Thursday, May 15, 2014

3 Months Since Legalizing Marijuana, Here's What Colorado Looks Like

From PolicyMic:

3, months, since, legalizing, marijuana,, here's, what, colorado, looks, like,
3 Months Since Legalizing Marijuana, Here's What Colorado Looks Like
Image Credit: Getty
The news: Colorado's pot sales are booming.
The state's Department of Revenue reports that marijuana retailers sold nearly $19 million in recreational weed in March, up from $14 million in February. The first three months of legal weed have netted about $7.3 million in taxes, not including medical marijuana sales taxes and licenses, which bring the number to $12.6 million. In it's first few months, Colorado could already soon be outpacing those historic first-day sales on a daily basis.
Retail marijuana sales taxes brought in $1.4 million in January, $1.43 million in February and now $1.898 million in March — a clear upward trajectory. And total marijuana tax transfers and distributions went from $2.927 million in January to $4.077 million in March. And perhaps more importantly, while it's still somewhat early, the up-trending numbers indicate that initial sales weren't simply the result of "new-toy" excitement wherein everyone was buying pot just because they could. Coloradans wanted marijuana before, and they still do now. 
(Un)intended consequences: Over the same time period, crime in Denver has slightly declined, making opponents who said it would result in more trafficking seem kind of silly. It's created a modest number of jobs ranging from "budtending" and marijuana journalism to farm labor and ownership. (Weedmaps, a dispensary review site, grossed some $25 million in revenue in 2013.) And the state has even created a banking system that complies with the U.S. treasury system's guidelines, clearing up the last regulatory questions. While certain parts of the rollout, like edible cannabis regulations, have come under question, the law seems to be operating basically as intended.
Legal cannabis sales in the United States are projected to reach as high as $2.57 billion this year, split among the 21 states that allow the sale of some form of marijuana. That's up from $1.53 billion a year ago. As time goes on, the marijuana industry will grow its own stakeholders and perhaps become a political lobby in its own right.
How it'll be spent: The Colorado legislature has already formed a plan to spend $33 million of the marijuana taxes on school nurses and public education on marijuana. Even Colorado cops plan to get a chunk of the new revenue, asking for 10-15% of the proceeds for DUI enforcement and fighting diversion to other states and unlicensed sales.
The bulk of sales, however, continue to be in medical marijuana, which has been legal in Colorado since 2000 and recorded $35 million in sales in March. However, since recreational weed is more heavily taxed, it could still rapidly outpace medical marijuana in total tax dollars. In total, Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper projected in February that total Colorado marijuana sales could approach $1 billion.
Of course, sales could still slow down. But the news in Colorado is evidence that marijuana legalization can successfully generate value for both the local economy and the government.

Wednesday, May 14, 2014

Five Reasons Cops Want to Legalize Marijuana

From Rolling Stone:

More and more police officers are realizing the War on Drugs is a mistake

A police officer pats down pro-marijuana protesters in Denver, Colorado.
Joe Amon/The Denver Post via Getty Images
June 27, 2013 4:05 PM ET
Most people don't think "cops" when they think about who supports marijuana legalization. Police are, after all, the ones cuffing stoners, and law enforcement groups have a long history of lobbying against marijuana policy reform. Many see this as a major factor in preventing the federal government from recognizing that a historic majority of Americans – 52 percent –  favors legalizing weed.
But the landscape is changing fast. Today, a growing number of cops are part of America's "marijuana majority." Members of the non-profit group Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) say that loosening our pot policy wouldn't necessarily condone drug use, but control it, while helping cops to achieve their ultimate goal of increasing public safety. Here are the five biggest reasons why even cops are starting to say, "Legalize It!"
1. It's about public safety.
While marijuana is a relatively harmless drug, the black market associated with it can cause significant harm. Much like the prohibition of alcohol, marijuana's illegality does not erase the profit incentive – instead, it establishes a risky, unregulated market in which violence and intimidation are used to settle disputes.
"When we ended the prohibition of alcohol, Al Capone was out of work the next day," says Stephen Downing, Los Angeles' former Deputy Chief of Police. "Our drug policy is really anti-public safety and pro-cartel, pro-street gang, because it keeps them in business."
Marijuana trafficking represents a significant chunk of business for black-market cartels. Though the exact percentage of cartel profits from pot is disputed, lowball estimates fall at around 20 percent.  
"During my time on the border, I saw literally tons of marijuana come over the border from Mexico," says Jamie Haase, a former special agent in the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement division. "Competition over the profits to be made from this illicit industry has led to the deaths of tens of thousands of individuals in that country, and an ever-increasing amount of violence spilling over into the United States, where the Justice Department estimates Mexican cartels now operate in more than 1,000 American cities."
2. Cops want to focus on crimes that hurt real victims.
In the past decade, police made more than 7 million marijuana arrests, 88 percent of them for possession alone. In 2010, states spent $3.6 billion enforcing the war on pot, with blacks nearly four times as likely as whites to be arrested. That's a lot of police time and resources wasted, says former Seattle Chief of Police Norm Stamper, who had an "aha moment" about marijuana policy while working for the San Diego Police Department in the late 1960s.
"I had arrested a 19-year-old in his parents' home for the possession of a very small quantity of marijuana, and put him in the backseat of a caged police car, after having kicked down his door," recalls Stamper. While driving the prisoner to jail, he says, "I realized, mainly, that I could have been doing real police work, but instead I'm going to be out of service for several hours impounding the weed, impounding him, and writing arrest, impound, and narcotics reports. I was away from the people I had been hired to serve and in no position to stop a reckless drunk driver swerving all over the road, or to respond to a burglary in progress, or intervene in domestic violence situation."
Cops have limited resources, and spending them on marijuana arrests will inevitably divert them from other policing. Adds Stamper, "In short, making a marijuana arrest for a simple possession case was no longer, for me, real police work."
3. Cops want strong relationships with the communities they serve.
Baltimore narcotics veteran Neil Franklin says the prevalence of marijuana arrests, especially among communities of color, creates a "hostile environment" between police and the communities they serve. "Marijuana is the number one reason right now that police use to search people in this country," he says. "The odor of marijuana alone gives a police officers probable cause to search you, your person, your car, or your home."
Legalizing pot, says Franklin, could lead to "hundreds of thousands of fewer negative police and citizen contacts across this country. That's a hell of an opportunity for law enforcement to rebuild some bridges in our communities – mainly our poor, black and Latino communities."
Franklin adds that this would increase citizens' trust in police, making them more likely to communicate and help solve more serious crimes. Building mutual respect would also protect cops on the job. Adds Franklin, "Too many police officers are killed or injured serving the War on Drugs as opposed to protecting and serving their communities."
4. The war on pot encourages bad – and even illegal – police practices.
Downing says that monetary incentives for drug arrests, like asset forfeiture and federal grants, encourage an attitude where police will make drug arrests by any means necessary, from militarized SWAT raids to paid informants who admit to lying. "The overall effect is that we are losing ground in terms of the traditional peace officer role of protecting public safety, and morphing our local police officers into federal drug warriors," Downing says.   
Quotas and pressure for officers to make drug arrests – which profit police departments via federal funding and asset forfeiture – also encourage routine violations of the Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches and seizures. The NYPD, for example, stops and sometimes frisks well over 500,000 people a year, the vast majority of them youths of color – the basis for a pending federal lawsuit challenging the policy on constitutional grounds. While New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has defended stop-and-frisk as a way to get guns off the street, in fact, it's more often used to arrest kids with small amounts of weed. Stamper adds that legalization would allow police officers "to see young adults not as criminals, but members of their community" – and start respecting those young people's civil liberties.
5. Cops want to stop kids from abusing drugs.
Marijuana's illegality has done very little to stop its use. A recent survey by the National Institutes of Health found that 36 percent of high school seniors had smoked marijuana in the past year.  Legalization would most likely involve age restrictions on marijuana purchases, while at the same time providing quality control over product. "The only way we can effectively control drugs is to create a regulatory system for all of them," says Stamper.
"If you are truly a proponent of public safety, if you truly want safer communities, then it's a no-brainer that we have to end drug prohibition and treat [marijuana] as a health issue, like we did with tobacco," says Franklin. "Education and treatment is the most effective and cost-efficient way to reduce drug use."
On the other hand, adds Franklin, "If you support a current system of drug prohibition, then you support the very same thing that the cartel and neighborhood gangs support. You might as well be standing next to them, shaking hands.  Because they don't want an end to prohibition, either."

Follow: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

Tuesday, May 13, 2014

Internet For The Wealthy On The Way Unless We Stop It

From PopularResistance.org:
Net neutrality meme
Print Friendly

Obama’s FCC Chair Seeks End To Net Neutrality

Take Action Today: Immediate mobilization required to save open Internet

*** We need to turn up the heat! Join us to at the FCC (12th St and Maine Ave, SW) in Washington, DC every day from May 7 to May 15 at noon and 5 pm to picket. We are here 24 hours a day so you can join us at any time and bring your sleeping bag if you can stay overnight. Spread the word.***

In what the New York Times describes as “a net neutrality turnaround” the Obama administration’s new FCC chairman is proposing rules that will create an Internet for the wealthy. The new plan to create a pay to play Internet came to light Wednesday in the Wall Street Journal.
Under the plan wealthy corporations will be able to purchase faster service, while those that cannot do so will have slower service. Rather than an open Internet for all the US will be moving to a class-based Internet. Of course, this will mean that when Netflix and other corporations purchase faster Internet, the consumers who use their service will be paying more to watch movies and download information. As a result, more money will be funneled from working Americans to wealthy telecom giants.
We recently wrote that the United States has lost its democratic legitimacy and now was a plutocratic oligarchy. This is what plutocracy looks like – policies designed for the wealthy, so they can make more money from the rest of us.
“The new rules, according to the people briefed on them, will allow a company like Comcast or Verizon to negotiate separately with each content company – like Netflix, Amazon, Disney or Google – and charge different companies different amounts for priority service.
“That, of course, could increase costs for content companies, which would then have an incentive to pass on those costs to consumers as part of their subscription prices.”
In the future, if a new start-up – the future Twitter or Facebook – begins it will have a very hard time competing with those who are established Interne companies because the slower service of the start-ups will make them less consumer friendly. As a result we can expect less creativity on the Internet.  As Stacy Higginbotham wrote: “The plans took the hallmark of network neutrality — the notion that ISP shouldn’t discriminate between the traffic flowing over their networks — and turned it on its head.”
The proposal is being shared with other members of the Commission today. There will then be amendments suggested to garner majority support and the plan is to vote on the proposal on May 15,

Take action now.

In a call to action, Save The Internet writes:
What if you had only three weeks before the Internet you know and love was about to disappear?
Would you spend your time binging on listicles or the final season of Breaking Bad? Or would you do something about it?
Would you email all your friends with the news? Blast your social media networks? Demand that Congress and the president keep this amazing invention from going away?
If the Internet had only three weeks left, would you take to the streets and raise hell?
I bet you would.
And here’s your chance to prove it: Because three weeks from today the Internet as we know it may not disappear, but it could be a lot closer to the precipice.
To Contact the Commissioners via E-mail
Chairman Tom Wheeler: Tom.Wheeler@fcc.gov
Commissioner Mignon Clyburn: Mignon.Clyburn@fcc.gov
Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel: Jessica.Rosenworcel@fcc.gov
Commissioner Ajit Pai: Ajit.Pai@fcc.gov
Commissioner Michael O’Rielly: Mike.O’Rielly@fcc.gov
To call and contact commissioner’s offices, call 1-888-225-5322.
In addition, call your elected representatives.  Tell them if net neutrality is ended, you will hold them accountable by withholding your vote. Both parties hope to control the senate after the mid-term elections, so you have more power than usual to let them know they are losing your vote if they fail to take action to stop the FCC proposal. The number for Congress is 202-224-3121.
Finally, sign the petition at the link  above:
Dear FCC,
I am writing to oppose rules that will allow for discrimination on the Internet – where the wealthy can purchase faster Internet service and everyone else continues to have slower service.
I do not want telecom giants and wealthy Internet companies to determine the future of the Internet. I want new ideas to flourish on the Internet and not be blocked because they do not have sufficient funds to purchase fast service and compete.
I do not want the Internet to be turned into another vehicle that allows money to flow from working Americans to the wealthiest — where web-based services like Netflix purchase faster service and pass the costs on to consumers.
The proposal being considered would kill rather than protect Net Neutrality and allow rampant discrimination online. The Internet should be viewed as a public good and should be operated consistent with our rights to Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press. Turning the Internet into a pay to play scheme is unacceptable.
[Signature]
Chairman Wheeler knows this proposal is going to be unpopular and in response to theWall Street Journal and New York Times is denying there has been a “turnaround.” But, his statement is carefully worded and would allow exactly was has been reported.

How Did We Get To Class-Based Internet?

This move to end net neutrality should be placed at the door of President Obama and the US Senate. Obama appointed a former industry head to become chair of the FCC and the Senate unanimously confirmed him. 
In April 2008 during his presidential campaign, Barack Obama took the side of the peoplesaying: “The most important thing we can probably do is to preserve the diversity that’s emerging through the Internet…something called net neutrality. I will take a backseat to no one in my commitment to network neutrality.” While he campaigned as a populist he has governed as a plutocrat – on this issue and so many others.
When Tom Wheeler was nominated by President Obama to become the Chairman of the FCC many in the internet freedom community expressed deep concerns.  For decades Wheeler had represented the telecom industry in Washington, DC. From 1979 to 1984, Wheeler headed the National Cable Television Association, now named the National Cable and Telecommunications Association.  He then worked in the telecom industry for 8 years followed by taking over as head of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Assn. in 1992, leaving in 2005.  Wheeler went on to become a major Obama fundraiser and adviser.  In fact on his bio page at the FCC this is expressed as “He is the only person to be selected to both the Cable Television Hall of Fame and The Wireless Hall of Fame, a fact President Obama joked made him ‘The Bo Jackson of Telecom.’” Appointing Wheeler was akin to putting the industry in charge of the future of the Internet.
Save The Internet reports this could be the end of the Internet as we know it: “It means we could be headed toward a pay-per-view Internet where Web sites have fees. It means we may have to pay a network tax to run voice-over-the-Internet phones, use an advanced search engine, or chat via Instant Messenger. The next generation of inventions will be shut out of the top-tier service level. Meanwhile, the network owners will rake in even greater profits.”
Now Wheeler is set to propose what the industry has wanted, an end to net neutrality, that will allow them to charge us more for service and created financial barriers that will prevent new services from challenging their domination of the Internet.
If you want an open Internet, take action today. We can stop this – but we must act now.
Please contact the people above and forward this to everyone you know.
More:

Son of U.S. Vice President Biden Joins Ukraine Gas Company

From Moscow Times:

Joe Hunter / TwitterJoe Hunter (R) standing alongside his father, U.S. Vice President Joe Biden (L) and Republican lawmaker John McCain (C).
The youngest son of U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, has been appointed head of legal affairs at Ukraine's largest private gas producer — a move he said would benefit Ukrainians and the country's economy.
In a statement published on its website, Burisma Holdings announced Hunter Biden would join its board of directors and head the company's legal unit.
"As a new member of the board, I believe that my assistance in consulting the company on matters of transparency, corporate governance and responsibility, international expansion and other priorities will contribute to the economy and benefit the people of Ukraine," Hunter Biden said in the statement.
Burisma owns several Ukrainian oil and gas companies, including Esko Pivnich and Pari, Lenta.ru reported Tuesday. The company also has assets in Ukraine's Dnepr-Donetsk, the Carpathian and the Azov-Kuvan basins.
Burisma produced 11,600 barrels of oil equivalent, or boe, in 2013 and was planning to increase its production in Ukraine by 35-40 percent in 2014, U.S. financier and member of the board of directors Devon Archer told newspaper Capital in late April.
Hunter's father, as U.S. Vice President, has repeatedly rebuked Russia for its reported involvement in Ukraine and has pledged to support efforts to reduce its dependency on Russian energy.

Chemicals in soap can cause male infertility, claim scientists

From The Independent:

Scientists find that sperm cells are affected by chemicals in household products

 
 

One in three “non-toxic” chemicals used in the manufacture of everyday items significantly affected the potency of sperm cells, which may account for the high incidence of unexplained infertility in the human population, the researchers said.

It is the first time that a study has found a direct effect of the many ubiquitous man‑made chemicals in the environment on a vital function of human sperm. The findings will raise further concerns about the hidden toxicity of chemicals deemed safe by toxicology tests.

But the researchers believe they have developed a new way of testing the impact of household chemicals on human sperm which will allow regulatory authorities in Europe to decide whether to ban or impose restrictions on their use in certain products.

The study was part of wider research into so-called “endocrine‑disrupting” chemicals that for several years have been linked with declining sperm counts and widespread male infertility.
In some cases, these chemicals are thought to mimic female sex hormones – oestrogens – and in other cases act as anti-androgens, the male sex hormones, thereby interfering with the male reproductive system.

However, the scientists found that one in three common household chemicals found in products such as sun screens, detergents and plastics directly sabotaged the human sperm’s swimming behaviour and caused them to prematurely release the critical enzymes needed to penetrate and fertilise the egg cell – which would render the sperm infertile.

They also found that the concentrations needed to trigger these adverse reactions were similar to the very low levels commonly found within the human body. In addition, they showed for the first time that there was a “cocktail effect”, when a number of chemicals worked together to amplify their individual effects.

“For the first time, we have shown a direct link between exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals from industrial products and adverse effects on human sperm function,” Professor Niels Skakkebaek, of Copenhagen University Hospital in Denmark, said.

“In my opinion, our findings are clearly of concern as some endocrine-disrupting chemicals are possibly more dangerous than previously thought. However, it remains to be seen from forthcoming clinical studies whether our findings may explain reduced couple fertility which is very common in modern societies,” Professor Skakkebaek told The Independent.

Professor Skakkebaek has pioneered the scientific investigation of rising male infertility. In 1991, he produced the first evidence showing that human sperm counts had fallen by nearly 50 per cent in less than 50 years – low sperm counts are a major cause of male infertility.

Some years later, scientists found that some common chemicals have an “oestrogenic” or “antiandrogenic” effect on the male reproductive system, which could be particularly important in the development of male foetuses in the womb during the critical first six months when the reproductive tissues form.

However, the latest research, published in EMBO reports and carried out with Timo Strünker of the Centre of Advanced European Studies and Research in Bonn, Germany, found that 30 out of 96 common household chemicals had a direct effect on the “catsper” protein which controls the sperm cell’s motility, or swimming agility, and its ability to enter the egg cell to trigger fertilisation.

“We have found a completely novel way in which endocrine-disrupting chemicals may affect human reproduction by direct interaction with human sperm,” Professor Skakkebaek said.
Relatively low concentrations of the chemicals – which previously were thought to be too low to cause an effect – triggered the catsper reaction in test-tube studies.

“In human body fluids, one does not find one of a few particular chemicals, but rather complex chemical cocktails with many different endocrine-disrupting chemicals at very low concentrations. We tried to mimic this situation in our experiments,” Dr Strünker said. “When mixed together the cocktail, despite the extremely low concentration of its ingredients, evoked large and sizeable responses in sperm. Thus, in complex mixtures [the chemicals] co-operate to interfere with sperm function. This has not been shown before.”
People ingest these chemicals every day either by consuming food and drink contaminated with them or by absorbing them through the skin in personal-care products such as sunscreens and soaps.
Professor Richard Sharpe, a senior scientist at the Medical Research Council Human Reproductive Sciences Unit in Edinburgh, said: “This study appears to open up a new dimension of potential effects of common lifestyle or environmental chemicals on male fertility.”

American Awakening? Voter Enthusiasm Down Sharply From 2010

A new Gallup poll, released yesterday, indicates trouble for Republicrats.


Compared to previous elections, are you more enthusiastic about voting than usual, or less enthusiastic?

Whether or not this is an indication of Americans waking up to the folly of a two-party system dominated by the same special interest groups remains to be seen. It is more important than ever to counter the common excuse of voting "the lesser of two evils" among our fellow Americans. I've recently been convinced that voting for any candidate is giving your endorsement of the corrupt system. If you do still feel the desire to vote, please make an informed decision. There are more than two political parties in this country. Voting third party can send a loud message.

Monday, May 12, 2014

Apple Helps Cops Hide Police Brutality

From FreeThoughtProject.com:

May 12, 2014
iphone


The rapid emergence of smart phones with high definition cameras leads to consequences for law-breaking cops.
Recently, law enforcement throughout the country has been trying to pass laws that would make it illegal to film them while they’re on duty.
But Apple is coming out with a new technology that would put all the power in a cop’s hands.
Here is the link to the patent which Apple holds for this technology.
------------------------------------
One more reason to ditch your iPhone. Your phone's microphone and camera can be activated and listened in on by the NSA even if it's turned off. The only way around this is by removing the battery - which can't be done with iPhones.