RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
RSN | Venezuela: Another US Coup Attempt - and Why It Failed Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=51343"><span class="small">Keith Brooks, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Thursday, 08 August 2019 12:34

Brooks writes: "I was in Caracas, Venezuela, on April 30th, the day of the failed coup. There were eight of us, five from NYC, one Vermonter and one Canadian, along with the leader of our group, a Venezuelan with whom I had traveled to Venezuela once before, in 2012, when Hugo Chavez was still alive."

US-backed Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guido. (photo: Reuters)
US-backed Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guido. (photo: Reuters)


Venezuela: Another US Coup Attempt – and Why It Failed

By Keith Brooks, Reader Supported News

08 August 19


“How come we’re not at war with Venezuela? They have all that oil.”

was in Caracas, Venezuela, on April 30th, the day of the failed coup. There were eight of us, five from NYC, one Vermonter and one Canadian, along with the leader of our group, a Venezuelan with whom I had traveled to Venezuela once before, in 2012, when Hugo Chavez was still alive. Chavez was elected to power in 1999 leading what is known as the Bolivarian Revolution. Less than three years later, a 2002 U.S.-backed coup failed to overthrow him.

I witnessed back then Chavez’s wide base of support, and the reasons for it: a new constitution guaranteeing as human rights health, education, housing and social welfare, and the laws and projects designed to make those rights a reality. The results were impressive: one million new low-cost housing units, a dramatic drop in the poverty rate, infant mortality rate down from 19.1 per thousand in 1999 to 10 per thousand by 2012. Health Care was made free for all Venezuelans, reflected by an increase in life expectancy. Working hours were reduced to 6 hours a day and 36 hours per week, without loss of pay, while the minimum wage became the highest minimum wage in Latin America. In December 2005, UNESCO said that Venezuela had eradicated illiteracy. The malnutrition rate fell from 21% in 1998 to less than 3% in 2012.

The national management of the oil industry in 2003 put Venezuela in control over its most valuable natural resource, and used it to fund many of the social reform programs. Venezuela has the world’s largest oil reserves, which the U.S. has coveted ever since and admittedly seeks to control, as John Bolton made clear on Fox News: “It will make a big difference to the United States economically if we could have American oil companies invest in and produce the oil capabilities in Venezuela.”

So the Chavez presidency marked a new day of empowerment for Venezuela’s poor and working-class people, overwhelmingly people of color. And there was always a sector of the population, mainly the very wealthy mainly white upper class, who hated Chavez and his openly socialist policies.

So I went again this April because I wanted to see for myself if it was possible the impressions we are now given by the mainstream corporate media were true – was Venezuela really on the verge of civil war? Had the Venezuelan people turned against the Bolivarian revolution and President Maduro, who was elected to office after Chavez’s death in 2013 and re-elected in 2018? Did the U.S.-supported opposition really have widespread mass support?

The April 30th Failed Coup

Back in January, a politician virtually unknown to Venezuelans named Juan Guaidó, long mentored by U.S. regime-change specialists, announced himself as the president of Venezuela after receiving a phone call from U.S. Vice President Mike Pence. Guaidó, who was the head of the National Assembly, an unelected post, vowed that President Maduro would be gone by May Day. While blackouts of electricity rolled across Venezuela, Trump and Secretary of State Pompeo threatened U.S. military intervention if Maduro didn’t step down.

We were in Venezuela from April 26th to May 5th. On April 30th, the morning of the failed coup, we knew something was up as we ate breakfast in our hotel’s restaurant which had an open-air terrace. I saw a woman banging on a pan standing on a balcony in the apartment house next door to the hotel, yelling out to others to join her in denouncing Maduro. No one else joined her. She went back in. We heard what could have been firecrackers or gunfire. But when we looked out onto the street, business seemed no different than any of the previous three mornings we were there – people on their way to work, students going to school, motorbikes and cars on the streets.

By the time we left in our van for a housing conference at the Hotel ALBA celebrating the construction of two and a half million new low-cost housing units, we learned that there was a coup attempt, yet we had seen no sign of a military or police presence on the streets as one might expect if there was a major threat to the government. If you were in Caracas that day, outside the upper-class neighborhood where the attempt was made, you would never have known there was a coup attempt. During a lunch break in the conference, we were able to watch TV coverage on the attempted coup from both CNN and TeleSUR, a Venezuelan news outlet. Right in the lobby of the hotel our group quickly wrote a statement denouncing the Trump administration’s efforts to overthrow the government, and we were interviewed by Venezuelan government television, which was featured in the news throughout the day. Our statement said in part, “We are a group of U.S. and Canadian citizens gathered to denounce the U.S. government’s illegal and immoral actions against the people of Venezuela. We also oppose the U.S. sanctions which are not only illegal but are already causing immense suffering, especially through the denial of much needed medicines and adequate nutrition ...”

While we soon learned that the coup had failed, it was not until later that we heard the incredibly farcical details of what had transpired. Some might remember U.S Secretary of State Mike Pompeo claiming the day before that Maduro was escaping to Cuba. In fact, Guaidó had been led – actually duped – to believe that high-level military officials were going to defect and join him outside the airport that morning, along with large numbers of soldiers. But almost all the soldiers who showed up – after being lied to that they were going to receive promotions – quickly ran back to the base when it was clear they had been tricked into appearing to defect! Within a short time, the same Venezuelan defense minister that Guaidó had expected to defect to his side went on national television surrounded by his generals to say that the military was standing strong with Maduro and that no coup had taken place.

An estimated 2,000 Guaidó supporters did gather on an overpass to watch the highway below where 200 or so violent protesters were firing on the military and throwing Molotov cocktails near the airbase – as tens of thousands of Maduro supporters flocked to the presidential palace to defend it. Guaidó then went into hiding, but not before calling for the “mother of all marches” for the next day’s May Day celebrations. His “mother of all marches” pulled out at best 3 to 4 thousand less than 1% of the estimated 400,000 our group marched with at the Maduro May Day rally, one of the largest pro-government mobilizations since the days of Chavez.

It was quite striking even for a longtime activist like myself to witness the blatant lies and propaganda that saturate our media. It was like two different worlds as CNN, The New York Times, and mainstream media reported that a coup was underway in Venezuela. The NYT reported “a predawn takeover of a military base in the heart of the capital”– and that Guaidó had made a video appeal for an uprising from the “liberated” airbase – except they never got on the base. In another outrageous example, there’s a film clip that has been aired of two military vehicles running into opposition protesters. What’s not shown is what happened next, as the vehicles were surrounded by soldiers, with the occupants forced at gunpoint to get out and lie down on the ground! The truth is that the vehicles were driven by defecting soldiers who rammed into their own protesters to make it look like it was the government violently suppressing dissent. The drivers of the vehicle were arrested shortly after by the military as the rest of the news video clearly showed.

“This is not the foolish country of yesteryear. This country has awoken, and that’s one of the biggest changes that has taken place here in these 13 years, a cultural change” – Hugo Chavez, 2012

So this trip did dispel for me any of the widespread notions spread 24/7 by the mainstream U.S. corporate media that Maduro and the Bolivarian revolution have lost popular support and that Venezuela is a country on the verge of a civil war. While the U.S. sanctions, along with plummeting oil prices, have created serious challenges to Maduro, popular support and enthusiasm for the Bolivarian revolution and the elected government remains.

Has Venezuela become a dictatorship? Not if judged by the 2 or 3 major newspapers I bought every day that were anti-Maduro (as were the daily anti-Chavez papers I bought on my 2012 trip), nor by the rallies called by the U.S. backed coupsters openly inciting violence and calling for the overthrow of the government. There is, in fact, a “loyal opposition” that ran against Maduro in the 2018 election, the leader of which, Henri Falcon, received 32 % of the vote and was actually threatened with sanctions by the U.S. for participating in the election! And it deserves mention that I saw marchers at the Maduro May Day rally evidently feeling comfortable enough to be wearing Falcon t-shirts. Even Maria Machado, a well known staunch Guaidó supporter, has stated that Maduro is not a dictator.

The American people have been propagandized to believe that Trump is trying to overthrow Maduro out of humanitarian concern for an economic crisis caused by Maduro’s incompetence in handling the collapse of oil prices over the last five years and to “restore democracy,” a laughable rationale in light of the history: the U.S. has been trying to overthrow the Bolivarian revolution since the failed attempt against Chavez in 2002, and then there is the long history of U.S. coups and invasions of Latin America and around the world from the 1954 Guatemala coup, the failed 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, U.S. invasions of the Dominican Republic in 1965, the overthrow of Allende in 1973 in Chile, Grenada in 1983, Panama in 1989, the removal of Aristide in Haiti in 2004, the Honduras coup in 2009 and many others. Any government that refuses to be under the thumb of the U.S. is a target for overthrow.

While there is debate over how much Maduro’s economic policies have played a role, it’s not the fall in oil prices that have put Venezuela in crisis and threaten to destroy all the gains over the last 20 years – it’s the sanctions where the U.S. uses its worldwide economic power to prohibit countries from doing business with Venezuela. Along with the U.S.-engineered electricity blackouts, and the failed coup attempts, sanctions have frozen and even confiscated billions of dollars of Venezuelan assets in banks around the world, blocked payments for Venezuelan oil, and facilitated other outright instances of what can only be called piracy. Sanctions are just as deadly as bombs and bullets, a form of economic terrorism whose explicit rationale is to escalate the suffering of the civilian population to get them to turn against their government. A recent study estimated 40,000 deaths caused by blockading the shipment of medical supplies like insulin, HIV medications, and other life-supporting supplies, such as an emergency food program.

But all this has failed in the goal of driving the population into blaming and overthrowing the Maduro government; instead, as Chavez put it, this is an awakened country that largely understands the main role the U.S. has played in fomenting a crisis. From what I saw, Trump has actually united many of those opposed to and critical of Maduro to join in opposition to U.S. sanctions and military intervention, as Falcon and others have done.

While the threat of direct U.S. military intervention is ever-present, our trip also brought home how it is too easy for liberals like Bernie Sanders, AOC, and others to oppose military intervention and avoid taking a stand against the sanctions. Among Democratic Party candidates running for the presidency, only Tulsi Gabbard has opposed the sanctions.

It is also essential to establish that one does not have to defend Maduro to oppose this latest U.S. imperialist adventure and understand that the U.S. has ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to sabotage the Venezuelan economy and impose murderous sanctions to strangle the population into submission. This didn’t start with Maduro, and it is just the latest in the long list of U.S. coups and overthrows in Latin America and around the world.

So What Can We Do?

As we head toward the 2020 election, the issue of Trump’s policies toward Venezuela – as well as Iran – should be front and center in the debates, yet the Democratic party and the mainstream corporate media seem to have a tacit agreement to say as little as possible on these two imminent threats of more U.S. aggression. And a number of Democrats and liberal media – Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Amy Klobuchar, Kirsten Gillibrand, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Rachel Maddow, and PBS commentators – are among those leading liberal figures actually in support of Trump’s right to impose regime change on another people’s country.

It’s hard to see how this protracted siege of Venezuela will resolve itself, but the Venezuelan people are far from a demoralized population; rather they’ve been mobilized to resist with the formation of a people’s militia of 2 million, training with the military and national guard. An infrastructure of resistance has been created that would make it more than difficult for any U.S.-installed neoliberal puppet regime to rule. It could just turn into a people’s war, Trump’s Vietnam, for the president who ran claiming he was going to end “all these foolish wars.”

As U.S. citizens it is our responsibility to demand that our elected officials stop the threat of war and end the sanctions on Venezuela. We have a particular responsibility to oppose our government’s actions. Write letters to the editor, sign petitions, call your elected officials, take part in rallies and demonstrations, and challenge in whatever ways you can the “official story” we’re fed by the corporate mass media. And I urge anyone interested to go to Venezuela and see for yourself what is going on. William Camarada, the Venezuelan who led the two trips I was on, is planning another highly affordable trip in August. For more information, contact This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it or This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it or call 502 / 415-1080.

Email This Page


Keith Brooks is a longtime anti-war and labor/community activist, a retired NYC alternative high school teacher, and a member of DSA and Brooklyn For Peace.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
El Paso Shooting Suspect Happened to Attend My High School. Don't Blame Mental Health. Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=51342"><span class="small">Katherine Hu, USA TODAY</span></a>   
Thursday, 08 August 2019 12:34

Hu writes: "Many of us are unhappy with our lives, or struggle with mental health - but it doesn't lead us to drive 10 hours from home, release a racist manifesto and target Hispanics at a local Walmart."

Mourners visit a memorial at the site of the mass shooting in El Paso, Texas. (photo: John Locher/AP)
Mourners visit a memorial at the site of the mass shooting in El Paso, Texas. (photo: John Locher/AP)


ALSO SEE: El Paso Shooting Victims in Hospital Refused
to Meet Trump

El Paso Shooting Suspect Happened to Attend My High School. Don't Blame Mental Health.

By Katherine Hu, USA TODAY

08 August 19


Men like the El Paso shooting suspect — my high school classmate — don't have a monopoly on unhappiness, but Donald Trump gives them a scapegoat.

fter learning about the shooting in El Paso, Texas, my mother went to my bookshelf and pulled down a thick maroon yearbook from my shelf. A book that I had once purchased as a lifelong memory, to someday flip through with my children, now contains the photo of an alleged murderer. Patrick Crusius appears in my yearbook twice — once in his official portrait, and the other in a feature on Plano Senior’s “law enforcement” class. 

I didn’t know him. While we graduated in the same year from Plano Senior High School, our class was about 1,500 students. Our graduation was held in the Dallas Cowboys’ practice facility, largely because we can’t fit anywhere else. My connection with him is merely a fleeting coincidence. 

This shooting isn't about Crusius; it's about the lives gone and the families hurt. It is not lost on me, however, that this shooting could have occurred at my school, or my local Walmart.

Plano Senior High School is 20.7% Hispanic and in a state where the gun laws are notoriously weak. We also have an open campus, which means that students can leave and come at will, often driving to local restaurants for lunch. There was a school shooting threat scrawled in a bathroom stall my senior year, and last year, a gun was confiscated from a student after he allegedly brought it to Plano West Senior High, a neighboring school.  

Alienated men looking for a scapegoat

As far as I know, Crusius was an introvert and he didn’t participate in any extracurriculars while at Plano Senior. However, even if he did struggle with mental health issues, we cannot fall back on blaming it as the reason that at least 22 innocent people in El Paso are dead.

Many of us are unhappy with our lives, or struggle with mental health — but it doesn’t lead us to drive 10 hours from home, release a racist manifesto and target Hispanics at a local Walmart. What the El Paso gunman needed was for someone to offer up a scapegoat, to tell him that his unhappiness wasn’t his fault. Many have found that scapegoat in President Donald Trump, whose words have told young white men that their troubles are not their own, that their inability to find a job or succeed in life is the fault of the nonwhite “other,” that people of color are actively conspiring against their happiness. 

Trump’s hate is rooted in plausible deniability, in his ability to deny responsibility for the actions of his supporters. He wants us to believe that he doesn’t understand the power of his words, that he doesn’t know they have the power to become bullets and knives and death threats. But he has seen countless examples of what his words can do.

Donald Trump's words make it worse

Trump's comments toward four congresswomen to “go back" to where they came from were followed by a police officer saying that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., "needs a round.” In April, a self-described Trump supporter called the office of Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., saying that he’d “put a bullet in her.” Later that month, when Trump tweeted a video of the twin towers to criticize Omar, the congresswoman said death threats against her spiked.

At a rally in May, Trump called out to the crowd, “How do you stop these people?” when referencing migrants. Someone in the crowd yelled back, “Shoot them!” while the rest of the audience cheered. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see a link between events like these and Crusius, who appeared to share images of the word “Trump” spelled out with guns and allegedly wrote about a “Hispanic invasion" of Texas, harking to Trump’s rhetoric about the “invasion” at the southern border. 

The president and Republican leadership can continue to tweet about how tragic this is, about how they believe that mental health and video games drove a gunman to do what he did. But the blood of Saturday's shooting in El Paso is on their hands.

They have created a country where it is OK for young white men to blame entire racial groups for their unhappiness or poor mental health, where nonwhites are subhuman “rodent(s)” and “rapists,” as Trump has suggested. They have created a country where it is no longer safe to go to Walmart, where you can no longer tell your loved ones to stay safe because everywhere is dangerous. They have created a country where disagreeing with someone is enough to kill them.

The president’s words matter — as much as I wish they didn’t.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
RSN: Nancy Pelosi's Bad Attitude Toward Progressives Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=48990"><span class="small">Norman Solomon, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Thursday, 08 August 2019 11:54

Solomon writes: "Here's a thought experiment: Imagine that a letter from the billionaire real-estate broker George M. Marcus was hand-delivered to the office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, asking to meet with her. What are the chances that Pelosi would find time on her calendar?"

Speaker Nancy Pelosi. (photo: Getty)
Speaker Nancy Pelosi. (photo: Getty)


Nancy Pelosi's Bad Attitude Toward Progressives

By Norman Solomon, Reader Supported News

08 August 19

 

ere’s a thought experiment: Imagine that a letter from the billionaire real-estate broker George M. Marcus was hand-delivered to the office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, asking to meet with her. What are the chances that Pelosi would find time on her calendar?

Hint: Marcus gave $4.5 million to Pelosi’s House Majority PAC during the 2018 election cycle.

Or, if the letter had come from the hedge-fund billionaire James H. Simons — who gave $10 million to that PAC during the last election cycle — would his request for a meeting with Speaker Pelosi be granted?

In contrast, we don’t need to speculate about what would happen if Pelosi received a letter from seven progressive organizations “urgently” requesting a meeting to discuss her recent dismissive comments about four progressive congresswomen — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley and Rashida Tlaib.

That’s what happened on July 17, when a letter was hand-delivered to Pelosi’s office in Washington. It was signed by progressive groups with millions of active supporters — Demand Progress, Democracy for America, Just Foreign Policy, Our Revolution, Progressive Democrats of America, and RootsAction (where I’m national coordinator). It was also signed by the largest caucus of the biggest state party, the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party.

After a delay of more than two weeks, Pelosi’s office replied on August 2: “Unfortunately, Speaker Pelosi is unable to meet at this time. We will be sure to let you know if anything changes in her schedule.”

Pelosi has earned a reputation as a highly skilled legislative manager and a prodigious fundraiser. But her solicitous skills at cultivating wealthy patrons (the top 15 donors gave a total of $37 million to her House Majority PAC during the 2018 cycle) are matched with her rather contemptuous attitude toward progressives who don’t fit into the equations that compute for her on Capitol Hill.

Our letter pointed out that “the ultimate fate of legislative and electoral efforts will depend on active support from millions of people at the grassroots.” But inside the Capitol bubble, Democratic leadership seems to see progressive grassroots energy as more of a threat than an asset.

A month ago, Pelosi went out of her way to disparage Ocasio-Cortez, Omar, Pressley and Tlaib for voting against a bill that lacked adequate refugee protections at the U.S.-Mexico border. Pelosi told The New York Times: “All these people have their public whatever and their Twitter world. But they didn’t have any following. They’re four people and that’s how many votes they got.”

Pelosi later met with Ocasio-Cortez, but that did little to repair the damage. Lost in the media hubbub was the reality that Pelosi didn’t only express thinly veiled contempt toward four deeply progressive congresswomen; she was also conveying a similar attitude toward millions of Americans who share their political outlooks, while many have been drawn into political engagement due to their achievements. As our letter put it, “Dismissive comments about new progressive members of Congress have given the impression of a disdainful attitude toward like-minded progressives and Democratic activists across the country.”

Nor have Trump’s racist tweets about the four congresswomen changed the realities of how destructive it is for Speaker Pelosi to disparage those emerging leaders and their truly national grassroots constituencies. If Pelosi is supposed to strive for evenly piloting the Democratic aircraft as House speaker, why is she periodically throwing smoke bombs at its left wing?

The party should be called to account when its leaders let their ostensible principles slide. Pelosi’s ire at the four dissenting Democratic congresswomen was triggered by their strong opposition to inadequate protection for refugees. As our letter to Pelosi said: “At a time when flagrant institutionalized cruelty, racism, xenophobia, misogyny and other forms of bigotry have reached new depths from Republican leaders, we can ill afford the slightest wavering from unequivocal opposition to such extremism. Efforts to strengthen our resolve should be welcomed.”

At the same time, a key underlying reality is Pelosi’s alignment with corporate Democrats who worry about being primaried in 2020. Two of the four congresswomen in “The Squad” — Ocasio-Cortez and Pressley — won their seats by defeating incumbents in Democratic primaries last year. They’ve set a good example for progressives while making many House Democrats nervous.

This week, several thousand constituents have used a RootsAction webpage to send individual emails to House Democrats, telling their representative: “I realize that the Speaker is powerful on Capitol Hill, but I ask you to summon the courage to speak up and push her to permanently stop taking sides against progressive lawmakers.”

As I wrote nine months ago, “progressives should recognize the longstanding House Democratic leader as a symptom of a calcified party hierarchy that has worn out its grassroots welcome and is beginning to lose its grip. Increasingly at odds with the Democratic Party’s mobilized base, that grip has held on with gobs of money from centralized, deep-pocket sources — endlessly reinforcing continual deference to corporate power and an ongoing embrace of massively profitable militarism.”

At a time when the virulent racism of the Trump regime is becoming more flagrant, it might seem a divergence to challenge the Democratic Party’s leadership. On the contrary. The imperative of preventing Trump’s re-election will require massive engagement and a huge turnout of the Democratic base — exactly what doesn’t happen when party leaders are aloof, elitist, enthralled with Wall Street, and dismissive of genuinely progressive principles.

Email This Page


Norman Solomon is co-founder and national coordinator of RootsAction.org. He was a Bernie Sanders delegate from California to the 2016 Democratic National Convention and is currently a coordinator of the relaunched independent Bernie Delegates Network. Solomon is the author of a dozen books, including War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Joe Biden Is Coming for Your Legal Weed Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=51340"><span class="small">Chris Roberts, VICE</span></a>   
Thursday, 08 August 2019 11:13

Roberts writes: "In his 40 years in the Senate, as is now well known, Biden was a key architect of harsh criminal penalties for nonviolent drug users."

Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, 2020 Democratic presidential candidate. (photo: Elijah Nouvelage/Bloomberg)
Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, 2020 Democratic presidential candidate. (photo: Elijah Nouvelage/Bloomberg)


Joe Biden Is Coming for Your Legal Weed

By Chris Roberts, Vice

08 August 19


The former VP and 2020 candidate's plan for cannabis is the industry's worst nightmare: It could blow up the system across the country.

o one person created America's war on drugs. No individual is responsible for the accompanying manufactured crises of mass incarceration and impoverishment of working class communities of color. But in the same shamed strata as Richard Nixon and Nancy Reagan, in the view of many, you can find Joe Biden, the wobbly 2020 frontrunner and former vice president.

In his 40 years in the Senate, as is now well known, Biden was a key architect of harsh criminal penalties for nonviolent drug users. Undoing much of his own work was one way to make sense of a large part of the criminal justice plan his presidential campaign recently released. Finding a centrist's safe-and-happy medium on weed in particular, Biden has not embraced legalization—a.k.a. commercialized, recreational pot use—but has claimed to back decriminalization, or removing at least most pot offenses from the criminal justice system.

But Biden is actually pushing a policy that could wreck the growing American weed industry and massively disrupt users' access to the drug, attorneys, consultants, academics, and entrepreneurs well-versed in US cannabis policy say. 

"I view Biden's plan as a ham-fisted handing over of cannabis to the pharmaceutical industry," said Gavin Kogan, a California-based cannabis executive and attorney who chairs Grupo Flor, a large, vertically-integrated cannabis firm.

Cannabis is currently listed as a Schedule I controlled substance, the classification intended for drugs with a high potential for abuse and no medical value—a designation contradicted by a 2017 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine review, mocked on a daily basis by dozens of states with medical-use laws, and that even Attorney General William Barr apparently believes is untenable. 

Other than cannabis, there are no major state-legal markets for Schedule I drugs. Would making weed Schedule II—intended only for strictly controlled pharmaceutical drugs, and not recreational nor wellness products, the rubrics under which cannabis is often marketed and sold to Americans—make more sense? It might, but here's the catch: Drugs listed under Schedule II (which include cocaine and methamphetamine as well as prescription opiates like fentanyl) are available legally but only under strict Food and Drug Administration controls. That is, only with a doctor's prescription, only after a lengthy FDA-overseen approval process that can include years of clinical trials (and then sold only via a licensed pharmacy), and only for limited applications. 

In other words, there are no Schedule II drugs grown, processed, and sold in the way cannabis is brought to market in the United States, either—so that label, too, is probably inadequate. More to the point, if strictly enforced to the letter, Biden's marijuana policy could rip cannabis away from its current producers and sellers and hand over control of commercial weed to corporate interests instead. 

"If the federal government actually enforced the CSA [Controlled Substances Act] Schedule II [on cannabis in a Biden administration], then almost all current state-legal activities would be banned and could be shut down," said Jonathan Caulkins, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University's Heinz College who has served as co-director of the nonpartisan RAND Corporation's Drug Policy Research Center. 

In order to continue as normal, the cannabis industry would need to lobby for the same "explicit exemption" enjoyed by alcohol and tobacco—and "it’s not in the bag," Caulkins said. "So they have a reason to worry. It could all come crashing down."

Big and small, weed entrepreneurs are worried. Some seemed downright terrified.

"The traditional businesses, many of whom have paved the way on the policy reform side, would be completely left out of the conversation," said Lindsay Robinson, executive director of the California Cannabis Industry Association, which counts over 500 business members in the country’s largest and oldest legal weed market.

The reality for both producers and consumers "would be substantially different under the purview of the FDA," she added. "Who knows how long it would take patients and advocates to have access to the cannabis they’re now using?"

It wasn't just advocates with skin—financial or otherwise—in the game suggesting Biden's plan would likely amount to a gift to a few key players. Experts said the impact of the policy, if enacted, was pretty cut-and-dried.

“To the extent that FDA regulation always favors bigger companies that can afford to meet the regulations, then, yes, putting cannabis in Schedule II would be a sort of Big Pharma model,” said David Herzberg, a historian at the University at Buffalo who specializes in drug policy and authored Happy Pills in America: From Miltown to Prozac, a review of how prescription drugs have been developed, marketed, and sold. 

To date, states have regulated cannabis through health departments, liquor-control boards, or new agencies specifically created to deal with weed. Kogan's company is based in central California, in a mostly poor, heavily Latinx agricultural county banking on cannabis for an economic boom. Kogan helped cofound multiple brands and Grupo Flor runs massive cannabis cultivation operations in greenhouses previously affiliated with the floral industry

This arguably makes Kogan "big weed," and as a white male who wears a business suit, an avatar for the well-capitalized newcomers that old-school and smaller-scale weed businesses view as a mortal threat. But under the terms of Biden's criminal justice plan, not just "mom and pop" weed operators but people like Kogan, too, would be pushed out of business, he argued.

After all, FDA-approved drugs must survive a battery of clinical trials before they can be marketed and sold. Many cannabis companies don't have the resources enjoyed by a Merck or a Pfizer to pay for those trials without a revenue stream. And selling cannabis in a pharmacy rather than dispensaries would likely trash both the normal sales model in which Americans legally access weed, as well as the taxation structure set up in those states. 

It's not clear exactly how Biden hit upon Schedule II as the magic solution, or if he took input from drug-policy reform advocates or cannabis industry players—or took cues instead from the anti-legalization activists working against them. A spokesman for Biden's campaign did not respond to emails, text messages, or a phone call seeking comment.

"There's no way this [Biden's plan] will ever go far enough to remedy the damages these communities of color have suffered," said Solonje Burnett, co-founder of the Brooklyn-based cannabis brand hub Humble Bloom, adding that his was a "half measure" that put him on "the wrong side of history, again."

Indeed, within hours of the plan's release, Biden was critiqued—or subtweeted, really—by fellow presidential hopeful Cory Booker, who has proposed full legalization on the federal level. But he's not just behind his fellow Democrats. According to a bevy of industry players interviewed, Biden's plan would be worse for weed in America than anything proposed under Donald Trump.

"His stance is to blow up 90 percent of the existing regulated and traditional market," said Sean Donahoe, an Oakland, California-based cannabis-industry consultant. That could be a disruption worse, even, than any George Bush or Barack Obama-era crackdown—when many businesses and operators suffered raids or received threatening letters.

This "shows [Biden's] fundamental worldview is framed through a corporate lens with no regard for existing operators, nor good public policy," Donahoe added. 

As absurd as it might be to list cannabis in Schedule I, lumping weed with opiates, coke, and pharmaceuticals in Schedule II is also intellectually dishonest, critics said.

"Cannabis, like anything, has risks, but it doesn’t have those risks," said the University at Buffalo’s Herzberg. 

Fundamentally, though, the problem is that Schedule II "would still present a conflict with the existing state medical and adult-use cannabis programs that are on the books in 47 states," said Erich Pearson, who owns cannabis dispensaries in San Francisco and in California's Sonoma County, and sits on the board of the Denver-based National Cannabis Industry Association. (Pearson is also a longtime supporter of Sen. Kamala Harris and recently appeared at a Harris presidential campaign fundraiser, according to his Facebook page and FEC filings.)

Under most existing medical-marijuana laws, cannabis is available to sick people with a "qualifying condition" listed under state law who receive a "recommendation" from a physician to use the drug, which is then acquired from a dispensary or grown by a caregiver. 

Most cannabis use "is not medical," period, Caulkins noted. Further, most medical cannabis use "would not meet standard FDA approval process."

Whether a Biden-led FDA would have either the ability or the desire to punish every cannabis operator who violated such a policy framework is doubtful. But the takeaway is that Biden's plan as proposed could destroy established businesses. Then again, it might be good for the likes of Altria, the tobacco-industry giant that invested $1.8 billion in Canadian cannabis company Cronos and has also patented dozens of vaporizer devices.

In his defense, Biden has expressed awareness that the war on drugs as he helped wage it is no longer tenable. Biden "is here saying no one should be in jail because of cannabis use," a senior Biden campaign aide speaking on condition of anonymity told reporters before the plan's release. Biden also "very much believes that we need more research and [to] study the positive and negative impact of cannabis use," added the aide. 

But his plan wouldn't even do that, skeptics said.

The proposal would do for cannabis "the same thing it’s done for meth: Ensure reduced research initiatives, selective prosecution, and a thriving black market," said Michael Backes, a Southern California-based cannabis industry consultant and author of Cannabis Pharmacy: The Practical Guide to Medical Marijuana.

Selling cannabis like other Schedule II drugs, in "a closed system, only by prescription, only sold by licensed pharmacies, would be massively disruptive," Herzberg concluded. "It would produce massive changes—and if it were actually enforced, there could be no recreational marijuana at all."

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Learn the Damn Speech! Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=51339"><span class="small">Al Franken, Al Franken's Website</span></a>   
Thursday, 08 August 2019 08:26

Franken writes: "One of the most frustrating parts of being an American during these past couple years has been trying to process the sheer tonnage of lies, the endless vitriol and stupidity, the unyielding crassness, cynicism, and self-aggrandizement, not to mention the sheer cruelty coming on a daily basis from Donald Trump."

Former Senator Al Franken. (photo: Getty)
Former Senator Al Franken. (photo: Getty)


Learn the Damn Speech!

By Al Franken, Al Franken's Website

08 August 19

 

ne of the most frustrating parts of being an American during these past couple years has been trying to process the sheer tonnage of lies, the endless vitriol and stupidity, the unyielding crassness, cynicism, and self-aggrandizement, not to mention the sheer cruelty coming on a daily basis from Donald Trump. It is so overwhelming that it all sort of blends into one nightmarish mountain range of bullshit.

At a certain point, the brain gives up. There is no sense trying to remember his childish taunts, malicious calumnies, and transparently empty boasts. Just wait a few minutes. There’ll be a new one.

Keeping track of, let alone cataloguing, his daily stream of effluent, quickly became an impossible exercise, especially, I would imagine, for the poor souls whose job it is to do just that. But every once in a while, I will find a new category of affront that screams, “point me out!”

And that is Trump’s unwillingness to step up during a moment of national pain and deliver a speech meant to provide some comfort to Americans in a manner that makes you believe he gives shit. Remember, this is a guy who criticized President Obama for using a teleprompter. Yet, when he spoke yesterday about the tragedies in El Paso and Dayton, his expressionless face appeared to be mounted on a swivel-head, turning mechanically from one prompter to another in a way that suggested that he was reading the words for the first time and that he really felt he had better things to do.

Mr. President, when more than thirty people are randomly gunned down by two men in two American cities within hours of each other, and one of the killers had written a manifesto borrowing heavily from your own words, it’s time to step up and at least say something that, while not particularly comforting, (not your forte), at least sounds sincere. Some tips. Practice the speech. Start by reading it. Several times. That way, when you say the words for the cameras, they will seem familiar to you and you may understand why you are saying what you’re saying. Try to rewrite the speech, if just slightly, in your own words – enough to make it sound like you mean what are saying. Don’t gin up emotion if you don’t have any to gin up. But at least make an attempt to pretend that you grieve for those who died and their friends and family.

Don’t go to El Paso. Or to Dayton. But especially El Paso. The families and friends of those who were massacred there have every right to believe that your words from the moment you started your campaign at Trump Tower, then throughout your campaign, and to the very day of the shooting – that those words encouraged the shooter and that their loved ones may very well be alive were it not for the hatred you’ve been spewing almost daily.

Give the speech – a new speech – that expresses heartfelt sadness and grief.  Do it from the Oval Office, not from one of your golf courses. And try to make it sound like you’re sincere, even if you’re not. That will require some work. But it will be worth it. Understand how desperate all of us are for some reassurance that there are indeed limits to your unfeeling cruelty. Please. Not just for the people of El Paso and Dayton. But for all Americans.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 Next > End >>

Page 800 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN