York City Council Speaker Corey Johnson (who is also a potential mayoral candidate) blasted the health department's move this week, saying it "doesn't make any sense."

I agree with Johnson. But considering the health department's long track record of targeting food ingredients—including sugar, salt, and trans fats—the agency's latest turn against CBD is hardly unexpected. Neither is it unique. It follows a similar crackdown last month by Maine's state health department. Other locales, including Detroit, have since jumped on the bandwagon.

But is there any merit to the move? The risks of ingesting CBD, if any, are somewhere between unclear and unconfirmed. Its benefits are better known.

 

That's true about the risks and NY health authorities are probably guarding against a minor threat, but about those benefits...
 

Quote

 

A key element of media and government skepticism of CBDs stems from claims about their seemingly miraculous curative powers. Health websites regularly tout CBD as a marvel substance that can aid everything from digestion to pain relief and cancer prevention. Critics argue that CBD proponents claim falsely the cannabis derivative "cures everything."

Indeed, CBD proponents have become something like the new Paleo or vegan diet evangelists. Like many of the most vocal adherents of those diets, CBD fanatics have been mocked for claiming that CBD products can cure any and every malady—up to and including rigor mortis.

 

It does seem to have a range of uses and I'm open to exploring most of them but rigor mortis?

Whether the "miracle cure" does much (or any) harm doesn't really have any bearing on whether it is being sold based on fraudulent claims.

The "snake oil" salesmen who prompted the Pure Food and Drug Act were making fraudulent claims, mostly about morphine.

Update on NY's CBD Madness
 

Quote

 

Way back in February, city health officials surprised a number of bakeries, restaurants, coffee shops, and food vendors by telling them that CBD derivatives—made from the non-psychoactive components of cannabis—were not permitted in food and drinks. At that point, many places had already begun selling food with the trendy infusions. After businesses expressed their surprise at the sudden announcement, the city's health department agreed to delay enforcement until July.

Now the ban on CBD edibles is officially in effect, and fines of up to $600 per incident may start in October. The city's justification, according to Gothamist, is that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says CBD food additives are illegal under federal law. But the Department of Health is a city agency, not an enforcement mechanism of the federal government.

 

Sanctuary Cities that refuse to enforce federal law are extremely naughty. Sometimes.

Quote

The Department of Health has said that part of the problem is the government has not deemed CBD to be safe. Over at The Cut, Amanda Arnold claims the "reasoning behind the policy does, admittedly, make sense: Despite being infused in everything from brownies to lavender lattes to gummies these days, the oil has not officially been deemed safe for human consumption." But no, that reasoning does not make sense. We shouldn't have to prove to the government that CBD is safe to consume. It should be up to the government to show that it is not safe in order to justify a ban.

Not so sure about that last. What's in that CBD oil exactly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Cops Don't Die From Incidental Fentanyl Exposure, a Drug Treatment Specialist Warns, They 'Could Become Addicted to It Instantly'

Quote

 

...

The latest example is an incident in Hazleton, Pennsylvania, early last Friday morning, when three officers responded to a call about a man who had overdosed. WBRE, the NBC station in Wilkes-Barre, reports that "all three became ill and it could have been much worse." After the officers "were exposed to the highly addictive and potentially deadly opioid fentanyl," WBRE says, "one officer nearly overdosed," while the other two felt unwell. Hazleton Police Chief Jerry Speziale explains the context:

 

My officer goes to pull him out, the first officer on scene. They hit him with Narcan [a.k.a. naloxone, an opioid antagonist], and when he does he realizes that on the individual's chest and on his face and around his nose is fentanyl. The other two officers were a little bit sketchy. They checked their vitals. He started to feel a little weird right away, so when EMS got to the scene they checked him out. His vitals were a little off. They transported him immediately. They called me in the middle of the night. I said get him to the hospital right now. They Narcanned our officer.

Given how difficult it is to absorb fentanyl through the skin (which is why the companies that make legal fentanyl patches for pain treatment rely on patented technology that took years to develop), the likelihood that these officers were actually feeling the narcotic's effects is approximately zero. Fortunately, WBRE consulted a drug treatment specialist…who proceeded to confirm all the worst fears about incidental exposure to fentanyl and upped the ante by claiming that first responders who don't die can end up accidentally addicted to the drug:

Jason Harlen has worked in addiction counseling for 20 years. He says the officers were very lucky. It could have been a much different outcome.

"Fentanyl is extremely addictive. Someone, say a first responder or a family member, who enters a room with a person who's having an issue with fentanyl could become addicted to it instantly [emphasis added]. It's that strong of a synthetic drug made by humans," Harlen said.

 

Uh huh. "Worked in addiction counseling for 20 years" usually means "got off drugs 20 years ago and has been trying to help others do it since then."

Good for him, but it doesn't mean he knows basic facts about how drugs work. As Eva Dent if you pay attention to those who do...
 

Quote

 

In a 2017 Slate article headlined "The Viral Story About the Cop Who Overdosed by Touching Fentanyl Is Nonsense," Jeremy Faust, a Boston E.R. physician and clinical instructor at Harvard Medical School, noted that "neither fentanyl nor even its uber-potent cousin carfentanil (two of the most powerful opioids known to humanity) can cause clinically significant effects, let alone near-death experiences, from mere skin exposure." Faust quoted Harvard medical toxicologist Ed Boyer, who flatly stated that "fentanyl, applied dry to the skin, will not be absorbed."

A few months later, my colleague Mike Riggs interviewed Stanford anesthesiologist Steven Shafer, who said "fentanyl is not dangerous to touch," adding that "transdermal fentanyl patches deliver fentanyl across the skin, but they require special absorption enhancers because the skin is an excellent barrier to fentanyl (and all other opioids)."

 

But drug warriors like Schumer and Cotton will eat up the scaremongering and ignore the Harvard Medical School teacher as they double down on failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4:18 am
Tuesday, 9 July 2019 (GMT-4)

Time in Punta Gorda, FL, USA

 

Go to bed!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:
4:18 am
Tuesday, 9 July 2019 (GMT-4)

Time in Punta Gorda, FL, USA

 

Go to bed!!

You couldn't wait two more minutes and make it funny?

Or at least take it to Tom Ray Anarchy, or, for those who believe that the purity of the gossip depends on the partisan nature of the thread starter, BJ's attention whore gossip thread about me?

I just got up. I read news, play on Facebook, and post stuff here until it gets light out.

Share this post


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

You couldn't wait two more minutes and make it funny?

Or at least take it to Tom Ray Anarchy, or, for those who believe that the purity of the gossip depends on the partisan nature of the thread starter, BJ's attention whore gossip thread about me?

I just got up. I read news, play on Facebook, and post stuff here until it gets light out.

why would twenty past four be funny?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cannabis legalization protects the cheeruns better than prohibition.

A low bar and not surprising to anyone who pays attention to the failures of prohibition, but still worth noting.

Quote

Notwithstanding fears that legalizing marijuana for adults would lead to an increase in underage consumption, a new analysis of survey data finds that legalization is associated with a decline in cannabis use by high school students. While it is too early to draw firm conclusions, the results, which were reported online yesterday in JAMA Pediatrics, are reassuring, especially when combined with prior research on medical marijuana laws and state surveys finding no increase in adolescent pot smoking following general legalization.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A tiny bit of Maui Wowie is now OK

Sorta.

 

Quote

 

The new law removes the possibility of jail time as a penalty for up to three grams of marijuana, but maintains a $130 fine. Hawaii’s Democrat-controlled legislature approved the bill and sent it to Democratic Gov. David Ige in May. Ige didn’t sign it, but he also didn’t veto it, effectively letting it become law on Tuesday. The new law will take effect on January 11, 2020.

“Unfortunately, three grams would be the smallest amount of any state that has decriminalized (or legalized) simple possession of marijuana,” the Marijuana Policy Project, an advocacy group, noted in a statement. “Still, removing criminal penalties and possible jail time for possession of a small amount of cannabis is an improvement.”

 

Very courageous leadership by the Governor.

But a tiny bit of progress is still progress, as the MPP says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:

...anyone who pays attention to the failures of prohibition...

a falsehood is assumed here ^^^

Pay attention to the success of prohibition for a moment.

Your kids are prohibited from drinking bleach, I hope. 

Yo, prohibition has countless applications which are successful. 

Share this post


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

Pay attention to the success of prohibition for a moment.

Your kids are prohibited from drinking bleach, I hope. 

As far as I know, people of any age are allowed to purchase, possess, and even drink bleach if that's what they want to do.

If you know of a successful bleach prohibition program, please share it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/2/2019 at 9:03 PM, Importunate Tom said:

Well, that went well. Sort of.

'Historic' Congressional Hearing on Marijuana Legalization Highlights Strategic Differences
 

Quote

 

"Marijuana decriminalization may be one of the very few issues upon which bipartisan agreement can still be reached in this session," said Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.). "It ought to be crystal clear to everyone that our laws have not accomplished their goals."

But Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), a co-sponsor of the reform bill known as the Strengthening the Tenth Amendment Through Entrusting States (STATES) Act, questioned the wisdom of tying federal marijuana reform to the broader issue of "racial justice," as reflected in the title of the hearing ("Marijuana Laws in America: Racial Justice and the Need for Reform"), especially if it involves fiscal provisions aimed at compensating for the racially disproportionate impact of the war on weed. The Marijuana Justice Act that Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) introduced in 2017, for instance, includes financial penalties for states that disproportionately arrest members of minority groups for marijuana offenses and a "Community Reinvestment Fund" that would spend $500 million a year.

"My deep concern is that concerns over how far to go on some of the restorative elements in our policy could divide our movement," Gaetz said. "If we further divide out the movement, then I fear that we'll continue to fall victim to that which has plagued other Congresses, where we don't get anything done."

 

It's nice that even TeamR critters are willing to say bad things about our stupid drug war these days. The TeamR tribal taboo against doing so has kind of faded, and good riddance.

But Cory Booker is right and there is a strong link between this (and most any other) prohibition program and racism.

It's reflected over and over in the "assault" weapons thread, in which we see that most "mass" shootings are inconvenient for gungrabby purposes because they tend to be drive-by's that are part of drug war violence. And they tend to be young black men shooting other black people in areas with strong gun control and a low gun ownership rate. Some may think this is because

On 5/4/2015 at 2:35 PM, jocal505 said:

The immature, short-sighted desire for gunpower is amplified, and more volatile, among blacks. Even more deadly than among whites.


But I don't agree. I think it's because the stupid drug war creates an economy and jobs in neighborhoods where those are scarce as hell. It also creates a need to protect that economy and those jobs where it's the job of cops to destroy them.  That leads to gang violence and what we see over and over in the "assault" weapon thread: people unwilling to talk to the cops when they've been shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, in the 2nd Circuit, some Guido wants the DEA to explain themselves
 

Quote

 

As previously reported by Atlanta Progressive News, in 2017, a federal lawsuit, Washington et al. v. Sessions et al., was filed in the Southern District of New York to reschedule cannabis.  The case is now Washington v. Barr, naming the new U.S. Attorney General as lead defendant.

...

U.S. District Court Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein ruled the plaintiffs did not exhaust their administrative remedies in that they failed to petition the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) for relief before filing a lawsuit.

 

In a ruling, on May 30, 2019, U.S. Court of Appeals Judge for the Second Circuit Guido Calebresi has agreed with the lower court.  Guido authored the opinion for the two-judge majority on the three-judge panel.

 

However, the U.S. Court of Appeals has taken the unusual step of retaining jurisdiction of the case–by holding the case in abeyance–because children with dire medical needs are involved, and has put the DEA on notice that the Court expects reclassification to occur in the coming months.

 

“It is possible that the current law, thought rational once, is now heading towards irrationality, it may even conceivably be that it has gotten there already,” Judge Calebersi wrote.

 

Wow.

I think it's gone beyond conceivable and is well into glaringly obvious territory but am impressed that Judge Calebersi went as far as he did.
 

Quote

 

The DEA has owned a medical cannabis patent since 2002 and an international patent since 1999 to cover cannabinoids that are medically useful.  

 

https://uspatent6630507.com  

 

It is hypocrisy for the federal government to keep cannabis in Schedule 1 stating that it has no medical use, while at the same time having a patent on the plant for its medicinal use. 

 

And that's really one of the minor reasons. People patent things that don't work. The patients who report relief are mounting evidence that cannabis is medically useful.

As the article notes, the DEA has long experience in avoiding rescheduling. Congress does too. But our stupid drug war seems to be colliding with the wall that spells the end of prohibition programs.

Quote

No prohibition will stand -- ever-- when it comes back and penalizes our children -- the children of US who enacted it.

Children like Alexis Bortell, mentioned in the article, who shared the article about the court case on Facebook.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Duopoly Dumbasses
 

Quote

 

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) has a bachelor's degree in business administration. Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.) has an MBA from Harvard. Yet the two senators seem to think they have the medical expertise to second-guess the judgment of physicians across the United States, not to mention the Food and Drug Administration. A bill they introduced last week, the FDA Opioid Labeling Accuracy Act, instructs the agency to tell prescribers that opioids are "not intended for the treatment of chronic pain."

...

The government's crackdown on pain pills already has led to medically reckless dose reductions and patient abandonment across the country. The problem became so severe that the CDC recently warned that its 2016 opioid prescribing guidelines should not be interpreted as endorsing, let alone requiring, involuntary tapering or discontinuation, which may lead to "adverse psychological and physical outcomes" (including suicide), "could represent patient abandonment," and "can result in missed opportunities to provide potentially lifesaving information and treatment." A bill like Manchin and Braun's can only aggravate this problem, while making doctors less inclined to treat chronic pain to begin with.

 

And once again blessed bipartisan unity makes me long for gridlock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bezo$' Broad Bru$h
 

Quote

 

"America's largest drug companies saturated the country with 76 billion oxycodone and hydrocodone pain pills from 2006 through 2012 as the nation's deadliest drug epidemic spun out of control," The Washington Post reports, citing newly released data from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). That lead and the headline above the article ("76 Billion Opioid Pills: Newly Released Federal Data Unmasks the Epidemic") tell a simple and familiar story: Because doctors prescribed too many pain pills, people died—"nearly 100,000″ from 2006 through 2012, according to the Post, although data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicate that the actual number for the drugs the Post is talking about was more like 68,000.

The reality is more complicated than the story told by the Post. It is clear that doctors, in many cases, did prescribe more pills than their patients ended up needing, since a lot of those pills were diverted to nonmedical use. But by counting all 76 billion as self-evidently problematic, the Post ignores the benefits of opioids for the millions of Americans who actually need them for pain relief—patients who are now suffering because of the crackdown encouraged by indignant and simplistic press coverage like this.

...

The Post implies that there is a straightforward relationship between opioid prescription rates and opioid-related deaths. That is not true even if you focus on deaths involving pain pills. Between 2006 and 2012, the Post says, West Virginia received the most pills per capita, and "West Virginia also had the highest opioid death rate during this period," which was still true as of 2017, according to the CDC.

But what about the other states that rank high in pills per capita?

 

The article goes on to detail what about them. It's very inconvenient for the drug warrior story line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting near fentanyl can cause death or addiction instantly. And e-cigarettes have similar magical powers.
 

Quote

 

Last month the Journal of the American Heart Association published a study that claimed "e-cigarette use is an independent risk factor for having had a myocardial infarction." Based on data from the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH), the researchers found that vapers were twice as likely to report heart attacks as subjects who had never smoked or vaped. In a blog post, study co-author Stanton Glantz, a longtime anti-smoking activist who directs the Center for Tobacco Research Control & Education at the University of California, San Francisco, described that finding as "more evidence that e-cigs cause heart attacks."

But according to Brad Rodu, a tobacco researcher at the University of Louisville, most of the e-cigarette users who reported heart attacks had them before they started vaping, which makes Glantz's causal inference logically impossible.

 

There's nothing illogical about the effect preceding the cause. Mr. Rodu ignores the psychic ability of e-cigs to know in advance who will try one. Or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kamala Come Lately and Jerrold Nadler Try Undoing Something
 

Quote

 

A bill introduced today by Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) would repeal the federal ban on marijuana, expunge the records of people who have been convicted of violating it, and impose a 5 percent sales tax on cannabis products to fund an Opportunity Trust Fund. Well, two out of three ain't bad.

...

There would also be a Cannabis Opportunity Program for loans to small marijuana businesses "owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals," plus an Equitable Licensing Program for grants to state and local programs that aim to "minimize barriers to cannabis licensing and employment for individuals most adversely impacted by the War on Drugs." Grantees would have to meet several requirements, including "a cannabis licensing board that is reflective of the racial, ethnic, economic, and gender composition of the State or locality."

As Harris emphasizes, marijuana prohibition has had a disproportionate impact on minority groups, which means much of this granting and lending will look a lot like race-based affirmative action. If that does not raise the hackles of potential Republican allies who might otherwise be sympathetic on federalist grounds, tying marijuana reform to a new tax and new spending programs probably will. At a congressional hearing earlier this month, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) plausibly worried that "concerns over how far to go on some of the restorative elements in our policy could divide our movement," with the result that "we don't get anything done." While Gaetz himself has nevertheless signed on as a cosponsor of the MORE Act, so far no other Republican in either house has joined him.

Rather than switching from one marijuana boondoggle (prohibition) to a bunch of new marijuana boondoggles while trying to steer the cannabis industry toward "racial and economic justice," why not just pay reparations directly to individuals who have been hurt by the war on weed?...

 

I approve of the Undoing Something part, not so sure about the new social engineering program. But these posts from another thread seem relevant:

11 hours ago, jzk said:
11 hours ago, frenchie said:

Access to capital, both cultural and financial. 

There's people still alive, today, who grew up amidst lynching, who got redlined out of mortages, who's kids went to under-funded segregated schools.  My landlord / downstairs neighbour / friend Willie, for one. 

The random stop & searches only ended a couple years ago, here.

Don't even get me started on Natives, we'll be here all day.

 

If you run into struggles in your life, find a way to succeed anyway.  That is what winners do.  Winners don't wait around for the government to fix every injustice that ever happened to you. 


"Suck it up, buttercup" isn't a valid answer to an injustice inflicted by someone other than government. Why would it be a valid answer to people wrongly stopped and frisked by noted gun and drug prohibition advocate Mayor Bloomberg's police?

As the "assault" weapon thread shows over and over and over again, minority communities are disproportionately afflicted by drug war violence, aka "mass" shootings. Having to live with that as a result of the stupid drug war seems to me to be an injury that justifies some kind of...umm... reparations. Even for those whose injury was not being able to let their kids play outside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Repastinate Tom said:

Kamala Come Lately and Jerrold Nadler Try Undoing Something
 

I approve of the Undoing Something part, not so sure about the new social engineering program. But these posts from another thread seem relevant:


"Suck it up, buttercup" isn't a valid answer to an injustice inflicted by someone other than government. Why would it be a valid answer to people wrongly stopped and frisked by noted gun and drug prohibition advocate Mayor Bloomberg's police?

As the "assault" weapon thread shows over and over and over again, minority communities are disproportionately afflicted by drug war violence, aka "mass" shootings. Having to live with that as a result of the stupid drug war seems to me to be an injury that justifies some kind of...umm... reparations. Even for those whose injury was not being able to let their kids play outside.

There is a solution.  We could end this stupid drug war.  Or until then, I suggest that you engage in some kind of legal business to make it in this world.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jzk said:

There is a solution.  We could end this stupid drug war.  Or until then, I suggest that you engage in some kind of legal business to make it in this world.  

The people who are involved in state-legal but federally prohibited businesses are a driving force in ending the stupid drug war. You want them to stop?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Repastinate Tom said:

The people who are involved in state-legal but federally prohibited businesses are a driving force in ending the stupid drug war. You want them to stop?

What are the risks?  If those people are risking incarceration or being involved in mass shootings, I would suggest other ways to earn one's keep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, jzk said:

What are the risks?  If those people are risking incarceration or being involved in mass shootings, I would suggest other ways to earn one's keep.

As Kamala Come Lately points out, barriers to entry in the cannabis industry are high, so it's unlikely anyone involved has the indiscretion to live in a poor neighborhood. Poor people don't have a lot of choice while they're figuring out a new way to earn their keep and move on up. During that time, the stupid drug war makes their neighborhood dangerous. Even for the majority of residents, who are not direct and voluntary participants in the illicit market.

If I do something to make your hood dangerous for decades, is it enough that I say oops and stop doing it? We agree that stopping would be a good idea but Kamala Come Lately is right that merely stopping doesn't UNDO SOMETHING. It doesn't undo the decades of harm.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Repastinate Tom said:

If I do something to make your hood dangerous for decades, is it enough that I say oops and stop doing it? We agree that stopping would be a good idea but Kamala Come Lately is right that merely stopping doesn't UNDO SOMETHING. It doesn't undo the decades of harm.

Who is "I?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, jzk said:

Who is "I?"

Just a person. You know, like Citizens United Inc.

Or, in this case, a government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Senate Hearing About Cannabis Industry Banking
 

Quote

 

...

John Lord, CEO and owner of LivWell Enlightened Health, Colorado and Oregon's leading marijuana dispensary, said that limited banking options created a risky situation for him. "I had no choice but to travel to the Internal Revenue Service office in Denver with more than $3 million in cash in order to send the federal government our taxes from our state-legal cannabis business," Lord's testimony stated.

He added that he has had accounts closed at over a dozen financial institutions during his 10 years with the company.

"Imagine running a manufacturing, wholesale, and retail operation with hundreds of employees and having to make all payments, including payroll, in cash. It is difficult and, frankly, it is dangerous. This is something hundreds, if not thousands, of state-legal cannabis companies have had to struggle with," Lord said.

...

 

Should Mr. Lord find other ways to earn his keep, jzk?

Share this post


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

Just a person. You know, like Citizens United Inc.

Or, in this case, a government.

So then do all the people that can't find jobs have an action for compensation against the government for imposing a minimum wage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, jzk said:

So then do all the people that can't find jobs have an action for compensation against the government for imposing a minimum wage?

Perhaps but the damage from the stupid drug war is far more severe so perhaps not.

14 minutes ago, jzk said:

Should the government use force to make the banks do business with Mr. Lord?

No, it should just stop using force to prevent him from doing business with banks, insurers, etc.

Now that I've answered your question, should Mr. Lord find other ways to earn his keep, jzk?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Repastinate Tom said:

Perhaps but the damage from the stupid drug In war is far more severe so perhaps not.

No, it should just stop using force to prevent him from doing business with banks, insurers, etc.

Now that I've answered your question, should Mr. Lord find other ways to earn his keep, jzk?

In your post, you didn't give the reason the banks wouldn't deal with him, or I missed it.  But, it sounds like Mr. Lord is doing quite well.  Why should he find other ways?

Share this post


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

Perhaps but the damage from the stupid drug war is far more severe so perhaps not.

The damage from the minimum wage could be entire careers.   What is the threshold for getting compensation for bad government actions?

Share this post


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

In your post, you didn't give the reason the banks wouldn't deal with him, or I missed it.  But, it sounds like Mr. Lord is doing quite well.  Why should he find other ways?

I was hoping people would follow the link and find that information, but for those who need spoon feeding:

Quote

"under the existing status quo, a credit union that does business with any one of these indirectly affiliated entities could unknowingly risk violating the federal Controlled Substances Act, USA Patriot Act, Bank Secrecy Act, and/or the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, among other federal statutes," Pross said. 

A shorter answer is: the stupid drug war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Repastinate Tom said:

I was hoping people would follow the link and find that information, but for those who need spoon feeding:

A shorter answer is: the stupid drug war.

We agree that the drug war is stupid.  But there is reasonable reasoning behind it.  Do we want a nation where 1/3 of the population are drug addicts like happened in China?  That is a reasonable concern.  Of course, I come down on the side of freedom.  You get addicted to opium?  Don't ask me to pay for your needs.  

Do we legalize every drug?  No prescription drugs?  I say yes, but, again, it would be hard to blame the government for the harm that results in wherever we draw that line.  And, at some point, forcing the government to pay is just forcing me to pay.  Why should I pay for damage done by a stupid drug war?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, jzk said:

We agree that the drug war is stupid.  But there is reasonable reasoning behind it.  Do we want a nation where 1/3 of the population are drug addicts like happened in China?  That is a reasonable concern.

I had not heard about that stat from China. Our own experience with "snake oil" that was mostly morphine didn't result in nearly that large a percentage.

After the Pure Food and Drug Act, that rate went down considerably because people learned they were ingesting morphine.

12 minutes ago, jzk said:

Do we legalize every drug?  No prescription drugs?  I say yes

I say eventually, but we should start with cannabis because it's the least dangerous and enforcement causes the most harm because it's so widespread and popular. After learning a few hard lessons about Laffers, as Cali is doing, we'll be better at decriminalization for the rest.

13 minutes ago, jzk said:

Why should I pay for damage done by a stupid drug war? 

We're paying to cause the harm, so why not pay to mitigate harm done on our behalf?

Share this post


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

I had not heard about that stat from China. Our own experience with "snake oil" that was mostly morphine didn't result in nearly that large a percentage.

After the Pure Food and Drug Act, that rate went down considerably because people learned they were ingesting morphine.

I say eventually, but we should start with cannabis because it's the least dangerous and enforcement causes the most harm because it's so widespread and popular. After learning a few hard lessons about Laffers, as Cali is doing, we'll be better at decriminalization for the rest.

We're paying to cause the harm, so why not pay to mitigate harm done on our behalf?

I would pay to end the drug war.  But you suggest keeping the drug war going on all sorts of other drugs.  There are trade offs.  Winners and losers no matter what you do.  We can't pay for everything all the time.  What if I wasn't able to be a doctor because of licensing requirements?  Who is going to pay me $400k per year?

Fixing bad government policies is about as much as we can hope for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, jzk said:

I would pay to end the drug war.  But you suggest keeping the drug war going on all sorts of other drugs.  There are trade offs.

Actually, I've suggested we go the Portuguese route on the other drugs. I suggest delaying that because we have this idiotic Duopoly tradition of Presidents appointing drug "czars" who say weed is as dangerous as heroin. We have state attorneys who find cannabis legalization laughable, or did until she started running for President. Baby steps are, to me, not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

21 hours ago, jzk said:

We can't pay for everything all the time.  What if I wasn't able to be a doctor because of licensing requirements?  Who is going to pay me $400k per year?

Fixing bad government policies is about as much as we can hope for.

You make some good points about what other stupid policies might require reparations.

From post 786:

Quote

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) plausibly worried that "concerns over how far to go on some of the restorative elements in our policy could divide our movement," with the result that "we don't get anything done." While Gaetz himself has nevertheless signed on as a cosponsor of the MORE Act, so far no other Republican in either house has joined him.

Hard to get the TeamD votes to end the war on weed without throwing some social engineering programs on top.

Just plain hard to get TeamR votes to end their sacred prohibition program, especially if you throw social engineering projects on top.

Rep. Gaetz seems to have decided some votes are better than none.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/15/2019 at 6:16 AM, Repastinate Tom said:

Meanwhile, in the 2nd Circuit, some Guido wants the DEA to explain themselves

And in the DC Circuit, the DEA has until August 28th to explain themselves

https://reason.com/2019/07/30/federal-court-demands-answers-from-dea-on-stonewalled-research-cannabis-applications/

Quote

The D.C. Circuit has instructed the DEA to respond to SRI's suit by August 28, 2019. The lawsuit is available here

Years after it should have happened, but better late than never.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/20/2018 at 8:53 PM, Sean said:

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

Why Did New York Have to Decriminalize Marijuana Possession Twice?
 

Quote

 

Forty-two years ago, New York decriminalized marijuana possession. This week, as you may have heard, New York decriminalized marijuana possession again. What's up with that?

...

the new law eliminates the misdemeanor offense of possessing marijuana that is "burning or open to public view," a provision that police in New York City had commonly used to arrest people for something that supposedly was no longer a crime.

In addition to catching people who happened to be smoking pot or waving their weed around, cops could manufacture misdemeanors by instructing people they stopped to take out any contraband they might have or by searching them (ostensibly for weapons) and pulling out a joint or a bag. Voilà: The marijuana was now "open to public view," an arrestable offense.

Such tricks, combined with the NYPD's "stop and frisk" program, help explain why pot busts skyrocketed in New York City from 1997 through 2011, during the Giuliani and Bloomberg administrations, even while marijuana use (as measured by government-sponsored surveys) remained about the same.  During that period, according to figures compiled by Queens College sociologist Harry Levine, the number of low-level marijuana arrests averaged about 39,000 a year, 14 times the average for the previous 15 years. The arrests overwhelmingly involved blacks and Latinos, who accounted for 84 percent of the total in 2011.

 

More recently, Giulianio started working for the Trump administration and Bloomberg doubled down on his support for the wars on weed and guns and the stop and frisk tactic used in those wars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, frenchie said:
22 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

...

  1. End the war on drugs.

...

...

#5, I'm in total agreement with, and it's well past time we just did it.  Reform the entire incarceral system, while we're at it, strive for rehabilitation and restorative justice, instead of punishment.  But here, again... good luck with that.

What you guys are saying was confined to nutjob libertarians not so long ago.

We've really had pretty good luck, as now the entire TeamD Presidential field has adopted the nutty libertarian view when it comes to cannabis prohibition and there are even a pretty decent number of TeamR types on board.

Still not a topic of much interest, especially compared to gungrabbing, as a glance at this forum shows pretty much every day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites