Archive for May 18th, 2009
Makes sense. What better way for a country that’s dangerously unstable and beset by radicals to spend its money during a global recession than by saturating itself with doomsday weapons? I only hope they saved a little for the smallpox program.
This is like a police hostage situation. Pakistan’s the desperate nut with a bomb who’s threatening to set it off and kill everyone around him and we’re the negotiator who has to talk him down somehow. We can’t make a move on him for fear that he’ll explode and we can’t walk away for the same reason. We’re at his mercy.
Members of Congress have been told in confidential briefings that Pakistan is rapidly adding to its nuclear arsenal even while racked by insurgency, raising questions on Capitol Hill about whether billions of dollars in proposed military aid might be diverted to Pakistan’s nuclear program…
The administration’s effort is complicated by the fact that Pakistan is producing an unknown amount of new bomb-grade uranium and, once a series of new reactors is completed, bomb-grade plutonium for a new generation of weapons. President Obama has called for passage of a treaty that would stop all nations from producing more fissile material — the hardest part of making a nuclear weapon — but so far has said nothing in public about Pakistan’s activities.
Bruce Riedel, the Brookings Institution scholar who served as the co-author of Mr. Obama’s review of Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy, reflected the administration’s concern in a recent interview, saying that Pakistan “has more terrorists per square mile than anyplace else on earth, and it has a nuclear weapons program that is growing faster than anyplace else on earth.”…
But the billions in new proposed American aid, officials acknowledge, could free other money for Pakistan’s nuclear infrastructure, at a time when Pakistani officials have expressed concern that their nuclear program is facing a budget crunch for the first time, worsened by the global economic downturn. The program employs tens of thousands of Pakistanis, including about 2,000 believed to possess “critical knowledge” about how to produce a weapon.
Indian media’s already picked up the story, which means public pressure on their government to confront The One about U.S. “aid” to the enemy will be spiking. It’s actually fitting that this news is breaking on a day when Obama’s meeting Netanyahu to whine about a Palestinian state, since it underscores how effective Arafat was in making his pet cause top priority for international peacemaking. In a sane world, the top priority would be forging a final settlement of Kashmir and lasting peace between India and Pakistan so that Islamabad could ease off the nuclear accelerator and focus properly on dealing with the Taliban. Instead, we’re jerking around with Israel about manufacturing a state for a people that aren’t ready for it and probably don’t even want it. Exit question: Who are these new nukes aimed at, anyway? The obvious answer is India, especially post-Mumbai with tensions peaking again, but I’m not so sure. The more dangerous Pakistan is, the more America has to equivocate between it and India and the more aid we have to provide to try to keep the country stable. They may be literally aimed at India, but isn’t the point of building them aimed at us? And to think — your tax dollars are paying for them.
“This ain’t your grandfather’s or your father’s marijuana. This will hurt you. This will addict you. This will kill you.”– Mark R. Trouville, DEA Miami, speaking to the Associated Press (June 22, 2007)
Government claims that today’s pot is more potent, and thus more dangerous to health, than ever before must be taken with a grain of salt.
Federal officials have made similarly dire assertions before. In a 2004 Reuters News Wire story, government officialsalleged, “Pot is no longer the gentle weed of the 1960s and may pose a greater threat than cocaine or even heroin.” (Anti-drug officials failed to explain why, if previous decades’ pot was so “gentle” and innocuous, police still arrested you for it.)
In 2007, Reuters again highlighted the alleged record rise in cannabis potency, proclaiming, “U.S. marijuana grows stronger than before: report.” Quoted in the news story was ex-Drug Czar John Walters, who warned, “This report underscores that we are no longer talking about the drug of the 1960s and 1970s — this is Pot 2.0.”
Predictably, in 2008 the mainstream news media ran with yet another set of ‘news’ stories alleging that the pot plant’s strength had reached all-time highs. According to a June 12, 2008 Associated Press story:
“The latest analysis from the University of Mississippi’s Potency Monitoring Project tracked the average amount of THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, in samples seized by law enforcement agencies from 1975 through 2007. It found thatthe average amount of THC reached 9.6 percent in 2007, compared with 8.75 percent the previous year.”
Or not. An actual review of the 2008 U-Miss data revealed this nugget of information: The average THC in domestically grown marijuana — which comprises the bulk of the US market — is less than five percent, a figure that’s remained unchanged for nearly a decade. (See: http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/pdf/FullPotencyReports.pdf, page 12)
Which brings us to this year. Naturally, the Feds are once again sounding the alarm, as reported today by CNN: “Marijuana potency surpasses 10 percent, U.S. says.”
I suppose, if nothing else, the government’s annual “new and improved pot” claims are good advertising for marijuana dealers. As for the rest of the public, it’s time for a reality check.
First, it’s worth noting that police and lawmakers made these same alarmist claims about the suddenly not-as-dangerous-or-strong-as-we-once-said-it-was pot of the 1960s, ’70s, and 80s. These allegations were false then and they are still false now.
Second, THC — regardless of potency — is virtually non-toxic to healthy cells or organs, and is incapable of causing a fatal overdose. Currently, doctors may legally prescribe a FDA-approved pill that contains 100 percent THC, and curiously, nobody at the University of Mississippi or at the Drug Czar’s office seems to be overly concerned about its potential health effects.
Third, survey data gleaned from cannabis consumers in the Netherlands—where users may legally purchase pot of known quality—indicates thatmost cannabis consumers prefer less potent pot, just as the majority of those who drink alcohol prefer beer or wine rather than 190 proof Everclear or Bacardi 151. When consumers encounter unusually strong varieties of marijuana, they adjust their use accordingly and smoke less.
Finally, if US lawmakers and government researchers were truly concerned about potential risks posed by supposedly stronger marijuana, they would support regulating the drug, so that its potency would be consistent and this information would publicly displayed to the consumer. (Anyone ever been to a liquor store that sold a brand of booze that didn’t post its alcohol content on the label? Didn’t think so.)
So let’s review, shall we? Our federal government ostensibly wants fewer Americans to consume pot. So they spend billions of dollars outlawing the plant and driving its producers underground where breeders, over time, clandestinely develop stronger and more sophisticated herbal strains than ever existed prior to prohibition. The Feds then inadvertently give America’s marijuana growers billions of dollars in free advertising by telling the world that today’s weed is more potent than anything Allen Ginsberg, Tommy Chong or Jerry Garcia ever smoked in their heyday. In response, tens of millions of Americans head immediately to their nearest street-corner in search of a dealer (or college student) willing to sell them a dimebag of the new, super-potent cannabis they’ve been hearing about on TV. The Feds then demand more of your hard-earned tax dollars so they can get more Americans “off the pot.”
Then next year we do it all over again: same time, same station.
Any questions?
The recession is altering local law enforcement in the U.S. by forcing some agencies to close precincts, merge with other departments or even shut down.
Once largely spared from the deepest budget cuts, some police departments are struggling to provide basic services, police officials say.
“For the first time, because of the economy, police departments … may have to change how they do business,” says Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum, a law enforcement think tank. “People will see a change in the basic delivery of services,” from longer police response times to a dramatically reduced police presence in some communities.
Harlan Johnson, executive director of the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association, said political leaders are “choosing whether they keep the streetsopenor the police on patrol,” though it’s too early to tell whether the changes will increase crime.
The Obama administration’s $787 billion stimulus plan gives about $4 billion to local law enforcement, including $1 billion to hire and retain officers. But the hiring money has not been distributed, and applicants have requested more than is available.
RECENT POSTS
