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

“We are in the hands of an adolescent”

The US is at the mercy of an immature, asocial, egotistical, angry, ruthless being of terrifying power.

Charlie X

In the first-season Star Trek (TOS) episode “Charlie X,” the Enterprise takes onboard a castaway teenager, Charlie Evans (played with lovely creepiness by Robert Walker, Jr). Long story short, it turns out the disembodied-nigh-god inhabitants of the planet he’d been marooned on as an infant had given him nigh-god powers over reality to help him survive — powers that, in the hands of an unsocialized, hormone-ridden, stereotypical teenager makes him an existential menace.

And, as that is becoming clearer — that Charlie can and will, with the power of his mind, control the ship, make things and people disappear (or change them into iguanas, or steal their faces), break bones, compel people to speak or be silent — Spock says to Kirk the line in the title of this post.

The US is in a Charlie X moment.

We have an elected president who does pretty much whatever he wants. If he has the people willing to do it, it gets done. If they aren’t willing, he fires them until he gets some who are. Law?  He’s the president — law is something he uses as a weapon, not is hampered by as a restriction.

  • When you’re nigh-omnipotent, who can tell you no?

    Ego-driven monuments and building renamings? Sure.

  • Enrich himself, his companies, his family?  Naturally!
  • Lie, hyperbolize, exaggerate, without any apparent sense of shame, double down when corrected, and never, ever, admit you were incorrect? Sounds like a plan!
  • Militarize law and immigration enforcement? Sounds fun! Shit on international allies? Why not?
  • Throw decorum, tradition, civility, politeness, and norms out the window as irrelevant wussiness that keep him from doing whatever he wants to do?  Tradition and politeness are for wussies!
  • Roll back a century of social and legal advancement, and securing of civil rights, by anyone who’s not a white Christian man?  Hold my nuggets …
  • Look to fire anyone he doesn’t like, whether he has authority or not, and disassemble the civil service that was put in to keep government from operating on the spoils system?  Gilded Age, baby!
  • Engage in wide-spread wielding of the Justice Department, et al., as weapons of vengeance? Damn straight. 
  • Call for the imprisonment, banishment, or execution of his political enemies?  Naturally!
  • Pander to any conservative wish list that comes from a person or group who sufficiently kow-tows and/or donates? Outstanding! 

Declare anyone, or anywhere, he wants as “terrorists” or a “terrorist organization,” which he can then use his expansive “emergency” powers (granted to the President by successive generations of Congress) to outlaw, imprison, shoot, or bomb?

Who’s gonna stop me?

Ultimately, that’s Charlie X’s line — once he learns that he doesn’t have to follow the rules, that he doesn’t have to put up with Kirk’s advice, then orders. Who can stop him?

Who going to stop our nigh-omnipotent adolescent?

Not the Courts — not, ultimately, when he’s got a hand-picked Supreme Court majority that believes that the Executive gets to execute pretty much anything it wants, and that stare decisis is for suckers.

Not Congress — his GOP allies are either wildly enthused about how their ideological G-spots are being scratched, or else terrified of being primaried by his MAGA machine and its multi-billionaire backers. The only pushback from them has come where he’s bumped against their prerogatives, and even there it’s been hit or miss.

His Democratic opponents, meanwhile seem to feel that if they squawk nicely-worded protests and make pro forma (but always fragile) moves to provide a bit of publicity-worthy friction to his advance — well, that’s all they can be expected to do, amirite?

Did I mention Charlie doesn’t have good boundary awareness with women?

Trump’s often compared to a senile old man, and anyone who claims to not see his cognitive decline is, at the most charitable, simply not looking / wishfully thinking. But the comparison to an adolescent seems also compelling. An adolescent who has always lived a life of entitled privilege. An adolescent who has always bought or legally evaded any significant consequences to his actions, from stiffing contractors to fomenting mob violence. An adolescent raised by an abusive father to never apologize, never compromise, always go for the throat, that losers are anyone who doesn’t win everything, and losers should be curb-stomped to make sure they learn their lesson.  An adolescent raised in “the power of positive thinking” — that you can make your own reality, your own truth, if you stick by it, deny anything that denies it, double down on it when in trouble, and never, ever, admit you were wrong.

An adolescent who is now arguably the most powerful person on earth, surrounded by minions who eagerly do whatever he wants and who stroke his ego that anything he wants is the right thing to do, while also surrounded by ego-stroking villains who see his willfulness and willingness to do whatever he wants can be steered to their own ideological ends, leaving him to think it was all his own idea.

And then, today …

And today he announced that he’d (a) kidnapped the leader of a foreign nation, and his wife, to be shipped back to America for a “fair” trial (note the word “fair” was never actually used; “show” may be a better word), and (b) meanwhile, the US would be running the country, with “boots on the ground,” so as to (c) build a new, democratic, and American-allied country, because that always works and was never criticized or run against by the guy now doing it, and (d) by the way, it’s open season for American (with priority) oil companies to move in and take over the petroleum resources there.

As a bonus, our Sect’y of State was out there winning hearts and minds telling the leadership of Cuba that they might be next.

Don’t be me wrong — Maduro is a piece of work.  He’s a petty dictator who’s relished using American hostility as a way to leverage dictatorial power in his own country, and who’s arguably at best turned a blind eye to narcotics cartels shipping goods to a (ever-willing-to-consume) US. If he’d fallen over dead with a brain aneurism, I wouldn’t be mourning his passage.

This whole thing is quite different.

The US President, after saber-rattling and threats for quite a long time, decided to simply declare drug smugglers as an invading military force, and therefore subject to military force in return. Not surprisingly, the US Navy and Air Force and whomever else he wanted to show off  were pretty effective at blowing up (what he said, with no evidence given, how dare you question his integrity?) narcotics boats.  But not so effective that they couldn’t commit a few text book war crimes — denied, then angrily quasi-justified, then just handwaved off.

That got enough applause (or acquiescence) from the usual suspects to move on to declaring a shipping embargo on Venezuela. It wasn’t all that well-enforced, I’ve seen reported, but it did make for some big publicity moments, which was even more important to show Trump how big and powerful he was.

Charlie works his angry magic

But no immediate craven surrender by Maduro was forthcoming, and our adolescent is an impatient adolescent — and one that really gets off on compensating for something by the size of his military.  This is the guy who was jealous of all those military parades in other countries, so got one for his birthday. This is the guy who wants everyone to be cowed by his hand-designed battleships. This is the guy who’s happy to throw his “America First” isolationist campaign principles out the window  in order to, yes, potentially start a foreign war (It’s not foreign, its on a continent named after our country!) with boots on the ground (such big boots! shoot to kill!) to do some hopefully-favorable nation-building (after attacking the very of nation-building for the last decade or more) (but I can do it right!).

I mean, this comes across as someone sending Trump an article buttonholing Trump at a Mar-a-Lago party and waxing lyrical about how in the Gilded Golden Age* the US used to invade Latin American countries all the time, overthrowing governments to put in friendly puppets, and installing American companies to extract everything they could.
*Though not just in the 19th or early 20th Century, of course.

Of course, that’s why so many people in Latin America still think the US is an imperialistic power, driven by money and ego to attack them as it pleases. That’s why a lot of countries, no matter how much we have, at times, helped them, mistrust at best and hate at worst the US.  And Trump seems determined to prove them right — indeed, to double down by not only doing this, but making it clear he has the personal right to do it because he can.

When in doubt, change reality to suit yourself.

And for all the people warning about how this will drag the US’ reputation and any moral high ground it carries around the world down into the mud? He doesn’t care. Moral high grounds are for wimps. The US owns the Western Hemisphere, so it can do anything it wants there — just watch!  As for the rest of the world, they’re all shit-hole or doomed or ego-stroking countries, so who cares about them.  Letting Russia and China do what they will? As long as he looks good (put up another triumphal arch!), it sounds to Trump like a fabulous plan.

The follow-up with Cuba is meant to tell the entire world — from Cuba, to Greenland, to Iran, to the UK — that, if they don’t say nice things and give nice concessions, the nigh-omnipotent adolescent in charge of the US military machine might invade their place next.

Nice country you got here — shame if the Marines were to invade it.

Is that the might-makes-right, organized crime approach to foreign relations that we really want to represent as the norm for us, or for our enemies (who will be ever-growing in number?


Stray thoughts that my writing above might provoke (or that come to mind, since it’s been quite some time since I spoke broadly about Trump).

He was elected President

He sure was. None of that makes the above justified, or legally or morally defensible. People wanting a dictator doesn’t make having a dictator any more legal.

Yeah, but he’s better than Biden or Harris!

Even if so, see above.

He’s making America great again!

Only in a Hobbesian “nasty, brutish, and short” war of all-against-all sort of way. Which is not likely to end well for anyone, including America.

That said, I don’t think Trump cares about the long-term reality. He wants a strong/great America  because he wants to be the Dear Leader of a strong/great America. It’s about him, not us. Sure, he’d love it if people put in statues and monuments and triumphal arches to him for centuries to come — but he’s much more into them doing it now, while he’s around to bask in the adulation.

If it all goes to shit the moment he’s dead? I don’t think he gives a damn.

What about the US invasion of Panama?

Yes, one could argue that 1989 attack to arrest Noriega and end his dictatorship had the same justification (or, on the other hand, lack of it) as Trump’s actions in Venezuela. One could handwave about how Panama had formally declared war on the US, that American citizens (in the Canal Zone) were in danger, or that the Panamanian Defense Force had killed an American Marine, but that’s not much.

But even so … so? I’m not sure a 37-year-ago precedent — and not a particularly admirable one at that — means much.

It’s all just Trump Derangement Syndrome!

I’m old enough to remember when Democrats dismissed wild, weird conspiracy theories about Clinton(s), Obama, and Biden as “Derangement Syndromes,” which seemed quite credible, given the utter craziness about what was being said (e.g., Pizzagate, Operation: Jade Helm, etc.).

Trump, of course, is always happy to project what he and his are doing onto others — thus now everything is dismissed as “Trump Derangement Syndrome” (no matter what sort of criticism or concern it is).

Indeed, the TDS label is just what Trump likes, because he can just say it, rather than countering arguments being made against his actions and plans. It’s a lovely ad hominem — one of his favorite things.

If it’s worthwhile, I don’t think this invasion was a Wag-the-Dog to distract from the Epstein Files. Or from the economy. I might be convinced that he’s looking for a topic for that big triumphal arch he’s having built in Washington for the 250th of American Independence (irony is not Trump’s strong suit).

do think that the minor reason for all this is that Maduro didn’t bow down to him when he demanded it (adolescents want respect, earned or not), and the major reason is that he wants to be a War Leader and ride in a parade, and maybe make sure that it’s his name on that triumphal arch (adolescents love ego strokes).

Oh, he’s just joking about Subject X

This is commonly said by Trump’s enablers when he says something particularly grotesque, hurtful, threatening, or a bit cray-cray.

Never mind that some jokes just aren’t funny or appropriate, given his position. If I had my family over to your house and, on your way out, said, “Hope your granny doesn’t slip and break her hip and die a painful, lingering death,” would it become “okay” if the rest of my family (not me, of course) insisted it was just a joke, ha, ha, ha, he’s so high-spirited and outspoken …

For that matter, is there a single thing that Trump has joked about doing that, when he came to it, he didn’t actually do? Sometimes its to stroke his own ego, sometimes because its what he wanted, and/or sometimes because he knew it would outrage his impotent opposition. But way too many of those jokes have turned into a twisted, Joker-like reality.

Don’t worry, it’ll all be over soon

At best, Trump is President for another three years. He’s hinted enough times that he wants a third term, of course.  Is he that to:

  • encourage folks to figure out a legal way to bypass the Constitution?
  • see how much popular support the idea draws (either as a way to make it happen or because of the ego stroking it provides)?
  • get off on making his opponents angry?
  • normalize the topic so that when he does it (emergency powers!) people won’t be shocked?

But even if he doesn’t make a grab at that brass ring (and if he does, do you think the other two branches, under his control, will really stop him, given their acquiescence and support to date?), he’s still around for three years (since we know, because he’s told us, he’s in Perfect Health, Much Better Than Has Every Been Seen Before).

Charlie was a bad loser

How much more damage will he do in three years?

How much more pollution and climate damage and opening up of wilderness to mineral extraction? How many more civil rights will he take from how many more people? How much will he Make America White Again?  How much damage will he do to our national reputation, or our national norms, or our national identity, or even the idea of us being a nation any more?

And that all assumes that we don’t get President Vance taking office in 2029.

Sitting back and trusting that things will snap back to “normal” in three years, if we just hold on … doesn’t seem like a smart idea. A lot of damage, pain, and death stands in the balance.

We’re in the hands of an adolescent. What are we going to do about it?

Charlie gets taken away (hopefully not returning four years later).

The Enterprise is only saved because the disembodied-nigh-gods realize their mistake and come to take Charlie away where he cannot hurt anyone, even if it means that he’ll be isolated from humanity for the rest of his life. In his case, it’s a tragic ending to the story.

In our case … I don’t think can’t count on that sort of divine intervention.


It’s annoying to think that I wrote a post with the same title — and about the same person — almost nine years ago.

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 …