Helen H. Moore's Blog, page 125

Why do gunmakers get special economic protection?

(Credit: AP Photo/Colleen Long)

The gun industry is one of very few industries to have congressionally backed immunity from liabilty.

As a result, it’s been largely shielded from responsibility for the deaths and injuries its products cause, with few exceptions.

How did this happen? And, in the aftermath of another tragic mass shooting, could this protection ever be overturned?

As an expert in constitutional law and product liability, I believe the answer to these questions lies in examining the economic and political clout of the gun industry.

Gun industry gets a protector

The gun industry acquired its protective shield in 2005 after a wave of lawsuits by cities threatened gun companies’ survival.

New Orleans became the first government to file a lawsuit against gun manufacturers in 1998. More than 30 other American cities and counties soon followed.

The suits, prompted by the growing epidemic of urban gun violence and patterned after claims brought by states against tobacco companies, initially succeeded by shining a spotlight on the industry. I was one of the lawyers at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence who helped put these cases together. They uncovered evidence about how gun manufacturers could reduce risks by making changes in the way they design and distribute their products.

But then came the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which gave gun-makers a special immunity from legal responsibilities and blocked most of the claims. While Congress has occasionally limited the liability of companies making other products, such as medical devices and small aircraft, the degree of protection given to the gun industry was unusual and didn’t create alternative ways to regulate the industry and compensate those injured, as it did with the makers of childhood vaccines.

Good times for gun-makers

Now a string of recent mass shootings, from Orlando to Las Vegas to Parkland, has brought renewed scrutiny to the gun industry’s products and practices.

It comes at a time when the firearms industry has enjoyed remarkable growth. In an unintended and sadly ironic way, the mass shootings actually contribute to the industry’s financial success.

Gun sales are strongly correlated to prospects for gun control and surge whenever it seems more likely that new legal restrictions on guns may be imposed. And this was the case in 2008, when the election of Barack Obama rejuvenated the then-stagnant industry. Fearful that President Obama would take away their guns, many Americans rushed to stock up on new weaponry. Production of firearms rose steadily throughout Obama’s first term, even though he did virtually nothing at that time to advance a gun control agenda.

The massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School shortly after Obama won re-election in 2012 drove gun sales to unprecedented levels, with production reaching an all-time high of nearly 11 million in 2013 – yielding more economic clout than ever before.

The industry’s economic impact rose from $19 billion in 2008 to over $51 billion in 2016, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the firearms industry’s trade association. And its impact is felt across the country in both red and blue states and politically important ones, from Texas and California to Florida and Ohio. Some of the nation’s oldest and largest gun companies are still based in the legendary “Gun Valley” region of New England, but there are other manufacturers scattered around the nation. Wholesale distributors and retail dealers operate virtually everywhere.

The number of jobs supported by the industry nearly doubled to about 301,000 in that period, with the largest totals in Texas and California. The taxes paid by the industry have increased even more dramatically.

The gun lobby’s power

Gun companies have made it clear they are willing to relocate their operations if the price is right, and state and local governments have thrown millions of dollars in subsidies and tax breaks at them in recent years. For example, Remington Arms shifted much of its manufacturing from New York to Alabama a few years ago, drawn by $68.9 million in government handouts, as well as displeasure with New York’s enactment of tougher gun laws.

And the industry has used this growth in wealth, employment and taxes to exercise its political muscles at the state and national levels. The trade association’s annual lobbying expenditures, negligible prior to Obama’s election, soared after Sandy Hook to more than $3.3 million in 2017.

Its biggest political influence comes through its customers, who are a uniquely potent force. The National Rifle Association spends over 50 percent more on lobbying than the gun industry and nearly 10 times as much as any gun control group.

And while the industry’s interests are usually aligned with those of the NRA, even when a gun-maker wants to take a softer position on gun policy it’s extremely risky to do so. A case in point came in 2000, when Smith & Wesson tried to ease the burden of the lawsuits against it by agreeing to be more careful in how it designed and distributed its products as part of a settlement agreement. Its modest steps prompted boycotts by gun owners that nearly destroyed the company in a few short months.

Turning the tables

The question now is, can the increasing frequency of tragedies like Parkland and the resulting raw youth outrage turn the tables on the gun industry?

Applying financial pressure is one way to get the industry’s attention. Several years ago, a coalition of organizations began a divestment campaign, encouraging people to move their savings out of mutual funds that invest in gun companies. Fund managers say the campaign is having its intended effect, with more investors demanding that funds dump gun stocks. According to one study, the amount of assets precluded from being invested in companies that make weaponry for military or civilian use has increased [1,042 percent] since Sandy Hook. This campaign is cited as a factor that led to the bankruptcy of Remington, the maker of the AR-15 rifle used in that shooting.

The idea has recently gained new momentum. Legislators in New Jersey and teachers in Florida are now calling for public employee pension funds to sell their shares of firearms companies. Other socially conscious investors are keeping their shares and using them as a channel to express concern. Shareholders of companies that make or sell firearms, like Sturm Ruger & Co. and Dick’s Sporting Goods, have called for gun-makers to explain what they are doing to reduce the risks posed by their products.

Americans fed up with the NRA’s intransigence have also begun putting pressure on a wide range of businesses to cut ties with the gun rights group.

What the future holds

Preventing some NRA members from getting a discount on a car rental or airline flight is obviously not going to bring the gun lobby to its knees or lead to a repeal of the industry’s immunity. But every small step brings attention to the issue and builds the pressure that will eventually change the political calculus for legislators.

A large majority of Americans support the enactment of stricter gun laws, but the crucial question will be whether the intensity of their feelings about the issue ever match the passion of those who fiercely favor gun rights.

Change will happen if enough people make it clear that their preference for stronger regulation of firearms is something that affects how they spend their money and how they cast their votes.

Allen Rostron, Associate Dean for Students and William R. Jacques Constitutional Law Scholar and Professor of Law, University of Missouri-Kansas City

Trump’s trade policy: An opportunity for Germany

(Credit: AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

U.S. President Donald Trump is getting serious with his threats to global trade relations. This would be particularly harmful for Germany, the world export champion. Instead of objecting to change, Germany should see Trump’s efforts as a wake-up call to change its economic policies.

It would actually be in Germany’s own interests to change course. If it doesn’t and stays on its current path, Germany is facing eroding competitiveness and significant losses on its foreign reserves.

Of course, Germans could continue to argue that they work especially hard and that German products are outstanding. None of that is untrue. But it is also a fact that the wage restraint exercised by German workers over the past 15 years and the weak euro have made German exports even more competitive.

In contrast, productivity gains — which are the true measure of fitness for any economy — have slowed down over the same time period. Behind the self-pleasing image of “world export champion,” Germany’s competitiveness is eroding.

German surplus is harmful for the world economy

It is high time that we Germans rethink our position. We should stop celebrating being the export “champion.”

Reducing our trade surplus is in our own interest — never mind that it will please key German partners, including the French.

Creditor is a stupid role in an over indebted world

Any trade surplus, by definition, translates into an export of savings. If Germany generates a surplus in trade of 7.8% of GDP (as it will do in 2018, based on projections by the Munich-based IfO institute), this also means that 7.8% of Germany’s GDP is flowing abroad in the form of loans and investments.

In theory, this leads to the build up of foreign assets, which Germany could well use to cover the costs of the ageing society once the demographic change becomes fully visible. In practice, Germany is not a good investor.

Consider the U.S. subprime crisis — it caused German losses of 400-600 Billion euros — that is nearly the German export surplus of two entire years!

We could give our cars away for free

Even today, we are not investing our money smartly. The most prominent example are the Target 2 receivables which the Bundesbank holds within the Euro system, currently above 900 billion euros.

On a per capita basis, this means that Germany is providing more than 11.000 euros as a perpetual, interest free loan to countries like Italy and Greece. In the best-case scenario, we just won’t receive any interest on those loans.

In the worst case, we lose at least part of that staggering amount of money due to — eventually unavoidable — defaults within the eurozone. This can happen either directly through debt restructurings or indirectly via higher inflation.

In a world which is getting ever closer to over-indebtedness, it is not a good idea for Germany to be a major creditor. An ever-bigger part of our foreign assets is at risk.

From an economic point of view, this is tantamount to giving away all those cars and machine tools we exported for free, instead of selling them. In a way, the German investment strategy is reminiscent of a squirrel — we are busy saving, but end up forgetting where we stashed away those savings.

Let’s do better

There is no valid economic rule — not even in Germany — that jobs can only be generated in export industries. Germany has significant needs in its domestic economy, especially in the country’s infrastructure.

The government needs to step up its level of investment and should encourage corporations to do so as well. The latter are saving 2.6% of GDP per year.

However, it is not the purpose of corporations to act as a savings fund. They ought to focus on investments in technology and improving production.

Instead of denying the problem and celebrating the inglorious title of “export champion,” we should rather embark on a program to protect our wealth.

The reform program should include the following steps:

• More public investments in Germany, notably in infrastructure, digitalization and education as well as homeland security and military.

• Changing corporate taxation to support investments in research and development, i.e., in robotics and automation.

• Reducing the fiscal burden for lower and middle incomes, as these income groups tend to spend a higher share of their income.

• Establishing a sovereign wealth fund like Norway or Singapore to better invest Germany’s foreign assets.

• Pursuing a new set-up for the eurozone, including a debt restructuring and — where necessary — the exit of countries which will never be in a position to compete successfully within the constraints of a single currency. As a result, the euro would be more correctly valued and Germany’s trade position would not be as exalted.

Such a change in the country’s expert-obsessed mindset would not be taken to please Emmanuel Macron or the French. It would first and foremost be in Germany’s own interest.

History teaches that everyone suffers from trade wars, but the biggest pain is incurred by those who run the big surpluses once it starts.

Survey of environmental journalists reveals good and bad news about local climate reporting

(Credit: AP Photo/John Antczak)

A new survey of environmental journalists finds strong interest in reporting on the local impacts of climate change, but a number of factors are making it difficult for reporters to cover such stories, including newsroom downsizing and a lack of time for field reporting.

The Society of Environmental Journalists (SEJ) survey, which was conducted in collaboration with the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University, received responses from 617 SEJ members and found, “Nearly all SEJ survey participants say they are at least slightly interested in reporting local climate impacts stories, with nearly 7 out of 10 saying they are very interested.” And encouragingly, 69 percent of journalists surveyed replied that they had reported on, or supervised a journalist reporting on, a local climate change story in the past 12 months. Of that group, approximately half reported on up to four climate stories, while the other half reported on five or more climate stories.

The majority of survey respondents were employed by newspapers (51 percent), while others worked for solely digital publications (25 percent), radio (11 percent), or TV (3 percent).

Despite this strong interest among environmental journalists in covering climate change’s local impacts, the survey found that numerous obstacles made it hard for them to do so:

Two-thirds of SEJ survey participants identify lack of time for field reporting as an important obstacle to reporting on climate change, making this their most common obstacle. Half also identify lack of time or space in their news outlet as an obstacle.

…

Nearly 6 out of 10 SEJ survey participants think downsizing in their news organization has created or exacerbated obstacles to reporting on climate change, with about 2 out of 10 saying this has occurred “a lot” in their news organization.

This shouldn’t be a surprise given the struggles the local news industry has faced for many years. Last year in particular was disastrous for local news. As the Columbia Journalism Review put it:

It won’t come as news to many of you that local journalism in our country is in dire shape. Pick your metric — numbers of reporters, newspapers, readers — and nearly all the trendlines veer downhill. It’s not a happy story.

Nonetheless, it’s an especially worrying trend considered in light of climate change. The impacts of climate change are becoming ever more clear and present in communities all around the country, manifesting in more damaging storms, wildfires, heat waves, and droughts. Indeed, 2017 was a record year for weather and climate disasters. Last year the U.S. had 16 such disasters that each did at least a billion dollars of damage, a tie with 2011 for the most-ever in a calendar year. And 2017 set a record for the cumulative cost of those disasters: $306 billion.

Local media sources, which are more trusted by Americans than national ones, should be connecting the dots between weather disasters in their areas and climate change. But it’s not a promising sign that even journalists who want to cover local climate stories are finding it hard to do so. The Climate Matters in the Newsroom project, which was involved in the survey, is trying to remedy this problem by offering resources and training to help reporters do localized climate reporting.

The help is certainly welcome since national media outlets are not getting the job done. They have frequently failed to mention the link between climate change and weather disasters, as Media Matters and others have documented.

Despite the challenges it highlighted, the survey did have some encouraging findings: Nearly two-thirds of respondents said they receive or expect positive responses from their audiences when they cover climate stories, and nearly all respondents said they feel that climate reporting will be beneficial to society. Hopefully these takeaways will encourage publishers, as well as editors and news directors, to continue to support reporting on climate change, knowing that doing so will satisfy both their audiences and their reporters.

Are some types of screen time better than others?

(Credit: Getty/boule13/DrPAS/Salon)

For sure. There’s a huge difference between an hour spent shooting zombies in Zombie Duck Hunt and an hour spent learning vocabulary from a smartphone app or composing music online.

That’s not to say that everything has to be stamped “educational” to provide an enriching experience. With any screen media you choose for your kids — movies, games, TV shows, and apps — you want to look for how it engages your child. And, although there’s nothing wrong with a little mindless entertainment, you can maximize your kid’s screen time if you consider the “four C’s.”

Connection. It’s really important that kids connect on a personal level with what they’re watching, playing, or reading. Are they engaged? Engrossed? Maybe even enlightened? Getting into a story line or identifying with characters primes kids for more learning.

Critical thinking. Look for media that takes a deep dive into a topic, subject, or skill. Maybe it’s games in which kids wrestle with ethical dilemmas or strategize about bypassing obstacles. Rote quizzing and simple Q&A-style games may be fun and seem educational, but they may not help kids find deep or long-lasting meaning.

Creativity. An important feature of many great learning products is the ability for kids to create new content — a new level for a video game or a song, for instance. Kids can feel more ownership of their learning when they get to put their own spins on the experience.

Context. Help your kids understand how their media fits into the larger world. For younger kids in particular, the discussions and activities surrounding games or movies are key. Being with kids while they play or watch, asking questions about what they’re taking away, and doing related offline activities can extend learning.

Don’t quit Facebook, but don’t trust it, either

(Credit: Getty/Sean Gallup)

Is it time to give up on social media? Many people are thinking about that in the wake of revelations regarding Cambridge Analytica’s questionable use of personal data from over 50 million Facebook users to support the Trump campaign. Not to mention the troubles with data theft, trolling, harassment, the proliferation of fake news, conspiracy theories and Russian bots.

The real societal problem might be Facebook’s business model. Along with other social media platforms, it makes money by nudging users to provide their data (without understanding the potential consequences), and then using that data in ways well beyond what people may expect.

As researchers who study social media and the impact of new technologies on society in both the past and the present, we share these concerns. However, we’re not ready to give up on the idea of social media just yet. A main reason is that, like all forms of once “new” media (including everything from the telegraph to the internet), social media has become an essential conduit for interacting with other people. We don’t think it’s reasonable for users to be told their only hope of avoiding exploitation is to isolate themselves. And for many vulnerable people, including members of impoverished, marginalized or activist communities, leaving Facebook is simply not possible anyway.

As individuals, and society as a whole, come to better understand the role social media plays in life and politics, they’re wondering: Is it possible — or worthwhile — to trust Facebook?

Designing for attention

Of course, social media platforms don’t exist without their users. Facebook has grown from its origins serving only college students by exploiting the network effect: If all your friends are socializing on the site, it’s tempting to join yourself. Over time this network effect has made Facebook not only more valuable, but also harder to leave.

However, now that Facebook and its ilk are under fire, it’s possible that those network effects might unravel the other way: Facebook’s number of active users continued to rise in 2017, but in the final three months of the year, its growth showed signs of slowing. If all your friends are leaving Facebook, you might go with them.

The design of social media platforms like Facebook — and many other common apps, such as Uber — is intentionally engrossing. Some scholars go so far as to call it “addictive,” but we’re uncomfortable using the term so broadly in this context. Nevertheless, digital designers manipulate users’ behavior with a wide array of interface elements and interaction strategies, such as nudges and cultivating routines and habits, to keep users’ attention.

Attention is at the center of the social media business model because it’s worth money: Media theorist Jonathan Beller has observed that “human attention is productive of value.”

Playing tricks on users

To attract users, keep them engaged and ensure they want to come back, companies manipulate the details of visual interfaces and user interaction. For example, the ride-sharing app Uber shows customers phantom cars to trick them into thinking drivers are nearby. The company uses similar psychological tricks when sending drivers text messages encouraging them to stay active.

This manipulation is particularly effective when app developers set default options for users that serve the company’s needs. For example, some privacy policies make users opt out of sharing their personal data, while others allow users to opt in. This initial choice affects not only what information users end up disclosing, but also their overall trust in the online platform. Some of the measures announced by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica revelations — including tools showing users which third parties have access to their personal data — could further complicate the design of the site and discourage users even more.

Frameworks of trust

Was users’ trust in Facebook misplaced in the first place? Unfortunately, we think so. Social media companies have never been transparent about what they’re up to with users’ data. Without full information about what happens to their personal data once it’s gathered, we recommend people default to not trusting companies until they’re convinced they should. Yet neither regulations nor third-party institutions currently exist to ensure that social media companies are trustworthy.

This is not the first time new technologies created social change that disrupted established mechanisms of trust. For example, in the industrial revolution, new forms of organization like factories, and major demographic shifts from migration, increased contact among strangers and across cultures. That altered established relationships and forced people to do business with unknown merchants.

People could no longer rely on interpersonal trust. Instead, new institutions arose: Regulatory agencies like the Interstate Commerce Commission, trade associations like the American Railway Association, and other third parties like the American Medical Association’s Council on Medical Education established systematic rules for transactions, standards for product quality and professional training. They also offered accountability if something went wrong.

A new need for protection

There are not yet similar standards and accountability requirements for 21st-century technologies like social media. In the U.S., the Federal Trade Commission is one of the few regulatory bodies working to hold digital platforms to account for business practices that are deceptive or potentially unfair. The FTC is now investigating Facebook over the Cambridge Analytica situation.

There is plenty of demand for more supervision of social media platforms. Several existing proposals could regulate and support trust online.

Other countries have rules, such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation and Canada’s Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. However, in the U.S., technology companies like Facebook have actively blocked and resisted these efforts while policymakers and other tech gurus have convinced people they’re not necessary.

Facebook has the technical know-how to give users more control over their private data, but has chosen not to — and that’s not surprising. No laws or other institutional rules require it, or provide necessary oversight to ensure that it does. Until a major social media platform like Facebook is required to reliably and transparently demonstrate that it is protecting the interests of its users — as distinct from its advertising customers — the calls to break the company up and start afresh are only going to grow.

Denise Anthony, Professor of Sociology, Dartmouth College and Luke Stark, Postdoctoral Fellow in Sociology, Dartmouth College

Once at the vanguard of national policy, California plays defense under Trump

(Credit: Getty/YangYin)

On March 13, President Donald Trump inspected towering border wall prototypes at the U.S.-Mexico border during the two-day trip to California — his first to the Golden State since the November 2016 election.

Surely he did not expect a warm welcome. Not only did Trump lose the state by more than 4 million votes, but his trip comes hard on the heels of a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Justice Department against the state of California in federal court to strike down legislative initiatives to protect immigrants and block their enforcement.

It was Xavier Becerra, California’s attorney general, who offered a very public rebuttal to Washington’s move. Unfurling the Constitution’s 10th Amendment, he asserted that the states, not federal officials, are the final authority on public safety.

“We believe we are in full compliance with the federal constitution and federal law,” Becerra said.

This is the latest evidence that Becerra is the Golden State’s face of resistance to the Trump administration’s policies — especially its attempts to roll back progressive immigration and environmental policies that are central to California’s identity.

Becerra is mounting a rearguard action because he has little choice. Even so, his defensive posture runs counter to the no-holds-barred approach that defined California’s post-World War II drive for economic growth and social justice.

Challenging Trump

Becerra is the hardworking son of immigrants and the first in his family to go to college. He finished law school in 1984, was elected to the state assembly, and then served in the state’s Department of Justice before winning an impressive 12 terms to the U.S. House of Representatives.

His personal story is etched into his staunch advocacy for the poor and marginalized — a stark contrast to the president’s silver-spoon background. It is no wonder Gov. Jerry Brown tapped Becerra to replace newly elected Sen. Kamala Harris as attorney general in January 2017. Becerra became the first Latino to hold this office in California.

Becerra’s tough-minded approach to his latest job has made him a frequent and forceful critic of the Trump administration’s immigration policies. He has also championed a kind of states-rights environmentalism by attacking the administration’s attempts to gut clean air and water regulations, destroy California’s green energy economy, and undercut protections for national forests, parks, grasslands and refuges.

Becerra’s relentlessness earned him praise from the environmental magazine Grist as “The Planet’s Lawyer.”

California’s cultural clout

Becerra’s defensive strategy is born from what historian Kevin Starr argued in his magisterial study of California is the state’s particular genius: It is the “best place in the nation to seek and attain a better life.”

Fueled by a generous stream of tax dollars, in the 1960s and 1970s the state’s educational systems became the envy of the world. Its high-speed highways, highly engineered water systems, agricultural productivity, artistic energy and technological creativity inspired visitors from near and far.

Today, its many benefits are broadly accessible: Beaches are public, parks and open spaces plentiful. Higher education is relatively cheap. Here, democracy has flourished, or at least it could do so. Where it has not, people fought to ensure that it would.

Since the mid-20th century, for example, thousands of migrant farm workers in the Central, Salinas and Imperial valleys have picked cotton, harvested fruits, nuts and produce. They have endured oppressive conditions for decades, but when they formed the United Farm Workers of America in the early 1960s and launched the first nationwide grape boycott, they gained an important measure of control over their lives.

So have Native Americans, African-Americans, Asian Americans, Latinos, women and people in the LGBTQ community. Although their struggle to secure increased rights and opportunities did not always originate in California, and although there were setbacks along the way, their arguments gained greater political visibility, social currency, and cultural clout when manifest on the coast. The state, as Kevin Starr once asserted, nurtured everyone’s golden dreams.

Setting pace on public health

Even those who dreamed of blue skies. It has also taken decades to scrub the state’s polluted air, as grassroots activists, educators, scientists and some public officials fought long and hard against entrenched opposition in the state capital, among Detroit automakers and within the federal government. But eventually they succeeded in securing what now are the nation’s toughest environmental controls.

It is not by happenstance that the air-monitoring EPA owes its existence to a Californian — President Richard Nixon signed it into law December 1970. Or that the Clean Air Acts grants California the right to institute stricter smog controls than the federal government requires of the rest of the nation.

For all its progress in ameliorating pressing racial, political, social and environmental problems, California today finds itself in a conundrum. To continue to advance what Becerra’s characterizes as the state’s “forward-leaning” mission, it must vigorously defend its past achievements. But the vigor of that defense may complicate its ability to plan for and invest in a future that expands on California’s democratic promise.



This is an updated version of an article originally published on June 17, 2017.

Char Miller, W. M. Keck Professor of Environmental Analysis, Pomona College

The misplaced attacks on legal cannabis continue

(Credit: Getty/Juanmonino)

Sadly, but not surprisingly, a New York federal district court judge dismissed a lawsuit at the end of February against Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) that challenges the federal government’s classification of marijuana as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).

Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein outlined in a 20-page ruling that the plaintiffs — which include former NFL player Marvin Washington, a 7-year-old from Georgia with Leigh syndrome (an inherited neurodegenerative condition) and the Cannabis Cultural Association — lacked any “fundamental right” to use cannabis as a medicine, and that they had failed to exhaust all potential administrative remedies available prior to challenging the constitutionality of the federal law in court.

“Judicial economy is not served through a collateral proceeding of this kind that seeks to undercut the regulatory machinery on the Executive Branch and the process of judicial review in the Court of Appeals,” ruled the 85-year-old Clinton-appointed judge.

Meanwhile, many cannabis advocates disagree that this case puts things squarely with the executive branch as suggested. The executive branch does not legislate, explains Rod Kight, a lawyer who represents cannabis businesses. “That being said, as the enforcer of laws it can and, in fact, must prioritize how it allocates its resources with respect to enforcement,” Kight told Truthout.

Sessions issued a memo early in the new year that rescinded the famous “Cole” and “Ogden” memos on marijuana issued under the Obama administration. While the memos did not change federal law, they did downgrade enforcement of marijuana laws under certain circumstances by stating that certain acts involving illegal marijuana were to be treated as a low priority relative to the enforcement of other, more important, laws. Given this information, Kight says that the current powers-that-be are less likely to deschedule marijuana now than at any time in the recent past.

The “petitioning administrative process,” meanwhile, generally consumes an average of nine years to complete, according to a press release issued by the plaintiff’s attorney Hiller, PC, on February 26, 2018.

This country is seemingly created with built-in loopholes. Big ones. Was Hellerstein’s ruling a way to buy time because his own hands are tied, or to buy time until the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) and Big Pharma usher in fake THC/CBD medicines?

“The time has come for the courts to abandon decades-old precedent, notched with obsolete legal technicalities, and catch up with modern science and contemporary principles of constitutional law,” said lead counsel Michael Hiller of Hiller, PC, in a statement. “Resigning the plaintiffs to the petitioning administrative process is tantamount to a death sentence for those patients who need cannabis to live.”

Their original July 2017 complaint reads:

The entire Schedule I classification as it pertains to Cannabis constitutes a completely and utterly irrational legislative construct and thus violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Specifically, under the CSA, Schedule I drugs are classified as so dangerous that they generally cannot be tested safely; however, in order to obtain the evidence necessary to persuade the Federal Government that Cannabis is safe enough to be rescheduled or de-scheduled, it must be tested.

By imposing as a precondition to re-classification, the testing of a purportedly untestable drug, Congress created a legislative Gordian Knot — a statute that functions as a one-way, dead-end street.

The plaintiffs vow to appeal. A win would prohibit the DEA, DOJ and all other federal agencies from enforcing 1970s CSA as it pertains to marijuana.

​”We are in the process of appealing the court’s decision, and, if need be, we will take this case all the way to the Supreme Court,” Hiller told Truthout. “We have no doubt that proving the unconstitutionality of cannabis’s classification under the Controlled Substances Act will be a defining moment in [the US’s] history for millions of medical patients, and for principles of social justice — a moment which, in retrospect, will forever have people asking, ‘why didn’t it happen sooner?'”

Drug hypocrisy: Profits over people

The day before Thanksgiving, “Dronabinol,” a drug developed by the pharmaceutical company Insys Therapeutics, was granted Schedule II classification, which applies to drugs with a moderate to low potential for leading to physical and psychological dependence. Schedule III drugs’ abuse potential is said to be less than Schedule I drugs’. While the announcement slipped past the radar of the mainstream media, the rescheduling had been expected for a few months after the substance, known as delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), was approved by the FDA over the summer.

So, let’s get this straight: A faux, fake, fabricated THC drug is now suddenly recognized for its medicinal potential as a federally regulated prescription drug, while the real plant remains illegal under Schedule I — implying it’s potentially dangerous and has no medicinal value.

“The DEA notes that FDA-approved products of oral solutions containing dronabinol [have] an approved medical use, whereas marijuana does not have an approved medical use and therefore remains in Schedule I,” according to the Department Of Justice Diversion Control Division.

There have been numerous studies conducted by some of the country’s most respected institutions in recent years which suggest cannabis does, in fact, have medicinal value.

By being a part of the medical mafia’s inner sanctum, Insys Therapeutics, which also makes products containing fentanyl and other opioids, is able to set the price point for its own legal brand of THC, which can range between $1,000 to $2,000 for a month’s supply. A small vial of organic high-quality Cannabidiol (CBD) costs less than $100.

Incidentally, FDA-approved Insys Therapeutics has had an integral role in worsening the opioid crisis. The company’s founder, writes Reuters, was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in “a case accusing six former executives and managers of participating in a scheme that involved bribing doctors to prescribe a fentanyl-based drug.”

Legalization advocates have long speculated that the crackdown on pot is merely an attempt to squelch any competition, and that “Big Pharma” is working behind the scenes to maintain cannabis prohibition. Meanwhile, the classification of substances as conducted by the DEA has been based on a minimal understanding of chemistry or proper facts.

Let’s recall how cannabis got this unjust classification in the first place. The original filing took place in the ’70s when the Nixon administration recognized that African Americans could not legally be arrested on racial grounds, and war protesters could not be prosecuted for opposing the US’s involvement in Vietnam. They decided that cannabis was the drug of choice for these two groups.

“Consequently, they ushered the CSA through Congress and insisted that Cannabis be included on Schedule I so that African Americans and war protesters could be raided, prosecuted, and incarcerated without identifying the actual and unconstitutional basis for the government’s actions,” states the original July 2017 legal complaint.

Couple this with the current administration’s tendency to take public positions on issues it seemingly knows nothing about.

Paper, rock, opioids

Chronic pain is BIG business. Today, approximately 100 million Americans suffer from pain, which costs at least $560 to $635 billion annually, according to the National Institute of Health (NIH). Big Pharma, in the meantime, with its love of single-molecule drugs, continues to spread disinformation and wage war against cannabis.

Case in point: In 2016, Insys Therapeutics donated half a million dollars to help defeat a marijuana legalization measure that appeared on Arizona’s ballot that year, according to US News.

“Big pharma keep pushing back against legalizing medical marijuana because, in many cases, they want to continue to sell addictive drugs and dominate the market for drugs that address chronic pain,” Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York told Truthout. “That’s wrong. It is time to rework our cannabis laws.”

Numerous studies have also shown that legal marijuana access doesn’t lead to opiate use but actually the opposite.

“Marijuana is a far less addictive substance than opioids and the potential for overdosing is nearly zero,” researchers wrote in the Journal of Health Economics. A recent broad prospective study on a large group of medical cannabis patients in Israel shows that cannabis is not only a safe and effective treatment to reduce pain and other symptoms in cancer patients, but is also significantly associated with a reduction of opioid intake, adds Lihi Bar-Lev Schleider, medical director at Tikun Olam Ltd. The study also illustrated that opioid use amongst participants decreased by 45.9 percent.

“People are taking health into their own hands and that is threatening to pharmaceutical companies,” Leland Radovanovic, the founder of Baruch Students for Sensible Drug Policy, told Truthout.

Trump vs. industrial hemp: The latest politics on CBD

The Trump administration also publicized its views on industrial hemp last week. After speaking at the Governor’s Forum on Colorado Agriculture in Denver on February 21, Greg Ibach, undersecretary for the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), told the press that current hemp regulations are “fairly narrow.”

He implied that the administration does not want to see that change when the farm bill is rewritten this year, which will likely include a revision of the industrial hemp provisions, according to an article Kight wrote for Cannabis Law Journal.

“Opening the door wide open nationwide, with no restrictions, may not be in the best interests of the hemp industry. One of the challenges we maybe have in the hemp industry is to make sure that demand and production coincide,” Ibach said during the forum.

Ibach went on to add that oversight of industrial hemp should not be with the USDA. Rather, the administration contends it should be with the DOJ, which includes the DEA.

“In short, the idea that the Justice Department, rather than the USDA, should control industrial hemp is totally ludicrous,” says Kight. “It’s hard not to scoff at how ridiculous this notion is.”

Kight says that one way to view this statement is through the lens of the respective mission statements of the USDA and the Justice Department.

According to its mission statement, the USDA “provides leadership on food, agriculture, natural resources, rural development, nutrition, and related issues based on sound public policy, the best available science, and effective management.”

On the other hand, the Justice Department’s mission is to “enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law; to ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic; to provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.”

Kight maintains that the USDA is the proper agency to oversee industrial hemp, “a non-psychoactive, non-scheduled, lawful, agricultural product;” and Congress agrees.

In several consecutive appropriations acts, it has specifically denied the use of federal funds to interfere with industrial hemp. In the most recent appropriations act, Congress calls out both the Justice Department and the DEA by name. And, in the amicus brief filed in the pending Ninth Circuit HIA v. DEA case, 28 bipartisan members of Congress called the DEA “unreasonable” with respect to industrial hemp.

“My concern is that there is active lobbying against industrial hemp by two powerful forces, Big Pharma and/or the DEA,” says Kight.

That’s because the plant compound found in hemp offers a wealth of health benefits — which means it cuts into Big Pharma’s profits. Many natural supplements companies have experienced their fair share of hurdles and shutdowns for selling hemp oil.

According to a new report by market intelligence firm Hemp Business Journal, the CBD market is estimated to grow to $2.1 billion by 2020. Moreover, 42 percent of the CBD users said they had stopped using traditional medications like Tylenol pain relievers or prescription drugs like Vicodin and switched to using cannabis instead, as stated in a recent survey from Brightfield Group and HelloMD. The report also found that 80 percent said that they found the products to be “very or extremely effective.”

Currently, there are a handful of pharmaceutical companies actively developing CBD-based medications. For instance, Insys Therapeutics is developing a synthetic CBD to treat epilepsy in children, and is currently in various stages of clinical trials in the FDA’s approval process. GW Pharmaceuticals, associated with none other than Bayer (creator of systemic pesticides shown to kill honeybees), will likely receive FDA approval this year for its CBD drug, Epidiolex.

What remains ahead still remains to be seen, but this is a social justice and a moral issue that Congress will have to eventually address.

“Legalizing marijuana isn’t a matter of if, it’s a matter of when,” Sen. Cory Booker (D-New Jersey) said in response to Sessions’s attempts to start federal crackdowns related to cannabis. He introduced the Marijuana Justice Act of 2017 last August into the House of Representatives.

If passed, the bill would:

• Remove marijuana from the list of controlled substances making it legal at the federal level

• Punish states that disproportionately arrest low-income and minority individuals

• Automatically expunge federal marijuana use and possession crimes

• Allow individuals currently serving time in federal prison to petition a court for a resentencing

• Create a community reinvestment fund to invest in communities most impacted by the failed War on Drugs and allow the money to go toward rehabilitative programs.

The bill would not only amend marijuana regulation but also begin to address the warped distribution of cannabis-related wealth being generated by “legal” markets.

How a “diaper protest” imploded a conservative student group

A Field Coordinator for Turning Point USA at CPAC in National Harbor, Md., Feb. 27, 2015. (Credit: AP/Carolyn Kaster)

On October 18, 2017, members of right-wing student group Turning Point USA (TPUSA) staged a protest against safe spaces by dressing up in diapers and soothers on the campus of Kent State University during “Free Speech Week.” The idea was to make fun of the political left by dressing up as literal babies. But in the process, TPUSA itself became the butt of a joke, mocked as “Toilet Paper USA” and turned into a viral meme by the Twitter left.

 

The so-called diaper incident may end up being TPUSA’s undoing, or at least the beginning of the end. The group has since come under intense scrutiny and criticism for its controversial and plodding “activism,” and in turn, has lost funding and had members resign.

Since its inception, TPUSA has been a right-wing success story, reaping millions in donation revenue annually, being backed by major Republican party donors and becoming one of the most prominent conservative student groups in the United States, in part due to its online organizing prowess and savviness using memes and image macros to appeal to millennials. TPUSA was founded in 2012 by then 18-year-old Charlie Kirk, a right-wing activist from a wealthy Chicago suburb. At the time, Kirk had been rejected from West Point Military Academy, which he blamed on affirmative action. A non-student, Kirk decided to create the student advocacy group.

Charlie Kirk met Foster Friess, a businessman and prominent Republican donor, at the 2012 Republican National Convention. Kirk successfully pitched TPUSA to Friess, landing him a six-figure donation to finance his burgeoning organization; Friess now serves on the advisory council. Since becoming the astroturf group of choice for wealthy right-wing types, TPUSA has grown to more than 1,000 university and high school chapters across the United States. In 2014, TPUSA had $2 million in contribution revenue, which ballooned to more than $4.3 million by the end of the 2015 fiscal year, as ProPublica noted. Leaked documents have shown that this money was secretly used to fund conservative student government campaigns.

While TPUSA has a “mission of identifying, organizing, and empowering free market activists” in the predominantly liberal ecosystem of academia, its methods of outreach and activism to conservative students have proven controversial. For instance, in 2016, TPUSA launched “Professor Watchlist,” a directory of liberal, so-called “un-American” professors for conservative students to keep an eye on. The website says its purpose is “to expose and document college professors who discriminate against conservative students and advance leftist propaganda in the classroom.”

Professor Watchlist has come under a storm of criticism. In an unrelated 2016 event, a Donald Trump supporter named Carl Higbie suggested that Japanese internment camps set a historical precedent for Trump’s proposed Muslim Registry. With the launch of the liberal surveillance site, TPUSA’s watchlist has been scrutinized in these comments. Cataloging a liberal professor’s name, location, photo and alleged offenses into a database sets a terrifying premise for the implications of conservative activism.

Throughout its existence, TPUSA has been a meme-making machine, blasting out content reminiscent of the internet’s earlier days. Its main Twitter account and university chapter accounts spew an unending stream of stock photos overlain with quotes in Impact font such as “Big Government Sucks,” “Crying Doesn’t Solve Problems,” “Not Everyone Is A Winner” and “There Are No Safe Spaces.” The right-wing group sells T-shirts with similar messaging in its online store, including “Guns Save Lives,” “Socialism Sucks,” “I Love Capitalism” and “Taxation Is Theft.”

What may have been a conservative force to reckon with due to its seven-figure financial backing has instead almost undone itself altogether through its laughable, meme-worthy attempts to rile up campus leftists. At a Chicago Socialist Conference, TPUSA members attempted to out-argue leftists by using one-liners like “You have some nice Nikes on!” and “You like those good capitalist french fries?” Elsewhere, the TPUSA chapter of University of California, San Diego, hosted a free speech event at which it had a massive inflatable beach ball on which attendees were to write messages, often intentionally offensive ones. However, a pocket knife–wielding leftist student who called himself “Karl Marx” popped said balloon, prompting TPUSA to call in campus security over the perceived violation of its safe space.

While Professor Watchlist is undoubtedly terrifying and dystopian, TPUSA has demonstrated that the thought process behind a good portion of its activism and outreach is half-baked. Now that the activist group can’t tweet or post without some lefty troll calling up the “Toilet Paper USA” insult, TPUSA’s latest attempts to stir the political pot have backfired. Charlie Kirk himself has become a meme after tweeting a photo of himself scowling in a white button-up shirt and hands on hips on a white background. The image reads “God is real. Taxes are theft. There are only 2 genders. USA is the best country ever. Socialism kills. Hillary should be in prison.” The photo of Charlie Kirk was parodied by other Twitter users, captioning their renditions with “When that last episode of The Handmaid’s Tale hits a bit too close to the mark” and “When your mom forgot to wash your other white button downs.”

With much of TPUSA’s efforts inadvertently becoming fodder for lefty enthusiasm, it’s uncertain where the conservative student group is headed next. What’s certain is that in spite of its bank account, the group has done little to upset its opponents and, in fact, has lost many of its own. In the comedic aftermath of the diaper incident, Kaitlin Bennett, the former Kent State University TPUSA president, wrote an angry resignation letter.

“As of right now, I am in disbelief at how I went from being so upbeat, enthusiastic, and passionate about this organisation to being disgusted, frustrated, and embarrassed to have invested my entire senior year into an organisation founded by a college dropout who hires some of the most incompetent, lazy, and downright dishonest people I have ever encountered,” she wrote.

As the now-suspended Twitter account of Kent State University TPUSA (@TPUSAatKent) put it in a tweet from February 12, 2018: “Charlie Kirk[,] you should’ve been the one in the diaper.“

Donald Trump Jr. pushed ‘blatantly illegal’ project in India, former official says

Donald Trump Jr. (Credit: Getty/Jeff Vinnick)

Last month, Donald Trump Jr. visited India to tout new Trump properties. Full page ads in India’s top papers announced, “Trump has arrived. Have you?”

It wasn’t Trump Jr.’s first trip to India. “I’ve been coming to India for over a decade,” he said during his visit last month. “There’s an entrepreneurial spirit here … it needs no further explanation.”

This week on “Trump, Inc.,” we’re looking at the Trumps’ yearslong work in India, where corruption in the real estate industry is endemic.

We worked with Investigative Fund reporter Anjali Kamat, whose reporting on the Trumps’ business in India appears in the new issue of The New Republic.

As with many of the company’s deals abroad, the Trump Organization’s India projects are all licensing deals. Trump Jr. has been closely involved in much of the work.

The Trumps’ first India project, in Mumbai, was halted in early 2012 after investigators found significant “irregularities.” The investigators had been tipped off by a state lawmaker who suspected a $100 million fraud scheme and warned of “gross violations” in the project’s plans. Authorities revoked the building’s permits.

A few months later, in April 2012, Trump Jr. traveled to Mumbai and, along with partners, met with a top official there to try to get the project restarted.

Chief Minister Prithviraj Chavan, the equivalent of a U.S. governor, had been told Trump Jr. wanted to discuss investing in the state. But instead, Chavan recalled, Trump Jr. and his partners asked Chavan to overturn the decision to revoke the permits.

Chavan declined. “I would get into trouble to sanction something that was blatantly illegal,” he told us. The plans were “not within the existing rules.” (Chavan has also described the encounter to The New York Times and Washington Post.)

The Trumps were back in India in 2014, after a new government came into power, Narendra Modi’s BJP. The Trump Tower Mumbai — a gold-hued skyscraper that the Trump Organization bills as “unlike anything you have ever seen”— is now slated to finished next year. It is one of five Trump-affiliated projects currently under development in India.

The Trump Organization said the projects are doing well. One Trump partner said they booked $15 million in sales on just one day during Trump Jr.’s visit. It was the last day buyers would qualify for an offer by the Trump Organization’s partners to dine with the president’s son.

Only a handful of names of buyers in the Trump projects have been disclosed.

The Trump Organization, the White House and the developers for the project did not respond to our requests for comment.

Apple proposes 13 emojis to represent people with disabilities

(Credit: Getty/diego_cervo)

As emojis continue to be an integral part of how humans communicate, the demand for more diversity in the emoji universe is loud and clear. Indeed, Apple has submitted a proposal to the Unicode Consortium, which is the organization that reviews emoji requests, asking for 13 emojis to represent individuals with disabilities. On the list is a hearing aid, a service dog, prosthetic limbs, people with canes and wheelchairs.

“Apple is requesting the addition of emoji to better represent individuals with disabilities. Currently, emoji provide a wide range of options, but may not represent the experiences of those with disabilities,” the proposal states. “Diversifying the options available helps fill a significant gap and provides a more inclusive experience for all.”

In partnership with the American Council of the Blind and the Cerebral Palsy Foundation, the proposal focuses on, in Apple’s words, “a set of emoji that are most inclusive to a large number of people in four main categories: Blind and Low Vision, Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Physical Motor, and Hidden Disabilities.”

The service dog is also meant to represent those with “hidden” disabilities, according to Apple’s proposal–such as anxiety or autism.

https://twitter.com/Emojipedia/status...

On Twitter, the reaction to the proposal has been positive.

Exciting! Apple proposes guide dogs, wheelchairs & other disability-themed emoji for next version of Unicode https://t.co/OUzOhscfON #a11y #Accessibility

— Haben Girma (@HabenGirma) March 23, 2018

https://twitter.com/JamesRath/status/...

Speaking as a disabled person, it’s hard to overstate the significance of Apple’s accessibility emoji proposal. They aren’t a bunch of cute pictures. These are going on hundreds of millions of devices. People *will* notice them. The awareness meter will go up exponentially.

— Steven Aquino (@steven_aquino) March 23, 2018

Adding emojis to represent diversity has caused controversy in the past–especially among conservatives. For example, back in July when Apple added an emoji to represent Muslim women, some dismissed the effort to add an inclusive emoji.

Emoji politics, as my colleague Keith Spencer once wrote, are complicated–in part because of the politics of Unicode. In order to hold a voting membership for the Unicode Consortium, it costs between $11,000 and $18,000.  ”The Unicode Consortium is not a democratic organ, and thus, emoji are approved and produced via a top-down, technocratic hierarchy,” Spencer wrote. “They’re not by us, but they’re for us. But their politics will never stray beyond what is acceptable to their members.”