Legaliiiize It (well at least medicinally anyway...)

I apologize in advance for the length of this post, but it has been long in the works. And there MAY be a prize for you at the endthereisnot. At this point, the fact that there is still a near total prohibition against marijuana, and even medical marijuana is still under attack despite even wider support, is disgraceful. The post-election polls on public support of legalization of marijuana show a large amount of support for legalization. Even with this support, especially by those who likely voted for Obama, the administration is still discussing ways to combat legalization in Washington and Colorado, including amongst "Senior White House and Justice Department officials." Not to put too fine of a point on it, but this is essentially spitting in the faces of many of the "hopey changey" generation of Obama voters, as well as the voters in Washington and Colorado. The problem is even larger for medical marijuana as the public widely finds it to be acceptable but the industry that has grown in states where medical marijuana has been legalized continues to be under attack by the feds. The fact that this such things are still being prosecuted by the DEA is ludicrously awful.

The Washington Post's Dylan Matthews argues, in a version of what I have been meaning to write for a long time (this post has been in my draft for a bit), for the changing of the classification of marijuana for medicinal use. The easiest way to alleviate much of this federal pre-emption talk, as marijuana remains illegal under federal law due to the Control Substance At, in regards to medical marijuana is to reclassify so that it is no longer a Schedule I drug. Which makes a ton of sense as the fact that marijuana is still a Schedule I drug in the first place is borderline scandalous. According to the current scheduling, Heroin, other opiates, and cocaine have more of a medical use and less of a potential for abuse and addiction than marijuana does. To most people, this should come off as patently ridiculous. Aside from old timey laughers like Reefer Madness, you do not have Requiem for a Dream or Trainspotting type depictions of the horrors of marijuana. Not that a drug's depiction in mass culture is the end all and be all, but it does give you a dramatized idea of most of our reality. The scandalous nature really takes route when you read the takes of people like John Schwartz, a theoretical physicist at Caltech and one time MacArthur "genius" Fellow, who is of the opinion that the DEA and National Institute on Drug Abuse ("NIDA") are working in tandem to maintain the prohibition on marijuana. As NIDA determines who receives legal marijuana for research purposes, they can thus withhold it to prevent research on the positive effects of medical marijuana allowing the DEA to refuse to reconsidered the schedulization of marijuana as there has been insufficient research to allow for such a change. What's a little epistemic closure amongst friends? According to physicist and foundation labeled genius rather than some rando pot head Schwartz,

As a physicist, I can assure you that this not how physics works. … We are all expected to act like grownups and accept it gracefully as experiments prove our favorite theories are false. In physics, unlike marijuana policy, we consider the right message to send to be the message that’s true. […]

Consider what American science might look like if all research were run like marijuana research is being run now. Suppose the Institute for Creation Science were put in charge of approving paleontology digs and the science of human evolution. Imagine what would happen to the environment if we gave coal and oil companies the power to block any climate research they didn’t like. (emphasis in the original).

This is the type of atmosphere that those against the federal prohibition of medical marijuana are operating against and it is beyond ridiculous. The issue is not helped by the fact, as pointed out by Rolling Stone magazine, that the current head of the DEA, Michele Leonhart, remains in the position after becoming acting head of the DEA during the Bush administration. In a pointed example of the DEA's backwardness on the benefits of medical marijuana, Ms. Leonheart refused to concede that heroin may be more dangerous than marijuana in a Congressional hearing, ignoring reality as most of us know it. These anti-drug hardliners, up to and including vice president and originator of the term "drug czar" Joe Biden, will ensure that there is no movement on moderating the failed "War on Drugs" despite popular opinion and medical research.

Further, the basis for the Drug War, at least in regards to marijuana, stands on shakier and shakier ground while having seriously detrimental effects that few will acknowledge. In addition to the fact that the continued prohibition of marijuana somewhat indirectly fills the coffers of cartels south of the border, financing the very horrific violence that talking heads in the US love to rail against, arrests for marijuana possession have outpaced arrests for violent crimes since the mid-2000s. Though there is not a one to one correlation since there are likely many more people prone to smoking weed than those prone to committing violent acts, the numbers still seem to present a shocking misuse of resources. There should not be prisons filled to the brim when many of the offenders are there for possession of marijuana.

Hope springs eternal for your author (a Knicks and Mets fan after all), however, and it does seem like the winds of change may be beginning to blow he said hopefully and unsuredly. Patrick Leahy, Chariman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has already requested guidance in regards to legalization of marijuana in Colorado and Washington. President Obama, after his re-election, did state that prosecuting recreational marijuana smokers in states that had legalized marijuana would not be high on his administrations list of priorities while not formally, or expressly, addressing Senator Leahy's request for clarification. This is interesting because he is explicitly stating that officers in the War on Drugs would not go after users while still not supporting legalization and not mentioning anything about the companies and shops that would form the infrastructure of legal marijuana in those states. The situation was similar in California where the DEA did not go after users but would still harass the growers and distributors, the affects of which would then trickle down to the users. Further, his comment "I just want to discourage drug use" seems remarkably similar to DEA chief Leonhart's position of a drug is a drug when pressed to admit that marijuana was a lesser drug than heroin. Congress, however, could still make an end run around the President, as POTUS admits when stating that he must enforce the laws as is, by changing the current federal laws.

Progress has been made on that front, albeit haltingly. The Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act, introduced by representative Jared Polis, would decriminalize marijuana on the federal level and then take allow the various states decide how they would like to approach marijuana. Taking the states rights approach would deal with the pre-emption problem but would, admittedly, cause additional issues between states that legalized being adjacent to those that had not. This, however, could seemingly be addressed on the state level as well with related laws and regulations. Moreover, and probably more importantly, the D.C. US Court of Appeals recently ruled against moving marijuana from a Schedule 1 drug in Americans for Safe Access', a medical marijuana advocacy group, case against the DEA. The court deferred to the DEA's claim that there was a dearth of proper scientific studies stating that marijuana could be used for medicinal purposes and stated that Americans for Safe Access ("ASA") did not have standing as they did not really "suffer an injury-in-fact;" a.k.a. were not, directly, adversely affected by the regulation. The ASA, however, plans to file an appeal in conjunction with the Veterans for Medical Marijuana, who can show a more directly show the adverse effect the regulation is having on members of their group with the hope of taking the issue before the Supreme Court. Although there are no guarantees the Supreme Court would even hear such a case, an appeal to the highest Court in the land could at least give the issue more press than it is currently. Finally, in an indication of just how far the issues has moved in the past decade, recent articles in reputable publications, and I do not mean High Times, have begin to discuss the logistics of legalization of marijuana. A Bloomberg View op-ed last week advocated for clearer warnings on marijuana to be sold so that there is a properly informed consumer. Such labels would offer warnings on operating machinery after consumption, that it is only to be sold to those of a legal age, and a gradation on the potency of the strain similar to the proofing of alcohol. In the same vein, Time magazine considered what the proper level of taxation would be for legal marijuana with the balancing test being that a new income stream through taxation has been offered by proponents of legalization as why it should occur in certain states but too high a level of taxation will foster a black market that will undercut some of the benefits of legalization. These are important questions to consider for Colorado and Washington as they move forward as those two states are currently, whether they like it or not, operating as test cases for the rest of the nation. If the experiments are successful, other states will most likely jump into the legalization fray. And, much like gay marriage, the more states that legalize the more likely that things are to change on the federal level.

Before we get there though, can we all just agree that this classification of marijuana as a schedule 1 drug is absolute bullshit? As a nation, lets collectively see how Washington and Colorado make out and then the 48 remaining states can make a decision on full legalization. But cracking down on medical marijuana, with all the good it does, is insane. As great as it would be if President Obama was true to his word and backed off enforcement, the reclassification of medical marijuana needs to happen now so that this is an issue that neither he nor the rest of us have to worry about. Make medical marijuana, at least, legally on the federal level and the enforcement part will work itself out.


VIDEO: Bob Marley's "Legalize it" from da YouTube.com

Welcome to your Future Lakers Fans...

Now, I know you, as a collective, have recently suffered tragedy with the passing of Dr. Buss and I apologize in advance if I am being overly harsh or insensitive. But, with that being said, please look at the image above and gaze into your future. Speaking from vast and horrifying experience, there is nothing worse than having someone who was born on third thinking they hit as triple as your owner. Especially when they think they are qualified to make basketball decisions. Especially when they also have too big of an ego to learn from previous mistake and take criticism from the press as personal challenges. The bad news for you, Lakers faithful, is that Jim Buss bears much more than a passing resemblance to Jimmy Dolan. In fact, they are bi coastal brothers from different mothers. Both were handed the reins to seminal sports franchises from their fathers and will do what they want with their toys. I am sad to report, however, that your situation may even be more dire. See, all I have ever really known is the horrors of Dolan and, therefore, things can only look up. I feel particularly bad for you, Jack Q. LakerFan, because you have been to the promised land. Dr. Buss was one of the best owners in the league and, thus and much to my chagrin, LA has consistently put on of the best products out on the hardwood year in and year out. Not very surprisingly, as Dr. Buss got sick and, I assume as I can claim no direct knowledge, more of the team operations fell to Jim (on the team side) and Jeanie (on the business side), the on the court product began to deteriorate. I respect the fact that Jim has, at the request of his father, been trying to train on the job under the wings of Jerry West, Mitch Kupchak, et al., for about 15 years but the fact is his previous sports related endeavor was as trainer of thoroughbred horses. Hopefully (for you, not me... I wouldn't mind the Lakers tasting some of my pain for awhile), Jim gets his act together, stops feuding with his sister (reportedly), and not make decisions on coaches for selfish reasons (as suggested by talking heads) but I wouldn't necessarily count on it.

A word to the wise from a man who's been there, if he starts a band as a side gig... get out. Just get the hell outta there right away. I hear there is another nice team in LA and you wouldn't even have to move stadiums. Trust me on this.


IMAGE: BusinessInsider.com via Google Images

Preventing the Grand Old Party Name from Becoming TOO Literal: A Guide to Winning Coastal Millennials

Andrew Sullivan (who we congratulate on his new business model, btw) recently posted his take on House of Commons approving gay marriage, by a very wide margin, opening the door for legalization once it passes the House of Lords. He quoted a Tory MP (equivalent of a House Republican... sorry Brits not meant as an insult) taking a slight dig at the GOP:

“I believe my party should never flinch from the requirement that we must continue this progression, otherwise we may end up like the Republican party who lost an election last year that they could have won were it not for their socially conservative agenda.”

This warning rings true and should act as a red flag for the Republican party over here. As pointed out by John Stewart last night (I'm too busy/lazy to get the link right now, so just check it out), the GOP's growing demographic problem, despite GOP operator's protestations, is not really due to a problem with "messaging." The issue is that for most people under the age of, say, 40, the policy views and prescriptions behind the messages are terrible. The ill advised concentration on social issues and the general refusal to get on the right side of history, which is partially illustrated by the above quote, is a large part of the problem.

Many coastal millennials mentioned in the title would be amenable to the GOP's economic messaging (I personally think that Reagonomics/supply side economics is demonstrably bullshit but perhaps the government could use a bit of shrinking), especially since those from NYC, San Fran, Boston, Portland, Seattle, DC, etc., are more likely to have a higher income and thus higher taxes. The problem is that most also do not give a rat's ass about or are vehemently against preventing gay marriage, limiting access to birth control, outlawing abortions, the necessity of prayer in the public square or making sure religious associated institutions do not have to pay for health care that gives out the pill for free, preventing immigration, the sacrosanct nature of the right to bear any and all guns, no matter what, praise be the Christian god, and the prohibition of marijuana, even for medicinal purposes. Retaining negative positions on many of these social issues will ensure that the GOP is not considered by younger generations of voters. 

This, of course, can be discounted as unimportant by many in the GOP as making changes on social issues will alienate current, older voters, thus harming the party brand in the short term for an unsure outcome in the long term. Although undoubtedly true, it is hard to see what other options they have. The older guard are and will continue to die out and, unless they can replenish the ranks from younger generations, so will the party itself. Further, the millennials in the Republican thought incubators today will be the future intellectual leaders going forward. At the very least, Republicans should be hoping for a small schism in the party so that there is a group that they can discount in the near term while quietly encouraging them for the long term. Y'know... like the Tea Party but the exact opposite (more akin to CMB and YM as YMCMB with Young Money now not so slowly taking over).

A legit multi-party system is more interesting and is what the founders intended for this country; here's to hoping the GOP can re-establish more of the Grandeur by losing some of the Old.

IMAGE: James O'Keefe, Republican operative, from politicsafter50.blogspot.com via Google Images (he's clearly not a millennial I am talking about).

Legal Jargon on the Targeted Killing of US Citizens Abroad

Not the most eye catching or inventive of post titles, but what are you going to do? NBC news published a Department of Justice memo on the killing of US citizens who are in leadership roles in Al Qa'ida (sic) and associated groups. The memo does contain some limitations on when such an act can take place; the most limiting of which is the fact that seemingly only high ranking members of Al Qa'ida actively engaged in the planning of imminent terrorist attacks against the United States of America. The memo, however, uses a rather tortured (definitely no pun intended) explanation on the definition of imminent. Essentially, because Al Qa'ida can attack at any moment, if you qualify as an operation leader engaged in the planning of attacks then it is assumed that the attacks you are planning are imminent. Further, if you have renounced your ways as an operational leader actively planning terrorist attacks against the United States which will automatically assumed to be imminent, you better do so publicly or the U.S. government will continue to consider you as a threat that can be Constitutionally eliminated without evidence to the contrary.

The memo disposed of the 4th and 5th Amendment concerns with balancing the 4th Amendment intrusion v. the reasonableness of the government action and a Matthews v. Eldridge balancing, where the required due process is determined by weighing the importance of the interest at stake and the benefits of additional safeguards through due process against the government's interest, respectively. The memo quickly argues for the government's side of the scale on the balance because of the interest in preventing an "imminent" terrorist attack that could lead to the loss of many American lives. The ole take out one to save many logic. I have no problems with such drone attacks against citizens who decide to join Al Qa'ida and are involved in the planning of attacks, but the legal reasoning seems to be a bit iffy. The definition of imminent certainly seems overly broad and although the government interest in both the 4th and 5th Amendment balances is incredibly strong, so is the concern in the intrusion brought by the loss of life and the interest in staying alive that is at stake. The Due Process argument seems particularly weak as one could easily see a situation where additional due process considerations, such as a private hearing with a military judge in a FISA Court type setting, could be beneficial in making sure everything is kosher.

Lastly, because it is only addressed in passing, determinations on the acceptable amount of collateral damage (i.e., deaths of civilians near the target) are still opaque and this is, of course, also worrisome. While few have too many issues with how the targeted drone strikes have been used so far when it comes to American citizens, the general opacity with how these decisions will be made in the future (since the DoJ deems such actions legal) is disconcerting in general. Considering the last administration's refusal to re-evaluate any of it's actions, including the disastrous war in Iraq and the culture of torture that stained this country, there is no telling how a future administration would use the green light this memo presents. The decisions of who is a proper target for a strike, what an acceptable amount of collateral damage is (Homeland anyone?) and what is considered imminent will all be concentrated amongst a limited amount of people set in an insular group with little threat of second guessing by any other authorities. Recent history suggests that such a setting can lead to disaster. I understand the DoJ's memo and hope for the best, but I will hardly be surprised by the worst if and when it occurs in the future.

IMAGE: scrapetv.com via Google Images

The Curious Case of Kobe the Facilitator

There are few things more hilarious to me in the world of sports than analysts and commentators heaping praise on a player/coach/owner/general sports figure for doing something they should have been doing for a long, long time. The most recent case, these past few days, has been the overabundance of acclaim that Kobe "Bean Black Mamba (self-given TM)" Bryant has been given for actually dropping some dimes and acting like a facilitator in the Lakers current 3 game winning streak.

Kobe is an all time great, but passing has never really been his forte. Unlike the innumerable horde of KobeKoolaide (trademark pending) drinkers, I always thought this to be a flaw in his game and, especially when he was younger, indicative of a selfish, I will get my numbers regardless, mindset. I applaud the fact that he is now looking to get his team more involved and is shooting less attempts per game, but why are people acting like this is some great revelation that he should be praised for. One would think that Kobe would have been taught in his second grade rec league that a double or triple team means that there is at least one player wide open and the ball should be passed to such an unmarked man. The math here is not all that hard. When Kobe has less than 20 shot attempts in a game, the Lakers tend to win and that has been the trend in the last 3 games where Kobe has had over 10 assists and less than 15 field goal attempts in each. This trend, however, has been present for the entire season. Of the 20 Lakers wins, 14 have come when he has shot less than 20 times per game (70% of their wins) and only 6 have come when he has attempted 20+ field goals. Considering the starting depth of their team with Steve Nash, Pau Gasol and Dwight Howard, this is not at all surprising. Kobe should absolutely not be shooting over 20 attempts a game with all the other all-star caliber players requiring touches.

While it's great that Kobe is coming around to a team first mentality, and considering the Lakers current sub-.500 record, perhaps analysts should probably be screaming "FINALLY" rather than throwing acclaim at the new and improved Facilitator Model Kobe.


IMAGE: via BleacherReport.com

Crowdfunding: Rise of the Talent

Andrew Sullivan, former blogger for The Atlantic who now uses The Daily Beast over at Newsweek as a platform, recently announced a new, and independent, business model where he will go off on his own (with his team), spurn advertising and request that his somewhat abnormally loyal readers donate to the effort subscribe. As Sully himself pointed out, Jay Rosen has an insightful and well-written take on the move. Rosen suggests:

In other words, core users have been “giving” to Sullivan’s site for years. They have been giving their time, their persistent attention, their loyalty (meaning: a bond strong enough to withstand the moments when Sullivan offends the user with his opinions and unruly emotions) and such other contributions as can be seen only by sifting though the inbox. 

I think that he is correct in that assertion and that the actual $20 yearly subscriptions only make that investment explicit. Further, investment seems like the right word here. As Sullivan has stated on his site, one could still visit the site and will not trigger the meter used for the non-subscribed if they do not click the "Read On" expansion link for articles. Thus the money pouring in seems more analogous to a media kick starter where those subscribing probably now feel a sense of ownership of the blog. Or, more accurately, are now validating the sense of ownership they have felt all along (although Sully mainly sidesteps sports, think of the fan ownership of the Green Bay Packers).

Though, as some have already rightly pointed out, I think the Louis CK comparison is closest to the mark. Both men have a tremendous fan base who appreciate and, more importantly, respect what they are trying to do in throwing of the yolk of their respective traditional media models. Louis CK's forays have already been wildly successful and, from the initial 1/3rd of a million subscriptions received in the first day, it appears that Sullivan and the Dish crew will be too. 

At least, I sure hope so. Louis CK has already got some of my money and Sully will be seeing his taste very shortly as well. If you truly appreciate independent commentary, you should think about investing on the Sully ground floor too.


IMAGE: TheDailyBeast via Google Images