Fans remember Lennon as an icon, but those working for the FBI may recall the musician’s reputation a bit differently.

Here’s Why The FBI Used To Study All Of John Lennon’s Lyrics

image

For many, the face of John Lennon is directly associated with the peace and love that circulated during the hippie movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s. Music fans will remember him as one of the most iconic members of The Beatles, founding the group and a songwriting career that has yet to be rivaled. However, those who were working for the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover may recall the musician’s reputation a bit differently.

In March of 1969, John Lennon and Yoko Ono were on a European mission to be married. After a failed attempt in the U.K and another unfortunate technicality in Parisian nuptial law, the couple finally found a beautiful location at The Pillar of Hercules in Gibraltar.

Just five days after exchanging vows, John and Yoko set out on a honeymoon that would catch the attention of the entire world. Starting off in Amsterdam, the two embarked on a 7-day bed-in for peace, where they invited the press into their honeymoon suite 12 hours a day to witness their protest. According to the newlyweds, they were staying in bed to ‘protest war’ and growing their hair out to ‘preach world peace.’

From Amsterdam, they continued on to Vienna for a press conference where Lennon and Ono both appeared on stage in a white bag as a silent protest, followed by a quick stop in the Bahamas and eventually settling down for another week in Montreal.

‘Give Peace A Chance’

While staying at The Queen Elizabeth Hotel in Montreal, John and Yoko invited reporters in again (along with notable visitors like civil rights activist and comedian Dick Gregory and poet Allen Ginsberg). During this stay, they also recorded ‘Give Peace a Chance’ under the Plastic Ono Band project, which featured backup vocals provided by a group that included LSD advocate Timothy Leary and the musical comedian, Tommy Smothers.

The song became more than just a rambling chant of hippies and was eventually regarded as a highly controversial anti-war song in the eyes of the Nixon administration. Particularly, after nearly half a million people sang along to it in D.C., during the Vietnam Moratorium Day in November of 1969.

In the time after ‘Give Peace A Chance,’ John and his new bride dedicated efforts to sending out acorns “for peace” to world leaders and purchasing full-page advertisements and billboards reading, “WAR IS OVER! IF YOU WANT IT.”

By the time John Lennon moved to the United States in 1971, the White House and the Hoover-headed FBI had already deemed him a threat to the conservative agenda. He and Yoko Ono were making waves worldwide, inspiring young people all over to question authority. Upon arrival in New York City on a visa, John started to associate himself with radical anti-war activists, and the FBI then put Lennon under surveillance.

The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service tried to deport him numerous times, especially following Senator Strom Thurmond’s memo to the Nixon White House, in which he warned that John Lennon would use rock music and politics in an effort to organize young people to vote against Nixon in 1972.

It’s important to note that the 1972 election was the first time Americans 18 years of age or older were permitted to vote, prior to that the voting age was 21. And while Nixon resented Lennon’s preaching of left-leaning politics to younger Americans, the FBI became more and more aware of the impact any dramatic deportation may have on young voter turnout and retaliation.

image

Historian Jon Weiner fought for almost 20 years to gain access to FBI files on Lennon and confirmed in an NPR interview that the agenda against Lennon and his naturalization process was an ongoing effort encouraged by President Nixon. Weiner’s book, Gimme Some Truth: The John Lennon FBI Files, is revered as one of the most in-depth analyses of the relationship between John Lennon and the United States government and depicts just how absurd their investigations were.

The FBI started its obsession with Lennon after taking note of his lyrics and remarks on stage during a performance at the John Sinclair Freedom Rally in Michigan in 1969 (an event held to protest the 10-year prison sentence assigned to a poet for 2 marijuana joints).

From that point on, the continued surveillance mounted up a plethora of trivial observations that were classified for fear that their release would pose a “threat to national security.” Though it’s hard to comprehend why the lyrics to his track ‘John Sinclair’ needed to be locked up, considering they appeared on the sleeve of his album.

Numerous other examples of abuse of power appear in some 300 pages uncovered by Jon Weiner, including plans to convict Lennon on narcotic charges in Miami to make him more immediately deportable and a wanted poster that featured a Lennon look-alike.

In 1972, as his immigration battle continued, John Lennon decided to withdraw from the plans to demonstrate against Nixon and the mission to get youths registered to vote. According to Weiner, “in the ensuing three-year legal battle he lost his artistic vision and energy, his relationship with Yoko disintegrated, and he gave up his radical politics. In this period Lennon became a defeated activist, an artist in decline, an aging superstar.” J. Edgar Hoover died in May of 1972, taking some of the heat off the former Beatle, but he did not receive his green card until after Watergate when Gerald Ford took office.

Ultimately, the FBI succeeded in neutralizing Lennon and deterring him from impacting Nixon’s reelection, but not from inspiring millions of people around the world.

CONTINUE READING…

Trump Says He Can Ignore Medical Marijuana Protections Passed By Congress

President Trump Signs VA Accountability Act

December 21, 2019

Tom Angell

Follow me on Twitter. Check out my website.

In a statement attached to a large-scale funding bill he signed into law on Friday, President Trump said in effect that he reserves the right to ignore a congressionally approved provision that seeks to protect state medical marijuana laws from federal interference.

Division B, section 531 of the Act provides that the Department of Justice may not use any funds made available under this Act to prevent implementation of medical marijuana laws by various States and territories,” Trump wrote in a signing statement. “My Administration will treat this provision consistent with the President’s constitutional responsibility to faithfully execute the laws of the United States.”

Although the vague language doesn’t directly say he plans to ignore Congress’s will to block Justice Department prosecution of medical cannabis patients and providers, presidents typically use signing statements such as this one to flag provisions of laws they are enacting which they believe could impede on their executive authorities. By calling out the medical marijuana rider, Trump is making clear that his administration believes it can broadly enforce federal drug laws against people complying with state medical marijuana laws even though Congress told him not to.

But it doesn’t necessarily mean that a crackdown is on the way.

The administration hasn’t carried out any major enforcement activities against state-legal marijuana businesses since taking office, in accordance with Trump’s campaign pledges that he would respect the right of states to enact their own cannabis laws without federal interference. That also goes for recreational policies and businesses that aren’t even covered under the congressionally adopted rider, which has been part of federal law since 2014.

It is the third time Trump has said in a signing statement that his administration doesn’t necessarily have to abide by the medical marijuana provision. He included similar language when signing off on annual appropriations bills last year and in 2017, though he did not do so in 2018.

In August, the president reiterated his support for letting states legalize cannabis without federal interference.

“It’s a very big subject and right now we are allowing states to make that decision,” Trump said. “A lot of states are making that decision, but we’re allowing states to make that decision.”

Last year, when asked about separate pending congressional legislation that would more broadly exempt state-legal marijuana activity from the federal Controlled Substances Act, he said he “really” supports the bill.

Given the president’s consistently voiced support for respecting state cannabis laws, it’s not clear why he has gone out of his way to reserve his right to ignore the medical marijuana rider on a near-annual basis.

Among the handful of other provisions Trump singled out in his new signing statement are ones dealing with the closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, restrictions on diplomatic activities and the dissemination of information that may be protected by executive privilege.

The Fiscal Year 2020 funding bill that Trump signed into law on Friday does not contain a broader rider seeking to shield all state marijuana laws—including those that allow recreational use and sales—that had been approved by the House of Representatives earlier this year. It, along with another provision that would have protected banks that serve state-legal cannabis businesses from federal punishment, was dropped from the final legislation in bicameral negotiations with the Senate.

Congressional leaders did include several cannabis-related provisions in a report attached to the legislation, though, such as language directing the Food and Drug Administration to formulate a policy of enforcement discretion for CBD products and requiring the National Institute on Drug Abuse to compile a report on the barriers that the Schedule I status of drugs including marijuana places in front of scientific research.

CONTINUE READING…

RELATED:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-by-the-president-33/?utm_source=link&utm_medium=header

https://kentuckymarijuanaparty.com/2014/01/02/on-legalization-when-the-u-n-comes-a-marching-along-we-will-all-be-singing-a-brand-new-song/

https://kentuckymarijuanaparty.com/2014/10/15/lets-talk-about-corporate-cannabis/

https://kentuckymarijuanaparty.com/2015/05/08/and-all-the-green-fields-will-runneth-red-with-blood/

https://kentuckymarijuanaparty.com/2015/07/09/conflicting-federal-laws-beg-to-differ-on-marijuana-enforcement/

https://kentuckymarijuanaparty.com/2015/10/26/rights-and-freedoms-may-in-no-case-be-exercised-contrary-to-purposes-and-principles-of-the-united-nations-how-the-united-nations-is-stealing-our-unalienable-rights-to-grow/

The following is a true copy of a Facebook Conversation which took place July 17, 2014 between Former IMF Attorney Karen Hudes and Judge Anna von Reitz. Read it and decide for yourselves what you think:

David Andrew Bryson

The following is a true copy of a Facebook Conversation which took place July 17, 2014 between Former IMF Attorney Karen Hudes and Judge Anna von Reitz. Read it and decide for yourselves what you think:

Anna von Reitz:

Karen, I am sure that your intentions are 100% good and that your reasoning is sound — however, the Chinese are not the only ones coming to breakfast. The American States and the American State Citizens are OWED a great deal that is not being factored in that I can see, and your contention that there is a “statute of limitations” goes down the drain when you realize that what we are dealing with is FRAUD and there is no statute of limitations on fraud.

Karen Hudes:

Beg your pardon? Whose side are you on? You want to hand back the world’s gold or you want it to be for the benefit of humanity?

There was no fraud involved in the Global Debt Facility.

The fraud is that the Banking Cabal bought up all the media and then tried to provide inferior education and dumbed everyone down to keep them stupid, so that they would make stupid comments

Anna von Reitz:

No, Karen, the fraud is that the corporation doing business as the United States of America (Inc.) — a governmental services company owned and operated by the Federal Reserve — “redefined” us as foreign situs trusts owned and operated under our own Names. They grossly abused the rights of usufruct to do this and created “States” and Americans on paper that they then “Pledged” as sureties backing the debts of the already bankrupt United States of America, Inc.

The further fraud is that FDR then signed over both the debts and the assets of the United States of America, Inc. to the IMF, which glutted itself on the lucrative service contracts via yet another governmental services corporation doing business as the UNITED STATES (INC.)

The World Bank, IBRD (International Bank of Reconstruction and Development), and Federal Reserve were ALL creditors in the bankruptcy of the United States of America, Inc., but the primary creditors were the hapless American people and their organic states. Although the 1934 Bankruptcy Act recognizes THEM as the Priority Creditors, the IMF never bothered to inform them or operate in an honest or appropriate fashion with regard to their material interests.

Instead, the IMF dba the UNITED STATES, INC. and the Bankruptcy Trustee chosen by the World Bank, IBRD, and Federal Reserve — the Secretary of the Treasury of Puerto Rico — siezed upon all the assets supposedly represented by the foreign situs trusts that the FDR “administration” created and rolled them over into Roman Inferior Trusts — Cestui Qui Vie Trusts, Karen. You are a lawyer. You should be familiar with what those are? Trusts formed when a person “disappears” for a prolonged period of time and their estate is seized and probated and distributed to heirs assigned by the court?

These Roman Inferior Trusts were all operated under our NAMES — e.g. JOHN QUINCY PUBLIC, and they were all “removed” to Puerto Rico for “safe keeping” by the Bankruptcy Trustee —thereby bringing American State assets and the private property assets of American State Citizens under Puerto Rican jurisdiction.

All these years the IMF, an agency of the UNITED NATIONS, and its spin off governmental services corporation dba UNITED STATES, INC. has been plundering the assets of The United States Trust (1789) and a good portion of that gold that you are so generously and eagerly handing out to everyone belongs to us as well as the Chinese who are already wolfing down the Strawberries and French Toast.

You can either investigate this for yourself — or you can tell your friends at the IBRD and the IMF that it isn’t going to wash because you already know the facts and are acting as a teflon sugar coat for them.

But you had better stop and reconsider if you think that I am stupid, dumbed down, uninformed, or making specious comments.

Karen Hudes:

But the USA had nothing to do with the sequestration of the world’s gold. In retaliation the CIA overthrew Marcos and then tried to kidnap him. The only ones who are now “coming to breakfast” are the crooks — and they have been unceremoniously shown the door, and so will each and every other crook who comes knocking.

I am no sugar coat teflon and you must be a shill for trying to undermine me. I am no longer having anything to do with you.

Anna von Reitz:

Time for me to beg pardon — President Eisenhower did this, but the US had nothing to do with the sequestration? Where do you think all this massive amount of gold came from? It’s a hoard that has been amassed by plundering and murdering the people of this planet for hundreds of years. This whole truth in banking effort started with Basel I, II, and III because the US has been cooking the books for three generations! — but the US has nothing to do with this? The Chinese came to the US District Court in New York and filed suit because not only had “we” not paid them back their gold, “we” hadn’t even paid the interest on it — but the US had nothing to do with any of the gold sequestered?

And then there is the question of where did all the gold confiscated by the Roosevelt Administration go, along with the 8000 tons that once were kept in Fort Knox? If you check out Ron Paul’s website you will see an amazing video — the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve admitted to him (finally) that the gold is gone and they don’t know where it went. All that just “evaporated” under the care of Bill Clinton? We’ve been breathing gold plated oxygen all these years and didn’t know it? Or is it closer to the truth that once the IMF dba UNITED STATES, INC. had the keys to the car, they seized and transported the gold wherever they chose to put it? Maybe the Phillippines? Maybe the Maldives?

And what about the 5700 tons of gold that has been surreptitiously shipped to China over the course of the past twenty years, all clearly shown on the FT-900’s? And, while we are at it, where is Germany’s 3,396 tons of gold that were entrusted to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, but which have suddenly vanished and can’t be repaid except in dribs and drabs over the next however many centuries? Eh? The US has nothing to do with the stockpiles of gold suddenly showing up and just as suddenly gone missing?

It was less than three years ago that Lord Brown rocked the world by noticing that hey, these numbers don’t match…..these numbers indicate that there is a lot more gold in the world than we ever imagined…..and while he shortly thereafter ended up dead, Lord Snowden famously blustered, that there’s only “1,500 tones of gold that has ever been mined in the history of the world” —and yet, here you are, with a certificate from 1934 that this unimaginable amount of gold was sitting safe and snug in the vault of the New York Federal Reserve — but the US has nothing to do with the sequestration of the gold hoard, nor anything with the gold contained therein?

Most of all, I want to know what happens to Mom and Po
p American, whose lands and homes and businesses have been put at risk, who have been driven like cattle, enslaved, robbed, defrauded, threatened, and misrepresented by their EMPLOYEES for eighty years? When do they get their day in court and the interest and profit that is due from their risks and labors and miseries? When do they receive back the titles of their private property and the assets of their organic States free and clear of liens, encumbrances, or debts created by false beneficiaries?

Karen, I very much respect you, but I fear that you have yourself fallen victim to the oldest Crown Temple trick in the world. You appear to be thinking and believing that the FED is bad and the IMF and IBRD and World Bank are pure. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you want to end the evil, then simply returning to the gold standard and announcing a Jubilee isn’t the way to do it. If you want to end it once and for all, then the evil of ALL the banks involved MUST be recognized and the Federal Reserve and the IMF must BOTH pay the piper!

The IBRD and the World Bank were in this from the very beginning, too, and though they didn’t play the prima donna role of the BIS, they have plenty of culpability and explaining to do. They knew all this crap was going on and sat mum and let it roll — as you yourself can attest.

Now I am going on sixty years old and I have lived a lot of places and done a lot of things at a very high level and I will tell you frankly that I don’t believe in fairy godmothers or Mystery Saviors. I believe in human beings who either try to do the right thing or do not.

So if you don’t mind, take a look around from where you are sitting and see if you can answer some of my questions? Especially the really important ones — like when do the American States and the American State Citizens get relief? When does the IMF turn over control of our property to us? When does it release all the land and property titles it has held and bonded and invested and profited from under color of law for the past seventy years? When do Americans receive back their own ESTATES free and clear with no more funky pretensions that they “voluntarily” removed themselves to Puerto Rico and agreed to all this abuse? Gold is just gold, Karen. It was chosen as a medium of exchange because of its durability and relative uselessness. You can’t eat it, drink it, or use it for much of anything else. It’s just a symbol, not really much different or better than the paper “certificates” bankers have used to represent it in ages past. The real wealth of the world is in labor and in natural resources, and those are what have been stolen and plundered in America — eighty years of labor, eighty years of human enslavement, and the entire continent plundered for eight decades. Not to mention the value of all the American lives lost in wars for profit. Those things aren’t fungible in gold, Karen. Those things are quite different and more important in value.

So while the IMF and the IBRD and the World Bank and everyone else involved in this hideous fraud scandal are busily making nice by distributing all this gold that Mr. Struck just happened to have sitting around in a vault doing nothing since 1934 — and nobody can explain where all the American or German gold went — you will have to pause a moment and consider that, uh, Karen — these people you are working for are telling us a fairytale. We know that. You should know that. Oh, there may be piles and piles and piles of gold — yes, that is sure enough. It was implied at the time that our grandparent’s gold was confiscated (and never repaid) by the Roosevelt Administration that the same corrupt and evil governmental “services” company would turn around one day and use the gold it stole from us to launch a brand new gold-backed currency market.

Yes, as far back as 1934, Congressman Louis T. McFadden said as much, and here we are.

Still no accounting for where the American gold went, then or now. No accounting for where the Chinese Nationalist gold went, then or now. No accounting for where the German gold went, then or now. Still no action to release the American ESTATES back to the Americans they belong to. Still no action to release all the color of law titles taken against our organic states.

Karen, Karen, Karen — you are a SMART woman, a good woman. Think about what I am saying here. The important thing isn’t the gold. The important thing is the land and the people. And there isn’t a “good guy” bank or group of banks versus a “bad guy” bank or group of banks — that’s all just for show. They’ve all colluded to a greater or a lesser extent ever since World War II!!! This entire circumstance would not be possible otherwise. And any idea that people are going to just take the trinkets and blankets, and sell Manhattan, needs to be put to rest.

Once and for all time, please, tell the rotters and plotters that the American State Citizens demand to be free again and to have their lands and homes and businesses back in their own control, and to have the profit due and owed to them, and to have their Equity Contract honored and to receive the governmental services they contracted for and paid for — and if these terms are NOT met, then there IS no deal and no amount of pretty coins scattered in the streets will make it right."

David Andrew Bryson

David Weigand

CONTINUE READING….

141 House Members Flunk Drug Policy Report Card But conservative Republicans are among the 49 who earned an A+.

Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., left, earned an A+ in a report on House drug policy votes. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., earned an F. The report looked at House votes on hemp, medical marijuana, DEA funding and banking rules.

Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., left, earned an A+ in a report on House drug policy votes. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., earned an F. The report looked at House votes on hemp, medical marijuana, DEA funding and banking rules.

By Steven Nelson Oct. 29, 2014 | 2:37 p.m. EDT

Each seat in the U.S. House of Representatives is up for grabs when Americans go to the polls Tuesday, and the Drug Policy Alliance wants voters who care about drug policy to check out a new report card for incumbent members.

The pro-reform organization’s advocacy arm, Drug Policy Action, issued the report card Wednesday, and scores don’t neatly match partisan affiliations.

Hard-line conservatives such as Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, are among the 49 House members who earned an A+, while Democratic National Committee head Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., is among the 141 members who earned an F.

[READ: Va. Congressman Pushes ‘Conservative’ Plan for Pot at Pharmacies]

The grades are based on an analysis of seven House votes – one in 2013, six in 2014 – including three votes on hemp, two on banking rights for marijuana businesses, one that would have cut Drug Enforcement Administration funding and another to protect medical marijuana in states that allow it.

Members who voted consistently for more liberal policies received an A+. The 116 representatives who voted in favor of reform in six votes earned an A. Those who voted for reforms in either one or none of the votes earned an F.

In a press release, the Drug Policy Action noted 56 percent of House members – 179 Democrats and 64 Republicans – earned a C or better, meaning they voted for reform in at least three of the votes.

[WATCH: McCain Says ‘Maybe We Should Legalize’ Marijuana]

"Unprecedented support now exists on both sides of the aisle in Congress for ending the federal war on drugs and letting states set their own drug policies,” Grant Smith, deputy director of national affairs for Drug Policy Action, said in a statement. “Drug policy reform is a winning issue for elected officials.”

The highest-profile vote tabulated in the report was on an amendment offered by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., that would have blocked the Department of Justice –  including federal prosecutors and DEA agents – from spending funds to go after medical marijuana in states where it’s permitted.

Editorial cartoon on pot

See Photos

Editorial Cartoons on Pot Legalization

The Rohrabacher amendment sailed through the House in a 219-189 vote in May that blurred party lines, but the Senate didn’t consider a companion amendment from Sens. Cory Booker, D-N.J., and Rand Paul, R-Ky., and it wasn’t enacted into law.

The drug policy organization didn’t grade senators, citing a paucity of drug policy votes in the chamber.

Read the full report card:

TAGS:
drugs
politics
medical marijuana

CONTINUE READING…

LINK TO FULL REPORT IN PDF HERE…

The Required White House Response on Marijuana

 

 

 

By David Firestone, New York Times – Tuesday, July 29 2014

When the White House issued a statement last night saying that marijuana should remain illegal — responding to our pro-legalization editorial series — officials there weren’t just expressing an opinion. They were following the law. The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy is required by statute to oppose all efforts to legalize any banned drug.

It’s one of the most anti-scientific, know-nothing provisions in any federal law, but it remains an active imposition on every White House. The “drug czar,” as the director of the drug control policy office is informally known, must “take such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use of a substance” that’s listed on Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act and has no “approved” medical use.

Marijuana fits that description, as do heroin and LSD. But unlike those far more dangerous drugs, marijuana has medical benefits that are widely known and are now officially recognized in 35 states. The drug czar, though, isn’t allowed to recognize them, and whenever any member of Congress tries to change that, the White House office is required to stand up and block the effort. It cannot allow any federal study that might demonstrate the rapidly changing medical consensus on marijuana’s benefits and its relative lack of harm compared to alcohol and tobacco.

“It’s a complete Catch-22,” said Representative Steve Cohen, Democrat of Tennessee, who has introduced legislation to change the requirement. “They should be giving Congress and the American people the benefit of the latest research, and yet by statute, they’re prohibited from doing so. They have no choice but to say they’re against it. Joseph Heller should be working there.”

– Read the entire article at New York Times.

SOURCE: Cannabis Culture

 

RELATED ARTICLES:

http://kentuckymarijuanaparty.wordpress.com/2014/07/27/nyt-repeal-prohibition-again/

http://kentuckymarijuanaparty.wordpress.com/2014/07/30/response-to-the-new-york-times-editorial-boards-call-for-federal-marijuana-legalization/

Response to The New York Times Editorial Board’s Call for Federal Marijuana Legalization

 

 

Posted by ONDCP Staff on July 28, 2014 at 06:40 PM EDT

The New York Times editorial board opined in its Sunday July 27, 2014 edition that the Federal government should legalize marijuana for adults aged 21 years and older. The New York Times editorial board compares Federal marijuana policy to the failure of alcohol prohibition and advocates for legalization based on the harm inflicted on young African American men who become involved in the criminal justice system as a result of marijuana possession charges. We agree that the criminal justice system is in need of reform and that disproportionality exists throughout the system.  However, marijuana legalization is not the silver bullet solution to the issue.

In its argument, The New York Times editorial team failed to mention a cascade of public health problems associated with the increased availability of marijuana. While law enforcement will always play an important role in combating violent crime associated with the drug trade, the Obama Administration approaches substance use as a public health issue, not merely a criminal justice problem.

The editorial ignores the science and fails to address public health problems associated with increased marijuana use. Here are the facts:

  • Marijuana use affects the developing brain. A recent study in Brain reveals impairment of the development of structures in some regions of the brain following prolonged marijuana use that began in adolescence or young adulthood.[1] Marijuana use is associated with cognitive impairment, including lower IQ among adult chronic users who began using marijuana at an early age.[2]
  • Substance use in school age children has a detrimental effect on their academic achievement. Students who received earned D’s or F’s were more likely to be current users of marijuana than those who earned A’s (45% vs. 10%).[3]
  • Marijuana is addictive. Estimates from research suggest that about 9 percent of users become addicted to marijuana. This number increases to about 17 percent among those who start young and to 25-50 percent among people who use marijuana daily.[4]
  • Drugged driving is a threat to our roadways. Marijuana significantly impairs coordination and reaction time and is the illicit drug most frequently found to be involved in automobile accidents, including fatal ones.[5]

The editors of The New York Times may have valid concerns about disproportionality throughout our criminal justice system.  But we as policy makers cannot ignore the basic scientific fact that marijuana is addictive and marijuana use has harmful consequences.  Increased consumption leads to higher public health and financial costs for society. Addictive substances like alcohol and tobacco, which are legal and taxed, already result in much higher social costs than the revenue they generate. The cost to society of alcohol alone is estimated to be more than 15 times the revenue gained by its taxation.[6] For this reason, the Obama Administration and the Office of National Drug Control Policy remain committed to drug use prevention, treatment, support for recovery, and innovative criminal justice strategies to break the cycle of drug use and associated crime. This approach is helping improve public health and safety in communities across the United States.

Research also indicates that policies making drugs more available would likely not eliminate the black market or improve public health and safety, as promoted by marijuana advocates. Reports from the nonpartisan RAND Institute found that the potential economic benefits from legalization had been overstated, citing that:

  • Marijuana legalization would not eliminate the black market for marijuana.[7]
  • Dramatically lowered prices could mean substantially lower potential tax revenue for states.[8]

We are also keeping a close eye on the states of Washington and Colorado in conformance with the directive provided by the Attorney General in August 2013.

Any discussion on the issue should be guided by science and evidence, not ideology and wishful thinking. The Obama Administration continues to oppose legalization of marijuana and other illegal drugs because it flies in the face of a public health approach to reducing drug use and its consequences. Our approach is founded on the understanding of addiction as a disease that can be successfully prevented and treated, and from which people can recover. We will continue to focus on genuine drug policy reform – a strategy that rejects extremes, and promotes expanded access to treatment, evidence-based prevention efforts, and alternatives to incarceration.


[1] Zalesky A, et al. 2012. Effect of long-term cannabis use on axonal fibre connectivity. Brain: A Journal of Neurology. 135 (7): 2245-2255. Available at http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/135/7/2245.full.pdf+html

[2] Meier et al., “Adolescent-onset cannabis and neuropsychological health.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.  

[August 27, 2012]. Available: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/08/22/1206820109

[3] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services. Alcohol and Other Drug Use and Academic Achievement. 2010. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/health_and_academics/pdf/alcohol_other_d…

[4] Anthony, JC; Warner, LA, Kessler, RC.  1994.  Comparative epidemiology of dependence on tobacco, alcohol, controlled substances, and inhalants: Basic findings from the National Comorbidity Survey.  Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology 2:244-268.

[5] Brady JE, Li G (2014) Trends in Alcohol and Other Drugs Detected in Fatally Injured Drivers in the United States, 199-2010,” American Journal of Epidemiology [Epub ahead of print].

[6] Ellen E. Bouchery, Henrick J. Harwood, Jeffrey J. Sacks, Carol J. Simon, Robert D. Brewer. Economic Costs of

Excessive Alcohol Consumption in the U.S., 2006. American Journal of Preventive Medicine – November 2011

(Vol. 41, Issue 5, Pages 516-524, DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2011.06.045). Available:

http://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(11)00538-1/fulltext xiii Kilmer, Beau, et al., Reducing Drug Trafficking Revenues and Viol

[7] Kilmer, Beau, et al., Reducing Drug Trafficking Revenues and Violence in Mexico: Would Legalizing Marijuana

in California Help? RAND Corporation. [2010]. Available:

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/occasional_papers/2010/RAND_OP…

[8] Kilmer, Beau, et al., Altered States? Assessing How Marijuana Legalization in California Could Influence

Marijuana Consumption and Public Budgets. RAND Corporation. [2010]. Available:

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/occasional_papers/2010/RAND_OP…

CONTINUE READING…

Doing study on coal-hemp, calls on changes in fed law

January 31, 2013

Patriot Energy joins state hemp association

CORBIN — By Jeff Noble, Staff Writer

Could industrial hemp be useful in reducing coal emissions and reclaiming mined coal fields in Kentucky?

And could the reclaiming bring a hike in southeastern and eastern Kentucky’s economy?

A bioenergy company with roots in the Tri-County thinks so.

Patriot Bioenergy Corporation recently became the first corporate member of the Kentucky Hemp Growers Cooperative Association, a Lexington-based organization that wants to make industrial hemp legal in the state — something that hasn’t been done since it was last grown during World War II as part of the nation’s war effort at home.
Patriot’s CEO Roger Ford said Wednesday industrial hemp can be grown in a variety of areas, including hillsides, which would complement the growing of energy beets for a biofuel on the company’s energy facilities, including those in the Williamsburg-Whitley County area.

“The optimal planting method seeds the plants closely together, which encourages the stalks of the plant to grow while the leaves grow smaller, increasing per-acre yields. That would work hand-in-hand with our Whitley County facilities. The industrial hemp seed can be processed into bio-diesel while the stalks are a cellulosic material, which is useful for a variety of things.”
Ford added Patriot’s focus would be to produce a biomass-coal blend from hemp and coal that would be what he called “torrified” — an energy process producing feedstock for energy production.

“The overall economic impact would be to diversify and improve the local economy by the production of industrial hemp. It would help agriculture and our project in particular.”
Patriot, based in Pikeville, is discussing the potential for using industrial hemp with coal companies. Ford said testing would be done at a laboratory in Magoffin County, with Patriot funding the research, and the results expected to be released in the middle of March. 
“We are currently conducting a feasibility study that will blend coal and hemp to measure the BTU values, as well as measure the emissions’ reclamation potential to hemp growing forward.”

Ford also brought up the possibility industrial hemp in Kentucky could also be used for energy and horse bedding at horse farms in the state and around the nation. A consultant with Ford on hemp research told Business Lexington magazine earlier this week the use of hemp as horse bedding is “straightforward and has been done.”

“The next step, conversion of the hemp-manure mixture to methane, is certainly viable, has been optimized ad published as recently as 2012 by a Finnish group. … Besides material for co-combustion with coal, we can produce biodiesel from the seed oil, which can be used as is or converted to jet fuel. Likewise, the whole plant can be used as a feedstock for fermentation of ethanol or longer chain fuels — gasoline, jet fuel, the list goes on — with huge markets associated. The ability to capture even small percentages of markets on this scale would be a tremendous boost to Kentucky,” Dr. Katherine Andrews told the magazine.

The state’s Commissioner of Agriculture, James Comer, wholeheartedly supports bringing industrial hemp back to Kentucky. Ford stated Patriot is working with Comer and the state’s Industrial Hemp Commission on the issue. He’s also encouraged with support in Frankfort and Washington from both political parties.

“Thus far, we’re encouraged with the bi-partisan support in Kentucky. Senator Sara Beth Gregory is a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee and we are hopeful that the committee will vote to send SB (Senate Bill) 50 to the full Senate in the next couple of weeks. … In addition, we are encouraged by the strong support from Senator Rand Paul, Congressman Barr, Congressman Yarmuth and Congressman Massie. We would hope that Senator McConnell and Congressman Rogers would weigh in and support this issue. Their leadership is needed in Washington and the people of Kentucky need a change in federal law so businesses and farmers can produce this crop and create jobs,” said Ford.
In Frankfort, Senate Bill 50 provides procedures that would allow and facilitate cultivating industrial hemp, if there is a similar change in Washington. While it’s not a drug like marijuana, federal law still says hemp is illegal.

According to an Associated Press story on Monday, Senator Paul Hornback (R – Shelbyville), chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, plans to bring the hemp bill up for a vote in his committee at a Feb. 11 hearing. U. S. Senator Paul is scheduled to appear in Frankfort and support the measure.

Ford noted that industrial hemp and marijuana cross-pollinates and diminishes the THC (Tetrahydrocannabinol) in marijuana.
“In short, it ruins the narcotic value of marijuana. It would be similar to planting field corn and sweet corn in the same field. For law enforcement to object to the production of industrial hemp on the basis that it poses a risk to narcotics enforcement is disingenuous at best. The fact is the cross-pollination would aid in the eradication of marijuana. Businesses or farmers would not seek to plant industrial hemp and marijuana in the same field, because that would obviously be counterproductive,” he said.

The Associated Press contributed to this article

short list of names you’re likely to see during the 2013 General Assembly

By John Cheves — jcheves@herald-leader.com

Keeping up with who’s who in Frankfort can be difficult. Here’s a short list of names you’re likely to see during the 2013 General Assembly:

Gov. Steve Beshear is a Democrat serving his second term. Though he’s the state’s chief executive, Beshear has limited sway during legislative sessions. However, his top priority — legalized casino gambling — could be revived again in 2013, and if so, he might involve himself. Also, lawmakers say Beshear should make a statewide push for tax reform if he expects political momentum behind an overhaul of the tax code.

Audrey Tayse Haynes is Beshear’s secretary of the Cabinet for Health and Family Services. Look for Haynes to be enmeshed in several controversies, including the state’s shift to private management of Medicaid (medical providers are complaining about late and inadequate payments) and preparations for Obamacare, also known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Her predecessor, Janie Miller, caught flak from Republican lawmakers and resigned during the 2012 session.

Sen. Robert Stivers, R-Manchester, is expected to be chosen by his colleagues as the next Senate president, replacing the departed David Williams. The leadership style of Stivers, a lawyer, remains to be seen. He’s generally more relaxed than Williams, who sometimes ruled the Senate with an iron fist. But he takes seriously his role as opposition leader and isn’t shy about challenging the Democratic administrations of Beshear and President Barack Obama.

Sen. Damon Thayer, R-Georgetown, is presumed to be the next Senate majority leader, taking the No. 2 spot now held by Stivers. Thayer is a horse-industry consultant and — working with Beshear — advocates casino gambling at horse racetracks. Thayer also co-chaired a task force on state pension reform during 2012, so he will be a key player in whatever the legislature does on pensions.

Senate Minority Leader R.J. Palmer, D-Winchester, is a financial adviser at Civic Finance Advisors, raising money for cities, counties and special taxing districts. Democrats are a fast-shrinking minority in the Senate, so Palmer will have as much clout as Stivers allows him. When Williams was Senate president, Democrats seldom got their say.

House Speaker Greg Stumbo, D-Prestonsburg, is a wealthy lawyer with financial interests in coal and banking. First elected to the House in 1980 while he was still in his 20s, Stumbo is now 61 and one of Frankfort’s most senior politicians. He skillfully uses his power to control the Democratic-led House. He’s also a possible candidate for governor in 2015, setting up rivalries with other Democrats.

House Majority Leader Rocky Adkins, D-Sandy Hook, is president of RJA Enterprises, though he refuses to say what the company does. He has financial interests in coal and banking, like Stumbo, his fellow Eastern Kentuckian. As Stumbo’s man on the House floor, Adkins helps decide the flow of legislation, giving some bills a thumbs up and others a thumbs down.

House Minority Leader Jeff Hoover, R-Jamestown, is a lawyer and radio executive. Hoover’s Republican caucus has clawed its way up to 45 of the House’s 100 seats. But without a majority, he will continue to deliver indignant floor speeches after Democrats get their way. That said, Hoover successfully challenged the Democrats’ political redistricting map last year, getting it tossed out by a court.

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2013/01/05/2465794/a-guide-to-whos-who-in-the-kentucky.html#storylink=botnext#storylink=cpy

IN FEDERAL COURT WEDNESDAY; MORE COUNTS ADDED TO INDICTMENT AGAINST BARREN COUNTY SHERIFF AND DEPUTIES

An indictment was filed today in the Western District of Federal Court  that supersedes the earlier indictment against Barren County Sheriff Chris Eaton. 

Essentially,  more charges have been added to Sheriff Chris Eaton’s indictment that he and other deputies aided and abetted each other in assaulting Billy Ray Stinnett on February 24, 2010.

WCLU obtained a copy of the superseding indictment and the two new counts added to the indictment.  Those additions read as follows:

COUNT 11

On or about February 24, 2010 in the Western District of Kentucky, defendant Christopher Eaton while acting under color of law, assaulted B.R.S. by striking him in the area of his groin, thereby willfully B.R.S. of a right secured and protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, specifically, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, which includes the right to be free from the use of unreasonable force, by one acting under color of law.

And COUNT 12

Between February 24, 2010 and April 24, 2010 in the Western District of Kentucky, defendant Christopher Eaton along with “someone whose initials are T. P.  (not charged herein), aiding and abetting one another, while acting in relation to and in contemplation of a matter within the jurisdiction of the FBI, an agency of the United States, did knowingly alter, destroy, conceal and cover up a record, document and tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct and influence the investigation and proper administration of that matter, to wit, deleting photographic evidence which depicted defendant Eaton in the act of assaulting B.R.S.

Eaton, along with deputies Aaron Bennett and Eric Guffey are scheduled for trial on Monday, December 3.

This is an indictment only and all defendants are innocent until proven guilty.

CONTINUE READING …

Judge Scalia On How “Easy” It Is to Deny You Your Rights

 

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has again treated us to his “textualist” reading of the Constitution, telling an American Enterprise Institute audience that unfettered abortion access, “homosexual sodomy” and the retiring of the death penalty are all “easy” to decide against.

Reports Seattle Pi:

“The death penalty? It’s easy. Give me a break. It’s easy. Abortion? Absolutely easy,” Scalia told the AEI faithful.

[…]

“Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion,” Scalia added. “Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state.”

Scalia’s mantra is that the Constitution is not to be treated as a living, breathing document whose promise of Liberty evolves with its people, but rather an iron-clad relic that should be read as it was set down, and in only that way.

This illuminating talk from Scalia comes as several marriage equality cases stand ready to be taken up by the Supreme Court, a number that will directly challenge the federal law that bans the government from recognizing same-sex marriages, the Defense of Marriage Act.

Another case on the Supreme Court’s docket in the coming months, likely after the November elections it would now seem, will be the Proposition 8 case where a federal judge and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decided that the voting majority of California violated state and federal guarantees of equal protection in 2008 by defining away the right to marry a same-sex partner.

Scalia, a Reagan appointee, has sat on the bench for much of the life of the gay rights struggle. He has consistently found cause to rule against gay rights. Most notably, Scalia dissented in Lawrence v. Texas, the case that would serve to eventually make unenforceable state level bans on sodomy.

In the dissent Scalia, while terming the sodomy ban “facially neutral” even though the Texas ban applied solely to homosexual acts, wrote:

Today’s opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct…. [T]he Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed.

While this may give us a rather face-slapping clue as to Scalia’s overall opinion of gay rights, the case may be of particular interest in that, with his dissent, Scalia found room to criticize the Court’s majority for its concern over the criminalization of sodomy leading to discrimination, citing that this ignored the will of the people:

So imbued is the Court with the law profession’s anti-anti-homosexual culture, that it is seemingly unaware that the attitudes of that culture are not obviously “mainstream”; that in most States what the Court calls “discrimination” against those who engage in homosexual acts is perfectly legal.

Proposition 8′s defenders have harped, seemingly to play a tune to which a conservative judiciary might hum, that the voting people of California, through the democratic process, decided against gay marriage and therefore the will of the people should stand — this of course sidesteps the fact that minority rights will nearly always and by their nature find disfavor at a majority poll.

While Scalia’s approach to law, his “textualist” attitude, seems to give him easy answers on topics like abortion restriction and, to quote again “homosexual sodomy,” one can’t help but feel that a judge who knows how he will rule before he has heard the individual cases at hand might be going in with a level of bias that is, to say the least, concerning.

However, for those of us familiar with Scalia’s views on a variety of topics, none perhaps more eyebrow-raising than his refrain that sex discrimination is Constitutionally sound, Scalia’s latest volley against reason and equality, and his apparent admission that being a Supreme Court justice is “easy” when it comes to issues like these, will not be a surprise.

Equal rights proponents were never looking to Scalia for affirmation, but then Scalia’s celebrity has already been cemented among religious conservatives, legislators like Scott Brown, and Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney who has said he would be looking to appoint similarly minded judges.

Scalia’s latest AEI talk serves, then, as a healthy reminder of what that would mean for America.

Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/judge-scalia-on-how-easy-it-is-to-deny-you-your-rights.html#ixzz291bcIFf0