Category Archives: War On Drugs

Jay Bishoff| Special to the USA TODAY Network

My fourth year of medical school coincided with the first Gulf War, when I served as a United States Air Force surgeon during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

I was on rotation in France, where police arrived at the hospital to deport the wife of an Iraqi diplomat. Shed just had part of her colon removed.

When my professor refused to discharge her, the police drew their guns. One of Frances finest surgeons, my professor stood between the police and his patient. The police finally relented and left. (They eventually deported the diplomats wife when she recovered, as they had done with all Iraqi diplomats at the time.)

My professors words to me that day stayed with me: Patient care trumps politics every time.

Having seen the effects of combat firsthand, I know that patients including the wife of the diplomat, and the U.S. and coalition soldiers, Iraqi nationals and insurgents I eventually treated during Operation Iraqi Freedom come to us to live.

Thats why the vocabulary of war doesnt apply to patient care, especially cancer. That is important to remember as we marked Veterans Day this month.

Through that dark lens, weve been fighting, eradicating, wiping out and battling for 50 years. In the world of cancer treatment, this aggressive terminology is an unfortunate norm.

Some date the association between illness and war back to the 16th century. But in the 1970s, President Richard M. Nixon took up this approach with enthusiasm. In what was almost an extension of Nixons foreign policy, he declared war on drugs, and then on cancer with the National Cancer Act of 1971.

The legislation prioritized much-needed cancer research, then the countrys second leading cause of death. And the Vietnam Conflict-era conquest terminology surrounding cancer stuck.

Ultimately, though, these battles, wars and conflicts are little help to patients. Its a hard-won lesson I learned through indelible personal experiences, like the one with the wife of the Iraqi diplomat.

More than aggressive pressure, unnecessary urgency and unnerving comparisons, patients often need thoughtful expertise and unhurried communication.

Combative terminology, on the other hand, suggests patients may not be fighting their cancer hard enough. It positions them as winners and losers. Imagine applying that approach when a child has cancer. Its a black-and-white perspective in a medically grey situation.

British epidemiologist Michael Colman has a strong reaction to politicians use of war-like metaphors. Drop the lazy, simplistic jargon and the distorted priorities of war, he says, and focus on prevention to make long-term progress against cancer.

Colman has a point. Battle-focused language is, in my experience, almost laughable. It politically oversimplifies a complex disease especially considering that cancer remains our countrys second-leading cause of death since Nixon started war on it.

Canadian breast cancer survivors in a 2003 study who associated their illness with words like, "enemy," "loss," or "punishment" felt the impact of that terminology. They reported significantly higher levels of depression and anxiety and poorer quality of life than women who indicated a more positive meaning.

Journalist Katy Waldman wrote of a toxicity of the war metaphor, citing studies in which patients who view cancer as an adversary have reportedmore guilt, higher levels of depression and anxiety, andelevated pain.

Cancer is a journey, she says, with embarkations, milestones, resting points, and destinations deep into our symbolic understanding of a life. Some cancer patients cant be cured; they face a war with no clear end. Its a reasonable and powerful depiction.

The vocabulary of war ultimately diminishes and politicizes the suffering of cancer patients. It reduces a complicated condition to a clich. Having seen war up close, I want to calmly inform my patients with the knowledge theyll need to face cancer--to encourage them to build and strengthen themselves for an experience that focuses not on destruction, but on life.

Jay T. Bishoff, M.D., is the director of urology for Northwell Health's Central Region. Northwells Cancer Institute includes locations throughout Long Island, Manhattan and Westchester County.

Continued here:

'War' on cancer needs to end - The Journal News

Awukye received a 10-year prison sentence in Ghana for cannabis possession. The experience, he said, shattered his familys dreams. Michael Anami, a Kenyan, recalled the multiple arrests, beatings, incarcerations, and untimely deaths he had witnessed as a drug policy activist and former user.

These were just some of the harrowing stories we heard while developing the recently launched Global Drug Policy Index, a way of comparing countries policies on drugs. Such stories suggest that drug policy all too often blights lives. But there are also inspiring individuals and communities working to help people who use drugs. They provide medicine to combat overdoses, needle and syringe exchange programmes to prevent the spread of blood borne diseases, and drug checking services to inform people about the potency and quality of drugs that they might ingest.

It has long been clear that some countries have policies that cause harm and violate human rights, while others have more rational, evidence based and humane policies. But it has been difficult to assess and compare them.

The Global Drug Policy Index aims to fill this gap. It is designed to provide rigorous, transparent and comparative evidence about the quality of countries drug policies. Its a tool to hold governments accountable and ensure that policies are based on health, human rights and development.

The United Nations Human Development Index, Transparency Internationals Corruption Perception Index and Freedom Houses Global Freedom Index are just three examples of projects that measure and compare countries in complex areas of policy. Such indices are useful because they crystallise the performance of states and offer clear guidance on how to improve.

The Global Drug Policy Index was driven by the Harm Reduction Consortium and developed by academics at Swansea Universitys Global Drug Policy Observatory.

In the sphere of drug policy, academics often collaborate with policymakers, activists and people who use drugs. For the 30 countries covered in this first version of the Global Drug Policy Index, we consulted widely with organisations rooted within the communities affected by drug policies. We also surveyed 371 individuals with on the ground knowledge of each states drug policy.

The index specifies 75 policy indicators. These are derived from a recent UN report on best practice in state drug policy.

Based on how they perform on these indicators, states get a score from 0 to 100. One hundred would represent a full implementation of recommended policies across five areas.

The first area is the absence of extreme response, like the death penalty and extrajudicial killing.

Second is the proportionality of the criminal justice response. This looks at levels of violence, discrimination and human rights abuse in states policing of drug policy.

Health and harm reduction is the third. This focuses on the funding, availability and accessibility of interventions that reduce the harms arising from problematic drug use.

Access to controlled medicines is fourth. It looks at states provision of medicines for pain relief and palliative care.

Finally, theres development: programmes designed to provide alternative livelihoods to people who grow illicit crops.

Even a quick glance at the index results for states in Africa reveals a grim truth: African states are among the worst performers in the world in terms of drug policy.

Uganda scores just 28 in the overall index. The country has a perfect storm of punitive, highly violent drug law enforcement combined with minimal availability of basic medical interventions to reduce the harms caused by drug use.

In Kenya, which scores only 32 overall, access to harm reduction interventions is better, although still patchy. Our expert respondents in Kenya described frequent use of violence and torture by police, as well as arbitrary arrest. They said drug law enforcement was particularly harsh on women, certain ethnic groups, and the less wealthy. Such features are common in all low-ranked states in the Global Drug Policy Index.

In other African states evaluated in the index (such as South Africa, Mozambique and Senegal), the picture was more mixed. There were areas of good practice, including less extreme responses to drug crimes such as the death sentence. And there were some promising developments in harm reduction. But access to essential medicines is very limited across the continent. And most states are exercising disproportionate force in delivering their drug policies.

These problems arent separate. Money spent on police, courts and prisons is money that could be spent on healthcare and harm reduction. Sadly, it seems that Africas states are still largely operating from an outdated and discredited War on Drugs perspective. Even South Africa, a regional leader in decriminalisation policy, has implemented it in a cautious, limited way. Our expert respondents collectively judged that South African decriminalisation has so far been ineffective in reducing contacts between people who use drugs and the criminal justice system.

We hope the information contained in this index will help to develop constructive debates that will lead to more humane and evidenced based policies in the region. To achieve this, states should reorient their approaches to focus on the health and human rights implications of drug use. The index provides a clear guide to the types of policies and actions that will move them towards this goal.

Read the original:

African countries perform badly when it comes to drug policies: a new index shows how - The Conversation CA

There are three basic problems with the army. The first has to do with the political authorities weakness in controlling the armed forces. There has been a seditious, conspiratorial culture in the armed forces since the nineteenth century. Bolivia is the Latin American country that has had the most coups. The armed forces believe they are meant to stand above public authority.

But there is also a weakness in society. The population pays its taxes to support the military but has absolutely no knowledge of the military, its doctrine, its weapons, its mentality, and its history. In our fourteen years in office, we [MAS] failed to fill political offices with defense personnel who would democratize knowledge of the armed forces. This left the armed forces exempt from accountability to society.

Second, there is a colonial culture in Bolivia. This has to do with the consequences of more than a hundred years of military service. Rural farming communities assume that their sons have to pay a blood toll to become citizens. Abolishing compulsory military service is unthinkable, because, as a society, we have not created any alternative spaces for exercising citizenship.

The army believes that it has a license to be the guardian of society. How come? Its contact with society is contact with the indigenous, rural world. There is no contact with the middle class, with the sons of the oligarchy, because the sons of the oligarchy do not go into the barracks. Those who do go are the indios, the peasants, the workers. The armed forces contact with marginalized layers gives them a feeling of cultural superiority. Still today, they have not understood the concept of the plurinational state. So it is necessary to work on decolonizing the armed forces. They must understand that ours is a state that recognizes diversity among nations, coexisting in a complementary way.

The third problem is foreign interference. For seventy years, Bolivias armed forces were ideologically ruled by the United States. The appearance of their uniforms, their weapons, their doctrine, their training, their trips to the United States made the armed forces lose its identity as an institution dependent on the Bolivian state. You are proud to be an ally of the most powerful army in the world, even though the relations between you are colonial. According to the colonial armed forces, local criollos are an invincible power.

Today, they realize that the US armed forces can be defeated. The US empire is in decline and suffering historic defeats. It left Afghanistan in worse conditions than it left Saigon in 1975. So the idea is starting to arise in the armed forces that they dont automatically have to be aligned with the worlds greatest military power.

What war will you win with an army that has a colonial mentality? The only battle it has won in the last seventy years is the war against the Bolivian people. The armed forces doctrine stems from US anti-communist ideology: the people are the enemy, we cannot be a modern country because most Bolivians are miserable, ignorant, indigenous people, and so on. In this idea of modernity, indigenous peoples can only achieve social value if they meet the conditions for living in a civilized society: They have to speak Spanish. They have to have Western urban customs. They have to mimic the US way of life.

Thats why we have to change this nineteenth-century defense model to a twenty-first-century one.

Excerpt from:

How the US War on Drugs Subverted Bolivian Democracy - Jacobin magazine

The War on Drugs performed anhour-long blissful and upbeatsetFriday night at Desert Daze, and itmatched the mood of the audience at the festival at Lake Perris State Recreation Area.

An estimated 2,000 people turned outfor day one of the three-festival to see sets also performed by rock bands La Luz, Deap Vally, DIIV, Tim Heidecker & Weyes Blood and Ty Segall.

While passholders are requiredto show vaccination cards or proof of a negative COVID-19 test and werelined up to go through security before the festival opened at 3 p.m., the process was smooth and attendeeswere cooperative.

It was the first full live performance for The War on Drugs since the release of their new album, "I Don't Live Here," in October.

DIIV put on a worthy rockshow in the early evening, performing songs including"Skin Game" and "Under The Sun"and guitaristAndrew Bailey was a show of his own, but Segallput on an incrediblyloudandraucous set later in the night.

Segall was incredible, but not even the heavy riffs and grating guitar solos changed the laid-back attitude of the crowd or the anticipation for the lighter sideThe War on Drugs brought to the festival.

Desert Dazewas canceled in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.The original plan was to stageindividual shows at Pappy and Harriet's in Pioneertown throughout October, but founder Phil Pirrone told The Desert Sun in July"the opportunity presented itself to do something at the lake."

Compared to previous years,this year's festival has beenscaled down, with 24 bands performing through the weekend. There's only one stage instead of three, the festival lineup is half as big as in past years, and the music starts later in the day.

A highlight of the afternoon on Friday was the duo Deap Vally, which includesguitarist and vocalist Lindsey Troyanddrummer Julie Edwards Pirrone (who is the wife of PhilPirrone). But they added a second drummer, Lia Braswell, and Eagles of Death Metal bassist Jennie Vee for current live shows.

In an interview following their performance, Troy said they "broke all our own rules" while recording their upcoming album "Marriage," adding bass, synthesizers and and "whatever else we wanted."

"This is the first record where we've added in a lot of different flavors," Troy said.

Comedian and actorTim Heidecker performed his 2020 album "Fear of Death"with some help fromsinger-songwriterWeyes Blood. The entertaining 50-minute set drew laughter from the audience in between the funky '70s country-sounding duets as Heideckerasked, "who's on drugs?" and jokedabout becoming comfortable with death.

Some art installations from the 2019 festival, such as Cambia Guevara's "Inception of Love" andDevo's "Energy Dome" helmet statue, were back this year. The latter has been repaintedfrom signature red to a black-and-white cow pattern.

Despite the challenges of COVID-19 and itseffects on the live entertainment industry, Desert Daze provides an opportunity for music loversto ease back into attending music festivals again with a smaller-scale event in a unique setting.

"This place is so amazing," saidJulie Edwards Pirrone. "There's no noise curfew, no neighbors and you can go on all night. It's a weird little Brigadoon-like valley."

Desert Sun reporter Brian Blueskye covers artsand entertainment. Hecan be reached at brian.blueskye@desertsun.com or on Twitter at @bblueskye.

Read the original post:

Desert Daze: The War on Drugs performs a blissful set; Ty Segall gets loud and raucous - Desert Sun

'Ruihhlo Do: A War Against Drugs, the anti-drug campaign launched by the Assam Rifles turned out to the main reason behind the brutal killing of Colonel Viplav Tripathi, Commanding Officer of the 46 Assam Rifles. It was a revenge killing by an insurgent group, from whom large quantities of drugs and weapons were seized by Colonel Tripathis 46 Assam Rifles during the unit's stint in Mizoram.

The 46 Assam Rifles was moved to Manipur for four months from Mizoram. While in Mizoram, 46 Assam Rifles was instrumental in thwarting drugs and weapon smuggling from Myanmar.

Official sources claimed that the Saturdays ambush was well-planned.

We had information that insurgents were looking for an opportunity to target Col Tripathis unit. This time, they got lucky, said an officer.

The officer said Colonel Tripathis colleagues used to call him a josh machine as he was a man full of energy. Colonel Tripathi was an infantry officer from 2 Kumaon Regiment of the Indian Army.

Colonel Tripathi, his wife and son was returning after attending a civic action programme in a forward company base, to his battalion headquarters. Four vehicles were part of the commanding officer's (CO) convoy when they were ambushed. Over a dozen insurgents attacked the convoy with under barrel grenade launchers and small arms.

The attack happened at Sehkan in Manipur. The area borders Mizoram and is around 65km from district headquarters of Manipur, Churachandpur.

The COs vehicle was not bullet-proof. Also, Assam Rifles has limited number of mine protected vehicles.

In a statement, Assam Rifles said the commanding officer and three QRT (quick response team) personnel accompanying him died on spot in the gunfight with the militants (suspected PREPAK/PLA cadres). The wife of the CO and their six-year-old son too died in the attack.

The PLA claimed responsibility for the attack. The insurgent group, in a statement, said they did not know he CO's family was with him.In a joint press release, deputy secretary of PLA's political wing Revolutionary People's Front (RPF) Roben Khuman, and secretary, publicity, Manipur Naga People's Front (MNPF) Thomas Numai, claimed that they were unaware that the CO was being accompanied by his wife and son. They said, Indian security forces should not bring their families to a place which has been declared by government of India as a disturbed area.

It is also suspected that the militants from the separatist group Peoples Liberation Army or the Peoples Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak (PREPAK) might have fled to Myanmar after the attack, as majority of PLA cadre operate from Mandalay in Myanmar and Ruili in China, which borders with Myanmar.

China has been playing a major role in supporting the insurgent groups operating in the northeast states. From money to weapons, China's role has often came up during investigation into weapons and arms seizures.

"Besides adopting aggressive posturing on the LAC ( Line of Actual Control), Chinese military is playing proxy by supporting armed insurgent groups active in northeast," observed an officer.

Routes from Myanmar and Bangladesh have also been used by these insurgents to smuggle drugs to get easy money for their survival.

Security observers pointed out that attack on the family of an officer by insurgents happened after many years. While Army, Navy and Air Force officers are not allowed to keep their families in operational areas, Assam Rifles has the provision to keep their families with them. Family members of Assam Rifles stay in identified garrisons. Schools, accommodation and other areas of the garrison are well protected.

The Assam Rifles came into being in 1835, as a militia called the Cachar Levy. With approximately 750 men, this force was formed to primarily protect British tea estates and their settlements against tribal raids. Subsequently, all these forces were reorganised and renamed the Frontier Force as their role was changed to conducting punitive expeditions across the borders of Assam.

Assam Rifles is administered and financially controlled by the ministry of home affairs, but its operational control is with the Indian Army (ministry of defence).

Read more here:

War on drugs and weapons led to killing of Commanding Officer, jawans in Manipur ambush - The Week

I read your lengthy article titled, Pa. law intended to punish drug dealers in overdose cases could be backfiring: experts.

The Drug Policy Alliance. A pro-drug use organization. If it fosters drug use, they are for it.

Northeasterns Health in Justice Action Lab. They promote the medical viewpoint of drug use, and they do not discourage it, nor believe that it should be illegal.

Pennsylvania Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Self-explanatory.

The article did not identify these sources of information as related to how they view illegal drug use.

The U.S. federal war on drugs started in the 1960s, but more often is noted as beginning in 1971. So, 50 years later, how is it going? Drug use is worse than ever.

It is time to evaluate and understand drug use by individuals. The criminal justice system is ill-equipped for this mission.

The federal government is perhaps the worst place for this social issue to be addressed. We have seen their lack of success in helping any American overcome drug addiction.

Frank Stearns, Warrington Township, Pa.

Read the original post:

Illegal drug use is worse than ever despite all the efforts to stop it | PennLive letters - pennlive.com

Under legislation introduced in the House on Monday, marijuana would be decriminalized by the federal government, and states would have broad leeway to tax the drug as they would alcohol.

The bill, introduced by South Carolina Republican Rep. Nancy Mace, would impose lower taxes than marijuana legislation introduced by Democratic lawmakers but would not fund social programs or provide loans for cannabis businesses.

Dubbed the States Reform Act, Maces bill would remove marijuana and THC, its main psychoactive compound, from the Controlled Substances Act, effectively decriminalizing the drugs, and allow states to regulate them like alcohol. States could continue their current approach to marijuana decriminalization rather than imposing legalization of medical or recreational use on states.

Mace, a freshman member, said at a Monday press conference that she has been working on the legislation for nine months and categorized it as a compromise bill.

There are pieces of this legislation that bring forth ideas [from] previous Republican bills that have been filed. It also takes into account some of the reforms that Democrats have filed in previous legislation relating to cannabis, Mace said. This legislation, I think, has something good for everyone, whether you are a Democrat or Republican.

TEXAS STATE LAWMAKER FLEES DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND JOINS GOP

Maces legislation would impose a 3% federal excise tax on cannabis products, lower than the 5% to 8% tax in a Democratic-led bill.

Its got to be under 4% in order to reduce the opportunity for illicit markets or black markets in different states, depending on how theyre legalized, Mace said.

In contrast to Democratic proposals that would use cannabis taxes to fund grants to those affected by the war on drugs and loans to cannabis businesses owned by those from historically disadvantaged communities, Maces creates a Law Enforcement Retraining and Successful Second Chances Fund that would provide grants to community reentry programs, local law enforcement, veteran mental health programs, opioid epidemic responses, and Small Business Administration programs.

Maces bill would expunge convictions on non-violent marijuana use offenses, with the exception of those who had a DUI or could be members of a gang.

It would also create a national age requirement of at least 21 years old for cannabis consumption and change references to marijuana and variations of the word in federal law to cannabis.

Mace filed the bill Monday with five original Republican co-sponsors and said she has been getting great feedback from members in both parties and in both legislative chambers.

Democratic leaders on both sides of the aisle are working on proposals to address the federal prohibition of marijuana, but Republicans who support federal legalization have objected to measures in those that would fund cannabis businesses or programs focused on equity.

Another bill, the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act, would repeal the federal prohibition of marijuana, require federal courts to expunge marijuana convictions, and impose a tax on marijuana and THC products that starts at 5% and rises to 8% over five years. The taxes would fund an "opportunity trust fund, which would provide grants to those affacted by the war on drugs, loans to small businesses in the marijuana industry, and grants for states who implement "equitable" cannabis licensing regulations.

A version of that bill passed in the House in December 2020 with support from five Republicans but did not come up in the then-Republican-controlled Senate.

The bill was reintroduced this year but has not come up for a floor vote. It was approved in September by the House Judiciary Committee with two Republicans, Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz and California Rep. Tom McClintock, joining with Democrats in favor of the legislation.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer in July unveiled a proposal called the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act that incorporates many of the reforms from the MORE Act: Remove the drug from the Controlled Substances Act, expunge marijuana-related convictions, impose a federal excise tax on the drug, and create an opportunity trust fund for grants and loans for individuals in historically disadvantaged communities with cannabis businesses. The bill's final text has not been revealed.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

In previous congresses before Democratic leadership came out in support of fully federally legalizing marijuana, bipartisan legislation proposed not fully eliminating marijuana from the controlled substances act but made it no longer apply to any person adhering to state laws that had legalized or decriminalized the drug.

The House in April also passed the SAFE Banking Act with broad bipartisan support, a bill that prevents federal regulators from penalizing banks for providing banking services to legitimate cannabis-related businesses, though if Maces bill or the others were passed, the legislation would be moot.

Visit link:

Nancy Mace unveils marijuana legalization bill that would tax drug less than Democratic plans - Washington Examiner

November 15, 2021 - It should come as no surprise that Americans' attitudes toward cannabis, and cannabis legalization, have come a long way since President Richard Nixon signed the Controlled Substances Act ("CSA") of 1970 into law. Once associated with the War on Drugs, cannabis has become big business, with the state-legal cannabis market expected to reach over $40 billion in the United States by 2026.

Support for full federal legalization is at an all-time high, with 60% of adults believing that marijuana should be legal for both medical and recreational use. This is consistent with the fact that Americans now have access to either medical or adult-use cannabis under state laws in most states: Since 2012, 18 states and Washington, D.C., have legalized adult-use marijuana, while 37 states have legalized medical marijuana.

The fact that the industry remains federally illegal has very real implications: The cost of capital remains high, federal protections (such as bankruptcy and trademarks) remain out of reach, banking access is constrained, and many tax deductions are unavailable. And, as recent prosecutions have shown, federal authorities will step in from time to time, often unleashing an arsenal of powerful tools available to them under federal law, in dealing with industry participants who cross the line. This is a lesson the defendants in United States v. Akhavan, out of the Southern District of New York, recently learned when they were convicted of trying to circumvent bank payment processing policies.

In practical terms, continued federal prohibition means that there is no nationwide market for state-legal cannabis. Instead, there are dozens of individual, insular markets in which diversion of cannabis across state lines is strictly prohibited.

While federal cannabis legalization does not appear to be a priority for the Biden administration, efforts continue in the House and the Senate to bring federal policy closer in line with state laws. It is therefore a good time to look at what federal legalization efforts may look like in the short and long terms.

Short term -- protecting the infrastructure

As noted above, state-legal marijuana related businesses ("MRBs") pay more for services that many business owners in other industries take for granted, like banking and insurance. Over the last few legislative cycles, several bills were introduced to address those bottlenecks.

The bill showing the most promise is the Secure and Fair Enforcement ("SAFE") Banking Act, which has been passed by the House five times (although it has never made it through the Senate).

The SAFE Banking Act would prohibit federal regulators from penalizing financial institutions for providing banking services to state-legal MRBs. Prohibited penalties include terminating or limiting the deposit insurance or share insurance of a depository institution solely because the institution provides financial services to legitimate MRBs and prohibiting or otherwise discouraging a depository institution from offering financial services to such a business. Additionally, proceeds from a transaction involving activities of a legitimate MRB would not be considered proceeds from unlawful activity (and, therefore, would not be subject to anti-money laundering laws).

A similar bill was introduced for the insurance industry, as the Clarifying Law Around Insurance of Marijuana Act ("CLAIM Act"). That bill would prohibit federal agencies from penalizing or discouraging a company in the business of insurance from transacting with MRBs that are operating in compliance with state and local law. The CLAIM Act expressly provides that insurance businesses may not be held liable pursuant to any federal law or regulation solely for engaging in the business of insurance with an MRB.

These bills backed by powerful, legitimate industries enjoy the type of bipartisan support that broader legalization bills do not.

Long term -- re-scheduling or de-scheduling of cannabis

Two ambitious bills were recently introduced in Congress to essentially end federal cannabis prohibition. In the House, the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement ("MORE") Act of 2021 would remove cannabis from the CSA and expunge cannabis convictions. In addition, the Act would bring in federal tax revenue by imposing an initial 5% tax on retail sales of cannabis, which would increase to 8% over three years. This tax revenue would fund the federal Opportunity Trust Fund to be used for community reinvestment.

The MORE Act was reintroduced in the House on May 28, 2021 and is in the first stage of the legislative process. A similar measure was introduced in the Senate as the Cannabis Administration Opportunity Act ("CAOA"). Similar to the MORE Act, CAOA would decriminalize and deschedule marijuana federally. While CAOA recognizes state law as controlling the possession, production and distribution of cannabis, the law would preempt states from interfering with interstate commerce where a lawful cannabis delivery requires transport through the state's borders. This is similar to how preemption was structured with respect to hemp in the 2018 Farm Bill.

CAOA also proposes a federal excise tax of 10% on cannabis in the first year the bill is enacted, increasing to 25% after five years. Part of this tax revenue would be reinvested in communities adversely impacted by the War on Drugs.

These ambitious measures don't have the bipartisan support the SAFE Banking Act enjoys. Nor does the Biden administration appear to be particularly enamored with adult-use cannabis legalization. And while the Biden administration appears to be open to re-scheduling cannabis to Schedule II under the CSA from the more restrictive Schedule I where it currently resides there has been no detailed proposal to do so.

A recent report released by the Congressional Research Service ("CRS") suggests that the president could take certain steps to effect such changes without congressional support by exerting influence over agencies that control the re-scheduling process (namely the DEA, HHS and the FDA). This idea is not new, and the report was swiftly criticized by Professor Robert A. Mikos, one of the nation's leading experts on federalism and drug law, who has long argued that the authority to re-schedule drugs under the CSA is much more limited than CRS's report suggests.

Getting legalization right

Among the various stakeholders who are in no way a unified bloc there are real concerns about getting federal legalization right. When it comes to the piecemeal approach of the SAFE Banking Act and the CLAIM Act, there are worries by advocates that passing the legislation would take away from the overall momentum of broader legalization, as the established business interests might feel protected as a result of passage.

At the same time, certain stakeholders are worried about the rapid de-scheduling of cannabis because it would allow established companies, currently operating in major markets, to use their economies of scale to dominate the market, pushing out start-ups and competitors (including social equity applicants that enjoy certain advantages under current state cannabis laws). And, if recent experience with hemp and CBD is any indication, federal regulators are likely to step in as soon as cannabis is de-scheduled to reassert their authority. Unless the groundwork for legalization is laid down in advance, legal uncertainty will simply be replaced with a regulatory one.

Opinions expressed are those of the author. They do not reflect the views of Reuters News, which, under the Trust Principles, is committed to integrity, independence, and freedom from bias. Westlaw Today is owned by Thomson Reuters and operates independently of Reuters News.

Alex Malyshev is a partner at Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP, and the chair of its Cannabis, Hemp & CBD Industry Group. He contributed the chapter, Banking and Investment Considerations for Cannabis Businesses in Health Care and the Business of Cannabis: Legal Questions and Answers, (American Health Law Association 2021). He is based in New York and can be reached at malyshev@clm.com.

Sarah Ganley is an associate in the Litigation Department of Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP and can be reached at ganley@clm.com. She is based in New York.

Read more here:

Reading the tea leaves: What might federal legalization of marijuana look like? - Reuters

The line, which launched Friday and is available at Gage's retail stores, includes T-shirts, hoodies, long-sleeve shirts, tote bags, snapback hats, and ashtrays, all emblazoned with the message, "Everybody Vs Injustice."

"It's perfect for your fall and wintertime wear [to show] you're ... in support of the actual fight," Gage's community coordinator Sydney Bowden says, adding, "It's a perfect start-up conversation piece, as well."

Detroit Vs Everybody was founded by Detroiter Tommey Walker in 2012. The "Everybody Vs Injustice" line was launched in 2015 so the brand could partner with various social justice causes. For the Gage Cannabis Co. line, a hangtag has more information about the need for social equity in the cannabis industry.

"We've done 'Everybody Vs' a lot of different initiatives that were supposed to go toward world causes," says Ashley Michele of Detroit Vs Everybody. "So we've done 'Everybody Vs Autism,' we've done 'Everybody Vs COVID' last year. And so our goal with Gage is to just bring highlight or just talk about what's going on in the cannabis industry and the sort of disparities that we're seeing in it."

A portion of proceeds will go toward the Detroit Justice Center, a nonprofit law firm founded in 2018.

Erin Keith, a staff attorney with the Detroit Justice Center, says the nonprofit was started with "a belief that we can't have just cities that work for everyone that are equitable, that are free of racism, until we repair the harm caused by mass incarceration."

Keith says the Detroit Justice Center has a three-pronged approach to fighting back against the war on drugs, which is "defense, offense, and dreams." That includes advocating for formerly incarcerated people, who face many hurdles upon release.

"We're really excited about this partnership," she says, adding that it's important to care about "not just the capitalist aspect of it, but the community aspect as well."

"Detroit Vs Everybody exists to inspire everybody to persist rather than quit, to contribute rather than complain, to unify rather than divide, and to innovate rather than duplicate," Walker said in a statement. "Our entire team is grateful to Gage's ongoing support in our fight against social injustice. Our combined platforms will raise awareness and funds, while inspiring everybody to stand against the unjust legacy of cannabis policies."

Stay connected with Detroit Metro Times. Subscribe to our newsletters, and follow us on Google News, Apple News, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, or Reddit.

Read the rest here:

Detroit Vs Everybody teams up with Gage Cannabis Co. to raise money to help people harmed by the war on drugs - Detroit Metro Times

Bridget Meyer, played by Rosario Dawson, is in the field investigating pill mills in a recent episode of Hulu's Dopesick. Gene Page/Hulu hide caption

Bridget Meyer, played by Rosario Dawson, is in the field investigating pill mills in a recent episode of Hulu's Dopesick.

Editor's note: This story contains quotes and information originally discussed during a Twitter Spaces event hosted by NPR TV critic Eric Deggans and featuring NPR addiction correspondent Brian Mann, Dopesick author Beth Macy, Dopesick series creator Danny Strong and more. Follow us on Twitter, and read more of NPR's addiction coverage here.

For the millions of Americans whose lives have been shattered by the opioid crisis, Hulu's limited series Dopesick provides a cathartic piece of storytelling. For those who haven't been affected by addiction firsthand, the story offers powerful insight into the crisis, portraying the devastation many families feel.

When the Sacklers and their private company, Purdue Pharma, are introduced on-screen (often seen in their eponymously named museum wings or on one of their opulent estates), they're portrayed as the main villains of the story.

The series dramatizes Richard Sackler's long-running efforts to boost sales of OxyContin. Documents made public in recent years show that Purdue Pharma's effort to "turbocharge" opioid prescribing continued long after it was clear to people inside the company that addiction and overdose deaths were surging.

For many viewers around the U.S. who feel Purdue Pharma and its product OxyContin bear an enormous responsibility for the devastation caused by this public health crisis, it's powerful storytelling.

Based on journalist Beth Macy's 2018 book, Dopesick, the limited series tries to show just how hard it is to hold anyone an individual or a company accountable for the opioid crisis. And in the real world, it's even less clear if the Sacklers, Purdue Pharma or other players in the pharmaceutical industry may face meaningful consequences for their alleged roles.

When the Sacklers are introduced on-screen, often seen in their eponymously named museum wings, they're portrayed as the main villains of the story. Antony Platt/Hulu hide caption

When the Sacklers are introduced on-screen, often seen in their eponymously named museum wings, they're portrayed as the main villains of the story.

While the Sackler family has faced criticism for its role in fueling the opioid crisis, the family denies any wrongdoing. Members of the family who led the company have never been charged with a crime, and it's very likely they never will be.

They're also likely to emerge from this scrutiny with much of their wealth intact, protected by a legal firewall that would prevent people harmed by OxyContin from suing them directly.

"Even the federal bankruptcy judge who approved this deal for the Sacklers described it as a 'bitter' outcome," said NPR addiction correspondent Brian Mann.

"Judge Robert Drain said he felt like the family at the center of this opioid crisis should have paid more. But this is how corporate accountability works right now and it appears the Sacklers navigated the system, brilliantly."

As far back as 2007, the Justice Department saw Purdue Pharma marketing OxyContin in some very dangerous and illegal ways. Department officials fined the company, and Purdue Pharma pleaded guilty to misdemeanor criminal charges.

A felony guilty plea entered by the drug company in 2020 revealed that much of the illegal activity kept happening long after that first Justice Department deal was signed.

Critics say federal regulators were often back on their heels, slow to curb escalating OxyContin sales that fed black markets for pain pills around the United States.

And all this while the government was spending huge amounts of money and resources on the war on drugs every year.

For their part, members of the Sackler family maintain they did nothing wrong as they profited more than $11 billion from opioid sales. They have agreed to contribute more than $4.3 billion to an opioid settlement.

The Justice Department has challenged that deal, arguing it's inappropriate for the Sacklers to receive legal protections from a bankruptcy court without first filing for bankruptcy themselves.

If that deal is confirmed on appeal, the Sacklers would also give up control of Purdue Pharma. But they're expected to walk away from this legal process retaining their status as one of the wealthiest families in the world, with a clean legal slate.

"This family will walk off into the sunset with their wealth," said author Ryan Hampton, who is living in recovery from opioid addiction. "When they're done paying this settlement after nine years, there's a model out there it shows they'll actually be richer based on their investments and interest rates that they have."

Hampton played an active role negotiating with the Sacklers during Purdue Pharma's bankruptcy. For his book Unsettled, he also investigated how the bankruptcy settlement impacted communities hard hit by the opioid crisis.

"The maneuvering that has taken place with the Sacklers ... is continuing to this day," Hampton said.

"We shouldn't have to trade off corporate accountability for real public health solutions," Hampton added, "and that's what they're making us do right now in the Purdue Pharma bankruptcy."

Hulu's Dopesick, meanwhile, has the freedom to make claims about the Sacklers that legal systems which citizens usually rely on to assess culpability have not had.

Drug Enforcement Administration Agent Bridget Meyer, played by Rosario Dawson, learns of black market OxyContin pills. Antony Platt/Hulu hide caption

Drug Enforcement Administration Agent Bridget Meyer, played by Rosario Dawson, learns of black market OxyContin pills.

The bankruptcy settlement, if finalized, wouldn't prevent state or federal prosecutors from charging members of the Sackler family with crimes.

But most legal experts tell NPR they don't expect that to happen. Proving criminal misconduct in corporate settings is difficult, especially in highly regulated industries like Big Pharma.

Meanwhile, millions of Americans with addiction to opioids are working their way through the justice system.

Macy, author of the book Dopesick, explained that while Richard Sackler has avoided criminal charges, he famously put the blame for addiction on people with addiction.

"Abusers [of OxyContin] aren't victims," Sackler wrote in a 2001 email made public as part of lawsuits against Purdue Pharma. "They are the victimizers."

Many public health experts say that Sackler's narrative directed attention and accountability away from prescribers and pharmaceutical companies and left many with opioid use disorder stigmatized and abandoned.

"There's so much we need to do, and a lot of it falls right under the umbrella ... of unraveling the war on drugs," Macy said. "We [should] start treating people less like criminals; stop hammering abusers, like Richard Sackler told us to do; and start treating these folks as people with a genuine medical condition, which is what they are."

In the end, dramatizations like Hulu's Dopesick provide a black-and-white moral clarity that may be immensely satisfying to many viewers. But the U.S. justice system has not reached similar clarity for Purdue Pharma, the Sacklers and other Big Pharma companies that earned billions selling prescription opioids as more and more Americans died.

Eric Deggans, Emily Alfin Johnson and Arielle Retting adapted this story for the web.

See original here:

'Dopesick' casts the Sacklers as villains of the opioid crisis. Reality is complex - NPR