If you haven’t already, please check out my latest piece
with The American Conservative, “What
Trump’s ‘Warning’ to Colombia Really Means.” It goes into detail about the way
in which America’s drug war is selectively enforced to advance a Cold War-style
The Trump administration has criticized Colombia’s anti-drug
efforts and pressured their country to reinstate its aerial fumigation program.
This program was somewhat effective with reducing coca production, but this one
method isn’t a silver bullet for eliminating the drug supply.
Also, aerial spraying does nothing to combat the demand for
cocaine. Hence, cocaine supply always responds to demand and the production is displaced
from one region to another. However, you may be wondering why Colombia
discontinued this program. The problem is that it also results in widespread
The chemical that is sprayed over the coca fields in Colombia,
glyphosate, was banned by the Colombian
Supreme Court in 2015 due to research by the World Health Organization,
which pointed to a variety of negative environmental and health consequences.
This aerial fumigation program is also unpopular with
Colombia’s farming sector because the spraying is indiscriminate and the chemicals kill all plants in the area, not just coca. In fact, the government of
Colombia reached a $15
million settlement in a lawsuit with its southern neighbor, Ecuador, due to
the damage from aerial spraying that drifted over the border.
Despite these facts, Secretary of State, Rex
Tillerson, and the Trump administration have continued to bang the drum
calling for the Colombian government to restore this program. Keep in mind,
aerial spraying conveniently benefits a couple of politically-connected
For fifteen years, the U.S. government contracted with the
private defense company DynCorp to spray
glyphosate, which is developed and patented by Monsanto, over the coca fields
in Colombia. (Glyphosate is the key chemical in their weed-killer, RoundUp.)
That brings up another interesting topic. The Trump
administration is indirectly promoting Monsanto’s interests at a time when
other government entities are confronting the company’s tactics. Case in point,
Monsanto’s officials and lobbyists were recently banned
from the European parliament. Coincidentally, this decision came about after
Monsanto’s representatives declined to attend a meeting about allegations that
their company manipulated safety studies related to glyphosate. (The New York Times also published an
recently about the company’s woes in the U.S.)
Anyhow, back to Colombia. The U.S. government’s insistence
upon this aerial spraying program has little to do with the effectiveness of
the program. It has more to do with who
benefits from illegal drug trafficking in Colombia. Again, my latest article
goes more in-depth, but to be brief, the U.S. government is more concerned with
drug money ending up in the hands of the top communist group in Colombia, the
FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia).
FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia)
On the opposite side, Colombia’s President Juan Manuel
Santos also has some unspoken objectives that should be addressed. He seems to
be using the drug war as a bargaining chip. The Santos administration has justifiably
remained steadfastly opposed to aerial spraying. However, the FARC openly
opposed aerial spraying as part of their negotiations. They have justifiable
reasons for opposing this program as well, i.e. legitimate agricultural. However,
it’s widely-known that their group is one of the top drug trafficking
organizations in the country.
Nonetheless, with this olive branch in place, it looks like
there may be a reprieve from the extreme violence in Colombia. Just yesterday,
Colombia’s second leading communist rebel group, the ELN (National Liberation
Army), began their cease-fire
agreement. Likewise, the leader of Los Urabenos has reached out to the
government in hopes of forming a truce
as well. Los Urabenos is a splinter group from the now defunct right-wing
paramilitary group, the AUC.
Keep in mind, the Trump administration has tried to paint
Santos as soft on drugs, but the leader of Los Urabenos is only looking to form
a peace agreement because the government has been aggressively pursuing this
group with the full force of the military. They’ve successfully killed
or captured many of its highest members.
Although Santos is on the cusp of reaching peace agreement
with the top remaining destabilizing force in the country, Los Urabenos, there
will still be dissidents. That has been the case with the FARC as there is a
fairly sizeable number of former FARC who refused to lay down their arms.
Likewise, there will be many dissident ELN members.
And there lies the rub. The demand for cocaine will never go
away and these rebels will be able to finance their warfare from illegal drugs,
as long as the U.S. doesn’t discontinue its antiquated its war on drugs.
If you found this post to be interesting, please check out
the first volume of my book series, Rackets,
The Drug War: A Trillion Dollar Con Game.
It goes into much more detail about the truth behind the war on drugs and why
it desperately needs to end.
From the outside looking in, someone could look at my work that has a strong libertarian lean with personal freedom issues and conclude that I'm an anti-government activist. However, that isn't the case. There are the Ted Cruz-es of the world who like to talk the fiscal conservative talk until tragedies like Hurricane Harvey affect them personally.
I certainly see a major role for government in our lives, but there is a glaring need for reforming our government and reducing spending to more reasonable levels that don't expand our national debt. Hence, so much of my work focuses on exposing fraud, waste, and abuse that is committed by government officials. And that leads to a very disturbing report released by The Institute for Justice. That is a non-profit organization that contests cases from a libertarian advocacy standpoint.
In particular, the Institute for Justice contests many cases involving eminent domain. In this instance, the city counsel and the mayor of Charlestown, IN have been seeking ways to force homeowners out of a low-income neighborhood, Pleasant Ridge. The plan is to bulldoze the area after all of the properties have been acquired by a single developer and set up a high-end neighborhood.
One of the ways of forcing the homeowners out has been via assessing onerous fines on a daily basis for petty code violations. However, not every homeowner has given in and sold their properties to the developer. In turn, various local government officials privately discussed using use eminent domain to take the remaining homes.
Obviously, eminent domain is a controversial topic. In theory, it should be used for developments that benefit the public and the homeowners should be paid a fair market value for their private property. However, in this case, the Institute for Justice uncovered documents proving that city officials privately conspired with the developer to artificially drive down the market prices before the homes were acquired.
The Institute for Justice has a pending civil case against the city on behalf of the homeowners. However, in my personal opinion, this goes far beyond a civil matter and this should be investigated by the DOJ.
It’s amazing how many conservatives can criticize the
politically correct movement and still use terms like “Alt-Right” or “White
Nationalists.” It’s time to label these people for who they are-- Neo-Nazis, racists,
homophobic sexists, bigots, etc. Better yet, we can accurately refer to this group as the
Make no mistake, I’m not in any way categorizing all conservatives
or Republicans as racists. There’s nothing wrong with having a right-wing or
conservative ideology. However, it’s horrible that openly racist activists can
spread their hatred under the banner of merely being “Alt-Right.” There’s no
room for mincing words and Vice’s embedded
coverage of the Charlottesville “Unite the Right” Rally gave them the opportunity to
show their true colors.
Too many people in the right-wing media praised Trump after
he read a scripted speech that denounced the right-wing hate groups. That was,
of course, after he had been widely criticized for his initial remarks, which
essentially sided with the “Racist-Right” hate groups. However, Trump went
off-script yesterday and reverted back to his initial remarks.
Trump’s response to the violence at this rally has been
extremely well covered in the news, yet his approval numbers only dropped
three points, from 37% to 34%. Therefore, we have to examine how much
influence the racist-right has in this country.
A Neo-Nazi news and commentary website, DailyStormer.com,
essentially applauded the death of Heather Heyer who was murdered by a speeding
vehicle during that rally. That website described Heyer as a “drain on
society,” a person “of no value,” and “a fat, childless, 32-year old slut.”
You’re probably thinking that such views came from a fringe
group on the dark web. Well, that’s sort of accurate. DailyStormer.com is now only available on the dark web.
However, that is only due to wide public outcry that prompted GoDaddy
and other tech companies to discontinue their service.
Before being shut down, the DailyStormer billed itself as
“The World’s Most Genocidal Website.” To get a more thorough description of the
hatred spewed on that site check out this horrific report by the Southern
Poverty Law Center.
How Popular Was DailyStormer.com?
This website received much more traffic than you would expect.
As of this morning, it was ranked #2,344 in the
U.S. and #10,496 in the world, according to Alexa’s site information. It also
should be noted that the site’s traffic increased substantially after Trump was
For the sake of perspective, DailyStormer.com ranked
significantly higher than many legitimate news & commentary websites:
NewRepublic.com #2,405 in the U.S.
Observer.com #3,235 in the U.S.
Reason.com #3,601 in the U.S.
in the U.S.
ProPublica.org #4,329 in the U.S.
There are several websites that are similar to DailyStormer,
albeit with less traffic.
Obviously, the views expressed on these websites don’t conform to mainstream
culture. However, we have to remember the fact that President’s approval
numbers barely budged after his horrible response to the Charlottesville
tragedy. Therefore, you have to wonder what percentage of the American population that, in
some ways, sympathizes with these hate groups.
A team of researchers working for the Veterans Health
Administration (VHA) released two studies that
were published today in the Annals of Internal Medicine. Both studies found
little evidence proving that medical marijuana is effective in treating pain and PTSD.
The researchers focused on these two medical issues because
they are the most commonly cited reasons a medical marijuana prescription. Pain
management is listed by 45% and 80% of people seeking cannabis prescriptions. Likewise,
over one-third of medical marijuana
patients named PTSD as the primary issue.
These Veterans Health Administration researchers examined 27
chronic pain trials and found that “there is low-strength evidence that
cannabis alleviates neuropathic pain but insufficient evidence in other pain
PTSD treatment, on the other hand, was examined by analyzing
two systematic reviews and three observational studies. According to the VHA’s research,
there was not enough evidence to conclude that cannabis reduces PTSD symptoms. Furthermore,
their researchers believe that past research could have a “medium to high risk
Conversely, the VHA noted that there are two randomized
trials and six other ongoing studies to see marijuana’s effects with PTSD. It
will take three years before all of those studies are completed.
Is Cannabis Research a Dead End? No
(Flickr - Eggrole)
These kinds of studies are based upon the preliminary stages
of medical marijuana research. Cannabis is a very complex plant with over 100
cannabinoids. Scientists have yet to conclusively determine which individual cannabinoids
or combinations are the most effective. That will take considerable time.
It also should be noted that there have historically been numerous
bureaucratic obstacles from the federal government restricting medical studies
on cannabis. Numerous patients report positive anecdotal results from medical
marijuana. Therefore, this is a topic that needs considerably more research.
2020 is a long
time to wait, but that’s probably the earliest point before the legal marijuana
industry could see any positive changes at the federal level. As my readers
know, I firmly believe that third parties need more inclusion in the political
process for this to happen. However, that is unlikely to occur anytime soon.
Therefore, let’s examine the top potential Democratic Presidential hopefuls for
2020 and see their stances.
Senator Bernie Sanders (VT-I)
(Flickr - Gage Skidmore)
unlikely that Sanders will get the Democratic nomination in 2020 even though he
has the best shot at winning; he’s literally the most
popular current politician in America. Sanders would have likely beaten
Trump if he had received the nomination because he would have maintained the liberal
base while receiving better voter turnout with the key demographics where
Clinton was unpopular.
It’s no secret that
the DNC worked behind the scenes to block Sanders from winning the nomination. In
fact, my last column with The
American Conservative detailed the current lawsuit filed by some of his
supporters against the DNC. Long story short, the DNC hasn’t openly denied many
of the accusations that their group tried to suppress his campaign. Hence,
there’s no reason to believe that the DNC will show any support for him in the
Most Likely Candidates
It looks like
something akin to the Watergate scandal is in the works. Jimmy Carter was an
obscure Governor from Georgia when that took place. (He also publicly supported
decriminalization of possession
of up to one ounce of marijuana, which was a bold political stance in the
1970s.) However, it seems unlikely that a Governor will receive the nomination
because the news cycle is entirely focused on Trump.
probably be lengthy Congressional hearings and Democrats in related committees
will get the face time that corresponds to votes. With that in mind, please
note that James Garfield was the first and only sitting member of the House of
Representatives to be elected President. Therefore, we’ll look at the most
likely candidates currently serving in the U.S. Senate.
1 - Sen. Kamala Harris (CA)
fast-rising politician has rapidly gained a ton of political momentum. She was
elected last year to her first term in the U.S. Senate and she already serves
on some influential Senate Committees, including Homeland Security &
Governmental Affairs and the Intelligence Committee. Harris served as the Attorney
General of California before heading to Capitol Hill and, like most prosecutors,
she predictably sided with the special interests of the prison industrial
complex. She waged a famous crusade against BackPage.com and has remained a
strong supporter of civil
as Attorney General in 2014, she literally laughed
at the suggestion of legalizing recreational marijuana. However, Harris somewhat
reversed course, but she isn’t in favor of legalization. Instead, she is now
advocating for decriminalization, but her exact plan isn’t clear. In April of
last year, she suggested
that marijuana should only be changed from a Schedule I to Schedule II drug. Furthermore,
as Tom Angell (Chairman of the Marijuana Majority) accurately
points out, Kamala Harris continues referring to the drug war in the past
tense as if it is a thing of the past.
2 - Sen. Elizabeth Warren (MA)
has strong name recognition and has developed a reputation as a tough banking
regulator. As far as her views on marijuana, she has seemingly shifted to tepid
support of legalization. Two years ago, when questioned about her state’s
ballot initiative for recreational marijuana she told MassLive:
“I’m open to
it. I think we’ve learned more. A couple of states have legalized marijuana for
That was a
reversal from the past. She had been openly against legalization
and even attacked
a rival Republican as late as 2013 for supporting legal recreational marijuana.
However, she’s now acting as an ally to the legal marijuana industry. She has
publicly challenged Jeff
Sessions to respect states’ rights and is working to create legal
banking options for the industry.
3 - Sen. Cory Booker (NJ)
Booker has a
high level of name recognition, particularly with young voters. He served as
the Mayor of Newark before heading to the U.S. Senate in 2013. He’s quickly
made a name for himself by being a very accessible media figure.
Of these three
potential candidates, Booker has been by far the most courageous advocate of
legal recreational marijuana. In fact, he sponsored the “Marijuana Justice Act,”
which is hands down the most comprehensive and progressive marijuana
legalization bill in U.S. history.
Here are a few highlights:
person presently incarcerated for a marijuana offense would be eligible to have
that sentence reversed.
would remove marijuana entirely from the controlled substance list.
would provide federal funds for states to change drug policies if they have
incarcerated minorities and low-income individuals disproportionally.
would provide a “Community Reinvestment Fund” with job programs and several
other benefits in cities that have been particularly affected by the drug war.
Suffice it say,
this is an incredibly ambitious bill and it has absolutely no shot of being
passed at this time. Nonetheless, it’s a positive development that proposals
like this are beginning to be introduced to the electorate at large.
As you probably know, President Trump announced via Twitter that he planned to reinstate the ban on transgender people from joining the military. It’s hard to believe that this decision was anything other than an attempt to rally his base and distract from the Mueller investigation. After all, he pointed to the healthcare costs from transgender soldiers, but that figure is only a fraction of the security expenses from his trips to Mar-A-Lago.
There’s one thing that we do know--Trump knows how to manipulate the media cycle. For one day, the attention was no longer on his financial ties to Russian mobsters, or the meeting between Russian with his son, son-in-law, and campaign manager. Trump certainly seems to be in panic mode as he’s already questioned his attorneys about pardoning himself and his family.
This week, his distractionary targets have been Jeff Sessions and the transgender community. Who knows who will be in his crosshairs next week or even tomorrow?
The silver lining in this circus show of a presidency is that the American public is being exposed to the power of the executive office. For instance, maybe we can now begin discussing checks and balances, such as limitations on launching nuclear attacks? Or how about we address the Obama administration’s authorization of drone attacks against American citizens, charging whistleblowers with the Espionage Act, spying on American citizens through our intelligence agencies, etc.?
Unfortunately, these lessons seem to be lost the American public. Politics tend to be reactionary, rather than proactive. Likewise, we tend to focus on individuals, rather than reforming systems and establishing proper precedents.
One of the main problems is that our political system methodically blocks independent, outside voices. That’s why you didn’t hear many important issues raised during the presidential debates. And that leads to the issues raised in my last article with The American Conservative, “Democratic Party Fraud: Like Ron Paul, Bernie Sanders never had a fair shot.”
In short, that article pointed to a few lawsuits that could actually open the political process. The first involves a class-action lawsuit against the Democratic National Party, Carol Wilding et al. v. DNC Services Corp. The plaintiffs are making the case that the DNC violated its fiduciary duty by committing fraud and colluding against Bernie Sanders. In turn, the DNC hasn’t denied these claims. Instead, their defense is that they have a right to operate their organization in this shady manner.
I wish the plaintiffs luck, but it’s unlikely that the government can properly regulate political parties ensuring the integrity of the nomination process. Then again, candidates such as Bernie Sanders or Ron Paul have only run within the two main party because our system unofficially blocks third parties. That leads to the other important pending lawsuits, Level the Playing Field v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) and Johnson v. Commission on Presidential Debates.
To brief, the lawsuits contest that the 15% polling standard by the Commission on Presidential Debates is akin to an antitrust violation. Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, The Libertarian Party, and the Green Party are leading these lawsuits. And that’s where most people fail to see the point. They focus on Johnson’s and Stein’s chances at winning the election. Instead, we need to focus on the concept of third-party candidates’ ideas winning and gaining influence.
The average person underestimates the potential impact of third-party candidates in the debates. Take Ross Perot for example. He pulled off the impossible by making the national debt the dominant topic of interest. As a result, the Clinton administration and the Republican Congress made balancing the budget a top priority. In his first year, Clinton’s $16 billion stimulus package was rejected by Congress and the deficit was reduced to $354 billion (down from $413 billion in the prior year). This budget-conscious political landscape eventually resulted in a $290 billion surplus in Bill Clinton’s last year in office.
Obviously, there are many factors for why the Congressional budget has gone off the rails. However, one reason that is rarely mentioned in the media is that it’s been 25 years since a budget-focused third-party candidate has been on the presidential debate stage! Last year our federal budget deficit was $552 billion, and our total national debt is now approaching $20 trillion dollars!
Last year, our country had a real opportunity for political progress if Gary Johnson and Jill Stein had been allowed to debate. That would have forced Trump and Clinton to debate policies in detail that were outside of their comfort zones. Here are few in which the current administration has already made or attempted to make drastic changes:
Mandatory Minimum Sentences
Civil Asset Forfeiture
Equal Rights for the LGBTQ community
Needless to say, the current President is quite thin-skinned and doesn’t respond well to criticism. With that in mind, our country would be in a better position if he had been pressured to make a concrete position on those and other important issues before taking office.
“It’s all by design, man.”
It’s an open secret that the Commission on Presidential Debates firmly protects the two-party system, blocks independent candidates, and is controlled by the political establishment. It’s a private company that is sponsored by a few powerful corporations. Click here for a list of the past donors.
The organization’s leadership is a smorgasbord of Republican and Democrat loyalists. That includes the former Chairmen of the DNC and the RNC, Frank Fahrenkopf and Paul G. Kirk. What is not as well-known is the extent to which the Commission on Presidential Debates capitulates to the demands of the two major parties.
Contrary to popular belief, Ross Perot was not selected by the Commission on Presidential Debates in 1992 purely on the merits of his polling numbers. This is obscure knowledge, but the two major parties formed secret contractual agreements each election cycle to decide the rules of the debates, including the height of the podium.
George Farah, the founder of the nonprofit group, Open Debates, received leaked documents from those agreements. He found out that both parties had veto power over third-party candidates. Surprisingly, the Republicans didn’t use that power in 1992 to block Perot because they thought he would take away more votes from Clinton.
Four years later, Bill Clinton and Bob Dole successfully blocked Perot from debating even though he grabbed 19 percent of the popular vote in the prior election. The Commission received a lot of criticism for that decision. In turn, their organization instituted the 15% polling number in 2000 to increase “transparency,” but it’s clear that such a high threshold is meant to obstruct any challenges to the political establishment.
To wrap up, both the DNC Fraud case and the lawsuits against the Commission on Presidential Debates could establish some incredibly important precedents for our democracy. Again, I wish the plaintiffs luck in the DNC Fraud case, but neither major party will likely respond adequate to government regulations, despite public pressure. Nonetheless, that case needs as much publicity as possible in order to shine light on the DNC’s corrupt practices.
On the other hand, public pressure due to increased awareness could have an impact on the corrupt practices of the Commission on Presidential Debates. Our country needs to hear new, outside voices; few positive changes are going to be offered by the Democratic or Republican parties.
Gary Johnson has aggressively marketed through social media to let the public know about these lawsuits. You don’t have to support Gary Johnson or agree with any of his political views. However, we’d all benefit by supporting his right and other future third-party candidates’ right to debate.
A local news outlet in Winston-Salem produced a brief feature, “Former federal agent says putting drug addicts in prison is a ‘mistake.’”
I don’t think the title truly reflects the gravity of this story. Those are not the typical words of someone like Robert Stutman who is a former DEA special agent. He was later promoted to be the Chief of the New York DEA Office. He has certainly earned his stripes in the war on drugs. Case in point, the Medellin Cartel at one time had a price on his head.
Stutman aggressively promoted a strong response to illegal drugs during his time as a leader within the DEA. He was quoted in my book, The Drug War: A Trillion Dollar Con Game, because he openly “used the media” to hype the drug war. He stated that the media exploited the crack cocaine crisis of the 80s, calling it the “hottest combat reporting story to come along since the end of the Vietnam War.”
Stutman played a major role in one of the most influential drug war media presentations of the 1980s, 48 Hours on Crack Street. In fact, he appeared on the show. It was a two-hour CBS documentary with Dan Rather and Bernie Goldberg exploring some of New York City’s most crime-infested areas. It was aired in September of 1986 to the tune of 15 million viewers, which was the highest ratings for a TV documentary in five and half years.
48 Hours on Crack Street was one of many crack-related news segments that had American voters clamoring for tougher drug laws. One month later, Congress passed the infamous Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which made the penalty for crack 100 times longer than the same amount of powder cocaine.
Stutman retired from the DEA in 1990 and he began vocalizing his criticisms of the war on drugs in a very public manner. For nearly three decades, Stutman has been a strong advocate for more spending on drug education and treatment, rather than law enforcement. In fact, he formed his own company, Employee Information Services Inc, which specializes in providing drug rehab services.
In an interview with Frontline, Stutman asserted that politicians love to “patronize voters” with the tough on crime approach to drug addiction, but it isn’t effective policy. However, despite this liberal mentality, Stutman isn’t an advocate of decriminalization. Although I certainly disagree with Stutman’s views on that subject, it’s quite refreshing to hear someone with his background who doesn’t “toe the company line” by insisting that harm reduction (drug education and treatment) needs to be prioritized over law enforcement.
Last Friday, June 2nd, was International Sex Workers’ Day. That day is in memory of a historic sex worker protest that took place on June 2, 1975 in Lyon, France.
A combination of events sparked this protest. A few sex workers had been murdered in the area and the police had shown no commitment to solving these cases. The murderer hadn’t been captured and the local police reacted to these crimes by increasingly enforcing prostitution laws. In other words, the police weren’t protecting these women and the criminal penalties were making them more vulnerable to violence.
Sex workers would have to risk going to jail if they wanted to come forward with information about a serial killer. In response, a group of roughly 100 sex workers who called themselves “the French Collective of Prostitutes” decided to take extreme action. They chose a highly visible scene to stage their protest. They gathered at a local church and refused to leave until their basic rights were observed.
They also hanged a banner (in reference to their children) from within one of the windows that read, “We do not want to see our mothers in prison.” The French Collective of Prostitutes were inside of the Saint-Nizier church for eight days before the police raided the building. Upon entrance, many of the women were beaten by these law enforcement officers.
Photo - Jenn Farr/Flickr
Needless to say, this very public act of political speech gained a great deal of media attention. It sparked a wave of interest and helped lead to the formation of several sex worker activist organizations. This brave act became an international story and every year since then June 2nd has been recognized as International Sex Workers’ Day. In some countries, it’s called International Whores’ Day.
Out of curiosity, I held off on writing this post for a few days because I wanted to see how much media coverage the International Sex Workers’ Day would receive. I wrote a similar post last December, “U.S. Media Ignores International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers.”
If you’re not familiar with the significance of December 17th, it is the International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers. (There’s a horrific backstory to why that day is commemorated and it’s explained in full in the article.) Anyhow, long story short, there was barely any recognition of the International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers by corporate media outlets within the U.S.
With that knowledge in mind, I assumed that at least one media outlet in the U.S. would cover the International Sex Workers’ Day. Guess what? I was wrong.
If you’re on social media, you probably noticed that National Donut Day dominated Internet traffic on June 2nd. Case in point, there were over 150,000 posts on Twitter related to this topic.
Granted, most readers prefer light-hearted topics on a Friday. Furthermore, most Americans don’t support the decriminalization of prostitution. And those who support decriminalization may enjoy a brief mental escape with some silly memes about donuts. Clearly, a liberal take on prostitution policy doesn’t fall in line with mainstream news. However, it’s a sad state of affairs that not one American news organization was willing to cover this story.
On the other hand, there was some media recognition of International Sex Workers’ Day in other countries, particularly where prostitution is either legal or decriminalized. One article in Australia quoted a local sex worker activist, Julie Bates.
“But unfortunately, stigma is rife and very few sex workers can stand tall as we’re still treated as second class citizens.”
Americans need to hear that kind of perspective. After all, the media has a very influential role in shaping public opinion. Hence, there needs to be fair and balanced coverage of this issue. Suffice it to say, that hasn’t happened in the United States. Instead, the average American has been inundated with news reports that conflate human trafficking with prostitution.
Occasionally, there is a prostitution news report similar to what happened yesterday. A police officer in Ridley, TN was arrested for official misconduct and patronizing prostitution. He’s accused of having sex with prostitutes in his police car while on duty on multiple occasions.
According to the investigators, this police officer paid for sex. And that may be the case. However, police officers frequently extort prostitutes for free sex. And the average person is completely unaware of this issue.
Understandably, it’s difficult to quantify this problem because sex workers operate in the black market. However, Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner (the famed “Freakonomics” duo) conducted a study, which included eyewitnesses, and found that 3% of prostitutes’ sex acts were performed for free with police officers.
Most sex workers don’t report these sexual assaults because their line of work is illegal. However, a recent scandal in the Bay Area revealed that over 30 police officers had sex with one particular sex worker, Celeste Guap. Four of those officers had sex with her while she was underage. Guap explained that she felt compelled to have sex with these officers in order to stay out of jail. Two weeks ago, the city of Oakland agreed to a nearly $1 million settlement.
On a related note, there’s also been some media coverage about Michigan closing a legal loophole that allowed police to have sex with prostitutes during undercover stings. However, the coverage was flawed on multiple levels. First of all, there’s the official rule and there’s the way that events actually unfold in the real world.
Secondly, most news outlets reported that Michigan was the last state to close this loophole. That’s not true. A sex worker activism group in Alaska, Community United for Safety & Protection (CUSP), is actively lobbying the state legislature to end this practice. Conversely, various Alaskan police officials have also lobbied to keep this loophole in place. They’ve insisted that an officer would be fired for engaging in such activity. Yet, police officials claim that this loophole shouldn’t be closed. Suffice it say, that’s a very contradictory viewpoint.
One police official told the Alaska Dispatch News that he was offended by the suggestion that police officers would abuse their authority in this manner. Well, you can watch this NSFW video with multiple testimonies from sex workers in Alaska who’ve been violated in this exact manner.
You don’t need to be a scholar to realize that it’s a human rights crisis when a particular group of people can be targeted for rape with little to no fear of legal repercussions.
To wrap up, this is only one of numerous issues that result from criminalizing prostitution. Unfortunately, the American media is generally unaware of the injustices that sex workers are subjected to. Or, the industry is unwilling to report on these human rights violations.
 Gail Pheterson. A Vindication of the Rights of Whores. Seattle: The Seal Press, 1989. Print. P 5
 Nils Ringal. Love For Sale: A World History of Prostitution. New York: Grove Press, 2004. Print. P 373
 Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner. Super Freakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes, and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance. New York: William Morrow, 2009. Print. P 45
The Governor of Vermont, Phil Scott, vetoed a bill last month
Photo - Get Budding
that would have legalized recreational marijuana. This would have been an unprecedented moment in history. Sure, eight states and the District of Columbia had already legalized recreational use. However, those states legalized recreational marijuana via ballot measures or public referendums. In other words, you can’t give credit to the politicians; it was left up to the voters to decide.
The Vermont legislature, on the other hand, passed this bill. Regardless of the fact that the Governor vetoed the bill, no state legislature has ever accomplished this task. With that in mind, this was a very positive development for the American democracy. After all, a strong majority of Americans support legalized marijuana. Hence, this is the perfect example of the manner in which special interests exert control over the legislative process.
Will recreational marijuana be legalized in Vermont?
The state legislature could overrule the Governor’s veto with a two-thirds majority vote. But, that seems unlikely because the bill wasn’t passed in the House by a wide margin, 79-66. The margin was much wider in the state Senate, 20-9.
The legislature reconvenes on June 21st. Most likely, the members will have to make some alterations to secure the Governor’s signature in the future. Governor Scott has expressed vague concerns about “protecting children,” the regulations, and the methods for roadside testing for impairments.
If we are to take him at his word, no system would “protect children” better than a legal and regulated cannabis industry. Secondly, the regulations can be hammered out before the new laws go into effect. As for the roadside testing, we’re at the mercy of the scientific community. There are many new, promising forms of technology in the works, but a perfect method has yet to be finalized. Hopefully, Governor Scott doesn’t lean on these excuses as a crutch to avoid signing this bill.
With that said, Phil Scott has publicly supported the general idea of legalizing recreational marijuana. He said, “Generally, I view it through the lens of a libertarian, I believe what adults do behind closed doors and on their own personal property is their own choice so long as it doesn't negatively impact the health and safety of others.” For the short term, he should deserve the benefit of the doubt and we’ll see if a compromise bill can be finalized later this month.
A Disturbing Trend
Someone who doesn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt is New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez. This may seem familiar if you read my column, “Want to Solve America’s Public Defender Crisis? Stop Arresting People for Cannabis.” Governor Martinez, a GEO Group campaign finance recipient, has taken her loyalty to various conservative special interest groups to a ridiculously absurd level. She has twice vetoed bills to legalize industrial hemp.
When I first read about vetoes, I immediately thought of that iconic soundbite from Allen Iverson, “We’re talking about practice?!?” In this instance, we’re talking about hemp?!? This should be a noncontroversial issue. The restrictions on hemp are completely unnecessary. Industrial hemp production and recreational marijuana are two entirely different issues. Hemp contains only trace amounts of the psychoactive chemical, THC, within marijuana. In other words, it’s impossible to get “high” with hemp.
Long story short, it is inexcusable for a politician in 2017 to block industrial hemp production in this country. Keep in mind, Governor Susana Martinez vetoed two hemp bills in the state with the highest unemployment rate.
With that sentiment in mind, the governor of Arizona, Doug Ducey, also vetoed an industrial hemp bill last month. That’s particularly disturbing because Ducey’s website claims that it’s his mission to “boost economic growth, create new jobs and promote 21st-century innovation that improves the way Arizonans live.”
There is a tremendous economic upside with hemp, but the United States is far behind the curve. Thousands of products can be derived from hemp and several other countries are progressing with some amazing innovations. For instance, Canadian-based Motive Industries has built one of the most eco-friendly cars on the planet, the Kestrel. The body of the car is composed of hemp, which makes it lighter and more crash resistant. In fact, unlike all other cars, the hemp panels of the Kestrel can actually pop back into place after an accident has occurred.
Likewise, homebuilders in the U.K. are constructing houses with several different materials derived from hemp, particularly concrete. Hemp can also produce eco-friendly versions of plastic, fuel, clothing, paint, etc. Suffice it say, there are too many hemp products to list in a concise manner.
Unfortunately, our nation will continue failing to achieve its full economic potential until the Governors’ offices across this country stop blocking the bipartisan progress with legal cannabis legislation.
(Update 6-6) Just hours after this was posted, the Governor of Florida Rick Scott vetoed line items that would have allocated $3 million to medical marijuana research. That's a disappointing decision on multiple levels, in particular, Florida hosts the most senior citizens in the U.S. However, this decision was part of a record-setting day of vetoes in which Governor Scott blocked $11.9 billion of spending.
President Trump (Official Portrait)
On March 29th, President Trump conducted a meeting with various “experts” on the heroin epidemic, i.e. Chris Christie, Jeff Sessions, Chuck Rosenberg, along with others. Trump kicked off the meeting by citing a ridiculous statistic that was presumably provided by John Kelly, the Secretary of Homeland Security. Trump claimed that illegal trafficking across the border had been reduced by 61% within his first two months in office! Only moments later, he contradicted that “alternative fact” with another one. He claimed that cartels have brought such vast supplies of illegal drugs that some illegal narcotics “are cheaper than candy.”
It’s no secret that America is now experiencing an unprecedented opioid epidemic. This is an issue that has been covered, in great detail, by essentially every major news organization. Then again, Trump apparently gets his news updates entirely from Fox News. Hence, Trump, and his inner circle, seems to believe that this crisis is “probably almost untalked about compared to the severity that we're witnessing.” He added:
“It's really one of the biggest problems our country has, and nobody really wants to talk about it. Vice President Pence mentioned this coming into the room. He said, this is a problem like nobody understands.”
Chris Christie chimed in with this gem as though he had insight that most Americans were unaware of:
“I think the President and I both agree that addiction is a disease, and it's a disease that can be treated, and that we need to make sure we let people know -- the President talked about how folks don’t talk about it.”
This belief that “folks don’t talk about it,” is stunningly out of touch with the views of most Americans. Public opinion about drug addiction is rapidly changing in favor of treatment and harm reduction, not incarceration. To be fair, Chris Christie has been one of the more vocal Republicans to publicly advocate softer stances in the war on drugs, such as criticisms for mandatory minimum sentences. But, his actions haven’t lived up to his rhetoric.
You’d be hard-pressed to find someone who believes that the drug war has been a success. Most people recognize that criminalizing drugs has been counterproductive and led to an increase in crime. And drug-related crime is apparently what Donald Trump was referring to when he made another statement. Albeit, it’s difficult to decipher what President Trump was trying to convey:
“Our Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, is working very hard on this problem. It takes a lot of his time, because this causes so much of the problem that you have to solve -- that problem.”
The war on drugs is an endless cycle that is inadvertently designed to fail. Time and time again, each administration swears that it will be the one to solve the drug addiction problem. And Jeff Sessions believes he’s the right man for the job. He said, “When I became a United States attorney in ’81…it took 20 years, but we reduced drug abuse in America, addiction and death dramatically.”
Another troubling aspect of this meeting was a repetitive theme in which President Trump focused on when this opioid epidemic began, not the reasons why it began. This panel of “experts” listened to a few emotional stories from people whose life hit rock bottom before overcoming addiction. Prescription drugs were the gateway drugs for two or those three speakers. Nonetheless, this point seemed to be lost on the listeners.
Anyhow, the head of the DEA, Chuck Rosenberg, told the panel what Trump apparently wanted to hear. He estimated that the last eight to ten years have been the worst as far as heroin addiction. Obviously, Rosenberg didn’t go into depth about the corrupt connection between the DEA, drug companies, and the opioid crisis, which was the focus of my column “Why Corporations are Too Big to Jail in the Drug War.”
Instead, Rosenberg informed the group about a DEA “takeback” initiative in which people can return unused prescription drugs. Remarkably, he mentioned “We're going to do that relentlessly twice a year, encourage people to turn in these drugs, and try and break this cycle.” Now, let’s pause for a second. That may have been a first. Arguably, no person has ever claimed to do anything “relentlessly…twice a year.”
For all of the different points of view that were presented--harm reduction, addiction treatment, etc.--Trump ultimately showed his hand. As we all know, he believes that a wall along the border with Mexico will eradicate drug trafficking. Trump asked Rosenberg, “Would this (increase in drug use) have anything to do with the weakening of the borders? Because a lot of it comes from the southern border.” Rosenberg acknowledged that a large percentage of drugs are trafficked through Mexico, but he also pointed out that China is a major importer as well. With that said, it must be noted that Trump genuinely believes that our border security has been “weakened” over the years, even though the budgets for counternarcotics, terrorism, border patrol, national security, etc. continue to rise every year.
All in all, this 30-minute meeting was illuminating and concerning in regard to the direction of our country.
Brian Saady's three-book series, Rackets, is now available at all major bookstores.
The Drug War: A Trillion Dollar Con Game
Dealing From the Bottom of the Deck: Hypocritical Gambling Laws Enrich Crooked Politicians, a Select-Few Casinos, and the Mob
Decriminalized Prostitution: The Common Sense Solution