Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
RainDog
RainDog's Journal
RainDog's Journal
April 25, 2014
Todd noted that IN EVERY NATION, no matter the political or economic ideology, when educated people are left out of the power equation - those people will revolt against the dominant power.
He predicted the fall of the Soviet Union back when Raygun assumed the cold war will always be with us - decades before the actual event.
He predicted the fall of the American empire based upon the same statistical analysis.
But he did offer some hope. He's not an American, so his analysis of the operations of power isn't constrained by support for one party or another. He said:
I think he was somewhat off point about the election of President Obama. The reality is that Republican presidents, since Reagan, have left Democratic presidents with big economic messes to clean up - this was especially true and one of those history returning as farce moments with Bush Sr./Jr - one gave us the S&L crisis and taxpayer bailout, the other a global financial crisis that is still being played out - especially in those places that did not choose to nationalize some banking and prosecute or penalize the bankers responsible.
But I understand his remark about the first Obama election as a "gimmick." He was talking about the reality that, the level of politician, Democrats, as well as Republicans, defer to financial institutions "too big to fail." The majority of Americans who were so happy to be able to vote for the first African American president then had to watch as the machinery of power demonstrated it was more powerful than those chosen to lead and represent the American people.
This repeated scenario, however, is useful for Republicans - demonstrated by the astro-turfing tea baggers - their rage is misplaced - it belongs to those who have enacted laws to increase economic disparity.
This work reiterates Todd's demographic study of the negative effects of inequality and the predicted outcomes of social upheaval in the face of the same.
I think Piketty's work goes well with the work of Emmanuel Todd
Todd wrote about the decline of America during the Bush years. Todd is a demographer who looked at the educational stats and condition for women in various nations because they are indicators of changes in power to come - either lost or gained.
His book, After the Empire, is no longer in print in the U.S., unfortunately.
Widely reviewed and critically praised, Emmanuel Todd's After the Empire predicts that the United States is forfeiting its superpower status as it moves away from traditional democratic values of egalitarianism and universalism, lives far beyond its means economically, and continues to anger foreign allies and enemies alike with its military and ideological policies.
Todd calmly and straightforwardly takes stock of many negative trends, including America's weakened commitment to the socio-economic integration of African Americans, a bulimic economy that increasingly relies on smoke and mirrors and the goodwill of foreign investors, and a foreign policy that squanders the country's reserves of "soft power" while its militaristic arsonist-fireman behavior is met with increasing resistance. Written by a demographer and historian who foresaw the collapse of the Soviet Union, this original and daring book cannot be ignored.
http://www.amazon.com/After-Empire-Breakdown-Perspectives-Criticism/dp/0231131038
Todd calmly and straightforwardly takes stock of many negative trends, including America's weakened commitment to the socio-economic integration of African Americans, a bulimic economy that increasingly relies on smoke and mirrors and the goodwill of foreign investors, and a foreign policy that squanders the country's reserves of "soft power" while its militaristic arsonist-fireman behavior is met with increasing resistance. Written by a demographer and historian who foresaw the collapse of the Soviet Union, this original and daring book cannot be ignored.
http://www.amazon.com/After-Empire-Breakdown-Perspectives-Criticism/dp/0231131038
Todd noted that IN EVERY NATION, no matter the political or economic ideology, when educated people are left out of the power equation - those people will revolt against the dominant power.
He predicted the fall of the Soviet Union back when Raygun assumed the cold war will always be with us - decades before the actual event.
He predicted the fall of the American empire based upon the same statistical analysis.
But he did offer some hope. He's not an American, so his analysis of the operations of power isn't constrained by support for one party or another. He said:
I was not very impressed by the election of Barack Obama as the first black president. I took it as a gimmick. At the time, there was a sort of panic over the financial collapse, and I thought the election was used to trick us into forgetting the incredible financial mess the U.S. produced.
Obama's re-election was something different, however. The social security debate in the U.S., such as the one over Obamacare healthcare reform, is something very important to me. When you start discussing these things, people will tell you, "Look at how the tea party is taking control of the Republican Party." But I know that the tea party receives most of its support from Americans over 60, the aging generation.
Perhaps the U.S. is again turning into something different. Perhaps we are on the verge of a new phase where America tries to think again in terms of equality. I have no conclusion, but one must not miss the turning points in history.
http://asia.nikkei.com/Viewpoints/Geopolitico/The-paradox-of-Americas-fading-empire
Obama's re-election was something different, however. The social security debate in the U.S., such as the one over Obamacare healthcare reform, is something very important to me. When you start discussing these things, people will tell you, "Look at how the tea party is taking control of the Republican Party." But I know that the tea party receives most of its support from Americans over 60, the aging generation.
Perhaps the U.S. is again turning into something different. Perhaps we are on the verge of a new phase where America tries to think again in terms of equality. I have no conclusion, but one must not miss the turning points in history.
http://asia.nikkei.com/Viewpoints/Geopolitico/The-paradox-of-Americas-fading-empire
I think he was somewhat off point about the election of President Obama. The reality is that Republican presidents, since Reagan, have left Democratic presidents with big economic messes to clean up - this was especially true and one of those history returning as farce moments with Bush Sr./Jr - one gave us the S&L crisis and taxpayer bailout, the other a global financial crisis that is still being played out - especially in those places that did not choose to nationalize some banking and prosecute or penalize the bankers responsible.
But I understand his remark about the first Obama election as a "gimmick." He was talking about the reality that, the level of politician, Democrats, as well as Republicans, defer to financial institutions "too big to fail." The majority of Americans who were so happy to be able to vote for the first African American president then had to watch as the machinery of power demonstrated it was more powerful than those chosen to lead and represent the American people.
This repeated scenario, however, is useful for Republicans - demonstrated by the astro-turfing tea baggers - their rage is misplaced - it belongs to those who have enacted laws to increase economic disparity.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/21/business/economy/tolerance-for-income-gap-may-be-ebbing-economic-scene.html?_r=0
One study found that public spending on education was lower in countries like Britain and the United States where the rich participate more in the political process than the poor, and higher in countries like Sweden and Denmark, where levels of political participation are approximately similar across the income scale. If the very rich can use the political system to slow or stop the ascent of the rest, the United States could become a hereditary plutocracy under the trappings of liberal democracy.
One doesn’t have to believe in equality to be concerned about these trends. Once inequality becomes very acute, it breeds resentment and political instability, eroding the legitimacy of democratic institutions. It can produce political polarization and gridlock, splitting the political system between haves and have-nots, making it more difficult for governments to address imbalances and respond to brewing crises. That too can undermine economic growth, let alone democracy.
One study found that public spending on education was lower in countries like Britain and the United States where the rich participate more in the political process than the poor, and higher in countries like Sweden and Denmark, where levels of political participation are approximately similar across the income scale. If the very rich can use the political system to slow or stop the ascent of the rest, the United States could become a hereditary plutocracy under the trappings of liberal democracy.
One doesn’t have to believe in equality to be concerned about these trends. Once inequality becomes very acute, it breeds resentment and political instability, eroding the legitimacy of democratic institutions. It can produce political polarization and gridlock, splitting the political system between haves and have-nots, making it more difficult for governments to address imbalances and respond to brewing crises. That too can undermine economic growth, let alone democracy.
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2011/09/berg.htm
In recent work (Berg, Ostry, and Zettelmeyer, 2011; and Berg and Ostry, 2011), we discovered that when growth is looked at over the long term, the trade-off between efficiency and equality may not exist. In fact equality appears to be an important ingredient in promoting and sustaining growth. The difference between countries that can sustain rapid growth for many years or even decades and the many others that see growth spurts fade quickly may be the level of inequality. Countries may find that improving equality may also improve efficiency, understood as more sustainable long-run growth.
In recent work (Berg, Ostry, and Zettelmeyer, 2011; and Berg and Ostry, 2011), we discovered that when growth is looked at over the long term, the trade-off between efficiency and equality may not exist. In fact equality appears to be an important ingredient in promoting and sustaining growth. The difference between countries that can sustain rapid growth for many years or even decades and the many others that see growth spurts fade quickly may be the level of inequality. Countries may find that improving equality may also improve efficiency, understood as more sustainable long-run growth.
This work reiterates Todd's demographic study of the negative effects of inequality and the predicted outcomes of social upheaval in the face of the same.
April 25, 2014
Previous report by the ACLU indicates racial bias in the war on drugs: Billions of dollars wasted on racially biased arrests
Minnesota marijuana arrests demonstrate racial bias
http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_25608424/minnesota-blacks-marijuana-arrests-proportionately-higher-report-saysIf you're black in Minnesota, you're six times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than your white counterparts, even though drug use rates are similar, according to a report released Monday.
The report by MN2020, which looked at FBI arrest data for 2011, showed that the racial disparity in marijuana possession arrests in Minnesota was more than twice the national average.
"In Minnesota, African Americans made up a little less than six percent of the population, but made up more than 27 percent of marijuana arrests," MN2020 Executive Director Steve Fletcher said at a news conference Monday in front of the Hennepin County government center. "That kind of overrepresentation cannot be accounted for without racial bias. It means black Minnesotans are bearing a disproportionate share of the personal and collateral costs of our war on drugs."
Fletcher and others, including the American Civil Liberties Union, are calling on lawmakers and law enforcement agencies to take a hard look at policies and to end the "structural racism" leading to the disparities, which aren't limited to marijuana arrests.
The report by MN2020, which looked at FBI arrest data for 2011, showed that the racial disparity in marijuana possession arrests in Minnesota was more than twice the national average.
"In Minnesota, African Americans made up a little less than six percent of the population, but made up more than 27 percent of marijuana arrests," MN2020 Executive Director Steve Fletcher said at a news conference Monday in front of the Hennepin County government center. "That kind of overrepresentation cannot be accounted for without racial bias. It means black Minnesotans are bearing a disproportionate share of the personal and collateral costs of our war on drugs."
Fletcher and others, including the American Civil Liberties Union, are calling on lawmakers and law enforcement agencies to take a hard look at policies and to end the "structural racism" leading to the disparities, which aren't limited to marijuana arrests.
Previous report by the ACLU indicates racial bias in the war on drugs: Billions of dollars wasted on racially biased arrests
April 25, 2014
For cannabis?
At least 10 nations have made cannabis medicine legal for certain conditions (not a synthetic - whole cannabis plant medicine in the form of Sativex). This has been reality since 2010.
Cannabis has been used by humans for religious, health and recreational purposes for more than 5000 years. It was available to humans long before alcohol - it doesn't require processing, such as fermentation, and the history of humans indicates that cannabis spread throughout the world via the migration of humans - not by nature.
It, not alcohol, remains part of the pharmcopeia - yet alcohol is legal while cannabis is not.
This is nothing more than corruption on the part of lawmakers, and part of the history of the Republican Party's attacks on liberal voters - from its inception, through Nixon targeting "Jews, psychiatrists and hippies" by disregarding the opinion of Nixon's appointed judge to recommend policy on the subject - and the judge recommended decriminalization, fwiw, to the current prison industrial complex with sentencing law and LEO policy meant to target minorities.
There's nothing more to discuss about whether or not cannabis should be legal. It should be.
The issue now is how to get rid of any politician who does not recognize this reality.
More research is available on cannabis than many FDA-approved drugs
There's more research available on cannabis than many FDA-approved drugs
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/fda-drug-approvals-based-on-varied-data-study-finds/2014/01/21/b12d0712-82be-11e3-8099-9181471f7aaf_story.html
The Food and Drug Administration must bless any new drugs as “safe and effective” before they wind up in pharmacy aisles or prescribed to patients. But the ways in which the agency arrives at those approvals “vary widely in their thoroughness,” according to an analysis by researchers at Yale University’s School of Medicine.
“Not all FDA approvals are created equally,” said Nicholas Downing, lead author of the study, which examined nearly 200 new drug approvals between 2005 and 2012.
Researchers found broad differences in the data it took to get a thumbs up from FDA. For instance, the agency required that many new drugs prove themselves in large, high-quality clinical trials. But about a third won approval on the basis of a single clinical trial, and many other trials involved small groups of patients and shorter durations. Only about 40 percent of approvals included trials in which the new drug was compared with existing drugs on the market.
The Food and Drug Administration must bless any new drugs as “safe and effective” before they wind up in pharmacy aisles or prescribed to patients. But the ways in which the agency arrives at those approvals “vary widely in their thoroughness,” according to an analysis by researchers at Yale University’s School of Medicine.
“Not all FDA approvals are created equally,” said Nicholas Downing, lead author of the study, which examined nearly 200 new drug approvals between 2005 and 2012.
Researchers found broad differences in the data it took to get a thumbs up from FDA. For instance, the agency required that many new drugs prove themselves in large, high-quality clinical trials. But about a third won approval on the basis of a single clinical trial, and many other trials involved small groups of patients and shorter durations. Only about 40 percent of approvals included trials in which the new drug was compared with existing drugs on the market.
For cannabis?
20,000 published studies or reviews in the scientific literature referencing the cannabis plant and its cannabinoids, nearly half of which were published within the last five years, according to a keyword search on PubMed Central, the government repository for peer-reviewed scientific research.
Of these, more than 100 are controlled clinical trials assessing the therapeutic efficacy of cannabinoids for a variety of indications.
A 2006 review of 72 of these trials, conducted between the years 1975 and 2004, identifies ten distinct pathologies for which controlled studies on cannabinoids have been published
In fact, a 2008 meta-analysis published in the Journal of the Canadian Medical Association reported that cannabis-based drugs were associated with virtually no elevated incidences of serious adverse side-effects in over 30 years of investigative use.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/24615512-452/pot-holds-no-medical-mysteries.html#.U1nRFK1dXQU
Of these, more than 100 are controlled clinical trials assessing the therapeutic efficacy of cannabinoids for a variety of indications.
A 2006 review of 72 of these trials, conducted between the years 1975 and 2004, identifies ten distinct pathologies for which controlled studies on cannabinoids have been published
In fact, a 2008 meta-analysis published in the Journal of the Canadian Medical Association reported that cannabis-based drugs were associated with virtually no elevated incidences of serious adverse side-effects in over 30 years of investigative use.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/24615512-452/pot-holds-no-medical-mysteries.html#.U1nRFK1dXQU
At least 10 nations have made cannabis medicine legal for certain conditions (not a synthetic - whole cannabis plant medicine in the form of Sativex). This has been reality since 2010.
Cannabis has been used by humans for religious, health and recreational purposes for more than 5000 years. It was available to humans long before alcohol - it doesn't require processing, such as fermentation, and the history of humans indicates that cannabis spread throughout the world via the migration of humans - not by nature.
It, not alcohol, remains part of the pharmcopeia - yet alcohol is legal while cannabis is not.
This is nothing more than corruption on the part of lawmakers, and part of the history of the Republican Party's attacks on liberal voters - from its inception, through Nixon targeting "Jews, psychiatrists and hippies" by disregarding the opinion of Nixon's appointed judge to recommend policy on the subject - and the judge recommended decriminalization, fwiw, to the current prison industrial complex with sentencing law and LEO policy meant to target minorities.
There's nothing more to discuss about whether or not cannabis should be legal. It should be.
The issue now is how to get rid of any politician who does not recognize this reality.
April 24, 2014
Why? Because of the "entourage effect." This is why marijuana in its natural form, not a synthetic, is the best form of the chemicals for medical use - because THC interacts with other cannabinoids to moderate one another (THC/CBD) - and provides two different pathways to activate different endocannabinoid receptors in different parts of the body.
But state legislators want to limit medical marijuana to CDB-only strains.
This link asks if this is good policy - Gupta says no, patients say no, but legislators have alcohol and prison lobbyists to placate, so what's in the best interest of the nation has never constrained the US legislature from enacting stupid, worthless, pandering, hateful laws to limit Americans' freedom - these days - such laws are practically the definition of conservatism that is beholden to god botherers and liquor lobbies (no irony there, eh?)
http://www.drugpolicy.org/blog/cbd-only-legislation-good-thing-medical-marijuana
Here's where we get down to it, legislators - what matters to you more? A child whose life could be saved by your legislation to end the loser-initiated and fed "war on drugs," or a private prison corporation relying on you to insure they have greater than 90% occupancy rate - which is achieved by stop/frisk and arrest of healthy African American and Latino men - the ones the prisons want because they're so cheap to house (unlike older career criminals with health problems.)
When you align yourself with neo-slavery - you find you're willing to kill children to make prison CEOs happy.
Any Republican who claims they are "pro-life" can kiss my ass.
Get rid of this bunch of wankers.
The world has changed around them and they're too indebted to crony capitalism and their nanny state prison/industrial complex to recognize they're as useless as a vestigial organ.
Sanjay Gupta: CDB-only legal cannabis is not enough
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/11/health/gupta-marijuana-entourage/index.html?hpt=hp_c2Why? Because of the "entourage effect." This is why marijuana in its natural form, not a synthetic, is the best form of the chemicals for medical use - because THC interacts with other cannabinoids to moderate one another (THC/CBD) - and provides two different pathways to activate different endocannabinoid receptors in different parts of the body.
Here is the important point. Mechoulam (the scientist who first identified THC), along with many others, said he believes all these components of the cannabis plant likely exert some therapeutic effect, more than any single compound alone.
Think of it like this: There are more than 480 natural components found within the cannabis plant, of which 66 have been classified as "cannabinoids." Those are chemicals unique to the plant, including delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiols. There are, however, many more, including:
Other constituents of the cannabis plant are: nitrogenous compounds (27 known), amino acids (18), proteins (3), glycoproteins (6), enzymes (2), sugars and related compounds (34), hydrocarbons (50), simple alcohols (7), aldehydes (13), ketones (13), simple acids (21), fatty acids (22), simple esters (12), lactones (1), steroids (11), terpenes (120), non-cannabinoid phenols (25), flavonoids (21), vitamins (1), pigments (2), and other elements (9).
Think of it like this: There are more than 480 natural components found within the cannabis plant, of which 66 have been classified as "cannabinoids." Those are chemicals unique to the plant, including delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiols. There are, however, many more, including:
-- Cannabigerols (CBG);
-- Cannabichromenes (CBC);
-- other Cannabidiols (CBD);
-- other Tetrahydrocannabinols (THC);
-- Cannabinol (CBN) and cannabinodiol (CBDL);
-- other cannabinoids (such as cannabicyclol (CBL), cannabielsoin (CBE), cannabitriol (CBT) and other miscellaneous types).
Other constituents of the cannabis plant are: nitrogenous compounds (27 known), amino acids (18), proteins (3), glycoproteins (6), enzymes (2), sugars and related compounds (34), hydrocarbons (50), simple alcohols (7), aldehydes (13), ketones (13), simple acids (21), fatty acids (22), simple esters (12), lactones (1), steroids (11), terpenes (120), non-cannabinoid phenols (25), flavonoids (21), vitamins (1), pigments (2), and other elements (9).
But state legislators want to limit medical marijuana to CDB-only strains.
This link asks if this is good policy - Gupta says no, patients say no, but legislators have alcohol and prison lobbyists to placate, so what's in the best interest of the nation has never constrained the US legislature from enacting stupid, worthless, pandering, hateful laws to limit Americans' freedom - these days - such laws are practically the definition of conservatism that is beholden to god botherers and liquor lobbies (no irony there, eh?)
http://www.drugpolicy.org/blog/cbd-only-legislation-good-thing-medical-marijuana
Here's where we get down to it, legislators - what matters to you more? A child whose life could be saved by your legislation to end the loser-initiated and fed "war on drugs," or a private prison corporation relying on you to insure they have greater than 90% occupancy rate - which is achieved by stop/frisk and arrest of healthy African American and Latino men - the ones the prisons want because they're so cheap to house (unlike older career criminals with health problems.)
When you align yourself with neo-slavery - you find you're willing to kill children to make prison CEOs happy.
Any Republican who claims they are "pro-life" can kiss my ass.
Get rid of this bunch of wankers.
The world has changed around them and they're too indebted to crony capitalism and their nanny state prison/industrial complex to recognize they're as useless as a vestigial organ.
April 18, 2014
where are your studies that indicate
modern American society is not racist by and large?
I have never seen a study that demonstrates this. However, to make the statement, I would assume you have evidence to back you up.
Otherwise, you're just making a statement with no evidence to support your claim.
April 15, 2014
Holder noted he had experimented with cannabis in college, saw no need for any sentencing for simple possession - disliked the lack of discretion for sentencing he experienced as a judge dealing with possession cases, and noted the federal AG office doesn't go after such cases (tho, of course, the DEA does fund law enforcement efforts that do, in fact, target possession in various ways - but these are all state LEOs, not federal.)
While I understand the need for Congress to do its job to address the will of the scientific, medical, and general population regarding the scheduling AND legal status of cannabis (they're two different things), if Congress does not respond, I hope, as a second-term president, this administration would place cannabis as a schedule IV, rather than I, substance before the Obama term is over. Since voting districts are so gerrymandered, Congress can stonewall reform for decades at this point.
iow, if Congress repeatedly refuses to deal with the error of scheduling cannabis as one of the most dangerous substances with no medical value - the Democratic Party as a whole would benefit from such an action because it is in line with current understandings (and the initial placement of cannabis as a schedule I substance was intended to be provisional anyway - the placement was to placate Nixon - who wanted to use cannabis as a way to attack his enemies list.)
On the other hand - Alaska, Oregon and CA may soon join the two legal cannabis states - at which point Congress will have to admit they are ignoring the will of the people and the medical and scientific communities in order to appease a shrinking segment of the population that would rather arrest Americaans than tax and regulate a substance that has been used for thousands of years without significant harm.
Budding Optimism: Holder on legal pot in CO & WA
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/15/eric-holder-marijuana-legalization_n_5148663.html
But the nation's top law enforcement official, who spoke to The Huffington Post in an interview on Friday, also said it was tough to predict where marijuana legalization will be in 10 years.
...Holder's positive outlook on how legalization is going in Washington and Colorado stands in contrast to the views expressed by Drug Enforcement Administration head Michele Leonhart, who reportedly criticized President Barack Obama for comparing marijuana to alcohol. Leonhart claimed earlier this month that voters were mislead when they voted to legalize and regulate marijuana on the state level, that Mexican drug cartels are "setting up shop" in Washington and Colorado and that this country should have "never gone forward" with legalization. Another DEA official recently claimed that "every single parent out there" opposed marijuana legalization.
Washington and Colorado, of course, aren't the only places in the U.S. reforming their approach to marijuana. In March, Washington, D.C., decriminalized the possession of small amounts of marijuana. Asked about D.C.'s move, Holder said it didn't make sense to send people to jail on possession charges.
Holder also acknowledged the Obama administration has made the political decision not to unilaterally "reschedule" marijuana by taking it off the list of what the federal government considers the most dangerous drugs, though that is something the attorney general has the authority to do. Instead, Holder has said DOJ would be willing to work with Congress if they want to reschedule marijuana, which doesn't seem likely to happen in the near future.
But the nation's top law enforcement official, who spoke to The Huffington Post in an interview on Friday, also said it was tough to predict where marijuana legalization will be in 10 years.
...Holder's positive outlook on how legalization is going in Washington and Colorado stands in contrast to the views expressed by Drug Enforcement Administration head Michele Leonhart, who reportedly criticized President Barack Obama for comparing marijuana to alcohol. Leonhart claimed earlier this month that voters were mislead when they voted to legalize and regulate marijuana on the state level, that Mexican drug cartels are "setting up shop" in Washington and Colorado and that this country should have "never gone forward" with legalization. Another DEA official recently claimed that "every single parent out there" opposed marijuana legalization.
Washington and Colorado, of course, aren't the only places in the U.S. reforming their approach to marijuana. In March, Washington, D.C., decriminalized the possession of small amounts of marijuana. Asked about D.C.'s move, Holder said it didn't make sense to send people to jail on possession charges.
Holder also acknowledged the Obama administration has made the political decision not to unilaterally "reschedule" marijuana by taking it off the list of what the federal government considers the most dangerous drugs, though that is something the attorney general has the authority to do. Instead, Holder has said DOJ would be willing to work with Congress if they want to reschedule marijuana, which doesn't seem likely to happen in the near future.
Holder noted he had experimented with cannabis in college, saw no need for any sentencing for simple possession - disliked the lack of discretion for sentencing he experienced as a judge dealing with possession cases, and noted the federal AG office doesn't go after such cases (tho, of course, the DEA does fund law enforcement efforts that do, in fact, target possession in various ways - but these are all state LEOs, not federal.)
While I understand the need for Congress to do its job to address the will of the scientific, medical, and general population regarding the scheduling AND legal status of cannabis (they're two different things), if Congress does not respond, I hope, as a second-term president, this administration would place cannabis as a schedule IV, rather than I, substance before the Obama term is over. Since voting districts are so gerrymandered, Congress can stonewall reform for decades at this point.
iow, if Congress repeatedly refuses to deal with the error of scheduling cannabis as one of the most dangerous substances with no medical value - the Democratic Party as a whole would benefit from such an action because it is in line with current understandings (and the initial placement of cannabis as a schedule I substance was intended to be provisional anyway - the placement was to placate Nixon - who wanted to use cannabis as a way to attack his enemies list.)
On the other hand - Alaska, Oregon and CA may soon join the two legal cannabis states - at which point Congress will have to admit they are ignoring the will of the people and the medical and scientific communities in order to appease a shrinking segment of the population that would rather arrest Americaans than tax and regulate a substance that has been used for thousands of years without significant harm.
April 13, 2014
In a commentary for the survey, an American psychiatrist called for studies on the medical uses of marijuana. Doctors spoke of relieving suffering and the benefit of marijuana in comparison to legal painkillers.
Survey: 76% of doctors would approve of medical marijuana
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/survey-76-percent-of-doctors-approve-of-medical-marijuana-use/
A majority of doctors would approve the use of medical marijuana, according to a new survey.
"We were surprised by the outcome of polling and comments, with 76 percent of all votes in favor of the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes -- even though marijuana use is illegal in most countries," the survey's authors wrote.
The results appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine on May 30. It included responses from 1,446 doctors from 72 different countries and 56 different states and provinces in North America. In addition, 118 doctors posted comments about their decision on the survey.
Doctors surveyed were given a hypothetical case about a woman named "Marylin," a 68-year-old woman with breast cancer that had metastasized -- or spread -- to her lungs, chest cavity and spine. They were asked if they would give her medical marijuana to help her with her symptoms.
A majority of doctors would approve the use of medical marijuana, according to a new survey.
"We were surprised by the outcome of polling and comments, with 76 percent of all votes in favor of the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes -- even though marijuana use is illegal in most countries," the survey's authors wrote.
The results appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine on May 30. It included responses from 1,446 doctors from 72 different countries and 56 different states and provinces in North America. In addition, 118 doctors posted comments about their decision on the survey.
Doctors surveyed were given a hypothetical case about a woman named "Marylin," a 68-year-old woman with breast cancer that had metastasized -- or spread -- to her lungs, chest cavity and spine. They were asked if they would give her medical marijuana to help her with her symptoms.
In a commentary for the survey, an American psychiatrist called for studies on the medical uses of marijuana. Doctors spoke of relieving suffering and the benefit of marijuana in comparison to legal painkillers.
April 12, 2014
also - to understand the rise of modern conservatism - Rick Perlstein has written a history of this era through biographies of Goldwater, Nixon, and his newest about Ronald Reagan - he's essential reading to understand current politics.
Invisible Hands: The Businessmen's Plot Against the New Deal
As others here know, Jules Archer wrote about the plot against the president to assassinate FDR from business associates of Andrew Melon (whose descendants have funded some of the most repulsive right wing groups in the 20th and 21st century)
Kim Phillips-Fein wrote Invisible Hands - and here is her talk about her work.
Phillips-Fein (History/New York Univ.) follows conservatism from its birth as a big-business reaction to the New Deal to its zenith as a key element of the Reagan Revolution in the early ’80s. She eschews lengthy theoretical discussion of conservatism’s laissez-faire, small-government tenets, focusing instead on the unique individuals behind the movement, beginning with the wealthy du Pont family, who believed that New Deal economic reforms were nothing less than socialism, and eccentric, influential Austrian economist Friedrich von Hayek, who shaped conservatism into a fully formed ideology. During this period, conservatism would largely remain the purview of such big-business associations as the Liberty League and the National Association of Manufacturers, but it wouldn’t remain in backrooms for long. Phillips-Fein profiles the colorful characters who brought conservatism into mainstream popular culture during the ’50s, including National Review editor William F. Buckley and novelist/philosopher Ayn Rand. An extended section on General Electric executive Lemuel Ricketts Boulware, who expertly used conservative propaganda to help break strikes and achieve political goals, is especially revealing, particularly in the author’s analysis of his hard-right ideology’s influence on GE employee Ronald Reagan. Phillips-Fein ably examines the merging of economic conservatism, anticommunism and religious and moral thought. She details the influence of evangelists like Jerry Falwell, who successfully entwined conservative economic ideology and anticommunism in his version of Protestantism and gained massive popular support. Finally, the presidential campaigns of Barry Goldwater in 1964 and Reagan in 1976 and 1980 show conservatism finally breaking through to the mainstream and becoming part of average citizens’ thinking.
https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/kim-phillips-fein/invisible-hands/
https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/kim-phillips-fein/invisible-hands/
also - to understand the rise of modern conservatism - Rick Perlstein has written a history of this era through biographies of Goldwater, Nixon, and his newest about Ronald Reagan - he's essential reading to understand current politics.
April 12, 2014
So, go thank Cohen if you're on twitter. Or leave a comment on his web site. http://cohen.house.gov/
Show some love to a Democrat who is trying to break the impasse between those living in the past and those who want move on to the future.
Thank Representative Steven Cohen (D-TN) on twitter
Steve Cohen on Twitter: @RepCohen
from Digby, via Salon, regarding the Republican party's attack on Holder/Obama to enforce federal law regarding CO and WA states' legal cannabis votes/law.
http://www.salon.com/2014/04/10/tea_partys_reefer_hypocrisy_why_states_rights_is_a_situational_sham/
Some days you wonder how much Eric Holder can really like his job. Like last week when the A.G. testified before Congress and got it coming and going on the subject of legalized marijuana. If he were a toking man (and I’m sure he isn’t) he’d have been justified in going home and sparking up a spliff the size of Colorado. After all, he, an African-American, had to sit there and listen politely to a bunch of white conservatives criticize “states’ rights” and insist that he deploy his jack-booted federal thugs to put a stop to it.
You heard that right. The party that has made a fetish of states’ rights ever since … well, ever since about 1776 … attacked the big bad federal government for failing to uphold federal law against the express wishes of the citizens of the sovereign states who went to the ballot box to legalize marijuana. It seems we’ve misunderstood all these years: The states are only sovereign when they’re denying equal rights to their citizens. If they think that individuals have a right to use a reasonably harmless substance that brings both pleasure and pain relief, the federal government has an obligation to intervene. Good to know.
On the other hand, one might try to make the argument that Democrats on the committee were being hypocritical as well in defending the states’ right to legalize pot. But that would be wrong. Their argument was perfectly consistent with the prevailing view that all citizens, regardless of the state they live in, should be allowed to use marijuana, particularly for medical use. Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen pointedly asked the attorney general why the administration hasn’t used its executive power to fix the absurd designation of marijuana as a Schedule I drug, which likens it to morphine and methamphetamine.
(Digby goes on to talk about the rationale for some Democrats regarding the legal cannabis issue (i.e. re-fighting the Nixon years)
...All of which is to say that Democratic congressmen like Steve Cohen (from that bastion of liberalism Tennessee) really do deserve some accolades from progressive Democrats. He took a rational, sane, decent public position on a hot issue — a position that happens to be shared by the vast majority of the people in his party and a majority of people in the country. That practically makes him a unicorn in Democratic Party politics.
Some days you wonder how much Eric Holder can really like his job. Like last week when the A.G. testified before Congress and got it coming and going on the subject of legalized marijuana. If he were a toking man (and I’m sure he isn’t) he’d have been justified in going home and sparking up a spliff the size of Colorado. After all, he, an African-American, had to sit there and listen politely to a bunch of white conservatives criticize “states’ rights” and insist that he deploy his jack-booted federal thugs to put a stop to it.
You heard that right. The party that has made a fetish of states’ rights ever since … well, ever since about 1776 … attacked the big bad federal government for failing to uphold federal law against the express wishes of the citizens of the sovereign states who went to the ballot box to legalize marijuana. It seems we’ve misunderstood all these years: The states are only sovereign when they’re denying equal rights to their citizens. If they think that individuals have a right to use a reasonably harmless substance that brings both pleasure and pain relief, the federal government has an obligation to intervene. Good to know.
On the other hand, one might try to make the argument that Democrats on the committee were being hypocritical as well in defending the states’ right to legalize pot. But that would be wrong. Their argument was perfectly consistent with the prevailing view that all citizens, regardless of the state they live in, should be allowed to use marijuana, particularly for medical use. Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen pointedly asked the attorney general why the administration hasn’t used its executive power to fix the absurd designation of marijuana as a Schedule I drug, which likens it to morphine and methamphetamine.
(Digby goes on to talk about the rationale for some Democrats regarding the legal cannabis issue (i.e. re-fighting the Nixon years)
...All of which is to say that Democratic congressmen like Steve Cohen (from that bastion of liberalism Tennessee) really do deserve some accolades from progressive Democrats. He took a rational, sane, decent public position on a hot issue — a position that happens to be shared by the vast majority of the people in his party and a majority of people in the country. That practically makes him a unicorn in Democratic Party politics.
So, go thank Cohen if you're on twitter. Or leave a comment on his web site. http://cohen.house.gov/
Show some love to a Democrat who is trying to break the impasse between those living in the past and those who want move on to the future.
April 8, 2014
That sentence lets you know the drug warriors are serious about the issue (cough.) Or maybe that comment was intended to scare suburban soccer moms cause their kid may be the next to use - cause, otherwise, who cares if something happens outside of suburbia, amiright? (sarcasm, if that's necessary.)
Maybe all that propaganda that equated marijuana with actual, harmful addictive drugs that those white kids heard in their DARE sessions made them too gullible - too willing to believe authority figures - and then they found out those figures lied about marijuana - so maybe they're lying about other things? And those are the people currently taking on marijuana - heaven help us all when those with good intentions have bad ideology.
Or maybe a reality is that addiction rates have stayed fairly static in the U.S. for decades (under 2% of the population), but the drug of choice changes, depending on which drug source the drug warriors targeted. It's like squeezing a water balloon - the shape changes but the volume doesn't.
Or maybe the economic crisis from economic policies has created a depressing job market for younger people and that makes stronger drugs more attractive in a "what have I got to lose" sort of way. But that statement does not hold true because the majority of addicts hold jobs and are not on public assistance - but there is a diff. in rates based upon age - just as other risk-taking behaviors are concentrated among teens and young adults.
The Drug Free America coalition is sponsored by the propaganda arm of the federal govt. aka the "Drug Czar's office" whose task and whose budget is allocated to lying to the American public about marijuana as the greatest part of its reason for existence. The bureaucracy has been audited for its value in the past - and those tasked with this job found the Drug Free America commercials, etc. resulted in increased acceptance of marijuana - and a lot of ironic wearing of tee-shirts given away by the same.
Here's some info on the conference -
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/04/media_blackout_no_help_to_oreg.html
The Drug War. In actual combat, when generals see that something is not working - they don't continue to do the same thing. Sometimes they sue for peace because the inhabitants of a place get so sick of war they don't want either side to keep fighting. If you've spent trillions of dollars on an ideology (that drug abuse can be abolished), yet the rate of abuse remains static over decades, while spending just keeps on going - and going, primarily, to military contractors - you have to wonder if the war on drugs is a racket of its own.
It's certainly good news for military contractors who will need to build aircraft to, say, poison the groundwater upstream among poor Mexican populations - but we have suburban white kids to save, so spare no expense.
Propaganda: Marijuana leads to heroin use
This is the sort of reporting we've seen so often in mainstream media. Thankfully, we now have the internet to dispute this propaganda, rather than let it fester for decades to be regurgitated whenever the prohibitionists need to feed the public misinformation.
The article linked and quoted below claims that legalization is leading Mexican marijuana growers to switch to heroin because the price has dropped drastically when domestic marijuana in the U.S. is legal to grow. Of course drug cartels will look for new avenues of revenue when a product is no longer illegal (in some states, in some ways.)
This is what happened with the mob in the U.S. after alcohol prohibition was lifted - the mafia invested in heroin as an alternate stream of revenue before prohibition ended, in fact.
What is fueling the rise of heroin use, however, is the war on drugs - which has focused on prescription opiates extensively, thus making them (and they, not marijuana, share the features of heroin) difficult to obtain. Therefore, those who are addicted to prescription opiates are turning to heroin.
In fact, the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence already knows this is the reality - not the politics of marijuana.
http://www.ncadd.org/index.php/in-the-news/377-prescription-drug-abuse-fueling-rise-in-heroin-addiction
The increase in prescription drug abuse is fueling a rise in heroin addiction, NBC News reports. A growing number of young people who start abusing expensive prescription drugs are switching to heroin, which is cheaper and easier to buy.
Prescription pain pills cost $20 to $60, while heroin costs $3 to $10 a bag. Many young people who use heroin start off snorting the drug, and within weeks, most start shooting up, according to the news report.
“Kids in the city know not to touch it, but the message never got out to the suburbs,” said Chicago Police Capt. John Roberts, whose son died of a heroin overdose. He founded the Heroin Epidemic Relief Organization to help other families deal with teen heroin use.
In 2009, the most recent year for which national data is available, 510 young adults, ages 15 to 24, died of a heroin overdose, up from 198 in 1999. Almost 90 percent of teens who are addicted to heroin are white.
Prescription pain pills cost $20 to $60, while heroin costs $3 to $10 a bag. Many young people who use heroin start off snorting the drug, and within weeks, most start shooting up, according to the news report.
“Kids in the city know not to touch it, but the message never got out to the suburbs,” said Chicago Police Capt. John Roberts, whose son died of a heroin overdose. He founded the Heroin Epidemic Relief Organization to help other families deal with teen heroin use.
In 2009, the most recent year for which national data is available, 510 young adults, ages 15 to 24, died of a heroin overdose, up from 198 in 1999. Almost 90 percent of teens who are addicted to heroin are white.
That sentence lets you know the drug warriors are serious about the issue (cough.) Or maybe that comment was intended to scare suburban soccer moms cause their kid may be the next to use - cause, otherwise, who cares if something happens outside of suburbia, amiright? (sarcasm, if that's necessary.)
Maybe all that propaganda that equated marijuana with actual, harmful addictive drugs that those white kids heard in their DARE sessions made them too gullible - too willing to believe authority figures - and then they found out those figures lied about marijuana - so maybe they're lying about other things? And those are the people currently taking on marijuana - heaven help us all when those with good intentions have bad ideology.
Or maybe a reality is that addiction rates have stayed fairly static in the U.S. for decades (under 2% of the population), but the drug of choice changes, depending on which drug source the drug warriors targeted. It's like squeezing a water balloon - the shape changes but the volume doesn't.
Or maybe the economic crisis from economic policies has created a depressing job market for younger people and that makes stronger drugs more attractive in a "what have I got to lose" sort of way. But that statement does not hold true because the majority of addicts hold jobs and are not on public assistance - but there is a diff. in rates based upon age - just as other risk-taking behaviors are concentrated among teens and young adults.
http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/04/marijuana_news_legalized_pot_i.html
The New York Times' Adam Nagourney reports on the disconnect between Democratic governors and voters when it comes to cannabis policy. Governors like California's Jerry Brown are finding themselves at odds with the public, which increasingly supports legalization.
Even with Democrats and younger voters leading the wave of the pro-legalization shift, these governors are standing back, supporting much more limited medical-marijuana proposals or invoking the kind of law-and-order and public-health arguments more commonly heard from Republicans. While 17 more states — most of them leaning Democratic — have seen bills introduced this year to follow Colorado and Washington in approving recreational marijuana, no sitting governor or member of the Senate has offered a full-out endorsement of legalization. Only Gov. Peter Shumlin, a Democrat in Vermont, which is struggling with a heroin problem, said he was open to the idea.
And finally, The Oregonian editorial board over the weekend weighed in on an upcoming marijuana conference that's closed to the public and the press.
It's a perfect opportunity for Oregonians to learn from those who fear marijuana's legalization the most. And that's why it is flummoxing that the media is barred from the $250-a-ticket event and the nonpaying public unwelcome. Calls by The Oregonian's editorial board to the Mount Hood Coalition and Drug Free America went unreturned.
The New York Times' Adam Nagourney reports on the disconnect between Democratic governors and voters when it comes to cannabis policy. Governors like California's Jerry Brown are finding themselves at odds with the public, which increasingly supports legalization.
Even with Democrats and younger voters leading the wave of the pro-legalization shift, these governors are standing back, supporting much more limited medical-marijuana proposals or invoking the kind of law-and-order and public-health arguments more commonly heard from Republicans. While 17 more states — most of them leaning Democratic — have seen bills introduced this year to follow Colorado and Washington in approving recreational marijuana, no sitting governor or member of the Senate has offered a full-out endorsement of legalization. Only Gov. Peter Shumlin, a Democrat in Vermont, which is struggling with a heroin problem, said he was open to the idea.
And finally, The Oregonian editorial board over the weekend weighed in on an upcoming marijuana conference that's closed to the public and the press.
It's a perfect opportunity for Oregonians to learn from those who fear marijuana's legalization the most. And that's why it is flummoxing that the media is barred from the $250-a-ticket event and the nonpaying public unwelcome. Calls by The Oregonian's editorial board to the Mount Hood Coalition and Drug Free America went unreturned.
The Drug Free America coalition is sponsored by the propaganda arm of the federal govt. aka the "Drug Czar's office" whose task and whose budget is allocated to lying to the American public about marijuana as the greatest part of its reason for existence. The bureaucracy has been audited for its value in the past - and those tasked with this job found the Drug Free America commercials, etc. resulted in increased acceptance of marijuana - and a lot of ironic wearing of tee-shirts given away by the same.
Here's some info on the conference -
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/04/media_blackout_no_help_to_oreg.html
Oregon State Police Superintendent Richard Evans Jr. caught a whiff of the public's shut-out only after being informed that two of his officers were scheduled to speak at the conference while on the taxpayer's dime. He correctly withdrew the appearances of the officers, whose subject was the Oregon Medical Marijuana Program and the impact of marijuana on property
The stakes are high. That's especially so if you hear from those who argue pot paves the way to cultural and educational ruin. More public education would help. And the conference subjects are enticing: Peter Hitchins, who writes for Britain's The Mail on Sunday newspaper, will excoriate public officials for failing to correlate marijuana use and mental illness. Mitch Morrissey, the district attorney of Denver, Colo., will align 12 Denver homicides that, his youtube.com video contends, would not have occurred were it not for marijuana. Mary Segawa of the Washington State Liquor Control Board, whose background is in drug prevention, will speak about the impact of legalization in Washington. And Calvina Fay, executive director of Save our Society from Drugs and the person sometimes demonized on the Internet as the queen of reefer madness, will present her findings on pot's escalating potency and the latest thinking from "scientific scholars dedicated to advancing research of drug use and drug abuse," the conference brochure states.
But Evans had it right: If Oregonians were to have sent two of its Oregon State Police experts to explain the impacts of marijuana, as it has done in previous years, they should be able to get something in return. Preaching to the well-heeled choir doesn't count. What's needed now, before the next ballot initiative goes to voters and Oregonians make a fateful choice, is information.
Stringing up the barbed wire to keep the media at bay won't help. Press releases surely to emerge from the conference will be crafted to ensure everyone is on-message – in precisely the same ways those who advocate marijuana's legalization follow a script designed to debunk myths surrounding marijuana use. What citizens are left with are extremes, at worst hysterical and at best open to question. Smart decisions ahead won't be made from the extremes.
The stakes are high. That's especially so if you hear from those who argue pot paves the way to cultural and educational ruin. More public education would help. And the conference subjects are enticing: Peter Hitchins, who writes for Britain's The Mail on Sunday newspaper, will excoriate public officials for failing to correlate marijuana use and mental illness. Mitch Morrissey, the district attorney of Denver, Colo., will align 12 Denver homicides that, his youtube.com video contends, would not have occurred were it not for marijuana. Mary Segawa of the Washington State Liquor Control Board, whose background is in drug prevention, will speak about the impact of legalization in Washington. And Calvina Fay, executive director of Save our Society from Drugs and the person sometimes demonized on the Internet as the queen of reefer madness, will present her findings on pot's escalating potency and the latest thinking from "scientific scholars dedicated to advancing research of drug use and drug abuse," the conference brochure states.
But Evans had it right: If Oregonians were to have sent two of its Oregon State Police experts to explain the impacts of marijuana, as it has done in previous years, they should be able to get something in return. Preaching to the well-heeled choir doesn't count. What's needed now, before the next ballot initiative goes to voters and Oregonians make a fateful choice, is information.
Stringing up the barbed wire to keep the media at bay won't help. Press releases surely to emerge from the conference will be crafted to ensure everyone is on-message – in precisely the same ways those who advocate marijuana's legalization follow a script designed to debunk myths surrounding marijuana use. What citizens are left with are extremes, at worst hysterical and at best open to question. Smart decisions ahead won't be made from the extremes.
The Drug War. In actual combat, when generals see that something is not working - they don't continue to do the same thing. Sometimes they sue for peace because the inhabitants of a place get so sick of war they don't want either side to keep fighting. If you've spent trillions of dollars on an ideology (that drug abuse can be abolished), yet the rate of abuse remains static over decades, while spending just keeps on going - and going, primarily, to military contractors - you have to wonder if the war on drugs is a racket of its own.
It's certainly good news for military contractors who will need to build aircraft to, say, poison the groundwater upstream among poor Mexican populations - but we have suburban white kids to save, so spare no expense.
Profile Information
Gender: Do not displayMember since: 2002
Number of posts: 28,784
