NM governor uses public health order for gun ban

Last Friday New Mexico's governor, Lujan Grisham, issued a public health emergency order banning concealed and open gun carry in Albuquerque and surrounding Bernalillo county. The order applies for only 30 days, but can (and according to the Governor probably will) be renewed.

New Mexico's Governor Suspends the Right To Bear Arms, Saying the Second Amendment Is Not 'Absolute' | Reason | Jacob Sullum:

September 10, 2023 - "New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham on Friday issued a 'public health emergency order' that purportedly suspends the right to bear arms in Albuquerque and surrounding Bernalillo County. The order, which lasts for 30 days but can be renewed, applies to concealed or open carry of firearms on public property, with exceptions for police officers and security guards. Grisham said "citizens with permits to carry firearms are free to possess their weapons on private property (such as at a gun range or gun store), provided they transport the firearm in a locked box, use a trigger lock, or [use] some other mechanism that renders the gun incapable of being fired.'

"The order covers 'cities or counties averaging 1,000 or more violent crimes per 100,000 residents per year since 2021,' a criterion currently met only by Bernalillo County. Grisham, a Democrat, says the carry ban is a necessary response to 'recent shooting deaths of a thirteen-year-old girl on July 28, a five-year-old girl on August 14, and an eleven-year-old boy on September 6, as well as two mass shootings this year.' At a press conference on Friday, she conceded that the order was apt to be challenged in court as a violation of the Second Amendment.... 

"Yesterday the National Association for Gun Rights, together with a member who lives in Albuquerque, sued Grisham in federal court, arguing that her order flies in the face of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. That decision overturned New York's sweeping limits on public possession of firearms and established a constitutional test for gun restrictions, which the Court said must be 'consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.' Gun Owners of America, along with another Bernalillo County resident, filed a similar federal lawsuit against Grisham on Saturday. Both groups argue that Grisham's order plainly fails the Bruen test....

"The New Mexico Shooting Sports Association, a chapter of the National Rifle Association, said it planned to join the two other groups in challenging Grisham's order. Grisham said state police would be charged with enforcing the order, which prescribes a fine of up to $5,000 per violation. The Associated Press reports that Albuquerque Police Chief Harold Medina 'said he won't enforce it, and Bernalillo County Sheriff John Allen said he's uneasy about it because it raises too many questions about constitutional rights.' In a statement issued on Friday, Allen said 'the temporary ban challenges the foundation of our Constitution, which I swore an oath to uphold.'

"Grisham seems unfazed by those concerns. 'The purpose is to try to create a cooling off period while we figure out how we can better address public safety and gun violence,' she said at Friday's press conference. 'There are gonna be a lot of questions about whether or not we think we have the legal rights to do that. I am sure … there will be a legal challenge, and I can't tell you that we [will] win it, given all of the different challenges to gun violence laws and restrictions on individual firearm access and control…. I think it's time to talk about the absoluteness of the discussion and the current court actions that suggest that the Second Amendment is an absolute right'....

"'I have emergency powers,' Grisham told The New York Times. 'Gun violence is an epidemic. Therefore, it's an emergency.' During the press conference, she also indicated that she probably would extend the order, which she said would be lifted only if 'the epidemic' of gun violence ended after 30 days, adding, 'I bet it's not over in 30 days'....

"State Reps. Stefani Lord (R–Sandia Park) and John Block (R–Alamogordo) on Saturday said Grisham's order was grounds for impeachment. 'This emergency order violates the Governor's oath to protect and defend the rights of New Mexicans,' they said in a press release. 'The legislature has a duty to intervene when the government is overstepping its boundaries, and Governor Grisham's order and comments disqualify her from continuing her tenure as Governor.' Lord called the order 'an abhorrent attempt at imposing a radical, progressive agenda on an unwilling populace'....

"When a reporter asked if Grisham 'really think[s] that criminals are gonna hear this message and not carry a gun in Albuquerque on the streets for 30 days,' Grisham said, 'No.' So 'even Grisham,' Lord says, 'believes this emergency order won't [stop] criminals from carrying or using weapons,' which suggests the order 'will only put New Mexicans in danger as they won't be able to defend themselves against violent crime.'"

Read more: https://reason.com/2023/09/10/new-mexicos-governor-suspends-the-right-to-bear-arms-saying-the-second-amendment-is-not-absolute/

Guns BANNED in New Mexico County Following Emergency Declaration, BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL?! | Rising | The Hill | September 11, 2023:

Adult-use cannabis to be legalized in Minnesota

Minnesota Will Be the 23rd State To Legalize Recreational Marijuana | Reason - Jacob Sullum:

May 22, 2023 - "Minnesota's Democratic governor, Tim Walz, today reiterated his promise to sign a marijuana legalization bill that arrived at his desk on Saturday. That will make Minnesota, which legalized medical marijuana in 2014, the 23rd state to allow recreational use. The Minnesota House and Senate, both of which are controlled by Democrats, had previously approved slightly different legalization bills. H.F. 100, which both chambers passed last week, reconciles those differences.

"Adults 21 or older will be allowed to possess two ounces or less of marijuana in public, share that amount with other adults, keep two pounds or less at home, and grow up to eight plants, four of which are mature. Those provisions take effect on August 1.

"The bill also establishes an Office of Cannabis Management to license and regulate commercial production and distribution. Marijuana products will be subject to a 10 percent retail tax, in addition to standard state and local sales taxes (which total about 8 percent in Minneapolis, for example). Local governments will be allowed to regulate retailers and cap their number but will not be allowed to ban them entirely. Rep. Zack Stephenson (DFL–Coon Rapids), a co-author of the bill, said licensed sales should begin in 12 to 18 months.

"Cannabis consumption initially will be limited to private residences. But the law eventually will allow marijuana use at specially licensed businesses and events. Driving under the influence of marijuana will remain illegal. But Minnesota does not have a per se standard that makes a driver automatically guilty based on THC in his blood. Its law requires evidence of impairment.

"H.F. 100 eliminates some marijuana offenses and downgrades others. It requires automatic expungement of misdemeanor marijuana possession records, ... [which] a process that the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension says may take until August 2024 to complete. The bill creates a review board to consider resentencing of people with marijuana felony records.

"A recent SurveyUSA poll found that 64 percent of Minnesota voters support marijuana legalization, including 81 percent of Democrats and 49 percent of Republicans. That is similar to the national breakdown among American adults that Gallup reported last fall."

Read more: https://reason.com/2023/05/22/minnesota-will-be-the-23rd-state-to-legalize-recreational-marijuana/

Minnesota House, Senate, approve adult-use cannabis bill | KARE 11 | May 21, 2023:

WI Supreme Court strikes down state lockdown

Wisconsin Supreme Court Says the State's COVID-19 Lockdown Violated the Rule of Law and the Separation of Powers | Reason - Jacob Sullum:

May 14, 2020 - "'After the Wisconsin Supreme Court overturned that state's COVID-19 lockdown yesterday, Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat, declared that Republicans 'have thrown the state into chaos'.... But the justices were concerned about a different sort of [chaos]: the kind that happens when governments impose sweeping restrictions on individual freedom, backed by the threat of criminal penalties, without proper legal authority....

""Emergency Order 28, which acting Secretary of Health Services Andrea Palm issued on April 16, ... extended Wisconsin's original March 24 lockdown, which would have expired on April 24, until May 26.... Palm's order banned 'all forms of travel' except those she deemed essential; required 'all for-profit and non-profit businesses' she did not consider 'essential' to 'cease all activities' except for 'minimum basic operations' and work done at home; prohibited 'all public and private gatherings of any number' involving people who were 'not part of a single household'; closed all places of 'public amusement and activity,' whether 'indoors or outdoors,' except for golf courses; continued the closure of bars and restaurants (except for takeout and delivery) as well as salons, spas, K–12 schools, and libraries; imposed a 10-person limit on religious gatherings, including weddings and funerals; and required all residents of the state, except for members of the same household, to maintain a distance of at least six feet from each other. Palm said violations were punishable by a $250 fine, up to 30 days in jail, or both....

"Palm ... argued that her order was authorized by the statute that describes her department's powers. That law says the health department 'may authorize and implement all emergency measures necessary to control communicable diseases'.... The law also authorizes the department to 'promulgate and enforce rules or issue orders for guarding against the introduction of any communicable disease into the state, for the control and suppression of communicable diseases, [and] for the quarantine and disinfection of persons, localities and things infected or suspected of being infected by a communicable disease.'

"Another statute explains what the health department is supposed to do when it issues one of those rules. An 'emergency rule,' deemed necessary for 'preservation of the public peace, health, safety, or welfare,' ... has to follow certain procedures, including publication of a statement describing the scope of the rule in the Wisconsin Administrative Register, 'a preliminary public hearing and comment period' if a co-chairman of the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules asks for them, approval of the proposed rule by the governor, and a 'fiscal estimate for the rule' sent to every state legislator.... Palm did not follow those procedures....

"Palm contended that her order did not qualify as a 'rule.' A four-justice majority of the Wisconsin Supreme Court disagreed, noting that state law defines a 'rule' as 'a regulation, standard, statement of policy, or general order of general application that has the force of law and that is issued by an agency to implement, interpret, or make specific legislation enforced or administered by the agency or to govern the organization or procedure of the agency.'

"Even while insisting that her order should not be viewed as a rule, Chief Justice Patience Roggensack notes in the majority opinion, Palm purported to impose criminal penalties for violating it. 'It has long been the law in Wisconsin that in order for the violation of an administrative agency's directive to constitute a crime, the directive must have been properly promulgated as a rule,' Roggensack says.

"Furthermore, Palm's order defined the crime she purported to punish without referring to any statute. 'The prohibited "criminal conduct" to which Palm refers is factually defined solely by Emergency Order 28,' Roggensack notes. 'Counsel for Palm ... said that there was only one element that needed to be proved in a criminal prosecution for a violation of Emergency Order 28: that a provision of the order was violated. Such an argument is without legal foundation and ignores more than 50 years of Wisconsin law'....

"Even if Palm's order were not subject to rulemaking requirements, the majority says, it would exceed the scope of her legal powers. While the health department has the authority to 'quarantine those infected or suspected of being infected,' for example, the lockdown goes much further than that, telling 'all individuals present within the State of Wisconsin' they must 'stay at home or at their place of residence' except for Palm-approved purposes. 'She also prohibits "all public and private gatherings of any number of people that are not part of a single household or living unit,"' Roggensack notes. 'Again, this directive is not based on persons infected or suspected of being infected'....

"Justice Daniel Kelly suggests in a concurring opinion joined by Justice Rebecca Bradley.... 'In the Secretary's view, ... there are no statutory or regulatory limitations on her authority to address communicable diseases.... If we agreed with the Secretary's reading of [the law], we would have to conclude the statute violated the separation of powers by conferring on the Secretary the power to make laws without going through the rule-making process'....

"In a concurring opinion joined by Kelly, Bradley highlights the issues at stake in this case. 'However well-intentioned, the secretary-designee of the Department of Health Services exceeded her powers by ordering the people of Wisconsin to follow her commands or face imprisonment for noncompliance,' Bradley writes. 'In issuing her order, she arrogated unto herself the power to make the law and the power to execute it, excluding the people from the lawmaking process altogether'.... 'It is especially in times of emergency that we must protect the rights of the people,' Bradley writes, 'lest we establish a dangerous precedent empowering less benevolent government officials in the future to oppress the people in the name of exigency.'"

Read more: https://reason.com/2020/05/14/wisconsin-supreme-court-says-the-states-covid-19-lockdown-violated-the-rule-of-law-and-the-separation-of-powers/

Health authorities flip-flop on face masks

Face Masks in a COVID-19 World: To Wear or Not to Wear? By Dr. Michael Szabo - Come Back Alive:
"Should we wear a face mask when out in public right now? It’s a question many people have since the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued its new recommendation that people wear face masks when leaving their homes. Canada’s chief public health officer has echoed the recommendation.

"There is confusion because the CDC and the Public Health Agency of Canada had initially suggested that face masks not be worn in public. The flip-flop in recommendations has triggered many questions."
Read more: https://www.inglegroups.com/cba/en/resource/view/9693

The CDC's Revised Face Mask Advice Is Based on Information That Was Available Months Ago | Reason - Jacob Sullum:
April 6, 2020 - "The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) revised its advice concerning face masks and COVID-19 last week, telling us to 'cover your mouth and nose with a cloth face cover when around others.' The CDC had previously said that 'if you are NOT sick, you do not need to wear a facemask unless you are caring for someone who is sick (and they are not able to wear a facemask).'

"The official justification for this shift is that the CDC suddenly realized people can transmit the COVID-19 virus even when they do not feel sick. Yet that is something we have known for months.

"'Here's what's changed,' Surgeon General Jerome Adams claimed on Meet the Press yesterday. 'We now know that about 25%, in some studies even more, of COVID-19 is transmitted when you are asymptomatic or presymptomatic.' While that particular estimate, which CDC Director Robert Redfield began floating on March 31, is relatively new, it has been clear at least since February that people can carry the virus for days before they develop symptoms and that some carriers never feel ill.....

"A January 30 letter to The New England Journal of Medicine, based on several cases in Germany, warned that 'asymptomatic persons are potential sources of [COVID-19] infection.' A February 13 letter to the International Journal of Infectious Diseases estimated that 31 percent of people infected by the COVID-19 virus do not have symptoms.... A February 26 Global Biosecurity report noted that 'asymptomatic transmission has been documented' and 'the viral load in symptomatic and asymptomatic people is not significantly different.' A report from the World Health Organization published around the same time nevertheless depicted asymptomatic infection as rare....

"'Seriously people—STOP BUYING MASKS!' Adams tweeted on February 29. 'They are NOT effective in preventing [the] general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can't get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!'

"By that point, it was clear that transmission by asymptomatic or presymptomatic carriers was playing an important role in the pandemic. Now Adams wants us to believe no one knew that until last week. The misguided advice from Adams and the CDC needlessly endangered people who could have benefited from the precautions they are belatedly recommending."

Read more: https://reason.com/2020/04/06/the-cdcs-revised-face-mask-advice-is-based-on-information-that-was-available-months-ago/

The coronavirus testing failure (video)

How the CDC and the FDA Wrecked the Economy | Reason - Jacob Sullum:

April 8, 2020 - "Public officials across the United States are flying blind against the COVID-19 epidemic. Because of a government-engineered testing fiasco, they do not know how fast the virus is spreading, how many people have been infected by it, how many will die as a result, or how many have developed immunity to it. The failure to implement early and wide testing, which was caused by a combination of short-sightedness, ineptitude, and bureaucratic intransigence, left politicians scrambling to avoid a hospital crisis by imposing broad business closure and stay-at-home orders....

"At first, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) monopolized COVID-19 tests. When the CDC began shipping test kits to state laboratories in early February, they turned out to be defective.

"The CDC and the Food and Drug Administration initially blocked efforts by universities and businesses to develop and conduct tests before relaxing the restrictions ... [and] the CDC set irrationally narrow criteria for testing, which meant that carriers without severe symptoms or obvious risk factors escaped detection.

"The CDC still insists that 'not everyone needs to be tested for COVID-19.' But without testing everyone — or at least representative samples — for both the virus itself and the antibodies to it, we can do little better than guess its prevalence, its lethality, and the extent of immunity among the general public.

"Even now, months after the Wuhan outbreak and the first reported case in the U.S., we have managed to test less than 1 percent of the population, and those tests have been limited mainly to people with symptoms severe enough for them to seek treatment. Since people infected by COVID-19 typically experience mild symptoms or no symptoms at all, that's a real problem....  Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, estimates that 'somewhere between 25 percent and 50 percent' of COVID-19 carriers are asymptomatic. But he cautions that 'right now we are just guessing'....

"Our ignorance about COVID-19 will have profound consequences, potentially leading to an overreaction that wrecks the economy while saving relatively few lives or (less likely, given the current political climate) an underreaction that costs many lives and allows hospitals to be overwhelmed by COVID-19 cases. You can thank the same agencies on which we are relying to guide us through this crisis."

Read more: https://reason.com/2020/04/08/how-the-cdc-and-the-fda-wrecked-the-economy/
'via Blog this'

Also read: Coronavirus testing failure in Canada, too

NYC rewrites gun regs to avoid SCOTUS review

Can Senseless Gun Regulations Be Constitutional? – Reason.com- Jacob Sullum:

December 4, 2019 - "New York's uniquely onerous restrictions on transporting guns were so hard to justify that the city stopped trying. Instead it rewrote the rules after the Supreme Court agreed to consider a constitutional challenge to them, and now it argues that the case is moot.

"Despite the obvious vulnerability of New York's regulations, the city successfully defended them for five years, obtaining favorable rulings from a federal judge and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. That track record highlights a glaring problem the Supreme Court could address if it rejects the city's mootness claim: More than a decade after the justices recognized that the Second Amendment imposes limits on gun control, lower courts routinely treat the right to keep and bear arms as a minor hindrance that can be overcome by the slightest excuse.

"Under New York's rules, licensed pistol and revolver owners were not allowed to leave home with their handguns, even if they were unloaded and stored in a locked container separate from the ammunition, unless they were traveling to or from one of seven gun ranges in the city. If a New Yorker wanted to practice at a range, participate in a competition, or defend himself at a second home outside the five boroughs, the only legal option was to buy (or rent) additional handguns.

"Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ... noted during oral arguments on Monday. 'What public safety or any other reasonable end is served by saying you have to have two guns instead of one ... and one of those guns has to be maintained in a place that is often unoccupied and that therefore [is] more vulnerable to theft?' Richard Dearing, the attorney representing New York City, was stumped....

"Justice Samuel Alito asked Dearing if New Yorkers are 'less safe' now that the city has loosened its restrictions. 'No, I don't think so,' Dearing replied. 'We made a judgment, expressed by our police commissioner, that it was consistent with public safety to repeal the prior rule.' In that case, Alito wondered, 'what possible justification could there have been for the old rule, which you have abandoned?'...

"Restrictions on fundamental rights usually pass muster only if they are narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest..... But ... In the appeals court's view, the city's assertion that the transport ban was necessary to protect public safety — a claim it has now disavowed — outweighed the plaintiffs' 'trivial' interest in using their guns for self-defense outside the city or in honing the skills required for that constitutionally protected purpose.

"Such casual disregard for the right to keep and bear arms is plainly inconsistent with what the Supreme Court has said about the Second Amendment. That's why the city is so desperate to prevent the justices from considering an argument that was good enough until now."

Read more: https://reason.com/2019/12/04/can-senseless-gun-regulations-be-constitutional/
'via Blog this'

Buy flavored e-liquid, lose your car, MA bill says

Pending Ban on Flavored E-Cigarettes in Massachusetts Authorizes Forfeiture of Vapers’ Cars – Reason.com:

Novewmber 14, 2019 - "The Massachusetts House of Representatives yesterday approved a bill that would ban flavored e-cigarettes, impose a 75 percent excise tax on 'electronic nicotine delivery systems' (including e-liquids as well as devices), and authorize forfeiture of cars driven by vapers caught with 'untaxed' products. The House approved H4183 by a vote of 127 to 31, and the state Senate is expected to consider it next week.

"An 'emergency' ban that Gov. Charlie Baker (R) imposed on all vaping products in September will expire on December 24. This bill permanently bans 'flavored tobacco products,' including menthol cigarettes as well as vaping liquids that taste or smell like anything other than tobacco. It does not apply to hookah bars or marijuana vapes....

"Once their preferred flavors are no longer legally available, some ... vapers may go back to smoking, a far more dangerous habit, while others may buy potentially tainted pods or e-liquids on the black market. Or they might buy flavored e-liquids in states where they are still legal and bring them back to Massachusetts. But vapers who try to find ways around the ban should be aware of the potential penalties.,,,

"The bill says ... a police officer who 'discovers an untaxed electronic nicotine delivery system in the possession of a person who is not a licensed or commissioner-authorized electronic nicotine delivery system distributor' may seize both the product and the 'receptacle' in which it is found, 'including, but not limited to, a motor vehicle, boat or airplane in which the electronic nicotine delivery systems are contained or transported'....

"While both fines and asset forfeiture could be deployed against distributors of newly illicit vaping products, they apply to consumers as well.... [A] vaper is presumed to be in possession of 'an untaxed electronic nicotine delivery system,' which makes his car subject to forfeiture, unless he has receipts that prove otherwise. And in the case of newly illegal vaping products purchased out of state or on the black market, he will have no such proof.

"Under this bill, unapproved vaping products would be treated like illegal drugs, possession of which is enough to justify forfeiture of the vehicles in which they are found. Massachusetts is poised to deprive vapers of the harm-reducing products they used to quit smoking, then steal their cars if they dare to defy that unjust and irrational edict."

Read more: https://reason.com/2019/11/14/pending-ban-on-flavored-e-cigarettes-in-massachusetts-authorizes-forfeiture-of-vapers-cars/
'via Blog this'

Cannabis initiatives on 4 state ballots

4 More States Could Legalize Medical or Recreational Marijuana Next Week - Hit & Run : Reason.com - Jacob Sullum:

Michigan
"Proposal 1 would allow adults 21 or older to possess 2.5 ounces or less of marijuana in public, transfer that amount to other adults "without remuneration," possess up to 10 ounces at home, and grow up to 12 plants for personal consumption. The initiative also would establish a licensing system for commercial production and distribution.... Support for Proposal 1 averaged 54 percent in six polls conducted from late February to early October....

North Dakota
"Measure 3 would go further than any initiative enacted so far by ... legalizing 'any nonviolent marijuana activity, except for the sale of marijuana to a person under the age of 21'.... The North Dakota initiative is also unique in requiring 'automatic expungement of the record of an individual who has a drug conviction for a controlled substance that has been legalized'.... North Dakota voters approved medical marijuana by a 28-point margin in 2016, but  ... [s]urveys conducted in February and August put support for legalizing recreational use at 46 percent and 38 percent, respectively....

Utah
"Proposition 2 would authorize the production and distribution of marijuana for medical use by patients with any of 10 qualifying conditions and recommendations from their doctors. As of 2021, state-approved patients would be allowed to grow up to six plants at home if they do not live within 100 miles of a licensed dispensary. Support ... averaged 68 percent in nine polls conducted from mid-February to mid-October. Even after the LDS church joined the coalition opposing the initiative, two polls put support at 64 percent....

Missouri
"Amendment 2, Amendment 3, and Proposition C would all authorize production and distribution of marijuana for medical use....The measures differ mainly in the way they define qualifying conditions, ... maximum amounts ... home cultivation, ... tax rates ... limits they would impose on the number of dispensaries, and the power they would give local governments to ban them. A poll conducted in August found that 54 percent of Missouri voters think the medical use of marijuana should be permitted."

Read more: https://reason.com/blog/2018/10/29/4-more-states-could-legalize-medical-or
'via Blog this'

US opioid deaths rise as gov'ts cut prescriptions

The Lethal Success of Pain Pill Restrictions - Jacob Sullum, Reason Hit and Run:

May 9, 2016 - "In a speech on Monday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said the Justice Department is striving to 'bring down' both 'opioid prescriptions' and 'overdose deaths.' A study published the following day suggests those two goals may be at odds with each other, highlighting the potentially perverse consequences of trying to stop people from getting the drugs they want.

"Columbia University epidemiologist David Fink and his colleagues systematically reviewed research on the impact of prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs), which all 50 states have established.... Fink et al. say the evidence that PDMPs reduce deaths involving prescription opioids is 'largely insufficient,' adding that 'implementation of PDMPs may have unintended negative outcomes — namely, increased rates of heroin-related overdose'....

"The picture looks worse when you take into account deaths involving illegally produced drugs, which now account for a large majority of opioid-related fatalities.... To the extent that PDMPs succeed in making pain pills harder to obtain, they encourage nonmedical users to seek black-market substitutes. 'Changes to either the supply or cost of prescription opioids after a PDMP is instituted,' Fink et al. observe, 'might reasonably drive opioid-dependent persons to substitute their preferred prescription opioid with heroin or nonpharmaceutical fentanyl'....

"If the aim is preventing drug-related deaths, this shift is counterproductive, to say the least. Because their purity and potency are inconsistent and unpredictable, illegally produced opioids are much more dangerous than pain pills.

"A report published last month by the health care consulting firm IQVIA shows that the total volume of opioids prescribed in the United States fell by 29 percent between 2011 and 2017, from 240 billion to 171 billion morphine milligram equivalents. According to data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), deaths involving pain pills nevertheless rose by 24 percent from 2011 to 2016, while total deaths involving opioids rose by 85 percent.

"That trend includes a 252 percent increase in heroin-related deaths and an astonishing 628 percent increase in deaths involving the opioid category that consists mainly of fentanyl and its analogues. Final CDC figures for 2017 are not available yet, but the provisional numbers indicate there will be more increases....

"Since the current strategy is manifestly not working, drug warriors are, as usual, redoubling their efforts. The Drug Enforcement Administration, which sets annual quotas for opioid production, reduced the limit by 25 percent in 2017 and 20 percent this year."

Read more: http://reason.com/archives/2018/05/09/the-lethal-success-of-pain-pill-restrict

Dems use Vegas shooting to push gun agenda

A Massacre Is Not an Argument - Reason.com - Jacob Sullum:

October 4, 2017 - "The morning after a gunman murdered nearly 60 people in Las Vegas, Hillary Clinton tweeted that 'we can and must put politics aside, stand up to the NRA, and work together to try to stop this from happening again.' The former Democratic presidential nominee's commitment to putting politics aside disappeared in the middle of that sentence, and her implicit claim that she knows how to 'stop this from happening again' was equally empty.

"Gun controllers like Clinton habitually seize upon mass shootings as evidence in favor of the policies they have always supported.... Clinton, for example, argued that the Las Vegas attack demonstrated the folly of the NRA-backed Hearing Protection Act, which would loosen federal restrictions on suppressors, a.k.a. silencers. She suggested the death toll in Las Vegas could have been higher "if the shooter had a silencer'.... But as firearms experts immediately pointed out, so-called silencers do not actually eliminate the sound of gunfire.... Even with a suppressor, the hundreds of shots fired from the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Resort and Casino would have been clearly audible....

"New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof had already published a column in which he listed eight gun control proposals, all supposedly aimed at 'preventing mass shootings like the Vegas Strip attack.' Most of them ... plainly had nothing to do with mass shootings like the Vegas Strip attack. Even the most plausible-sounding of Kristof's ideas, 'universal background checks,' would have made no difference in this case, since the Las Vegas shooter ... was repeatedly cleared by the FBI when he bought his guns. As is typical of mass shooters, Paddock did not have a disqualifying criminal or psychiatric record.

"After presenting his list of new gun controls ... Kristof conceded that 'it's too soon to know what, if anything, might have prevented the shooting in Las Vegas, and it may be that nothing could have prevented it'.... That's par for the course in the wake of mass shootings, which gun controllers use to create a sense of urgency they hope will translate into new restrictions....

"'It's time for Congress to get off its ass and do something,' Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) declared on Monday. 'There's no excuse for inaction,' tweeted former Vice President Joe Biden. As CNN observed, 'Democrats are desperate to do something — anything — on gun control'....

"Contrary to what Joe Biden seems to think, having no idea what you're doing or whether it makes sense is an excellent excuse for inaction."

Read more: http://reason.com/archives/2017/10/04/a-massacre-is-not-an-argument?utm_medium=email
'via Blog this'

The president doesn't know what civil forfeiture is

Trump Does Not Know What Civil Forfeiture Is, but He Likes It - Hit & Run : Reason.com - Jacob Sullum:

February 9, 2017 - "In a meeting with county sheriffs from around the country on Tuesday, President Trump jokingly (we hope!) threatened to 'destroy [the] career' of a Texas legislator who proposed requiring the government to obtain a conviction before taking property allegedly tied to crime.... Worse, the White House transcript of the president's remarks about forfeiture shows he literally does not know what he is talking about...

"Jefferson County, Kentucky, Sheriff John Aubrey broaches the subject of forfeiture, complaining that 'people want to say we're taking money and without due process.' According to Aubrey, 'That's not true. We take money from dope dealers.' It's clear from Trump's response to Aubrey's complaint that he does not know any of this....

• Trump: So you're saying — OK, so you're saying the asset taking you used to do, and it had an impact, right? And you're not allowed to do it now?
• Aubrey: No, they have curtailed it a little bit. And I'm sure the folks are —
• Trump: And that's for legal reasons? Or just political reasons?
• Aubrey: They make it political, and they make it — they make up stories. All you've got to do —
• Trump: I'd like to look into that, OK? There's no reason for that. Dana, do you think there's any reason for that? Are you aware of this?
• Acting Attorney General Dana Boente: I am aware of that, Mr. President. And we have gotten a great deal of criticism for the asset forfeiture, which, as the sheriff said, frequently was taking narcotics proceeds and other proceeds of crime. But there has been a lot of pressure on the department to curtail some of that.
• Trump: So what do you do? So in other words, they have a huge stash of drugs. So in the old days, you take it. Now we're criticized if we take it. So who gets it? What happens to it? Tell them to keep it?
• Boente: Well, we have what is called equitable sharing, where we usually share it with the local police departments for whatever portion that they worked on the case. And it was a very successful program, very popular with the law enforcement community.
• Trump: And now what happens?
• Boente: Well, now we've just been given — there's been a lot of pressure not to forfeit, in some cases.
• Trump: Who would want that pressure, other than, like, bad people, right? But who would want that pressure? You would think they'd want this stuff taken away.
• Aubrey: You have to be careful how you speak, I guess. But a lot of pressure is coming out of — was coming out of Congress. I don't know that that will continue now or not.
• Trump: I think less so. I think Congress is going to get beat up really badly by the voters because they've let this happen. And I think badly. I think you'll be back in shape. So, asset forfeiture, we're going to go back on, OK?
• Aubrey: Thank you, sir.
• Trump: I mean, how simple can anything be? You all agree with that, I assume, right?
• Unnamed Participant: Absolutely, yeah.
• Trump: Do you even understand the other side of it?
• Participant: No....

"Trump initially seems to think asset forfeiture is what happens when police seize 'a huge stash of drugs.' He is puzzled that anyone would say the cops should return a pile of cocaine or heroin to a drug dealer, because 'you would think they'd want this stuff taken away.'

"Eventually Trump seems to get that it's money (or other assets) the cops are taking, but he still assumes it's money lying next to a huge stash of drugs — as opposed to, say, the savings of a hapless college student, the winnings of innocent poker players, or the bank account of a convenience store owner whose deposits the IRS deemed suspiciously small. Trump is baffled as to why anyone would want to stop the cops from taking drug dealers' profits.

"Aubrey and Boente, who obviously know better, are not about to enlighten Trump, since they both have a financial interest in promoting forfeiture, which helps fund their budgets."

Read more: http://reason.com/blog/2017/02/09/trump-does-not-know-what-civil-forfeitur
'via Blog this'

Police to return student's $11,000 life savings

Victim of Airport Seizure Gets His $11,000 Back With Interest - Hit & Run : Reason.com - Jacob Sullum:

Dec. 1, 2016 - "Charles Clarke, the college student who was robbed of $11,000 in cash by cops at the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport two years ago, will get his money back with interest under an agreement he reached with the Justice Department this week. Claiming Clarke's checked suitcase smelled of marijuana, the cops argued that the money in his carry-on bag must have something to do with drugs.... Clarke challenged the forfeiture with help from the Institute for Justice [I.J.]....

"Clarke, who admitted smoking pot but insisted he had never sold it, had saved the money over five years from wages, financial aid, and family gifts. He took it with him for safekeeping while visiting relatives in Cincinnati and was stopped on the way back to his home in Florida by an airport detective and a local police officer who had been deputized by the Drug Enforcement Administration. Their agencies benefit from federal forfeitures through the Justice Department's Equitable Sharing Program.

"To take the money, the cops needed only probable cause to believe it was connected to illegal drug activity in some way; they did not even have to specify how.... Although the cops found no drugs in Clarke's bags or on his person and did not charge him with a crime, the [alleged] pot smell and the large amount of cash were enough to make the money disappear....

"To keep the money, the government theoretically had to show that it more likely than not came from selling drugs or was intended to buy them. But that burden applied only if Clarke had the means to challenge the forfeiture once the government had taken his savings. Innocent owners often find that standing up for their rights costs more than the value of the property they are trying to get back....

"'Charles is very pleased that he will get his life savings back and that the whole ordeal is now behind him,' said I.J. attorney Darpana Sheth. 'Civil forfeiture is wrong. It allows law enforcement to seize and keep property without ever charging someone with a crime. Even worse, it encourages law enforcement to seize as much money and property as possible by allowing agencies to keep the proceeds for themselves. The Institute for Justice will continue to lead the fight to abolish civil forfeiture and end this perverse financial incentive.'"

Read more: http://reason.com/blog/2016/12/01/victim-of-airport-forfeiture-gets-his-11
'via Blog this'

No link between marijuana use and car crashes found in landmark U.S. study

If Marijuana Causes Lots Of Crashes, Why Are They So Hard To Count? - Jacob Sullum, Forbes:

February 12, 2015 - "Last year, during a congressional hearing on the threat posed by stoned drivers, a representative of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) was asked how many crash fatalities are caused by marijuana each year. 'That’s difficult to say,' replied Jeff Michael, NHTSA’s associate administrator for research and program development. 'We don’t have a precise estimate.” The most he was willing to affirm was that the number is 'probably not' zero.

"Michael knows something that grandstanding politicians and anti-pot activists either do not understand or refuse to acknowledge: Although experiments show that marijuana impairs driving ability, the effects are not nearly as dramatic as those seen with alcohol, and measuring the real-world consequences has proven very difficult, as demonstrated by a landmark study that NHTSA released last Friday.

"In 'the first large-scale [crash risk] study in the United States to include drugs other than alcohol,' NHTSA found that, once the data were adjusted for confounding variables, cannabis consumption was not associated with an increased probability of getting into an accident....

"The NHTSA study included more than 3,000 drivers who were involved in crashes during a 20-month period in Virginia Beach, Virginia, plus 6,000 controls who drove in the same area during the same period but did not get into accidents.

"As usual, the study found that alcohol use was strongly correlated with crash risk. After adjustment for confounding, the crash risk for drivers with a blood-alcohol content (BAC) of 0.08 percent was twice the crash risk for sober drivers; it was six times as high for drivers with a BAC of 0.10 percent and 12 times as high at a BAC of 0.15 percent.

"But the picture for marijuana was quite different.

"Over all, drivers who tested positive for active THC were 25 percent more likely to be involved in crashes. But once the researchers took sex, age, and race/ethnicity into account, the risk ratio shrank from 1.25 to 1.05 and was no longer statistically significant...

"Further adjusting for alcohol consumption made the crash risk of cannabis consumers equal to that of drivers who tested negative for alcohol and all other drugs. In other words, the analysis, which NHTSA described as 'the most precisely controlled study of its kind yet conducted,' provides no evidence that marijuana use increases crash risk. That result, the authors note, is similar to what the best-designed previous studies have found: a small or nonexistent increase in crash risk."

Read more: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2015/02/12/if-marijuana-causes-lots-of-crashes-why-are-they-so-hard-to-count/
'via Blog this'

Iowa police steal motorists' $100K poker winnings

Iowa Troopers Steal $100,000 in Poker Winnings From Two Players Driving Through the State - Hit & Run : Reason.com - Jacob Sullum:

October 1, 2014 - "The Des Moines Register highlights an Iowa forfeiture case, the subject of a federal lawsuit filed this week, in which state troopers took $100,000 in winnings from two California poker players traveling through the state on their way back from a World Series of Poker event in Joliet, Illinois. The case illustrates several of the themes I discussed in a recent column explaining how cops became highway robbers....

"On the morning of April 15, 2013, Trooper Justin Simmons, who is part of an 'interdiction team' that looks for contraband and money to seize, pulled over William Davis and John Newmer­zhycky, who were traveling west on Interstate 80 in a rental car, a red Nissan Altima. Simmons later said he had received a vague tip from 'an Illinois law enforcement officer' to be on the lookout for a red car, but he did not know why.... So instead he claimed that he pulled Davis and Newmer­zhycky over because Newmer­zhycky, who was driving, failed to signal as he passed a black SUV. But as can be seen in the video recorded by Simmons' dashcam (starting around the 00:28 mark), Newmer­zhycky did signal....

"Simmons asks for permission to search the car. Newmerzhycky says no.... Refusing to take no for an answer, Simmons says Newmerzhycky seems nervous (who wouldn't be in these circumstances?), and he uses that observation as justification for calling Trooper Eric VanderWiel, a K-9 officer with a drug-detecting dog.... VanderWiel's dog supposedly alerted to the back of the car, at a point where the dog was conveniently hidden from the dashcam....

"The troopers found $85,000 inside Davis' locked briefcase, plus another $15,000 in Newmerzhycky's computer bag, where they also found a grinder with bits of marijuana in it, which resulted in a citation for possession of drug paraphernalia — the only Iowa charge brought against either man....

"Ultimately the state agreed to return $90,000 of the two men's money, a third of which was consumed by legal fees."

Read more: http://reason.com/blog/2014/10/01/iowa-troopers-steal-100000-in-poker-winn
'via Blog this'

The non-impact of marijuana legalization

Cato Paper Highlights Marijuana Legalization's Ho-Hum Impact in Colorado - Jacob Sullum, Reason Hit & Run blog:

October 27, 2014 - "In a new Cato Institute working paper, Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron finds little evidence that the loosening of marijuana prohibition in Colorado has had a noticeable impact on adult or underage cannabis consumption, traffic accidents, violent crime, drug treatment admissions, emergency room visits, drug-related deaths, educational outcomes, or economic growth. Miron, Cato's director of economic studies, considers trends in these indicators before and after 2009, when the medical marijuana industry took off due to regulatory developments that made it more secure, and 2012, when voters approved Amendment 64, which legalized marijuana for recreational use. Generally speaking, there is no significant change in these trends after those policy shifts....

"In this case, data are available for the months following the beginning of legal recreational sales last January. Looking at murders, aggravated assaults, robberies, and burglaries, Miron concludes that "no measure indicates a significant change in crime after medical marijuana commercialization, legalization adoption, or full legalization implementation....

"Miron also looks at several educational outcomes: school suspensions, standardized test scores, and high school graduation and dropout rates. Changes in marijuana policy do not seem to have had an impact on these outcomes, with the exception of drug-related suspensions, which rose after the commercialization of medical marijuana in 2009 and again after the legalization of recreational marijuana in 2012, even as total suspensions declined.

"Miron not only finds little evidence of negative fallout from changes in Colorado's marijuana policies; he also finds little evidence that legalization has had a positive impact on the measures he considers. It does not seem to have slowed or accelerated economic growth, for example, or to have increased or reduced traffic accidents. Looking at "fatal car crashes, fatalities in car crashes, alcohol-related fatal car crashes, and fatalities in alcohol-related car crashes," Miron finds that "no measure exhibits a substantial change at the time of marijuana policy changes'."

Read more: http://reason.com/blog/2014/10/27/cato-paper-highlights-marijuana-legaliza

New Hampshire Jury Acquits Pot-Growing Rastafarian

New Hampshire Jury Acquits Pot-Growing Rastafarian - Hit & Run : Reason.com - Jacob Sullum:

September 24, 2012 - "A few months ago, New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch signed a bill declaring that 'in all criminal proceedings the court shall permit the defense to inform the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relation to the facts in controversy.' Although the new law does not take effect until ... January [2013], a case decided ... in Belknap County illustrates the importance of the nullification power it recognizes. A jury unanimously acquitted Doug Darrell, a 59-year-old Rastafarian charged with marijuana cultivation, after his lawyer, Mark Sisti, argued that a conviction would be unjust in light of the fact that Darrell was growing cannabis for his own religious and medicinal use. More remarkably, Judge James O'Neill instructed the jury that 'even if you find that the State has proven each and every element of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt, you may still find the defendant not guilty if you have a conscientious feeling that a not guilty verdict would be a fair result in this case.'"

Read more: http://reason.com/blog/2012/09/14/new-hampshire-jury-acquits-pot-growing-r
'via Blog this'

The story behind the 'Bath Salts' drug panic

Why People Thought 'Bath Salts' Made Rudy Eugene Eat Ronald Poppo's Face - Hit & Run : Reason.com - Jacob Sullum:

December 24, 2012 - "In a well-informed and revealing Playboy article, Frank Owen analyzes 'a classic drug panic,' explaining how and why Rudy Eugene's grisly assault on Ronald Poppo in Miami last May came to be blamed on 'bath salts,' a group of quasi-legal stimulants that Eugene, a.k.a. the Causeway Cannibal and the Miami Zombie, had not in fact consumed....

"Armando Aguilar, president of the local police union ... decided to bury the racial angle by feeding local reporters an alternative narrative.... Reporters didn’t seem to care that Aguilar had no expertise in the pharmacological action of drugs on the human brain or that he didn’t provide a scintilla of credible evidence that bath salts were involved....

"To this day, even after toxicological tests on Eugene's body revealed no drug but marijuana, Aguilar insists 'there was something else in Rudy Eugene’s system other than marijuana that the medical examiner didn’t detect,' possibly 'a new form of bath salts or maybe even a completely new compound that we don't yet know about'."

Read more: http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/24/why-people-thought-bath-salts-made-rudy
'via Blog this'