https://buy-zithromax.online buy kamagra usa https://antibiotics.top buy stromectol online https://deutschland-doxycycline.com https://ivermectin-apotheke.com kaufen cialis https://2-pharmaceuticals.com buy antibiotics online Online Pharmacy vermectin apotheke buy stromectol europe buy zithromax online https://kaufen-cialis.com levitra usa https://stromectol-apotheke.com buy doxycycline online https://buy-ivermectin.online https://stromectol-europe.com stromectol apotheke https://buyamoxil24x7.online deutschland doxycycline https://buy-stromectol.online https://doxycycline365.online https://levitra-usa.com buy ivermectin online buy amoxil online https://buykamagrausa.net

Another Look at Colorado Ballot Propositions 2022

As I sit down to vote, any changes of mind?

I pretty much stand by what I originally evaluated for my votes on ballot propositions this year.  There are two that I was not sure about, though, and one other I wanted to reevaluate.

Proposition 122 – Access to Natural Psychedelic Substances
YES

One proponent framed the question very well: is adult possession of magic mushrooms sufficiently dire enough to warrant destroying someone’s life through criminal prosecution? Hard to understand how.

On the other hand, the critiques of the proposition are inane. “It’s fentanyl all over again!” No, it’s not, in any way, shape, or form. “Ordinary people shouldn’t do these drugs because they won’t treat them as a spiritual sacrament!” Sorry, I eat bread and drink wine, too, outside of Mass. “It’s all a Big Pharma plot!” While not discounting Big Pharma’s ability to plot, this controlled access proposal seems a reasonable first step.

I’ll be voting Yes.

Some further reading:

Proposition 124 – Increase Allowable Liquor Store Locations
NO

Basically increases the number of liquor licenses which may be held by an individual or company. I wanted to give this one another look because there are some inequities in the current law that, in the coming several years, will disadvantage independent liquor stores.

Net-net, Prop 124 is a good thing if it helps local liquor stores expand and stay competitive with supermarkets, which will soon begin to get more licenses than they do. It’s a not so good thing if it helps big outside liquor companies (e.g., BevMo, or Total Wine) come into the state and supplant local liquor marts.

Give that the Trone brothers, who founded Total Wine, have each dropped almost a million dollars into this tells me that’s the intended direction.

I think there are better ways to help local liquor stores compete, so I’m going to vote No, but I strongly suspect that it will be voted in as a Yes.

Some further reading:

Proposition 125 – Allow Grocery and Convenience Stores to Sell Wine
NO

Should grocery stores be able to sell wine, too? (Also sake, mead, and hard cider, but wine is the biggie here.)

The issue being presented to consumers is, of course, convenience — though the donations from Albertsons Safeway, Kroger, and Target make it clear they see it as a big windfall for themselves.

The argument against is the impact on independently owned liquor stores. The best counter is that the same claim was made about grocery stores carrying beer, and today there are more independent liquor stores than there were when that proposition passed. I’m not convinced that actually applies, though, esp. given how independent stores have said their beer sales have dropped; kicking out the second of three legs from those stores (beer, wine, hard liquor) would have, I think, a more serious effect.

I will likely vote No, though I suspect it will pass.

Some further reading:

Oh, and that other stuff to vote for?

I’ll be voting a pretty straight Democratic ballot this year, as far as candidates go. While I’m not a rapturous fan of Polis or Bennet, for example (though I do like my US Rep, Jason Crow), their opponents are either lunatics or clearly disingenuous in their intentions — and my presumption in 2022, without strong proof otherwise (which would have kept them from getting on the GOP ballot in the first place) is that any Republican candidate is or will be a Trump supporter, happy to work alongside MTG and Jordan and Goetz and Cotton and Cruz, and enthusiastic to see civil rights protections rolled back, increased church-state entanglement, and democratic norms and governance broken down.

Vote!

Yet another major doping scandal rocks the world of sports!

And yet another world-leading sports champion has been suspended for doping, and had all titles, medals and points from the previous year wiped from the record books.

Of course, what else could you expect from the high-stakes, high-pressure, high-drama world of … um … Bridge?

As announced Thursday by the World Bridge Federation, Geir Helgemo was suspended for one year after he tested positive for synthetic testosterone and Clomiphene, a fertility drug that accelerates testosterone production in men, after September’s World Bridge Series in Orlando. The WBF said Helgemo — a Norwegian-born player who now competes for Monaco — admitted to doping and accepted his suspension, which ends Nov. 20.

One might obviously ask two questions (at least) about this news.  The first would be … they do doping tests on bridge players?

Apparently so. The World Bridge Federation is recognized by the International Olympic Committee (though they don’t play bridge at the Olympics … yet). As such, part of the WBF’s means of labeling themselves a “sport” and therefore getting all sorts of other interesting sponsorship and prestige and etc. opportunities, its competitors have to abide by World Anti-Doping Agency rules.

The second question would be: um, how did these drugs actually help Helgemo’s “performance”?

That part is a lot murkier.

Kari-Anne Opsal, president of the Norwegian Bridge Federation, said the drugs were “not performance enhancing”. In a statement on the federation’s website, she said: “Geir Helgemo … has previously played for the Norwegian national team and is our biggest star. Many within the bridge community know Geir and respect him.

That said, there’s been no small amount of doping news around the cut-throat world of professional bridge over the last few years.

The sedentary world of top-level bridge has somehow been on the World Anti-Doping Agency’s radar for years. WADA’s 2016 summary of that year’s drug-test results found that 22 percent of the doping tests done on bridge players came back positive, up from 3.6 percent in 2014. Most of the 2016 positives were for “diuretics and other masking agents,” though one was for “anabolic agents.”

“Bridge is played in tournaments two or three weeks long,” Jaap Stomphorst, a physician and doping expert who works with the WBF, told the Independent in 2015. “People tend to get tired, so a stimulant can keep you awake during play.”

So, yeah … no, I got nothing.

Here’s hoping Mr. Helgemo gets clean before he gets back into competition again. The bridge world really doesn’t need another scandal like this to draw such bad amused press.

Do you want to know more? WaPo, The Guardian, Anti-Doping World

Dude, it’s a GOOD thing!

Martha Stewart is getting into … the pot business?

Lifestyle authority and television personality Martha Stewart has entered a business partnership with Canopy Growth, one of the globe’s largest marijuana producers, to develop hemp-derived CBD products. Stewart will play an advisory role at Canopy and will assist in developing a broad new line of animal health products, the company said Thursday. The partnership includes Sequential Brands Group, a consumer brands company in the fashion, active and home categories that works with Stewart.

As marijuana and related products become more mainstream, a big part of that is … well, becoming a normal business. Celebrity sponsors. Known labels. Like … well, real businesses and products. Which, of course, the cannabis biz is, but still creates for some of us old-timers a degree of cognitive dissonance.

Martha Stewart … and hemp. Who’d’a thunk?

Source

We Need More Wall!

Hmmm. Better build a Beautiful Wall around the Port of Los Angeles. Walls everywhere!
https://t.co/Y08aUFLKk3 via @GoogleNews

We need a Wall for our Moat

Clearly we need a Beautiful Wall along all our coasts, too. https://t.co/ur24HTifXQ

Well, didn’t see that coming

John Boehner becoming part of the pot industry?

And, amusingly, still using his @SpeakerBoehner Twitter account to announce it.

His tweet, for what it’s worth, is spot on. It’s just kind of … odd.

#marijuana #warondrugs

View on Google+

One solution for the opioid epidemic: legalized pot

Locales with legalized marijuana (recreational or medicinal) appear to have lower opioid overdose rates, and lower rates of opioid prescriptions.




Places with legal marijuana issue fewer opioid prescriptions, large studies find
An analysis of more than five years of Medicare Part D and Medicaid prescription data found that after states legalized weed, the number of opioid prescriptions and the daily dose of opioids went way down.

View on Google+

“Just Say No” to silly drug epidemic stunts

We’ll leave aside that when there have been opioid / heroin epidemics in the past which have only impacted poor populations and People of Color, that the outcry from the White House has not been “We must do something to cure these poor beknighted souls” but “We must declare a War on Drugs and lock up all those evil drug-takers!”

No, instead let us revel in something that’s the most genuinely political thing that Trump has done since assuming office, and the closest he’s gotten to authentically invoking the spirit of St Ronald Reagan. After referring to the opioid crisis as a “national emergency” some months back, but never doing anything about it then, he’s now declared it a “public health emergency” and signed a bunch of paperwork that doesn’t require spending any more money, but does let him piously declare that better Public Service Announcements would help kids say “No” to drugs.

Of course, a lot of folk swept up in the opioid crisis aren’t kids, but God forbid that there be any actual, concrete, considered policy behind this, aside from the policies of “look Presidential” and “don’t do anything that might cost tax money”.

Originally shared by +Doyce Testerman:

o_o

After months of promises, Trump declared the opioid epidemic a public health emergency today – not a national emergency, which would have unlocked federal funding through FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund. Under the Public Health Services Act designation, no federal funding will be automatically directed to the crisis. Federal agencies will, however, be directed to devote more grant money to the problem. Jeff Sessions said that people should just “say no” to opioids while Trump suggested that “really great advertising” will keep kids off drugs.




Trump declares opioid epidemic a public health emergency – CNNPolitics
President Donald Trump declared the opioid epidemic a national public health emergency on Thursday, telling an audience in the East Room of the White House that “we can be the generation that ends the opioid epidemic.”

View on Google+

Pot use is down among teens, up among adults

One of the big bugbears from opponents of legalized medical and recreational marijuana was that teenagers would start smoking pot all the time. Apparently that is not happening, as teen marijuana use is at its lowest rate since 1994, even as increasing numbers of states have legalized pot to one degree or another.

Adult marijuana use is up, though, interestingly, adult alcohol consumption is down.




Teen marijuana use falls to 20-year low, defying legalization opponents’ predictions
But adult use is a different story.

View on Google+

Busting pot-smoking drivers

I don't think anyone would disagree that stopping people who are "too high to drive" is a bad thing. The problem is, it appears that the correlation between THC level in the blood and actual impairment is too loose to be useful. Unlike measuring blood alcohol level, detectable THC levels don't necessarily match up with inability to perform field sobriety tests.

That makes proper detection of stoned drivers more difficult, but it also means that states (like Colorado) who have passed a simple THC level test for citation or arrest are going to need to rethink their approach.




Blood THC levels after smoking pot are useless in defining “too high to drive”
Better metrics needed as study finds increase in fatal crashes involving weed.

View on Google+

Patents, profits, and pot

The gradual but (to my mind) inexorable spread of legalized marijuana is going to generate business white papers for decades. Here we have a product that was widespread but utterly covert in production, slowly but surely becoming legal and accepted — and the various vices of modern American business, from intellectual property spats to corporate take-overs, are suddenly intersecting with a bunch of folk who range from sleepy growers to criminal drug-producers.

My prediction is that in 20-30 years, pot as an industry will resemble the alcohol industry: multi-national manufacturers and holding companies dominating the business and gobbling up smaller firms; craft artisans creating local reputations and then either selling out or struggling to stay afloat; debates over "Big Pot" hiding the effects of marijuana; PSAs about same; blue laws making marijuana more (or less) legally available to people in various states, with appropriately weird restrictions ("may be sold at gas stations, but not on Sunday").

Interesting times to watch.




What a Looming Patent War Could Mean for the Future of America’s Marijuana Industry
There is growing concern in the American marijuana industry “about what may happen on the intellectual property frontier if and when legalization spreads across the country,” Greg Walters writes at…

View on Google+

The dark side of "cocaine mom" laws

Most people would probably gut-agree that if you have a pregnant woman who is abusing her body (and the fetus within) through drug use, "something oughta be done." But the experience with "cocaine mom" laws demonstrate that this quickly turns into a Zero Tolerance Handmaid's Tale type of situation, where (properly) informing a doctor of past drug use can lead to incarceration "for the sake of the baby" and, ironically, even worse pre-natal treatment.

Bottom line: if you teach addict (let alone someone who has previously been addicted or abusive of drugs) that talking honestly to your doctor while seeking prenatal care can lead to jail — what sort of behavior are you incenting? If you said, "Lying to the doctor or not seeking care at all," then you see the dilemma, because that's not in the best interest of anyone.




The High Stakes of Wisconsin’s Fetal-Protection Law – The Atlantic
A Wisconsin mother, imprisoned to protect her fetus, fought back in federal court—and won.

View on Google+

The criminalization of poor judgment

Some people think that something being legal, or even decriminalized, means that we're endorsing it, and that therefore everything of which we disapprove should be illegal. You don't have to go to extremes to see how that's a bad idea.

http://windypundit.com/2015/03/the-tyranny-of-the-well-meaning/

 

View on Google+

Trying to ban open-source … e-cigs

Okay, so I have absolutely no skin in this game (and enough ignorance of the subject to probably mangle my vocabulary), but apparently there is a lively subculture of e-cigarette users that "roll their own" or make use of alternatively sourced cartridges / refills, rather than buying them from the Big Tobacco companies.

Not surprisingly, Big Tobacco isn't particularly happy about this, and are seeking to get the practice made illegal … for the sake of "Public Safety" and "the Children," of course.

Originally shared by +Les Jenkins:




The Maker of Blu E-Cigs Is Lobbying to Ban Vaping
The manufacturer of the top-selling e-cigarette brand, Blu eCigs, is trying real hard to convince lawmakers to ban vaping. That might sound ass-backwards, but it isn’t. Blu is a product of big tobacco, which is hoping to stymie the competition by making sure its disposable “cigalikes” pass regulations but the refillable mods you find at your local vape shop don’t.

View on Google+

When “Special Weapons and Tactics” aren’t all that special

Makes one wonder, between the War on Drugs and the War on Terror and the leftovers from the War in Iraq, where else we might have put all that money that wouldn't have involved so many flash-bang raids on houses that didn't really need flash-bang raids. 

10 facts about the SWATification of the US
SWAT team raids in the US have gone up 25-fold since 1980. Time’s recent article about the militarization of the police reports that “the federal government has funneled $4.3 billion of military property to law enforcement ag…

Yeah, more depressing stories about civil forfeiture

The idea sounds good: confiscate the goods of criminals  in order to help fund the war on crime. Drug dealer is driving around a fancy Caddy? Take it from him as the proceeds of criminal activity, then convert the money from it to law enforcement assets.

The problem is, civil forfeiture has a pretty low bar. It doesn't require that you be convicted for anything.  The short-term pernicious result? It incents law enforcement officials to essentially steal your car, your money, your goods as "criminal proceeds" with minimal judicial efforts, and little oversight as to where the money goes.  It's literal highway robbery, usually invoked on minor traffic violations on out-of-state or rental cars, usually against minority drivers, and  often couched as "Sign this paper to forfeit your 'criminally-gained' property, or else you'll be charged with criminal activity (and, if your children happen to be in the car with you, they'll be taken away)." In other cases, trivial vice law violations (or even just accusations) mean forfeitures of vehicles and whatever other property can be seized, proceeds going to the officers involved and their departments. 

If that's not bad enough, there's an additional long-term pernicious result? The money raised becomes essential to law enforcement activities, even though the officials involved are aware of the corruption and injustices that occur.

'At a public hearing on July 11th, D.C.’s attorney general, Irvin Nathan, acknowledged “very real problems” relating to due-process rights. But he warned that millions of dollars raised by forfeiture “could very easily be lost” and “an unreasonable burden” placed on his office if the reforms supported by the Public Defender Service were enacted. He proposed more modest changes that would leave the current burden of proof untouched.

'“We all know the way things are right now—budgets are tight,” Steve Westbrook, the executive director of the Sheriffs’ Association of Texas, says. “It’s definitely a valuable asset to law enforcement, for purchasing equipment and getting things you normally wouldn’t be able to get to fight crime.” Many officers contend that their departments would collapse if the practice were too heavily regulated, and that a valuable public-safety measure would be lost.'

Short-version: "Yeah, it's not right, but we can't afford to stop doing it."

To protect and serve, indeed.

Embedded Link

Taken | The New Yorker

It's not easy legalizing things

An interesting look at the pitfalls in legalizing marijuana — mostly, from the business perspective, of going from something illegal to something with a highly-regulated marketplace that is poorly understood.

The great pot experiment
SINCE late 2012, two states have voted to legalise marijuana for recreational use; licensed shops in Colorado and Washington now sell it to anyone who wants it. Six…

Literal Highway Robbery

If forfeiture laws (a) included a rigorous requirement of a criminal conviction, or at least a preponderance of the evidence that the assets involved were the results of or the tools for a crime, and (b) didn't directly profit law enforcement, then I suspect this sort of crap wouldn't be a problem.

Instead, in too many places, forfeiture laws are simply an invitation for corrupt police to steal your money, your car, or whatever else they take a hankering to, even without an arrest or conviction.  And unless you can afford to sue them to prove your innocence, then sucks to be you.

Once again, thank you ever-so-much, War on Drugs.

(h/t +Yonatan Zunger)

Reshared post from +Roberto Peon

You may be innocent until proven guilty, but your stuff is theirs (the police's) unless you can prove innocence (and even then the court has to agree to hear your case).

This is amazing. How the hell is this constitutional?
This is corruption at its finest.

Cops Use Traffic Stops To Seize Millions From Drivers Never Charged With A Crime
VideoLicense, registration—and your cash. A deputy for the Humboldt County’s Sheriff Office in rural Nevada has been accused of confiscating over $60,000 from drivers who were never charged with a crime.  These cash seizures are now the subject of two federal lawsuits and are the latest to spotlight a little-known police […]

The House of Representatives actually approved of something rational? Inconceiva…

The House of Representatives actually approved of something rational? Inconceivable!

The House voted, 219-189, to defund Department of Justice raids on marijuana dispensaries where a state has legalized medical marijuana usage. I am, frankly, flabbergasted … by the rationality so displayed. Especially by the House.

Embedded Link

Historic Day: Congress votes to support Medical Marijuana states, including Michigan – Metro Times Blogs
This morning cheers went up across the nation, as Congress, for the first time ever, voted to cease funding the Department of Justice efforts to shut down medical marijuana dispensaries, caretakers, providers, and growers functioning legally under state law. The Department of Justice encompasses the DEA (the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Federal agency typically tasked with medical marijuana raids). “The U.S. House of Representatives just …

Pot and auto accidents

Lots of people are concerned that legalized marijuana will lead to increased accidents and fatalities, and everyone thinks we need to be keeping track of it — but nobody is (and it's not clear what it would take to do so).  

Which sounds like a great basis for a bunch of claims to be made without any evidence to back them up — which is already happening.

Colorado marijuana legalization’s impact on stoned driving unknown
When a 23-year-old Arvada man crashed his pickup into the back of a Colorado State Patrol car in January, authorities said it was an example of what could be a disturbing trend: a rise in dangerous marijuana-impaired driving.