You may have read or heard that the DoJ and IRS just issued guidance to banks that if a legal licensed pot retailer in a state where the sale is legal under state law – the bank won’t be punished for facilitating drug trafficking.
I was going through the comments on this issue over at the Washington Times, and what I read there makes me sad and moderately angry.
William F Buckley, who most people (other than Michael Savage) credit as the father of the Modern Conservative movement came out firmly in ending the Federal war on drugs, especially marijuana.
http://www.thirteen.org/openmind/the-law/on-legalizing-drugs…with-william-f-buckley/181/
The most confused message I read made the case that anyone involved in breaking Federal drug laws should be thrown in prison, and then called President Obama a dictator.
I have no more interest in smoking pot than I do in eating broccoli. God made both. One complaint from Conservatives has been that the Federal government keeps expanding its power by claiming jurisdiction by expanding “interstate commerce” to include nearly everything. The states that passed these laws specifically prohibit the pot from being sold out of state or people taking it with them to another state. If legalizing pot is a bad idea and leads people to go on welfare and be unproductive drags on society, the competition among the states will make this self correcting. States that don’t make pot legal will attract business and jobs and prosper.
The conflict between the “let’s bomb countries we don’t like” and “lock every body up who I can’t control” Conservatives and Libertarians is becoming more clear and has to come to a head soon.
This story is an example of the strange bedfellows of American politics:
The very Roman Catholic political/social activist Phyllis Schlafly (who runs the Eagle Forum and was most famous for leading the opposition to ERA in the 1970’s) is fighting a trademark filing by her nephew who happens to be Co-Founder and CEO of Schlafly Brewing in St Louis. Schlafly’s two sons are joining her in the fight.
http://trademarkbar.blogspot.com/2014/02/schlafly-trademark-dispute-family-affair.html?m=1
They argue that allowing the Schlafly surname to be trademarked would do harm to her business (ministry?) due to the many Baptists and Mormons who subscribe to her materials.
If you know much about the history of the Catholic church, various Baptists groups, and Mormons, you should find this quite amusing (or is it bizarre?) that they would be united in ‘cleaning up society’. Certainly the ancestors of some of these supporters would never have joined together with their religious rivals.
Schlafly and her sons are obviously worried about losing subscribers — are their subscribers really that dumb that they cannot distinguish between an unaffiliated member of her family who brews beer from her political group? I wonder if there could also be backlash from her Catholic subscribers, since Catholics generally are not known as prohibitionists.
Prior to this article I knew of the existence of Schlafly Beer and Eagle Forum, but I had no idea there was any connection between them. Perhaps Phyllis would have been better off to just ignore her nephew’s company and focus on keeping her subscribers happy.
That’s just dumb…. like a dumb latte…
http://www.ajc.com/news/news/national/dumb-starbucks-coffee-shop-opens-calif/ndJbD/
Good luck opening a restaurant if your last name is McDonald.
The trademark case will go nowhere. Trademarks have to be narrowly limited to specific areas of products that are actively being sold in commerce. The trademark for Ford Motor Company does not prevent Ford’s theater or The Gerald Ford Presidential library from using the name Ford. No reasonable person would be confused
This ‘ruling’ follows on the heels of complaints (in Colorado) of a spike in robberies at dispensaries because large amounts of cash are on site, due to lack of banking access.
The gist of yesterday’s news announcement (as I heard & interpreted it) was der fuehrer Obama issued yet another decree, while DOJ (Holder) and IRS dispensed the ‘official policy’ announcement… and banks are now expected to ‘accommodate’ it.
i.e. Banks were “made an offer they can’t refuse.” Lest they offend the ‘O’genda.
‘Blue state’ allies get banking waivers for a class 1 drug, ‘red voters’ get harassed.
Will Visa/MC cards soon be accepted for payment? (along with EBT/WIC abuse)
With regard to competition… the problem is, illicit drug suppliers (Mexican cartel) now have a backdoor channel for ‘grey’ market distribution. Their prices are lower.
When Arizona legalized ‘medical’ mary jane, gov’t advocates wanted to tax and control it; the Democrats tried to rescind the law when people began -profiting- from it. They quickly lost control of their racket… producers from Holland set up shop (agents) and offered very professionally packaged products: brownies, candy, tea… you name it.
It costs more to incarcerate someone for non violent drug use than it takes to treat them, or even give them free housing without the armed guards.
I don’t encourage its use generally, but certainly would for someone in the final stages of life and suffering great pain.
I told point out to my pre-teen kid when someone famous dies of an overdose that not all illegal drugs are the same- some can kill you on the first use. Last time I looked at the “Just Say No” campaign years ago, it basically say drugs are bad. The worst case a parent could imagine is a kid seeking that pot is safe despite the government misinformation, then trying heroin or cocaine and OD’ing.
I would make the case that OxyContin is much more dangerous and extremely addictive. What’s the difference? One has a government seal of approval.
OxyContin is extremely addictive. It makes sense if someone is recovering from surgery or in bad shape from a car accident… but there is not enough care in helping people avoid addiction.
Is this the same Buckley who said near the end of his life that he would outlaw all tobacco when he was dying from being a lifelong cigar smoker? He inhaled them, like cigarettes.
Here is the article written by Buckley
http://www.nysun.com/opinion/my-smoking-confessional/67349/
Good find, Art… and as always from Mr Buckley, and excellent piece of writing.
Not plugging e-cigs, but they remove the most severe issues associated with inhaling smoke from burnt materials.
I totally totally don’t get the opposition to them (mostly from Democrats) Nicotine is a powerful addictive agent, but not what kills people prematurely.
You would think the government derives tax revenue from the sale of cigarettes or Something
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/09/stateline-e-cigarette-revenue/3918913/
Rule of thumb – avoid burnt things. Burnt toast, charbroiled foods, smoked foods, anything burnt. Burning creates a lot of carcinogens.
Note that I am not saying that eating burnt toast should be illegal, or that you should never do it, just recognize that over time, you may die from doing it too often.
Red hot burning love?
Yeah, CC. Think about the fact that everyone who has ever eaten peas, carrots and asparagus have either died, or will die in the future. Same for anyone who has, or will, engage in ‘red hot burning love’. They’re gonna die.
We’re gonna die, Nidster? Even with Obamacare?
Here is my number one reason that possession of all drugs should be legal:
http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/01/watch-this-cops-admit-they-got-the-wrong-guy-arrest-him-anyway/