Cacoethesic Tom

Drug Prohibition: Still Stupid

Recommended Posts

The list of contumacious prosecutors continues to grow

https://reason.com/2019/09/30/indianapolis-top-prosecutor-says-hell-stop-charging-simple-marijuana-possession/
 

Quote

 

Indianapolis' top prosecutor announced Monday that his office will no longer file charges for possession of under an ounce of marijuana.

The policy change by Ryan Mears, Marion County's temporary prosecutor, is the latest move by a big-city district attorney to rein in marijuana prosecutions. Mears also joins a growing list of prosecutors who are beginning to acknowledge the drug war's costly drain on police and court resources.

...

Top prosecutors in other major cities have issued similar policies. In Baltimore, State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby announced in January that the city would no longer prosecute any cases of marijuana possession.

In Texas, recently elected Bexar County District Attorney Joe Gonzales, whose jurisdiction includes San Antonio, announced in May that his office will no longer prosecute possession of trace amounts of narcotics such as heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamines, and that it would start a "cite and release" policy for marijuana possession of under an ounce. John Creuzot, Dallas County's district attorney, announced in April that his office would not prosecute first-time marijuana offenses or trace amounts of drugs under .01 grams.

Last year, shortly after taking office, Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner dropped all marijuana prosecutions and ordered his attorneys to decline drug paraphernalia prosecutions.

Of course, not all of these prosecutors' colleagues in law enforcement are happy about these developments.

"It seems to me a curious strategy to put out a welcome mat for lawbreakers in a community already facing challenges related to crime, homelessness and other social problems stemming from drug abuse," Curtis Hill, Indiana's attorney general, said about Mears' new policy in a statement to the Star.

 

 

But as Mr. Hill's reaction shows, DOING SOMETHING STUPID is a really hard habit to break.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

We need to lift the prohibition on killing.

Prohibition never works.


It doesn't work for "victimless" non-crimes like drinking, gambling, smoking weed, etc, that lots of harmless people do with few negative consequences for themselves or anyone else.

It's more than possible to destroy your life through drinking or gambling but prohibiting those "crimes" because a few destroy themselves exacerbates the problem it's trying to solve.

Share this post


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

It's more than possible to destroy your life through drinking or gambling but prohibiting those "crimes" because a few destroy themselves exacerbates the problem it's trying to solve.

That's really the 'root cause' issue that I agree.

The idea that alcoholism isn't destructive to both consumer and relations is silly and naive.  Rather, we culturally agree that a few people suffering alcoholism is worth less overall than the majority of people "enjoying themselves responsibly."  A utilitarian bargain, through and through.  Great!

Within that construct, how do we minimize harm?  The "war on drugs" model hasn't minimized harm, IMHO.  Time for something else.

Share this post


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

The idea that alcoholism isn't destructive to both consumer and relations is silly and naive.  Rather, we culturally agree that a few people suffering alcoholism is worth less overall than the majority of people "enjoying themselves responsibly."  A utilitarian bargain, through and through.  Great!

You can view it that way but I think it's about self-ownership. Not sure whether that's a utilitarian thing.

The fact that a policy based on self-ownership works better is nice, but it comes with costs that some societies can't accept, largely on utilitarian grounds.

For example, we've seen the ACLU defending a KKK march through a Jewish neighborhood. In many countries, the answer to that kind of thing is to prohibit it.

Our fourth amendment frequently ties the hands of government and prevents conviction of guilty people. That has costs too, maybe ones that won't withstand utilitarian math.

But expression (and expre$$ion) and privacy are self-ownership things, as is the fourth amendment-derived Her Body, Sometimes Her Choice thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Hypercapnic Tom said:

You can view it that way but I think it's about self-ownership. Not sure whether that's a utilitarian thing.

Self-ownership actually goes the more of the Kantian / Golden Rule route which is why it's so often in conflict with Democracy, which is always a 'utilitarian' compromise.  Now we're about to go down the philosophical rat hole.

The ultimate 'self' centered position is that of the individual.  People can do whatever they want to themselves.  And if that were the end of the story, there wouldn't' be any more conversations.  We'd all live in our own little personal bubbles.  But that's not the end of the story.  Humans, by their nature, are social.  In fact, the people that DON'T need any interaction are the anomalies - even Ted Kandinsky eventually interacted.

So the real debate with regards to liberty is where does the 'self' end and 'society' begin and what should we do about it.  And that's usually a flexible boundary.

The anarchist argument is that the "self" is always will be the individual and extends no further.  There is no interaction or responsibility beyond the individual.  The Libertarian argument is that the self should be as close to the individual as possible, recognizing that it's an approaching limit not an absolute end point.  The most extreme libertarian argument goes further and says any rounding errors belong to the individual which ends up being almost anarchy but not quite.

Modern China, much of Japan, Imperial England, etc. are good examples of where the "individual" is extended all the way out to the borders of the country - either physical or practical through control.  The be 'Japanese' is to represent a certain set of ideals that all individuals should share as a collective aspiration.  To wrap up with Kant - the difference between the "Golden Rule' and the "categorical imperative' is where you draw the circle around the individual.  Is it a single person?  Their immediate family?  Their tribe?  Their country?  The same applies to the Utilitarian model - the greatest good for 'me', for 'us', or for 'everyone'?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bout fucking time

(twiddles thumbs waiting for Michigan to let me expunge my mackinac island smoke break record)

Share this post


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

bout fucking time

(twiddles thumbs waiting for Michigan to let me expunge my mackinac island smoke break record)

I hope they do, but how much practical difference will it make in your life?

On the issue of undoing the harm of the stupid drug war, the best nationally known politicians are Cory Booker and Tulsi Gabbard. Perhaps coincidentally, they're polling like they are libertarians or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FL Legislature Hears Reefer Madness Dinosaur

https://www.cltampa.com/news-views/florida-news/article/21092509/a-harvard-doctor-issued-dire-warnings-to-florida-lawmakers-about-marijuana-this-week
 

Quote

 

The House Health & Human Services Committee on Tuesday heard an hour-long presentation from Harvard Medical School psychobiologist Bertha Madras, who issued dire warnings about the dangers of marijuana use, particularly for youngsters.

“Marijuana is not benign. It is not safe. It is addictive. … It interferes with learning and memory,” cautioned Madras, who specializes in substance use disorders.

Madras delineated a plethora of pot-related hazards. For example, she advised that marijuana use in teenagers can increase the risk of schizophrenia and cause long-term harmful effects in adults.

“It will take years and one or two generations to fully comprehend the consequences. It took our nation more than 20 years to raise alarm bells around the opioid issue. The alarm bells are beginning to come in with marijuana, and we hope people are listening,” she warned.

Madras, who opposes legalization of marijuana, also said she is unconvinced of the medicinal value of pot, which has not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration and which remains illegal under federal law.

 

It's really not nice to call her a "psycho" biologist but...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE4TpnYIsW4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/16/2019 at 4:04 AM, Hypercapnic Tom said:

I hope they do, but how much practical difference will it make in your life?

 

A shit ton, though less today than yesterday, for reasons I'll share in about a month.

But I can't currently enter Canada because of that stupid thing up in Mackinac that should have been expunged the second medical weed became legal and I got my card.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MR.CLEAN said:

A shit ton, though less today than yesterday, for reasons I'll share in about a month.

But I can't currently enter Canada because of that stupid thing up in Mackinac that should have been expunged the second medical weed became legal and I got my card.

Did you show them your press credentials and ask them if they know who you are?

:D

It's about time it was legalized.

Share this post


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

A shit ton, though less today than yesterday, for reasons I'll share in about a month.

But I can't currently enter Canada because of that stupid thing up in Mackinac that should have been expunged the second medical weed became legal and I got my card.

You're apparently able to find work as a lawyer and I'd guess able to find housing too.

Compared to people who need expungement due to trouble finding work or housing at all, I'm guessing less of a shit ton. They'd probably think "I can't go to Canada" is a pretty first-world type of problem.

It's a problem that should go away, no matter how relatively large or small, but we'll have to wait for politicians to get a bit more libertarian for a while more.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Banks and other companies are canna-curious

https://mjbizdaily.com/big-banking-interest-serve-cannabis-clients-safe-banking-act-passage-u-s-house/

Quote

 

The next step for the SAFE (Secure and Fair Enforcement Banking) Act appears to be a likely Senate committee vote this fall. Senate Banking Chair Mike Crapo, an Idaho Republican, indicated he is increasingly positive about getting the bill up for a vote in the full chamber in 2020.

“It is gaining momentum, but what will really move the needle are the proposed rules coming out and what the banks will do then,” said Mike Kennedy, co-founder of compliance software company Green Check Verified, which is based in Connecticut.

“There are ongoing conversations with banks and there are more canna-curious companies.

 

Thinking Canna-Curious Tom might be a fun screen name...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bernie's Tax And Spend Plan To End Cannabis Prohibition
 

Quote

 

Because this is a Sanders plan, his legalization initiative also calls for more federal spending and regulation. Sanders wants to tax the newly legal marijuana industry to the tune of $50 billion over 10 years, and then spend that revenue on new grant and development programs. This includes $20 billion in grants to "entrepreneurs of color who continue to face discrimination in access to capital." Another $10 billion will be given out as grants to "businesses that are at least 51 percent owned or controlled by those in disproportionately impacted areas or individuals who have been arrested for or convicted of marijuana offenses."

Sanders would establish a separate but similar $10 billion grant program through the U.S. Department of Agriculture to subsidize marijuana grow operations run by people with marijuana arrest or conviction records. Lastly, he would set up another $10 billion community development fund that would "provide grants to communities hit hardest by the War on Drugs."

To prevent "mostly white, mostly male, and already rich 'cannabiz' entrepreneurs" from dominating the industry, Sanders would impose strict, albeit unspecified, market share and franchise caps on marijuana businesses. His plan would also ban tobacco companies and any other corporation that has "created cancer-causing products," or been found guilty of deceptive marketing tactics, from participating in the marijuana industry.

"The idea of preventing tobacco companies from investing in marijuana companies is something that requires some more scrutiny from a constitutional perspective," says Schweich. "If we are regulating them properly, their investors don't really matter."

 

 

He has some good ideas that are long overdue, especially rescheduling, but somehow looks at the Biggest, Most Beautiful Deficit EVER and thinks a plan needs to be made to spend any new revenue that comes in.

Speaking of revenue coming in, the first federal cannabis prohibition was the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 which raised no revenue. It raised no revenue because the tax was deliberately set prohibitively high. Reducing the tax rate would likely have resulted in revenue from a legal market (such a Laffer) but that was not the intent. The intent was prohibition and that's what happened. The lesson I would hope Bernie can learn from this is that there's no practical difference between a prohibitively high tax and outright prohibition based on the commerce power when it comes to creating or eliminating a black market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inside America's First Restaurant for Weed

https://reason.com/video/inside-americas-first-restaurant-for-weed/
 

Quote

 

Erika Soto, an industry veteran, works as a "flower host"—a waitress for weed. When guests arrive, she walks them through their options, explains the effects of various strains, and advises them on proper dosage levels. Lowell is an "important" step combating the "negative stigmas that [surround] the subject that is cannabis," Soto told Reason.

"What our ultimate goal is, is to be able to pair the cannabis with the foods. Your flower host would be like a sommelier, and we want the food service to be versed in cannabis as well," says Estanislao, who tells Reason that Lowell has received more than 800 job applications in its first month of operation. "Everybody wants to work here," she says.

 

I think "Budtender" is a better name, but might provoke a response from the famous beer company.

Quote

For now, Lowell could only be located in the city of West Hollywood, which created a special permit for cannabis hospitality businesses. Estanislao and her team are making a big effort to get along with their neighbors. After the rabbi at a nearby synagogue expressed concern that her congregants would be bombarded with marijuana odor, the restaurant installed massive air filters and machines that spray a scent-neutralizing essential oil called Cannabolish.

Hah! I never heard of Cannabolish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada hasn't figured out how to get rid of the black market yet.

https://reason.com/2019/10/28/canada-hobbles-legal-marijuana-with-burdensome-rules/

They're making progress, but

Quote

 

Marijuana legalization was supposed to give Canada's cannabis fanciers access to above board and reliable drug sources while providing tax revenue for the government. But one year in, large numbers of Canadian cannabis users continue to rely on underground dealers. Like with U.S. states that have grudgingly legalized marijuana for recreational use, the black market goes on thriving and generating profits because politicians and regulators have hobbled legal businesses and inconvenienced consumers through high taxes and excessive rules.

As a result, Canada's legal market is largely uncompetitive with the long-established black market there.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In addition to the spending problems noted above, it appears there are other obstacles to Bernie's plans.

Specifically, he can have the AG reschedule, but not deschedule, cannabis. While I support his descheduling idea, it appears to violate both the Controlled Substances Act and a treaty to which the US is a party.

Quote

 

Since the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs requires its signatories (which include the United States) to criminalize production, possession, and distribution of cannabis for nonmedical purposes, this reference to treaty obligations seems to bar the attorney general from descheduling, as opposed to rescheduling, marijuana. Cannabis "requires a lot of control" under the Single Convention, noted Eric Sterling, executive director of the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation, who helped write federal drug legislation in the 1980s as counsel to the House Judiciary Committee. "Cannabis is supposed to be controlled like opium and opiates." Then again, Kreit noted, other CSA provisions "seem to contemplate situations where the U.S. does not accept international scheduling determinations."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Hypercapnic Tom said:

In addition to the spending problems noted above, it appears there are other obstacles to Bernie's plans.

Specifically, he can have the AG reschedule, but not deschedule, cannabis. While I support his descheduling idea, it appears to violate both the Controlled Substances Act and a treaty to which the US is a party.

 

lol, list the penalties for violating the '61 treaty, Tom

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Hypercapnic Tom said:

Canada hasn't figured out how to get rid of the black market yet.

https://reason.com/2019/10/28/canada-hobbles-legal-marijuana-with-burdensome-rules/

They're making progress, but

 

There are still thousands of 'stills in the US too, and millions of gallons of hooch made annually. They're making progress since 1933, but

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/28/2019 at 7:22 AM, Hypercapnic Tom said:

Bernie's Tax And Spend Plan To End Cannabis Prohibition
 

 

He has some good ideas that are long overdue, especially rescheduling, but somehow looks at the Biggest, Most Beautiful Deficit EVER

 if republicans have stopped complaining about deficits, imagine what a democrat can do now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

There are still thousands of 'stills in the US too, and millions of gallons of hooch made annually. They're making progress since 1933, but

 

i have another batch ready to go this weekend ;-) 

Share this post


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

lol, list the penalties for violating the '61 treaty, Tom

 

It never occurred to me to wonder but after looking at the convention I got a great new screen name.

Weird that cannabis is both Schedule 1 and Schedule 4 according to the UN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/26/2017 at 7:14 AM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

5 years after this ridiculous raid, the lawsuit filed by the Harte family has been revived.
 

 

And the wheels of justice continue to grind along in first gear in the Harte family case.
 

Quote

 

This month the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled that Adlynn and Robert Harte, who lost their case after a jury trial in 2017, were wrongly denied the opportunity to pursue several of their claims against the Johnson County sheriff's deputies who stormed into their home as part of a comically inept publicity stunt.

...

After the Hartes filed their federal lawsuit in 2013, a judge dismissed all of their claims, but a 10th Circuit panel overturned that ruling in 2017. The 10th Circuit's decision included three separate opinions reaching different conclusions based on different reasoning, and the district court had trouble sorting them out. During the ensuing trial, the Hartes were limited to a single federal claim, which hinged on whether the deputies had lied about the field tests. The jury decided that the Hartes had not proven that claim.

In its new decision, the 10th Circuit says the district court erred in limiting the Hartes to that one federal claim. The court has again remanded the case, saying the Hartes should be allowed to pursue three other claims: "(1) whether Defendants properly executed the warrant; (2) whether the deputies exceeded the scope of the warrant by searching for evidence of general criminal activity; and (3) whether the deputies prolonged Plaintiffs' detention, thus subjecting them to an illegal arrest."

In addition to those issues, there is the question of whether the defendants are entitled to "qualified immunity," which depends on whether the relevant case law was sufficiently clear at the time of the raid. So even if the deputies did violate the Hartes' Fourth Amendment rights, that does not necessarily mean they can be held responsible for doing so. Whatever the ultimate outcome, the Johnson County Sheriff's Department has been subjected to well-deserved scorn and ridicule for its lazy, unprofessional, ill-informed, and constitutionally oblivious tactics.

Judge Lucero summed up the case well in 2017. "The defendants in this case caused an unjustified governmental intrusion into the Hartes' home based on nothing more than junk science, an incompetent investigation, and a publicity stunt," he wrote. "There was no probable cause at any step of the investigation. Not at the garden shop, not at the gathering of the tea leaves, and certainly not at the analytical stage when the officers willfully ignored directions to submit any presumed results to a laboratory for analysis. Full stop."

 

Just to save any government agents who may have noticed my purchase of a little hydroponic setup the trouble and shame, it's Romaine lettuce.

Share this post


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

It never occurred to me to wonder but after looking at the convention I got a great new screen name.

 

your first screen name that I've enjoyed. 

 

Share this post


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

It never occurred to me to wonder 

 

Then don't claim that a plan to deschedule will be impossible.  Try to be correct when you speak.

Have a read of Article 14.  Should the AG be scared of the UN if he or she delists cannabis?  I dunno about you but "The opening of consultations" makes me shudder. 

 

Art. 14

1) a) If... the Board has objective reasons to believe that the aims of this Convention are being seriously endangered by reason of the failure of any...country...to carry out the provisions of this Convention, the Board shall have the right to propose to the Government concerned the opening of consultations or to request it to furnish explanations. If, without any failure in implementing the provisions of the Convention, a Party or a country or territory has become, or if there exists evidence of a serious risk that it may become, an important centre of illicit cultivation, production or manufacture of, or traffic in or consumption of drugs, the Board has the right to propose to the Government concerned the opening of consultations. 

b) After taking action under subparagraph a) above, the Board, if satisfied that it is necessary to do so, may call upon the Government concerned to adopt such remedial measures as shall seem under the circumstances to be necessary for the execution of the provisions of this Convention.

c) {they can propose a study if b) is met} 

d) If the Board finds that the Government concerned has failed to give satisfactory explanations when called upon to do so under subparagraph a) above, or has failed, to adopt any remedial measures which it has been called upon to take under subparagraph b) above, or that there is a serious situation that needs co-operative action at the international level with a view to remedying it, it may call the attention of the Parties, the Council and the Commission to the matter. The Board shall so act if the aims of this Convention are being seriously endangered and it has not been possible to resolve the matter satisfactorily in any other way. It shall also so act if it finds that there is a serious situation that needs cooperative action at the international level with a view to remedying it and that bringing such a situation to the notice of the Parties, the Council and the Commission is the most appropriate method of facilitating such co-operative action; after considering the reports of the Board, and of the Commission if available on the matter, the Council may draw the attention of the General Assembly to the matter.

2. The Board, when calling the attention of the Parties, the Council and the Commission to a matter in accordance with paragraph 1 d) above, may, if it is satisfied that such a course is necessary, recommend to Parties that they stop the import of drugs, the export of drugs, or both, from or to the country or territory concerned, either for a designated period or until the Board shall be satisfied as to the situation in that country or territory. The State concerned may bring the matter before the Council.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

your first screen name that I've enjoyed. 

 

Milliken came up with "importunate" which I think was the best so far.

25 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Then don't claim that a plan to deschedule will be impossible.  Try to be correct when you speak.

Was this part of the article I referenced incorrect?
 

Quote

 

While the CSA does give the executive branch the authority to reclassify marijuana, completely declassifying it is another matter.

"I think it is very unlikely that the attorney general could remove marijuana from the schedules entirely," Alex Kreit, a drug policy expert at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego, told me when the issue came up during the Obama administration.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Milliken came up with "importunate" which I think was the best so far.

Was this part of the article I referenced incorrect?
 

 

Pretty much all of the article is incorrect.  Some of it was correct when written, but the real and regulatory worlds today barely resemble those of 2014.  

 

Edit: this part is 100% correct and coincidentally is the issue I am working on today in a Marijuana Banking Pollicy I am drafting for a large client.  This single factor is a huge reason why MRBs are having a hard time making it, and why the black market is still thriving.  Essentially any business that handles marijuana cannot deduct any of the ordinary business expenses that you or I deduct from our income.  The regs allow deduction of Cost of Goods Sold solely to avoid a lawsuit that alleges deprivation of certain property rights, but every other expense is disallowed.

 

Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code prohibits the deduction of business expenses related to "trafficking in controlled substances," but only for drugs on Schedule I or II. If marijuana were moved to, say, Schedule III, that prohibition would no longer apply.

 

Share this post


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

Then don't claim that a plan to deschedule will be impossible.  Try to be correct when you speak.

Have a read of Article 14.  Should the AG be scared of the UN if he or she delists cannabis?  I dunno about you but "The opening of consultations" makes me shudder. 

 

Art. 14

1) a) If... the Board has objective reasons to believe that the aims of this Convention are being seriously endangered by reason of the failure of any...country...to carry out the provisions of this Convention, the Board shall have the right to propose to the Government concerned the opening of consultations or to request it to furnish explanations. If, without any failure in implementing the provisions of the Convention, a Party or a country or territory has become, or if there exists evidence of a serious risk that it may become, an important centre of illicit cultivation, production or manufacture of, or traffic in or consumption of drugs, the Board has the right to propose to the Government concerned the opening of consultations. 

b) After taking action under subparagraph a) above, the Board, if satisfied that it is necessary to do so, may call upon the Government concerned to adopt such remedial measures as shall seem under the circumstances to be necessary for the execution of the provisions of this Convention.

c) {they can propose a study if b) is met} 

d) If the Board finds that the Government concerned has failed to give satisfactory explanations when called upon to do so under subparagraph a) above, or has failed, to adopt any remedial measures which it has been called upon to take under subparagraph b) above, or that there is a serious situation that needs co-operative action at the international level with a view to remedying it, it may call the attention of the Parties, the Council and the Commission to the matter. The Board shall so act if the aims of this Convention are being seriously endangered and it has not been possible to resolve the matter satisfactorily in any other way. It shall also so act if it finds that there is a serious situation that needs cooperative action at the international level with a view to remedying it and that bringing such a situation to the notice of the Parties, the Council and the Commission is the most appropriate method of facilitating such co-operative action; after considering the reports of the Board, and of the Commission if available on the matter, the Council may draw the attention of the General Assembly to the matter.

2. The Board, when calling the attention of the Parties, the Council and the Commission to a matter in accordance with paragraph 1 d) above, may, if it is satisfied that such a course is necessary, recommend to Parties that they stop the import of drugs, the export of drugs, or both, from or to the country or territory concerned, either for a designated period or until the Board shall be satisfied as to the situation in that country or territory. The State concerned may bring the matter before the Council.

 

So, reading that all, it appears that the worst penalty is that other countries can refuse to sell to or buy from the country in violation.

If they so choose as I note the word 'may' used.

In summary, no fixed or, in the case of a big country like the USA, likely penalty.

So a lot ado about nothing if the USA gives up on restricting the sale & use of marijuana.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

So, reading that all, it appears that the worst penalty is that other countries can refuse to sell to or buy from the country in violation.

If they so choose as I note the word 'may' used.

In summary, no fixed or, in the case of a big country like the USA, likely penalty.

So a lot ado about nothing if the USA gives up on restricting the sale & use of marijuana.

FKT

I have never heard of a treaty between nations that had any other kind of penalty, which is why I told CLEAN that it never occurred to me to wonder.

If you cease to abide by the treaty, other parties might do the same. Surprise, surprise, surprise.

But I did get a good screen name out of the deal.

Share this post


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

Pretty much all of the article is incorrect.  Some of it was correct when written, but the real and regulatory worlds today barely resemble those of 2014.  

I agree that there have been changes in laws in various states and have acknowledged that all of the TeamD Presidential candidates are now better than Donald Trump on this issue. That should be damning with faint praise, but I noted with chagrin in this thread in 2015 that Trump was (rhetorically, anyway) the best that the Duopoly had to offer last time around. Then the dumb fuck chose noted drug war dinosaur Jeff Sessions, which is the opposite of his campaign promises if you ask me. He couldn't do the opposite on his stupid wall or his stupid trade war, those promises he has fought to keep, but he's been pretty useless on ending the drug war.

And so has pretty much everyone else in power at the federal level, which is why I'm wondering what changes to the CSA or other regulations relevant to scheduling you might be talking about. Could you be specific on that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oklahoma DOES SOMETHING Smart

https://reason.com/2019/11/04/the-largest-single-day-commutation-in-history/

Quote

Oklahoma frees 527 low-level offenders—and saves nearly $12 million.

"Low level" means "mostly drug war" in this context.

Meanwhile, California continues to struggle to free itself from the grip of Reefer Madness.

https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-becerra-announces-148-arrests-part-statewide-cannabis
 

Quote

 

“Illegal cannabis grows are devastating our communities. Criminals who disregard life, poison our waters, damage our public lands, and weaponize the illegal cannabis black market will be brought to justice,” said Attorney General Xavier Becerra. “This year, our CAMP teams worked tirelessly across the state to vigorously enforce California’s laws against illegal cannabis activity. The California Department of Justice is extremely proud of our partnership with federal, state, and local agencies and we look forward to continuing this necessary work.”

“Combating illegal marijuana cultivation takes dedication, teamwork, perseverance and courage,” said David Bess, Deputy Director and Chief of the Law Enforcement Division for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. “I’m immensely proud of the work we accomplished during the year with our county, state and federal partners. Together, we are protecting California’s natural resources and providing another measure of public safety.”

“USDA Forest Service law enforcement in California commend the collaboration and continuing efforts of our task force of partners in the yearly fight against illegal marijuana grows on public lands. This multi-faceted team approach is how we stay successful in mitigating these trespassers and the harmful destruction they intend on our land, water, wildlife and communities,” said Don Hoang, Special Agent in Charge of United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region.

“CAMP’s joint law enforcement efforts provide an opportunity for a stronger state-federal partnership against the illegal cultivation of marijuana. Together, we share a common goal – to improve public safety and protect our nation’s important natural and cultural resources on public lands,” said Joe Stout, Acting California State Director, Bureau of Land Management.

“We are proud to partner with our local, state, and federal partners in the CAMP program, which not only helps disrupt illegal activity, but assists in safeguarding natural resources and the environment,” said William D. Bodner, Special Agent in Charge, Drug Enforcement Administration. “CAMP provides rotary wing assets and personnel to assist DEA in the eradication of illegal marijuana grows on federal lands.”

“Although cannabis has been legalized for use in California, there is still a large unlicensed black market,” said Robert Paoletti, Coordinator Colonel, California National Guard Counterdrug Task Force.

 

Gee, why is there still a large, unlicensed black market? Possibly because combating illegal marijuana cultivation takes dedication, teamwork, perseverance, courage, and a delusion that the war on weed can be won despite eek a nomix.

The reason voters in so many states have gone around their own legislatures to try to end the stupid drug war is summed up nicely here.

https://reason.com/2019/11/05/californias-war-on-weed-continues-thanks-to-a-red-tape-fueled-black-market/

Quote

 

The Golden State has done such a terrible job at actually legalizing marijuana that even 60 Minutes recently produced a segment on how the bureaucratic and regulatory systems California has put into place continue to foster black markets.

One small legal grower named Casey O'Neill noted he was $50,000 in the red trying to comply with all the regulations—"$2,500 a year for the water board discharge permit. It's $750 a year for the pond permit. It's $1,350 application fee to the county, plus another $675 when they actually give you the permit, annually." When asked about his profits, his response was blunt: "What profits?"

Black markets aren't caused solely by banning a good or service. They're also fostered when the government makes it so hard to legally operate that, unless you have the right government connections, the only way you'll realistically make money is by defying the law.

 

 

Share this post


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


 

Gee, why is there still a large, unlicensed black market?

 

'cause black market is a term that papers and police PR departments love to use to justify spending and seeking money.

To me the word black market means weed that people grow in a place where it is exceedingly easy to grow.

The fuckers with the big grows are criminally trespassing or violating BLM or USFS regulations, they should be pinched for that.

Share this post


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

The fuckers with the big grows are criminally trespassing or violating BLM or USFS regulations, they should be pinched for that.

I have a problem with the people who are using public land, especially to the extent they're polluting. They can also get violent in defending "their" turf, another problem.

I'd just note that you don't see other crops being grown in National Forests. Farming is regulated, but farmers grow everything but weed on private property. If weed farming were regulated and taxed like other crops, I think the number of crops grown illegally in National Forests would drop from 1 to 0. Unfortunately, the regulations and taxes are not like other crops... They're Reefer Madness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Canberra laws legalising cannabis breach international law, United Nations warns

The ACT Government has hit back at warnings from the United Nations that legalising cannabis will breach international law, telling the body to instead look at the United States and Canada where the laws go further.

In a letter to the Federal Government sent following recent "concerning" reports, the UNs' International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) reiterated that the legalisation and regulation of cannabis for non-medical use, including in small quantities, were inconsistent with international drug conventions.

Australia, along with more than 200 other countries, signed three international conventions agreeing to certain rules about illicit drug use and restrictions about medications.

But ACT Chief Minister Andrew Barr defended the laws that come into effect on January 31, 2020, saying the supply and traffic of cannabis will remain illegal and the UN should turn its attention elsewhere.

"Canada, Colorado and California have cannabis legalisation laws that are much more expansive than the laws passed by the ACT Legislative Assembly last month," Mr Barr said.

"The International Narcotics Control Board's attention would be better focused on those cannabis legalisation regimes rather than the ACT's reforms.

"The [ACT] Government is not encouraging the personal use of cannabis."

A member of the UN board, Professor Richard Mattick, who is also part of UNSW's National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, said the treaties were legally binding and the ACT's cannabis laws were in contravention.

"Allowing citizens in a country to use cannabis for recreational purposes, or non-medical purposes, is not allowed under the treaties," he told RN Breakfast.

Professor Mattick said while the ACT was only proposing to legalise a small quantity of cannabis per adult in Canberra, the amount was not relevant.

"The issue is the letter of the law," he said.

"Many countries do feel very strongly about this, so whilst [some] countries — the United States, Canada, Australia potentially, Uruguay, the Netherlands — are allowing cannabis use, the vast majority of the 200 countries are not in agreement with this.

"It creates a problem when we have a set of rules which we say we should abide by, but we pick and choose which ones we want to abide by.

"It's about the international agreement."

UN concerns come after tit-for-tat between ACT, feds

Federal Health Minister Greg Hunt, who has already sounded his opposition to the ACT's move, said it was clear that the legislation was in breach of the UN convention.

"The Australian Government remains committed to the international drug control regime established by the UN international drug conventions which do not support the legalisation of cannabis for recreational use," Mr Hunt said.

"While many Australians may view cannabis use as harmless, almost a quarter of Australia's drug and alcohol treatment services are being provided to people identifying cannabis as their principal drug of concern, roughly the same number of treatment episodes as for amphetamine use."

Professor Mattick said the role of the board was not to "embarrass" Australia, but it would continue to highlight how the ACT laws do not adhere to the international agreements.

"We are allowing the countries to decide how they will handle this difficult situation," he said.

"How this rolls out is going to be very interesting because it could see a fraying of the international agreement."

The concern from the UN follows a tit-for-tat between the Federal and ACT Governments, adding to confusion over how the laws will be practically enforced when the changes come into effect early next year.

Federal Government ministers sharply criticised the ACT's move, with some labelling it as "crazy" and a "social crusade" by the territory Labor government.

For its part, the ACT Government has urged the Federal Government to respect "democratic processes of the ACT" and said the legislation was "the will of the people".

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-29/canberra-cannabis-legalisation-breaches-international-law-un/11649088

 

Perhaps the UN should be more concerned with Turkey invading Syria or helping their appointed chair for human rights Saudi Arabia to actually achieve human rights in Saudi Arabia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're good up north here, come skiing and bring your bong....mon.....

image.png.eb93f697e1d3b5f7bc0d5291ba5032ef.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mohammed Bin Lyin said:

 

Perhaps the UN should be more concerned with Turkey invading Syria or helping their appointed chair for human rights Saudi Arabia to actually achieve human rights in Saudi Arabia.

As CLEAN noted in 832 above, the UN might open up some consultations on their ass. Or even notify the Partiers. Possibly recommend taking their bongs away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

I have a problem with the people who are using public land, especially to the extent they're polluting. They can also get violent in defending "their" turf, another problem.

 I'd just note that you don't see other crops being grown in National Forests. Farming is regulated, but farmers grow everything but weed on private property. If weed farming were regulated and taxed like other crops, I think the number of crops grown illegally in National Forests would drop from 1 to 0. Unfortunately, the regulations and taxes are not like other crops... They're Reefer Madness.

just goes to show that a  known fraud can last for a century thanks to dishonesty, profiteering and outright stupidity of our legislators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of outright stupidity

NYPD DOES SOMETHING Stupid
 

Quote

 

Oren Levy, who sells hemp wholesale through his company Green Angel CBD, claims that a “gung-ho” Fedex driver took it upon himself to report the shipment to the 75th Precinct when it arrived in Brooklyn — despite the fact that the cargo had all the necessary documentation to prove it was legal.

...

On Saturday, cops called Green Angel CBD telling them to come pick up their greenery — but when Levy’s brother Ronen arrived at the station house, cops instead slapped cuffs on him.

A day later, the 75th Precinct tweeted a photo of dozens of large bags of what looks like marijuana with the caption, “Great job by Day Tour Sector E yesterday. Working with FedEx and other local law enforcement, they were able to confiscate 106 Lbs. of marijuana, and arrest the individual associated with the intended delivery.”

Green Angel CBD fired back on Instagram that “This was our shipment. My brother was falsely arrested. Those bags were all hemp. All documents were in each box. The farm also called them to give them all there paperwork proving it’s all hemp ! Please spread the word! We need to let people know we are not criminals!”

“I want it back. It’s 100 percent legal” Levy told The Post adding that he is out up to $30,000 since the cops took the delivery. “I have helped thousands of people — people with cancer, people with autism, pain, arthritis, people with severe skin issues, people who haven’t slept for weeks. We are a legitimate business.”

A Brooklyn criminal judge released Ronen without bail on Sunday, according to court records.

Andrew Subin, a lawyer with the Vermont farm that sold Levy the plants, said a detective from the precinct asked him what the legal THC limit was.

“He was claiming that he didn’t know the legal limit. He said that he needed to do his own test,” Subin said. “We have a test by a certified lab, so I don’t understand why they need to do their own test. This is having a real impact on our client and the buyer.”

Subin’s law partner, Timothy Fair, said the cops have no ground to hold the plants, which can lose their potency over time.


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Senator Sessions Again? No thanks.

https://reason.com/2019/11/08/reminder-jeff-sessions-sucks-and-should-be-nowhere-near-government-power/
 

Quote

 

...

Sessions was one of the most vocal critics of the Obama administration's use of consent decrees to rein in rotten police departments, saying they "undermine the respect for police officers and create an impression that the entire department is not doing their work consistent with fidelity to law and fairness." He was an unwavering subscriber to the "bad apple" explanation for police misconduct, and he outright rejected the possibility that—brace yourself for this, gentle readers—some police departments might incentivize bad policing and shield problem cops from scrutiny.

Sessions admitted he didn't even read the Justice Department's report on unconstitutional policing in Chicago and in Ferguson, Missouri, which is interesting because he also called the reports "pretty anecdotal and not so scientifically based."

...

 

Tough on crime unless the perpetrator has a badge.

Quote

It was an echo of one of Sessions's first major moves as attorney general: He rolled back a 2013 directive by former Attorney General Eric Holder that instructed U.S. attorneys to avoid charges in certain low-level drug cases that would trigger lengthy mandatory minimum sentences. It is prosecutors' duty to seek the maximum sentences on the books, Sessions argued.

Filling up prisons with drug users is going to start working any decade now?

Quote

Sessions also rolled back an Obama-era Justice Department guidance on civil asset forfeiture that restricted when federal authorities could "adopt" local cases. Such adoptions are one of the primary ways state and local police get around stricter state laws on civil asset forfeiture, which allows police to seize property suspected of being connected to criminal activity even when the owner is not charged with a crime.

TeamR types are all about property rights, up until it threatens drug war looting.
 

Quote

 

There was no criminal justice reform measure modest enough to escape Sessions' ire. He also opposed the FIRST STEP Act, a sentencing reform bill passed late last year with overwhelming Republican support. The act has resulted in the early release of thousands of federal drug offenders who had been serving draconian crack cocaine sentences. Sessions was reportedly among the faction that lobbied Trump, unsuccessfully, to oppose the bill.

"There are still those who would have you believe we should release the criminals early, shorten sentences for serious federal traffickers, and go soft on crime," Sessions said in a speech last year. "That would be bad for the rule of law, it would be bad for public safety, and it would be bad for the communities across America."

Sessions' influence is still being felt. The Washington Post reported today that federal prosecutors have tried to block hundreds of inmates from being released under the FIRST STEP Act's provisions by mangling Congress's intent and arguing that many offenders don't qualify.

 

He really does still see mass incarceration as a solution, not a problem.
 

Quote

 

As a senator, Sessions was one of the staunchest supporters of mandatory minimum sentences and harsh drug laws—long after many of his GOP colleagues began to question the wisdom of, say, putting a woman with no history of violent crime in federal prison for life for a third drug offense. (That's not a hypothetical. I interviewed a woman who was sentenced to life for trading several bottles of pseudoephedrine to a meth dealer. Her two previous offenses were minor drug crimes that never resulted in prison time. Sessions would prefer that she were still rotting in prison.) 

His preference for harsh sentencing laws is closely tied to his drug war hysteria. Who could forget his claims that using marijuana was "only slightly less awful" than using heroin?

 

I haven't forgotten, nor have I forgotten that "Drug Czars" from both halves of the Duopoly have shared his point of view on the relative dangers of cannabis and heroin. Nor, for that matter, have I forgotten that this absurd view is still the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Non-Government Weed!

Quote

CTPharma, a Connecticut company that supplies cannabis products to dispensaries under that state's medical marijuana program, recently announced that it is collaborating with researchers at Yale University on a federally approved study of CBD and THC as treatments for pain and stress. This appears to be the first time that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has signed off on a medical study involving U.S.-grown cannabis from a source other than the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), heretofore the only legal supplier of marijuana for research in this country.

That's actually kinda yuge news. The few people grandfathered into a fed research program by Saint Ronald in the 1980's have always had to get government-grown weed and to the extent researchers could get weed at all (a very limited extent) it came from the same place.
 

Quote

 

Researchers have long complained about the quality and variety of Uncle Sam's cannabis, which is grown at the University of Mississippi under an exclusive contract with NIDA. They have also noted that NIDA marijuana cannot be used for commercial purposes, which means it cannot be used in Phase III clinical trials, the last step before FDA approval of a new medicine. The drug that subjects take at that stage has to be the same as the drug that will be sold to patients once the medication is approved.

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), which for years refused to license additional suppliers of marijuana, changed its mind in 2016, the last year of the Obama administration, when it announced that it would start accepting applications from would-be growers. But under the Trump administration, the DEA has dragged its feet in fulfilling that promise. As of August, Mike Riggs noted, the DEA had received 33 applications, but so far it has not granted any licenses.

 

It depends what the meaning of "accepting applications" is, doesn't it? If the applications are received and put in a box forever, they've been accepted, right?

Sheesh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cajun Cannabis
 

Quote

 

Despite being a historically conservative state, Louisiana first legalized medical marijuana back in 1978. It amended the law in 1991, then left the program to wither on the regulatory vine, with the Department of Health failing to appoint a Marijuana Prescription Review Board or to draw up contracts with national groups for production and distribution.

That began to change in 2015, when Republican state Sen. Fred Mills, a pharmacist and the former executive director of the Louisiana Board of Pharmacy, sponsored legislation to implement the distribution of medical cannabis to patients. In 2016, Mills sponsored a second law that laid out the program's specifics. Both bills eventually passed the state House and Senate and were signed into law by former Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal. In early August, Louisiana officially became the Deep South's first state to dispense medical marijuana.

In theory, the program is working...

 

I want to move to Theory. I hear everything works there.

Quote

The Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry has licensed just two growers—GB Sciences and Ilera Holistic Healthcare—to contract with the agricultural departments at Louisiana State University and Southern University, respectively, to produce medical cannabis for the entire state. As of this writing, only LSU's operation is producing medical marijuana; Southern University's first crop isn't expected until later this year.

I'm kinda surprised to learn of the LSU operation.
 

Quote

 

"I've always testified that this should be a decision 100 percent between a physician and a patient, and if somebody has a debilitating condition, then why should government get in the way?" Mills says.

...

Mills hopes increased social acceptability will eventually push the program forward. He points to how former Democratic Gov. Kathleen Blanco's family recently went public about her using medical marijuana on her deathbed earlier this year. "Her family really attributes medical marijuana to her quality of life," Mills says.

 

I've mentioned a similar experience in my own family. As we age and more and more Boomers are not OK, more of us will be personally affected by stupid prohibition laws trying (and failing) to dictate how we care for our loved ones at the end of their lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two-thirds of Americans support marijuana legalization

Quote

Two-thirds of Americans say the use of marijuana should be legal, reflecting a steady increase over the past decade, according to a new Pew Research Center survey. The share of U.S. adults who oppose legalization has fallen from 52% in 2010 to 32% today.

The accompanying chart shows the trend has been going on a lot longer.

marijuana01.jpg?resize=623,1024

I was part of that 16% in the late 1980's. Being shouted down by a vocal majority of prohibition proponents didn't change my mind then. Maybe it will start working one day...

The stupid drug war remains mostly a TeamR project.

marijuana02.jpg?resize=640,1263

Is it wrong to point that out?

marijuananew.jpg?resize=640,841

Hmm... Maybe OK, Silent should be a thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Old habits die hard.

Joe Biden Clings To "Gateway Drug" Theory
 

Quote

 

...

During a town hall in Las Vegas on Saturday, Biden said states should be free to legalize marijuana but once again reserved judgment about whether national prohibition should be repealed. "The truth of the matter is, there's not nearly been enough evidence that has been acquired as to whether or not it is a gateway drug," he said. "It's a debate, and I want a lot more before I legalize it nationally. I want to make sure we know a lot more about the science behind it….It is not irrational to do more scientific investigation to determine, which we have not done significantly enough, whether or not there are any things that relate to whether it's a gateway drug or not."

Contrary to Biden's implication, there has been a lot of research on this question during the last half-century or so. While studies have consistently found an association between cannabis consumption and use of other illegal drugs, the nature of that relationship remains controversial, and it probably always will.


 

The federal prohibition program precludes state-level legalization, which is why cannabusinesses can't access financial services used by truly legal businesses.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cory Booker gave the rusty weather vane a shove

https://reason.com/2019/11/20/cory-booker-just-crushed-joe-biden-over-his-tepid-support-for-marijuana-legalization/
 

Quote

 

...

It came during a segment of the debate focused on how the various Democratic candidates could best appeal to African-American voters—a demographic that figures to be critical for Biden, particularly in the early primary in South Carolina.

Booker argued that Biden's tepid stance on marijuana should be disqualifying. Calling the war on drugs "a war on black and brown people," the New Jersey senator pivoted to criticize candidates who have not experienced first hand the devastating consequences of the drug war.

"There are people in Congress right now that admit to smoking marijuana, while our kids are in jail for those drug crimes," Booker said to widespread applause from the Atlanta crowd. For Booker, it was yet another strong debate moment—though good performances in past debates have not helped him rise in the polls.

To his credit, Biden responded by calling for the decriminalization of marijuana and for releasing from people incarcerated for marijuana offenses. That's good.

But it also adds to the notion that, as Reason's Matt Welch has written, Biden is a "rusty weather vane" who can be trusted to eventually point in the direction of the prevailing political winds—but that's hardly leadership. If he were to become president, and Congress put a marijuana legalization bill on his desk, there's a good chance Biden would sign it. But would he lift a finger before then? That's the major concern.

...

 

My guess: he'd be as motivated to end the stupid drug war as noted Choom Gang member Obama was. Meaning, too busy promoting the stupid gun war.

Share this post


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

Meaning, too busy promoting the stupid gun war.

literally no one who has kids in school thinks that the war to keep their kids from getting killed is stupid, including people who don't believe in gun regulation.  The sooner you realize this, the sooner your arguments might make sense to parents of school age kids.

Share this post


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

How’d you guys miss this bit of news?
 

Of course cocaine Mitch will block it in the Senate but still good news.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/20/house-committee-approves-bill-decriminalizing-marijuana-on-the-federal-level.html

 

I didn't miss it and remain hopeful that Mitch even matters at all. There are several House committees considering this bill. If it escapes the House committees at all, it won't be soon nor will it be the bill in its current form. Then it has to pass the whole House. Then Mitch might matter.

Share this post


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

We'll always have thieves but I don't think the illegal market is populated by people who would steal.

Breaking a law by selling someone a plant seems harmless to lots of people who see the harm in things like stealing.

https://reason.com/2019/11/22/free-people-dont-ask-the-government-for-permission/
 

Quote

 

"Liberty," Thomas Jefferson wrote, "is unobstructed action according to our will; but rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law'; because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." That's as good a definition of liberty as one will ever find.

Americans are supposed to be free to live as we choose—unobstructed by government and limited solely by others' right to exercise their free will. Jefferson's words can be summarized by that old cliché: Your right to swing your fist ends at the beginning of my nose. Obviously, our nation's founding was fraught with hypocrisy given that a large portion of the population wasn't free at all, but that doesn't mean that the country's ideals aren't worth pondering today.

The second part of that Jefferson quotation is as important as the first part. Just because the government has passed laws, through its established process of legislating and regulating, doesn't mean that such rules are worthy of blind obedience. Many are legitimate, but others merely are the "tyrant's will"—an effort by one group to impose its preferences on other people. We've got plenty of laws against murder and mayhem, so most lawmaking now is devoted to these other meddlesome things, which is what Jefferson warned against.

 

 

Share this post


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

Here's a Laffer!

Californicators think that lowering tax rates might increase tax revenue.
 

Quote

 

A.B. 286, sponsored by Assembly Member Rob Bonta (D-Oakland) and three other legislators, would immediately cut the excise tax on marijuana from 15 percent to 11 percent and eliminate the cultivation tax, which is $9.25 per ounce for buds and $2.75 per ounce for leaves. The taxes would revert to their current levels on June 1, 2022.

"A.B. 286 is an important step to ensure that we protect legitimate taxpaying businesses and stop the illegal black market in California," Bonta said at a press conference on Monday. "Once the legal marketplace has established its roots, once it is on its way to success, the tax rates will return under this bill."

 

OMG. The idea that cutting tax rates might be a good idea has penetrated to TeamD Californicators. The end must be near.

I guess that did not go all that well.

California marijuana taxes will increase New Year’s Day

Hempy New Year!
 

Quote

 

Industry insiders, however, immediately criticized the move, as did Oakland Democrat Rob Bonta, a state assembly member who has twice tried – but failed – to lower MJ taxes through the legislature.

In an emailed statement, Bonta called the tax hike “deeply concerning.”

“This short-sighted move ignores the realities that licensed businesses are at the breaking point, with many struggling to survive,” Bonta wrote, and reiterated his support for at least temporarily lowering state cannabis taxes.

The California Cannabis Industry Association (CCIA) said the increase left its members “stoned and outraged.”

 

That Bonta guy is still a Laffer. And California's illegal market is still almost 3x the size of the legal market

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/27/2019 at 6:14 AM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Update on the SAFE Banking Act
 

Quote

 

...The bill's movement through the Senate could be more fraught. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Mike Crapo (R–Idaho) initially promised to hold a vote on the SAFE Banking Act. But in early November, he said that impeachment proceedings might force a postponement until 2020. No vote was scheduled as of press time. With only four Senate GOP co-sponsors, the bill faces an uphill climb.

...

 

What a load of Crapo. The Senate isn't busy with impeachment at all.

Share this post


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

Update on the SAFE Banking Act
 

What a load of Crapo. The Senate isn't busy with impeachment at all.

republicans lie like rugs.  shocked i am.

on the other hand, the longer this congress goes without doing anything about weed banking, the more money i make.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

republicans lie like rugs.  shocked i am.

There are 33 cosponsors of the Senate version of the SAFE Banking Act

Quote

 

To me, that's a pathetically small number. A third of our Senators want to put a damper on your business? Should be quite a few more.

There are only four TeamR members on the list, named above. That's way more pathetic than the percentage for all Senators but still better than zero. One way to get to five or more would be to call them all liars. A stupid way, but a way.

Share this post


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

 

There are only four TeamR members on the list, named above. That's way more pathetic than the percentage for all Senators but still better than zero. One way to get to five or more would be to call them all liars. A stupid way, but a way.

That's because most TeamR folks are stupid fucking shitbag douche nozzles who care little about their constituents and spend even less time learning what they want or need.

Share this post


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

That's because most TeamR folks are stupid fucking shitbag douche nozzles who care little about their constituents and spend even less time learning what they want or need.

I think that's true of most Duopoly folks.

 

On 11/16/2019 at 5:24 AM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

marijuana02.jpg?resize=640,1263

 

Looks like TeamD constituents are very likely to favor legalization, yet 18 TeamD Senators are still stuck on what AOC rightly called the Reagan era approach of Joe Biden.

Buncha rusty weather vanes in the Senate from both halves of the Duopoly or your business in this area would already be obsolete and the SAFE Banking bill would already be law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What Happened After Chicago Police Cut Down on Busting Drug Possession and Prostitution ?

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/qvgg47/what-happened-after-chicago-police-cut-down-on-busting-drug-possession-and-prostitution
 

Quote

 

Soon after Chicago police officer Jason Van Dyke was sentenced to almost seven years in prison for gunning down 17-year-old Laquan McDonald, his colleagues did something fairly common to frustrated police departments: They started working less.

Furious at the verdict, the state police union issued a veiled threat the same day asking whether citizens of Chicago were “ready to pay the price” of police officers not feeling comfortable doing their jobs. And while the Chicago Police Department has denied there was any work slowdown, an analysis of crime data by VICE News shows a significant reduction in police activity following Van Dyke’s sentencing on January 18.

...

In the weeks and months following Van Dyke’s sentencing, serious crime continued to decline even though cops had returned to more active policing. So far in 2019, the number of homicides — which was previously among the highest in the U.S. — has dropped by 8%. Murders have fallen to their lowest level in five years. Shootings are down 9% compared to last year. Police were doing less, but somehow Chicago became safer.

...

The proof of a slowdown lies in the fact that three particular kinds of arrests virtually stopped: drug possession, weapons violations and prostitution. This is important because narcotics, weapons and prostitution arrests are an indicator of a type of policing known as “stupid,” in which officers initiate encounters with citizens without the report of a crime.


 

OK so I might have changed a word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All Drug Offenders Should Be Treated Like Hunter Biden: Leniently
 

Quote

 

The Washington Examiner reports that as an 18-year-old, Biden "was arrested on Jersey Shore drug charges in 1988 and had his record expunged." In 2013, Biden received a special waiver about his drug past to join the U.S. Navy Reserve. (He was ultimately mustered out after testing positive for cocaine.) And in 2016, he returned a rental car in which police found his credit cards, ID, and a crack pipe; authorities declined to bring charges. In divorce papers, his ex-wife testified that he spent "extravagantly" on illegal drugs. He has been in and out of rehab and has publicly admitted that he has substance-abuse issues.

The Examiner notes, correctly, that Joe Biden is one of the chief architects of the war on drugs. The elder Biden once said that the feds should "hold every drug user accountable" because "if there were no drug users, there would be no appetite for drugs, there would be no market for them."

...

The Examiner doesn't demonstrate that Joe Biden directly intervened to keep his son out of serious legal problems, but it doesn't have to. Everyone knows that when it comes to drug-related offenses, there is a two-tier system of justice, one for the powerful and wealthy and one for everyone else. Throwing Hunter Biden, who publicly struggles with substance-abuse problems, into prison wouldn't have accomplished anything other than wasting more tax dollars on the carceral state. Yet not everyone enjoys such freedom in a country where "1 in 5 incarcerated people is locked up for a drug offense" and more than a million arrests for drug possession are made every year.

...

 

I'd say "contributing" but not chief drug war architect. The examples offered in the Examiner article from the 1980's and yet one searches the article in vain for the name Reagan. I think either Reagan could more accurately be called the "chief" architect of the stupid drug war than Biden.

Quote

In 1984, he helped usher in the Comprehensive Control Act, which allowed law enforcement officials to seize property suspected of being used to carry out drug-related crimes.

And 35 years later we're still plagued by looters, but that's another thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the LONQR

6 hours ago, See Level said:

That anybody thought of doing it (as a business) seems a little NQR even for Oregon.:blink:

Buzzkill: Oregon bans cannabis-infused alcoholic beverages.

http://komonews.com/news/local/buzzkill-oregon-bans-cannabis-infused-alcoholic-beverages-12-21-2019-002627333

I think they should regulate them but not ban them. They're not just putting plants in the blender and sprinkling them into a beer. They're putting some chemical cocktail in there that is cannabis-derived and contains...what else?
 

Quote

 

In a new ruling, the Oregon Liquor Control Commission, which regulates both alcoholic products and recreational marijuana, says beer and other alcoholic drinks as of Jan. 1 may not contain either THC, the psychoactive component of cannabis, or CBD, the non-psychoactive part that is said to relieve stress and pain.

Mark Pettinger, spokesman for the agency, cited concerns raised by the U.S. Food and Drug of potential liver damage from CBD, also known as cannabidiol.

“We've wanted to address the issue of CBD getting into alcohol and because there are a lot of unknown unknowns about the effect of taking CBDs," Pettinger said Friday. "There's very little scientific evidence. People are using them for wellness, but how they interact with other substances, not a lot is known.”

 

Beer damages your liver. We had alcohol prohibition because of a list of alcohol-related problems, but prohibition didn't go well.

Maybe CBD's damage your liver, though this is the first I've heard of it, and maybe there's a synergy with alcohol but the main reason we don't have much research is ... prohibition. More prohibition isn't the best answer.

Quote

The website of the brewery that made the beer, Coalition Brewing of Portland, said the CBD's “bitter grassiness augments the hop bitterness, while the citrusy terpenes in the CBD mirror the aromatics and hop flavors.”

I guess they all talk about beer that way. Coalition Brewing went out of business.
 

Quote

 

Oregon's two senators, Democrats Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley, worked with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican from Kentucky, to legalize industrial hemp in 2018.

Merkley told reporters Thursday he is seeking an additional $2 million in the nation's spending bill to assist the FDA in developing regulations for CBD oil.

Pettinger noted that the U.S. Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, or TTB, which approves the formula for any kind of alcoholic beverage, has not approved the use of CBD in any drinks.

The TTB last year ordered Black Hammer Brewing of San Francisco to stop producing beer containing CBD, including one called Toke Back Mountain.

Long Trail Brewing, in Vermont, was told by the federal agency to stop producing its CBD-infused beer, called Medicator, last year.

 

The name "Medicator" was kinda asking for that response.

The recent vaping PANIC shows why CBD and THC products should be regulated. Apparently some black market THC vape liquid used vitamin E acetate as the carrier liquid. It's OK to eat but a really bad idea to smoke it. The regulatory response has been to ban nicotine vapes, none of which use vitamin E acetate. Sigh.

Instead of going around and stopping these breweries, the TTB should just approve what they're doing and specify what can be added and how.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Christmas Miracle: Washington Court Overturns Marijuana Sign Rules That Banned String Lights Spelling 'Pot'

https://reason.com/2019/12/24/a-christmas-miracle-washington-court-overturns-marijuana-sign-rules-that-banned-string-lights-spelling-pot/

That's a nice headline and it is Christmas but the judge's ruling came down last month.
 

Quote

 

Hashtag challenged the citation on free speech grounds. While the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld prohibitions of commercial speech "related to illegal activity," King County Superior Court Judge David Keenan noted in his ruling last month, state law allows cannabis sales to adults 21 or older by licensed retailers such as Hashtag. While conceding that "the issue is novel," Keenan concluded that the cannabis industry's legal status in Washington means state regulations of marijuana advertising must comply with Article I, Section 5 of Washington's constitution, which says "every person may freely speak, write and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right."

In applying that provision to restrictions on commercial speech, Washington courts use the test laid out in the 1980 Supreme Court case Central Hudson Gas & Electric v. Public Service Commission. To be constitutional under the Central Hudson test, a regulation of nonmisleading commercial speech must "directly and materially advance" a "substantial governmental interest," and it must be "narrowly drawn" to advance that interest.

The LCB defended its rules as a precaution against encouraging minors to consume cannabis. Keenan acknowledged that the state's asserted interest was "substantial," as Hashtag conceded. But he concluded that "the advertising restrictions do not directly and materially advance the State's substantial interest in preventing underage consumption" and "are not sufficiently tailored to advance the State's interest."

 

So it's nice that the store won this one, but...

Quote

Hashtag co-owner Logan Bowers told The Stranger's Lester Black it cost $30,000 in legal fees to challenge the rules prohibiting his shop's string of lights. "I was just really pissed," he said. "We were frustrated with being dicked around. Sometimes doing the right thing costs a ton, and it's a little bit of a bummer. Even when you win, you still kind of lose, because you have to spend a lot of money, and it means if you don't have money, you don't get justice."

I'm going to need that Charlie Sheen picture over here.

Share this post


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

it means that if you don't have money, you don't get justice." 

I'm going to need that Charlie Sheen picture over here.

Citizens United brings the money. Does it bring the justice?

 

5 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

a regulation of nonmisleading commercial speech...

I've got this.

Example: Virginia Boating Safety was not "non-misleading." It got "censored," to VIrginia Gun Laws, by the mods.  Dogballs to aisle six.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Citizens United brings the money. Does it bring the justice?

 

I've got this.

Example: Virginia Boating Safety was not "non-misleading." It got "censored," to VIrginia Gun Laws, by the mods.  Dogballs to aisle six.

America has never run on justice, no matter how hard consumer advocates and corruption reformers tried.  Thanks to conservative justices and thought like Tom's, those without money don't even stand a chance now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mayor Pete seems to have gone full nutjob libertarian on the drug issue
 

Quote

 

Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, and Democratic presidential candidate, told a newspaper editorial board that he doesn't want to put people in jail for possessing or using drugs—not even meth, cocaine, and ecstasy.

...

For those who prefer to read (the context is a discussion about what he's learned about leadership from being a mayor):

I would not have said even five years ago what I believe now, which is that incarceration should not even be a response to drug possession.

But what I've seen is—while there continue to be all kinds of harms associated with drug possession and use—it's also the case that we have created, in an effort to deal with what amounts to a public health problem, we have created a bigger problem, a justice problem, and its own form of a health problem, if you think about the impact on a child.

 

We have kids in South Bend who have grown up with the incarceration of a parent as one of their first experiences. That makes them dramatically more likely to have an encounter with the criminal legal system.

And so I've always been skeptical of mass incarceration but now I believe more than ever we need to take really significant steps, like ending incarceration as a response to simple possession.

Buttigieg is asked whether he means not just drugs like marijuana, but also meth, cocaine, and ecstasy, and he makes it clear that he does not want to imprison anybody for simply using or possessing any illegal drug.

In the interview, Buttigieg talks about seeing the consequences of prohibition in South Bend, where he's encountered teens made ill by consuming synthetic, black market marijuana, which he referred to as "rat poison sprayed on grass."

"You're much better off with real marijuana than this stuff," Buttigieg said.

To be clear, Buttigieg is not calling for the legalization of all drugs, though he supports marijuana legalization. His preference is for drug diversion in the criminal justice system, such as drug courts. Yet programs that "divert" defendants away from incarceration and into rehabilitation and supervised release can frequently have problems of their own. Many operate by bleeding money from participants, who are threatened with incarceration for noncompliance. Of course, Buttigieg calls for a significant amount of federal spending to help counties and cities operate these programs.

 

Well, OK, that last part is not "full" nutjob. Still, he's saying things we did not hear from Duopoly candidates in the past, so hat tip to Mayor Pete.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/25/2019 at 3:52 PM, MR.CLEAN said:

 

America has never run on justice, no matter how hard consumer advocates and corruption reformers tried.  Thanks to conservative justices and thought like Tom's, those without money don't even stand a chance now.

Meanwhile, back in reality, Mayor Pete is polling better than Bloomberg or Steyer. He's spent close to 20 million. They've spent close to 200 million. They should start working on a parody of the Beatles' "Can't buy me love."

...Can't buy me vooootes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Illinois Governor Pardons Over 11,000 People For Marijuana One Day Before Legal Sales Begin

https://www.marijuanamoment.net/illinois-governor-pardons-over-11000-people-for-marijuana-one-day-before-legal-sales-begin/

Quote

A total of 11,017 people will be receive pardons for possession offenses of up to 30 grams. The governor’s office said that there are 116,000 records that are eligible for expungement through this process, with hundreds of thousands of others that may qualify for relief by petitioning the courts.

Hundreds of thousands. A staggering waste.

Quote

Illinois became the 11th state to legalize recreational marijuana when Pritzker signed the reform legislation in June. It was the first state to approve a tax-and-regulate system for cannabis through the legislature as opposed to by voters via a ballot initiative.

I expect voters in other states will continue to have to go around their supposed representatives in legislatures but it is nice to see at least one legislature go the libertarian way on this issue without the voters forcing that outcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And in other Illinois news,

Although Cannabis Consumers Who Own Firearms Are Federal Felons, Illinois Says They Can Keep Their Guns

https://reason.com/2020/01/02/although-cannabis-consumers-who-own-firearms-are-federal-felons-illinois-says-they-can-keep-their-guns/
 

Quote

 

...

Federal law prohibits gun possession by any "unlawful user" of a controlled substance, including marijuana. When you buy a firearm from a federally licensed dealer, you have to fill out a form that asks, "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?" The question includes a warning that "the use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside."

A cannabis consumer who possesses a gun is committing a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. A cannabis consumer who answers "no" to the question about illegal drug use while buying a gun is committing another federal felony, punishable by up to five years in prison.

Illinois likewise prohibits anyone who has used an illegal drug during the past year from obtaining a firearm owner's identification (FOID) card, which is required to legally own a gun in that state. But the Illinois Cannabis Regulation and Tax Act, which the state legislature passed last year, says "a person shall not be considered an unlawful user…solely as a result of his or her possession or use of cannabis or cannabis paraphernalia in accordance with this Act." This week the Illinois State Police (ISP), which oversees the FOID program, confirmed in a Facebook post that, notwithstanding news reports to the contrary, it will not revoke cards "based solely on a person's legal use of adult use cannabis."

The ISP added that it "will revoke FOID cards where it is demonstrated that an individual is addicted to or is a habitual user of cannabis" (whatever that means). It also warned that "the use of cannabis is still considered to be illegal by the Federal government," and "the purchase of a firearm from a federally licensed firearms dealer is governed by Federal law." So are the possession of firearms and purchases from private sellers, although the ISP did not mention that.

...

 

A Sanctuary State, I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In drug war censorship news,

New Mexico Medical Marijuana Supplier Wins First Amendment Challenge to the State Fair's Absurdly Broad Censorship

https://reason.com/2020/01/09/new-mexico-medical-marijuana-supplier-wins-first-amendment-challenge-to-the-state-fairs-absurdly-broad-censorship/

 

Quote

New Mexico officials have agreed to settle a First Amendment lawsuit challenging ridiculously broad and picayune restrictions on a medical marijuana booth at the state fair. Under the agreement, the agency that oversees the fair, which is held each year at the Expo New Mexico campus in Albuquerque, will pay $69,600 to Ultra Health LLC, which runs 23 state-licensed medical marijuana dispensaries, and drop its challenge to a federal injunction against the fair's "entirely unreasonable" censorship of the company's speech.

That's good. How absurdly broad was the censorship?
 

Quote

 

U.S. District Judge James Parker explored the absurd implications of that edict, which was ostensibly aimed at promoting a "family friendly" environment, in a January 2019 ruling. Ultra Health not only was forbidden to display actual cannabis plants or products; it was also barred from displaying images of them, including signs, photographs, and videos explaining the production, distribution, or use of medical marijuana. Also verboten: any items that would qualify as drug paraphernalia in the context of a medical marijuana booth, including a rosin press, a microscope, a shovel, and a plastic bin, as well as images of those items.

"A picture of a tractor tilling a field to prepare it for planting corn would be allowed in a vendor's booth pertaining to corn, but the State Fair would prohibit the very same picture of the tractor tilling a field if placed in Ultra Health's booth because it would constitute paraphernalia in that context," Parker noted. "That the very same photograph of a tractor or display of an otherwise ordinary agricultural implement would suddenly be rendered 'family unfriendly' when displayed in Ultra Health's booth is entirely unreasonable. Under Defendants' expansive interpretation of the restrictions on implements and their images, even the most innocuous items are rendered objectionable when displayed in the context of medical cannabis, a subject Defendants concede falls within the statutory purpose of the State Fair and is otherwise allowable."

As a "limited public forum," Parker said, the state fair has wide discretion to regulate exhibitors' booths so they are consistent with the event's goals. But its rules can pass constitutional muster only if they are reasonable in light of the forum's purpose and do not discriminate based on viewpoint.

Parker noted that Bingham had accommodated other exhibitors by making exceptions to the seemingly sweeping restrictions laid out in the State Fair Vendor Manual, which include a general ban on "the display, sale, or distribution of weapons (firearms, knives, mace, martial art items, chains, etc.), toy weapons, fireworks, drug-related merchandise or paraphernalia, pornographic materials, offensive wording or graphics of any type, and counterfeit or 'knock-off' items." Notwithstanding the rule against knives and firearms, a cutlery company had been allowed to display its wares, and Bingham testified that she would "allow a hunting and fishing store to display photographs of its merchandise, including shotguns sold in its store."

Ultra Health was granted no such leniency. "Contextual exceptions to the general prohibited items provision are troublesome and bear on the reasonableness of the State Fair's prohibitions as applied to Ultra Health," Parker wrote. "The absence of definite and impartial criteria for determining whether an item is family friendly, combined with evidence of inconsistent application, renders the policy as applied to Ultra Health unreasonable."

 

Wow. "Offensive wording or graphics of any type." I wonder if the fishing store could display a filet knife or just a picture of one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congress investigates lifting some cannabis restrictions

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/15/business/cannabis-congress/index.html

Quote

Although federal cannabis legalization may not be imminent, Congress is taking early steps to better understand how to research and regulate the complex plant.

This is soooo hard.

Quote

 

During their questioning, subcommittee members referenced several of the active cannabis-related bills before Congress, and asked if rescheduling or even descheduling cannabis would solve some of these ongoing conflicts.
Descheduling cannabis may indeed accelerate research, said Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the NIH's National Institute on Drug Abuse.
 
However, she quickly cautioned that doing so "may have unintended, negative consequences," including decreased perceptions of risk and potential harms to health.

 

Because people aren't able to tell what's dangerous without a stupid prohibition program to tip us off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

40 States?

 

Quote

 

More than 40 U.S. states could allow some form of legal marijuana by the end of 2020, including deep red Mississippi and South Dakota — and they’re doing it with the help of some conservatives.

State lawmakers are teeing up their bills as legislative sessions kick off around the country, and advocates pushing ballot measures are racing to collect and certify signatures to meet deadlines for getting their questions to voters.

Should they succeed, every state could have marijuana laws on the books that deviate from federal law, but people could still be prosecuted if they drive across state lines with their weed, because the total federal ban on marijuana isn’t expected to budge any time soon.

...

 

Umm... you don't have to cross state lines to break federal law, as Justice Thomas noted in 2005.

Quote

Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything–and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.

But the strategery of legalization advocates is interesting. They're ignoring big, expensive states like Florida because a US Senator is a US Senator irregardless of the state. They want more Senators from states with legal weed.

 

Share this post


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

They're ignoring big, expensive states like Florida because a US Senator is a US Senator irregardless of the state. They want more Senators from states with legal weed.

 

what are you talking about?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

what are you talking about?

 

This:

 

Quote

 

National organizations like his are eschewing swing states like Florida and Ohio, where the costs of running a ballot campaign are high during a presidential election. They are intentionally targeting states with smaller populations. For advocates, running successful campaigns in six less-populous states means potentially 12 more senators representing legal marijuana states.

“The cost of an Ohio campaign could cover the costs of [four to six] other ballot initiative campaigns. Our first goal is to pass laws in as many places as we can,” Schweich said.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The War On Fentanyl Continues (to be stupid)
 

Quote

 

Even as President Donald Trump brags about his support for sentencing reform, he pushes enhanced fentanyl penalties that threaten to repeat the mistakes he claims to be correcting. As a new report from the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) shows, that sort of inconsistency is hardly unique to the president.

"Many legislators who support scaling back mass incarceration and the drug war are now supporting extremely harsh measures for fentanyl, undercutting the effectiveness of criminal justice reforms," write Michael Collins, former director of national affairs at DPA, and Sheila Vakharia, the organization's deputy director for research and academic engagement. One striking example: The Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2017—a bill that would have gone further in reducing drug penalties than the FIRST STEP Act, which Trump signed in 2018—nevertheless included a "mandatory sentencing enhancement" for heroin mixed with fentanyl.

At the state level, politicians who favor reducing drug sentences, such as Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R), likewise want to increase them when the drug is fentanyl. Since 2011, Collins and Vakharia found, 39 states and the District of Columbia have responded to the upward trend in opioid-related deaths by enacting harsher penalties for fentanyl offenses, a strategy that is both ineffective and unjust.

These politicians are responding to the increasing prevalence of fentanyl as a heroin booster and substitute. That development, driven by the economics of prohibition, has made illegal opioids more deadly.

...

Is there any reason to think that enhanced penalties will actually reduce fentanyl-related deaths? "There is no evidence that punishing the use and sale of a drug more harshly due to its potency will reduce its availability," Collins and Vakharia say. They quote an observation that Marc Mauer, executive director of the Sentencing Project, made in 2018: "Increasing already high penalties for drug offenses is not effective because 1) most people do not expect to be apprehended for a crime, are not familiar with relevant legal penalties, or criminally offend with their judgment compromised by substance abuse or mental health problems, and 2) those who are apprehended and sentenced are often in the lower levels of the drug trade and are readily replaced by other sellers willing to fill their roles."

The fentanyl crackdown could actually increase drug-related deaths, since it includes a surge in prosecutions for "drug-induced homicide," a trend documented in a 2017 DPA report. By threatening to imprison people who share drugs that are implicated in fatal overdoses, such prosecutions may deter them from seeking lifesaving help, undermining the goal of "Good Samaritan" laws that are supposed to protect bystanders in such situations.

Instead of more punishment, Collins and Vakharia recommend several harm-reduction measures that are more likely to be effective, such as stronger Good Samaritan laws, increased access to naloxone, distribution of test strips that indicate the presence of fentanyl in black-market drugs, legalization of supervised drug consumption sites, and expansion of treatment using substitute opioids, including research on injectable alternatives. "We cannot have a public health response to some drugs and a criminal justice response to others," they write. "We cannot talk about 'treatment, not incarceration' and then revert to interdiction and enforcement when a new substance that frightens us appears on the scene."

 

Marc Mauer is right.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/21/2019 at 5:10 AM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Cory Booker gave the rusty weather vane a shove

https://reason.com/2019/11/20/cory-booker-just-crushed-joe-biden-over-his-tepid-support-for-marijuana-legalization/
 

Quote

 

...

It came during a segment of the debate focused on how the various Democratic candidates could best appeal to African-American voters—a demographic that figures to be critical for Biden, particularly in the early primary in South Carolina.

Booker argued that Biden's tepid stance on marijuana should be disqualifying. Calling the war on drugs "a war on black and brown people," the New Jersey senator pivoted to criticize candidates who have not experienced first hand the devastating consequences of the drug war.

"There are people in Congress right now that admit to smoking marijuana, while our kids are in jail for those drug crimes," Booker said to widespread applause from the Atlanta crowd.

15 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

In a yuge pattern, which is vulnerable and cite-able, to my delight, the drug war is being linked to inner city gangstas. We call that de-humanization cb.  And some will tolerate it.


He might seem a bit immature and volatile to you, but Cory Booker is right that the stupid drug war is hardest on minorities.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:


He might seem a bit immature and volatile to you, but Cory Booker is right that the stupid drug war is hardest on minorities.

 

RACE BAILER ALERT

Quote

The Dogballs Study of Racial Volatility, page one of three 

Censoring T-Bizzle

Plenipotentiary Tom replied to Plenipotentiary Tom's topic in Political Anarchy

...You hope for a jury that knows to toss them Kool cigs to soothe their immature andvolatile nature, but it doesn't always work out.

2 hours ago

It's A Beautiful Day For A Church Shooting

Plenipotentiary Tom replied to badlatitude's topic in Political Anarchy

...Davis is considered armed and dangerous by law enforcement and is considered immature andvolatile by our own jocal. One thing he is not considered by anyone is convenient for gungrabby purposes, which is why I'm the only one to actually discuss this "mass" shooting. Still, it's a "mass" shoot...

January 4

At least 2 injured in shooting at New Jersey high school football game

Plenipotentiary Tom replied to Mid's topic in Political Anarchy

...nor do I think this incident will get much more attention now that we know the shooters are adults that someone like jocal might call immature andvolatile . Very inconvenient. But it's a "school shooting," the very most convenient kind for grabbers, so although it won't get any more individual...

November 18, 2019

Is this a racist comment?

Plenipotentiary Tom replied to Shootist Jeff's topic in Political Anarchy

...and morevolatile , among blacks. Even more deadly than among whites."

October 30, 2019 Is this a racist comment?

Plenipotentiary Tom replied to Shootist Jeff's topic in Political Anarchy

...and morevolatile , among blacks. Even more deadly than among whites." But the fact that Dred Scott was a black man is irrelevant to most of us. Even if he were white, the fact that the Supreme Court in that era thought citizens could "keep and carry arms wherever they went" would still negate...

October 30, 2019 

the potential of civil war

Plenipotentiary Tom replied to aA's topic in Political Anarchy

...Gun nuts don't have a lot in common with White Power types who think black skin makes a person immature andvolatile , though unlike some of those elk around here, we do have the sense to refrain from destroying our own squirrel shooters. That's why this was inserted in the Declaration:...

October 7, 2019 

Oh Looky - NY Sheriffs Association responds to Cuomo's gun laws.

Plenipotentiary Tom replied to a topic in