Importunate Tom

Drug Prohibition: Still Stupid

Recommended Posts

Alabama Senate committee approves medical marijuana

Quote

 

The Senate Judiciary Committee held a public hearing on the bill by Sen. Tim Melson, R-Florence, then voted to approve the bill. The vote was 6-2 with three abstentions.

The bill by Melson, a physician, would allow people with certain conditions to receive a medical cannabis card and would create a Medical Cannabis Commission, which would issue the cards and also licenses for the cultivation, production and sales of medical marijuana.

 

So squeaked by 6-5 and the abstentions are folks who at least have the decency to be ashamed of themselves.

Quote

Clay Hammac, commander of Shelby County Drug Enforcement, said the bill would send an incorrect message that marijuana is safe and would hurt efforts to enforce the law against it.

There's no such thing as a fatal dose, so way safer than aspirin or most any other drug. Also safer than water.

 

Quote

 

Linda Lee, executive director of the Alabama Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, spoke against the bill, saying that the academy opposes any medical marijuana usage that falls outside Food and Drug Administration regulations.

“We recognize that anecdotal accounts have shown that certain marijuana compounds can benefit some children with chronic, life-limiting, debilitating conditions,” Lee said. "We have no doubt about that."

But Lee said the academy has concerns about the lack of study on medical marijuana products and the dangers of of the products falling into the hands of children.

In addition, Lee said the FDA has approved four drugs from marijuana derivatives, one CBD-based and three THC-based.

“The FDA does extensive research that we in our state don’t have,” Lee said. "These four drugs are already approved. So, therefore, this law is not needed."

 

 
The lack of research is because of prohibition and the pilot program that authorizes those drugs for a few Alabama people doesn't extend to those not in the program. So for most people she admits need these drugs that she admits are proven safe, the law is still needed.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/13/2019 at 4:59 AM, Importunate Tom said:

What happens when Puritans and regulators are more concerned with the fact that some people might enjoy altering their minds than the fact that some people suffer intractable pain?

Nothing good, usually.

Quote

Acknowledging the suffering caused by "misinterpretation" of the opioid prescribing guidelines it published in 2016, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) yesterday sought to clarify that it never recommended imposing involuntary dose reductions on chronic pain patients. In a letter to physicians who had objected to that widespread practice, CDC Director Robert Redfield emphasized that his agency "does not endorse mandated or abrupt dose reduction or discontinuation, as these actions can result in patient harm." Redfield described several steps the CDC is taking to research the impact of its guidelines and correct misunderstandings that have led to abrupt withdrawal, undertreated pain, denial of care, and in some cases suicide.

Widespread "misinterpretation" by health professionals occurred because those health professionals are not stupid and realized that they were targets of drug warriors and reacted by dramatically reducing dosages that were above Puritan-approved levels.

In managing the government-created risk, they greatly increased risk to patients.

But it's important to remember that it was the health professionals who made a mistake here. The government did nothing wrong, they were just misinterpreted by "professionals" who should have known that the regulation didn't mean what it clearly implied.

Update:

The Authors of the CDC's Opioid Prescribing Advice Say It Has Been 'Misimplemented' in a Way That Hurts Patients

Gee, how did that happen?
 

Quote

 

...

Yet Dowell et al. conspicuously fail to take any responsibility for the unintended but foreseeable harm caused by their advice. When a document is as widely misconstrued as the CDC's guidelines have been—by insurers, regulators, legislators, pharmacists, and law enforcement agencies as well as clinicians—it is fair to ask how the authors left themselves open to misinterpretation.

According to the guidelines, "Clinicians should use caution when prescribing opioids at any dosage, should carefully reassess evidence of individual benefits and risks when considering increasing dosage to ≥50 morphine milligram equivalents (MME)/day, and should avoid increasing dosage to ≥90 MME/day or carefully justify a decision to titrate dosage to ≥90 MME/day." The implication is that doses of 90 MME or more per day are rarely, if ever, medically justified.

It is hardly a stretch for physicians with patients who exceed this arbitrary threshold, including patients who have been functioning well on high doses for years, to worry that they will be perceived as practicing outside the bounds of proper medical care.

...

 

It was completely predictable so of course it happened.

It was that or "carefully justify" something they should avoid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Donald Trump: Still Stupid
 

Quote

 

Today Donald Trump praised China for classifying the export of fentanyl (or, as he calls it, "fentanol") as "a major crime," making traffickers subject to the death penalty. "In China, unlike in our country, the highest level of crime is very, very high," Trump said at the National Rx Drug Abuse & Heroin Summit in Atlanta. "You pay the ultimate price. So I appreciate that very much."

Contrary to what the president implied, U.S. law does authorize the execution of drug traffickers in certain circumstances. Drug offenders eligible for the death penalty include leaders of criminal enterprises that sell 60,000 kilograms of marijuana, 60 kilograms of heroin, 17 kilograms of crack cocaine, or 600 grams of LSD.

 

Not to mention ignorant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/25/2016 at 8:05 AM, Importunate Tom said:

From the Team Alexis FB page:

 

Quote
Alexis Bortell, a young Texan forced to flee the state in order to receive effective treatment for her seizure disorder celebrated one full year without a single seizure yesterday. Alexis’s parents sought refuge in Colorado where physicians were able to successfully treat her seizures with cannabis oil.

 

As the years between seizures (that occurred every few hours under our best pharmaceuticals) continue to mount, some evidence emerges of the terrible harm that cannabis can do to the minds of children.

I swiped the image from her FB page because FB is stupid and won't leave images in one place.

AlexisHonorRoll.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spaceship bongs and BuzzBee Frisbee's, say the author.
 

 

Quote

 

...

That booming paraphernalia market, however, would also prove to be decriminalization’s undoing. By 1978, rates of adolescent marijuana use had skyrocketed, with 1 in 9 high school seniors smoking pot every day and children as young as 13 reporting that the drug was “easy to get.” This angered a growing number of parents, who saw kid-oriented paraphernalia as a “gateway” to drug use. The grassroots parent movement, which began in 1976 and came to its height of influence during the Reagan administration, worked to overturn state decriminalization laws and reaffirm the federal government’s anti-marijuana stance. Once decriminalization was overturned, the paraphernalia companies that had sprouted across the country folded as quickly as they had formed.

This previous experiment with decriminalization shows exactly how shaky the current legalization efforts in the United States might actually be. Despite widespread support for legalization (including from all current 2020 candidates for the presidential Democratic nomination), an unregulated and hyper-commercialized marijuana marketplace was unpopular enough to overturn lenient drug laws 40 years ago, and could potentially do so again today.

...

A blatant rush to profit today, similar to the paraphernalia market of the 1970s, could overturn the progress made by countless legalization activists over the past 20 years. Unless the market chooses to self-regulate, another graduate student might be at the Library of Congress in 40 years, wondering at how quickly and easily America’s brief experiment with legalization was overturned.

 

 
This makes me wonder how I never even heard of a BuzzBee before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Federal Marijuana Legalization Is Close, Suggests Canopy-Acreage Deal
 

Quote

 

...

It was just last week that Canopy Growth signed a $3.4 billion agreement to acquire the medical marijuana firm Acreage Holdings. You might remember Acreage for its failed attempt at getting a cannabis advertisement approved as part of the sporting circus known as Super Bowl LIII. The basis of the agreement is that as soon as the U.S. government finally musters up the guts to end marijuana prohibition once and for all, Canopy will -- snap, bang, boom, just like that -- assume the Acreage properties and hit the ground running as the most powerful cannabis seller in the United States.

Although the deal is still contingent on several details – like stockholder agreement and regulatory approval by both the U.S. and Canada – neither company seems concerned that their mingling will be contested.

...

And then there is the John Boehner factor. The former House Speaker sits on the board of Acreage Holdings and is also the honorary chairman for an enthusiastic gang of pot lobbyists known as the National Cannabis Roundtable (NCR). This group is reportedly heavily funded by the cannabis trade, with foot soldiers in DC right now, persuading federal lawmakers to show support for issues ranging from medical marijuana research to getting the federal government to fall in line with the marijuana standards of today. One piece of legislation that this group is particularly motivated to get on the books is the STATES Act, which would allow states to legalize marijuana any way they see fit without the possibility of federal interference. It’s the one cannabis-related bill that President Trump has said he would “probably” sign if Congress can come to terms.

...

But the latest deal between Canopy and Acreage suggests that a timeline for nationwide marijuana legalization may already be established. After all, why would a company shell out a $300 million deposit on an acquisition that may never come to pass? It is even a stretch to suggest that a company, even one as seemingly well off as Canopy, would toss such a hefty chunk of investment capital into American weed without some kind of assurance that the laws were on the verge of change.

I guess what I’m trying to say is: if you’re reading between the lines, this contract between Canopy and Acreage was signed, presumably, because Boehner has the 4-1-1 on the Congressional cannabis chatter and has convinced all of the parties involved that U.S. pot prohibition is coming down – and like, sooner than later.

But will it be this year or next?

 

I'll take a shot at that last question: Neither.

He's following the money. That makes some sense.

I am too.

$300 million is a lot of money. $2,441.5 million is a WHOLE LOT more. I'm going to bet the WHOLE LOT more wins again.

 

 

Share this post


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

any thread that gets too long degrades into meaningless slanging matches

Dylan


Yeah, this one has been quite raucous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Georgia Jury Nullification
 

Quote

 

Laurens County, GA – Javonnie Mondrea McCoy is a medical marijuana patient in a state where the plant is still illegal and was recently in court facing charges of possession and manufacturing. McCoy grew cannabis for his own personal consumption to treat severe headaches and other pain that he has suffered since he spent two weeks in a coma in 2003 after being severely beaten.

Instead of attempting to fight the case on the grounds that the evidence against him was wrong, McCoy instead argued that the laws were wrong. He was honest about his experience and his medical use of cannabis during the trial, and the jury acquitted his case, despite the evidence against him.

...

“Today, I quoted Article 1, Section 1, Paragraph XI of the Georgia Constitution to the jury. The judge interrupted and told them it was ‘not a correct statement of the law.’ The judge took an oath to uphold that Constitution. What’s going on here?” Bernard wrote.

 

The judge also no doubt told the jury they were to evaluate the evidence in light of the law as he explained it to them.

I'm glad they exercised their right to ignore the judge and judge the law themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/26/2019 at 4:42 AM, Importunate Tom said:

Update:

The Authors of the CDC's Opioid Prescribing Advice Say It Has Been 'Misimplemented' in a Way That Hurts Patients

Gee, how did that happen?
 

It was completely predictable so of course it happened.

It was that or "carefully justify" something they should avoid.

UNDOING SOMETHING STUPID turns out to be difficult and time consuming.
 

Quote

 

Given the scrutiny that regulators and law enforcement agencies have been applying to doctors in recent years, prescribing practices portrayed as extreme and dubious by the CDC are apt to attract unwelcome attention that could jeopardize a physician's livelihood and liberty. In this context, forced tapering and abandonment were predictable outcomes, even though the CDC guidelines say doctors should reduce doses only when the risks outweigh the benefits and describe the process as collaborative and consensual.

"We all warned of this outcome when the 'guidelines' were issued," says Mark Ibsen, an emergency medicine physician in Helena, Montana. "The CDC guidelines have been as harmful as predicted, and the silence over three years has been criminal."

Patrice Harris, the AMA's president-elect, worries that "the guidelines have been misapplied so widely that it will be a challenge to undo the damage." Lynn Webster, a former president of the American Academy of Pain Medicine, is even less optimistic.

"I am afraid that cultural attitudes, fears, misinformation, and prejudices are baked into the system," Webster says. "It may take a generation before a more sensible and compassionate approach to treating people in pain with opioids is established."

 

Having a Puritan drug warrior threaten your career is something that takes a bit of time to get over, I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

politics is a reasonably efficient machine. politically valuable new ideas are integrated quickly. politically bad ideas are thrown out.this is part of why politicians sound the same; this is also why almost all 3rd party candidates sound like clueless loons.


Hah! Fairly quickly, huh?

Libertarians have been taking on our stupid cannabis prohibition program since the 1970's.

Kamala Harris finally went from laughing at our ideas a few years ago to making them part of her campaign platform this year.

How many decades would be "really quickly" if that's "fairly quickly?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DC Government Conspiring To Break Federal Law

Quote

 

On Thursday, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser unveiled a plan that she and other proponents hope will clear a path toward full legalization in the District: the “Safe Cannabis Sales Act of 2019.”

...

The next step: “We will call on the [D.C.] Council to hold hearings to set a schedule and to get this work done,” Bowser said.

But that’s not necessarily so straightforward. There have been questions about the legality of even holding a hearing. In 2015, Attorney General Karl Racine had warned the council against it.

But Democrats control the House now, and a statement Friday from Racine’s office indicated that after reviewing the definition of “enactment” thoroughly, they can proceed.

“We are confident that the mayor, the Council, and other District officials can lawfully engage in the legislative process, including the introduction of legislation and hearings, to consider the merits of sensible marijuana regulation,” they said. “Doing so does not constitute enactment of legislation.”

The congressman responsible for that appropriations rider, Maryland Rep. Andy Harris (a Republican who represents Maryland’s 1st District) advised Bowser to not proceed, in a statement Thursday afternoon:

“Federal Law prohibits the District of Columbia from expending any funds for the purposes of the further legalization of recreational marijuana in the District.

As such, and in accordance with her own Attorney General Karl Racine’s 2015 opinion, if Mayor Bowser has used any official resources in drafting or any other activity related to further recreational marijuana legalization, her office will have violated the Antideficiency Act and may be subject to the penalties associated with such a violation.

I continue to believe that legalization of recreational marijuana is poor public policy. Mayor Bowser should respect the Constitution, which gives Congress absolute authority over the District of Columbia, and discontinue her efforts to legalize marijuana in violation of the law.”

 

I'm obviously a fan of the Mayor's action but I suspect Rep. Harris is right about the law.

Congress does have absolute power and absolute power stupefies absolutely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FGCU is training our best and brightest to violate federal law in a more professional and intelligent manner.
 

Quote

 

Florida is one of the fastest growing medical marijuana markets in the country. Now, Florida Gulf Coast University is offering a brand new type of certification. It will help Florida’s cannabis professionals rise to the top of the industry.

FGCU offers professionals who deal with a cannabis a unique opportunity.

“This is I believe the only multi-disciplinary professional certificate program in the country,” said Martha Rosenthal, an FGCU professor of neuroscience and physiology.

It is a five-day course focusing on the history in the law, the plant and the cultivation, along with how it interacts with the science of the body. The class is in such high demand that the university plans to offer another one in August.

 

HempWarPosterVerticleLOW-768x981.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/17/2017 at 12:03 PM, MR.CLEAN said:

So what do you do with the orange leader, Tom?  Just swallow your pride and agree with him that one of the guys who literally helped millions more opioids hit the black market is a fine man and a great congressman?  Or do you call bullshit on Trump and his pick?

.

1 hour ago, MR.CLEAN said:

TeamR is almost entirely responsible for the current state of the Drug War.  What are you doing about that?

 

Still wondering without doing any reading, I see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Magic Mushrooms Decriminalized In Denver
 

Quote

 

In a surprise turn of events, a Denver ballot initiative to effectively decriminalize psychedelic mushrooms, previously thought to have failed, now appears to have narrowly passed after all. This would make the Mile High City the first in the U.S. to decriminalize psilocybin.

If the unofficial final tally holds, Denver law enforcement will be directed to treat psychedelic mushrooms owned for personal possession as the lowest enforcement priority. The initiative will not legalize commercial sales.

"We're sending a clear signal to the rest of the country," Kevin Matthews, the leader of the "Decriminalize Denver" movement, which placed the initiative on the ballot, told The Washington Post. "That America is ready to talk about psilocybin. We have work to do, we're ready for it and we couldn't be happier."

 

I wasn't surprised by the initial reports that the initiative failed but am pleasantly surprised those reports were wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More on Shrooms
 

Quote

 

...If allowing medical use of a drug is a prelude to broader toleration, as it proved to be with marijuana, the Food and Drug Administration's approval of psilocybin as a treatment for depression, which seems increasingly likely now that the agency has deemed it a "breakthrough therapy," may help shift public opinion. Advocates of decriminalizing psilocybin, which activists are pursuing in Oregon and California, highlight such benefits, while emphasizing that psilocybin does not pose a risk of addiction or fatal overdose. There is also the precedent of allowing religious use of psychedelics, which suggests the sky would not fall if broader "spiritual" use were allowed.

...

At this point, however, the general message from reformers is that psilocybin is a serious drug for serious purposes, meaning that using it just for fun remains suspect. Furthermore, efforts to change the legal treatment of psilocybin show that the case for letting adults decide what they put into their own bodies has to be relitigated for every substance. Americans are not close to accepting a general principle that the government has no business meddling in such decisions.

...

The case for legalizing opioids, for instance, does not and cannot hinge on the claim that they do not pose serious risks. To the contrary, the dangers they pose make the case for legalization stronger, since prohibition greatly magnifies those dangers. If the argument against criminalizing drug use depends on persuading people that certain substances are benign and beneficial, the targets of the war on drugs may change, but the war will go on forever.

 

I hear you're supposed to drink red wine for your heart but mine has to go without because I'm just not interested.

Other than that, alcohol really isn't all that benign and the sliver of beneficial (medically speaking) is pretty small.

It's a dangerous drug and devastating to alcohol addicts.

And prohibition greatly magnified those dangers so we dropped it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:
16 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

TeamR is almost entirely responsible for the current state of the Drug War.  What are you doing about that?

 

Still wondering without doing any reading, I see.

I doubt CLEAN will develop enough interest to start reading this thread, but for readers who may wonder how I would answer...

On 9/21/2015 at 9:29 PM, Importunate Tom said:

I'd like to see (mostly Republican) drug prohibitionists lose votes over the issue


I do note that Obama was TeamD and would not lift a finger to end the drug war, instead appointing the same idiots a TeamR President would.

On 11/11/2015 at 3:54 AM, Importunate Tom said:

Head of DEA is a joke

 

He serves at the pleasure of the President, so I guess having a guy who doesn't know that marijuana has medical uses and who thinks it's more or less the same as heroin pleases the President. Of course, we could always elect someone from the other half of the Duopoly and get more or less the same shit, only worse.

 

Close to 15,000 of us have already signed the petition calling for his removal from office. Not that it would matter. Obama would just appoint another drug warrior who puts the interests of his agency above those of the people. Just like a Republican President would.

He got a few hat tips from me in this thread for pardons at the end of his term, but that's it. None of the campaigning, stumping, and letter writing he did for TeamD's favored prohibition program.

I note when Duopoly drug warriors like Kamala Harris and John Boehner come around.

On 4/11/2018 at 10:32 AM, Importunate Tom said:
On 4/11/2018 at 8:54 AM, Sean said:

Well then.....

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

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

Appointments Add Unmatched Experience to Acreage Holdings’ Board of Advisors

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

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

But I'm also somewhat suspicious of recent converts. A change in the wind can have them right back to their old prohibitionist ways. Like Trump did recently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/30/2019 at 5:50 AM, Importunate Tom said:

California's Marijuana Tax Revenue Still Sucks Stale Bong Water
 

Quote

 

This week Gov. Gavin Newsom's administration cut $223 million out of the state's projections of tax revenue from marijuana sales through June 2020.

At this point, that's not a surprise. Between its extremely high tax rates and its foot-dragging in vendor licensing, California has done such a terrible job implementing marijuana legalization that it made only half the taxes over the first year that the authorities projected—$345 million rather than $643 million. The Golden State has made it such a nightmare for consumers to buy legal recrational marijuana and for vendors to sell it—so much so that the state still has a massive black market. In some communities, according to the Associated Press, half of all marijuana purchases still take place illicitly.

...

There is a bill to cut state-level taxes for a few years, which lawmakers hope will incentivize the development of legal marijuana businesses and reduce the need for black market sales. That legislation, AB 286, passed through the Assembly's Business and Professions Committee at the end of April and has been referred to the Appropriations Committee.

While cutting pot taxes would be a great idea, Newsom and the California legislature are so hot to find more sources of revenue these days that we should be skeptical about the bill's future. Newsom has said that he wants harsher enforcement against people selling weed on the black market. Sacramento wants its pay day, even if it means perpetuating the drug war.

 

Yeah, I'm skeptical about the bill's future. I think they'll decide on higher taxes, more regulations, and harsh enforcement. Then they'll wonder why the black market can compete with the legal market.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/25/2019 at 9:09 PM, Importunate Tom said:

Passed the Senate, on to the House
 

Quote

 

“There is a time I never would have carried this bill a year ago, two years ago,” Sen. Tim Melson (R), the bill’s sponsor, said during the floor debate on Wednesday. “I finally looked up the facts instead of stereotyping what medical cannabis is.”

The senator also argued that legalizing marijuana for medical purposes could mitigate opioid prescriptions in the state.

 

I had to look him up to confirm. He really is TeamR.

He's also a physician. Who FINALLY looked up some medical facts just recently. Better late than never, but it does show the power of drug war stereotypes.

Share this post


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

Yeah but there is a big difference between being an ignorant yahoo and not knowing it and being an purposefully ignorant asshole and proud of it.


Which kind keeps asking the same questions that indicate a (purposeful?) lack of reading for years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just had to interject,  this Tedious Tom monologue has gone twenty posts comprised solely of our favorite gunz nut talking to himself. Mental illness is a HUGE red flag when gunz are introduced.

Share this post


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

Just had to interject,  this Tedious Tom monologue has gone twenty posts comprised solely of our favorite gunz nut talking to himself. Mental illness is a HUGE red flag when gunz are introduced.

Asshole. I was seeing if he would hit 100 solo.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/23/2018 at 6:38 AM, Importunate Tom said:

Oregon Supreme Court To Cops: we have an expectation of privacy in our garbage
 

Quote

 

..."Most Oregonians would consider their garbage to be private and deem it highly improper for others—curious neighbors, ex-spouses, employers, opponents in a lawsuit, journalists, and government officials, to name a few—to take away their garbage bin and scrutinize its contents," Justice Lynn Nakamoto writes for the majority.

Nakamoto's opinion alludes to a classic 2002 article from the alternative Portland paper Willamette Week. In that story, reporters from the Willamette Week rummaged through the garbage of Portland's mayor, police chief, and district attorney, all three of whom had defended dumpster diving as a valid form of evidence collection. The reporters turned up a number of incredibly private things, including a romantic note from the police chief to his wife.

When these reporters asked the officials about the things they'd found, most were less than pleased with what they saw as a violation of their privacy. That story, Nakamoto writes, reinforced just how private the contents of one's garbage could be.

In 2007, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that once a sanitation company takes the garbage from the curb, it's fair for police to paw through it. Thursday's decision establishes a new standard: Police cannot ask the sanitation company to specifically set aside a specific household's garbage to be searched later, after pickup, unless the cops first obtain a warrant.

 

Funny how dumpster diving in support of the drug war is OK but when reporters did it to cops and politicians it was outrageously outrageous.

I love reporters like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:
8 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:

 they focus on rehab for users, not enemy businesses.

they do both, dolt.


As do we.

But our focus is on punishment. Punish evil businesses, punish evil drug users, punish punish punish.

I know "focus" isn't a name you call someone you can't answer, but it's still a word you should learn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, mad said:

13 posts in a row all to yourself..........is that a new record? 


No, as your fellow gossips have already observed in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

Think you're pushing it a little hard suggesting that marijuana was illegal because of them too - that was the whole "all drugs are bad and weed is the gateway" attitude of the conservatives that sealed that deal. Big Pharma didn't need to lift a finger on that front. 

Umm...

The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 was passed by a New Deal TeamD Congress over the objections of the AMA.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Little Progress In Texas
 

Quote

 

...Recently elected Bexar County District Attorney Joe Gonzales, whose jurisdiction includes San Antonio, announced today that his office will no longer prosecute possession of trace amounts of narcotics such as heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamines under .25 grams. In addition, Gonzales' office will no longer prosecute marijuana possession of less than an ounce.

...

"We believe that our resources need to be focused on the most serious violent crimes and criminals, and we have to make decisions on where to put our people and how to use those resources," Christian Henrickson, the Bexar County D.A.'s chief of litigation, tells Reason. "It makes more sense to put them on violent crimes as opposed to small quantities of drugs that have a low conviction rate to start with."

Henrickson says that last year there were 5,000 marijuana cases filed in Bexar County, and he expects the impact of the new policy on marijuana prosecutions to be "fairly significant."

As Reason reported, petty drug amounts make up the bulk of narcotics prosecutions in Texas; a study by Human Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties Union found 78 percent of people sentenced to incarceration for felony drug possession in Texas in 2015 possessed under a gram—roughly the weight of a paperclip. The study's authors found one Texas man was sentenced to 15 years in prison for possession of trace amounts of methamphetamines so insignificant that the drug lab couldn't even assign a fractional weight to it.

 

 

Cops complain that it invalidates their work. How about: it makes them focus on valid work instead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now