Category Archives: War On Drugs

New York last year joined the squad of U.S. states that have gone from decriminalizing pot possession to outright legalizing marijuana. This year the process moves from the legislature to New York boulevards as the former street drug transitions to legal storefronts. New York lawmakers have crafted a measure to accompany legalization that is meant to address some of the historical injustices related to the outlaw era of marijuana sales and use.

Under the 2021 law that legalized marijuana in New York, half of all cannabis-related licenses issued this year will be reserved for women, minorities, distressed farmers, veterans, and individuals who have lived in communities disproportionally impacted by the drug war, according to a report in the New York Times. The plan also earmarks 40 percent of cannabis tax revenue for use in Black and Latino communities.

For those able to acquire a license, the program, funded with $200 million to help applicants get their businesses running, will mean a leg up in rebuilding lives dislocated by their divergence into the criminal justice system because of minor marijuana possession or sales offenses. The plan has raised hackles among some who charge that the states mitigation rewards people for breaking the law.

But that objection ignores the historical reality that the war on drugs was not waged equitably. For decades in New York, while rates of marijuana use were comparable across all races and ethnicities, the treatment of Black and Latino/a New Yorkers was starkly different from that of white New Yorkers. For years, Black and Latino/a residents represented 87 percent and higher of all arrests made for marijuana possession.

Those disproportionate arrests and resulting incarcerations represented a crushing economic and personal impact on Black and Latino communities. Reparations for past wrongs because of racism and discrimination has been a controversial idea, but even folks who reject that notion on autopilot should be able to appreciate the practical justice embodied by the New York proposal.

Advertisement

If you want to be furious about a government deal that was too soft on former drug peddlers, you might save your outrage for the deal offered up to the Sackler family. In March, clan Sackler concluded a long-negotiated bankruptcy that will settle most claims against the family and family-owned Purdue Pharma, the manufacturer and distributor of the infamous and entirely legal prescription drug OxyContin. The deal would shield the Sacklers from future lawsuits.

Representatives from the family attended the final hearing without comment as victims impact statements were read out. The Sacklers have declined to accept responsibility for the suffering OxyContin propelled and have barely expressed remorse. Under the terms of the bankruptcy, the Sacklers agreed to surrender $6 billion of the familys OxyContin fortune to compensate for the vast social harm created by the marketing of the painkiller, purported for years to be less potentially addictive than other prescription narcotics. That was unfortunately not true, and internal company memos suggest members of the Sackler family and Purdue executives knew as much for years.

The widespread prescription of OxyContin essentially founded the opioid crisis that still grips the nation. More than 500,000 have died since 1999 as opioid addiction swept the nationand most of its victims began their addiction with prescriptionopioids.

Many balk at the idea of contemporary amends for the inequities of the past, but how should we respond to the inequities of our own times? The bankruptcy deal leaves the Sackler family with only about $7 billion of its OxyContin fortune. Maybe an outraged citizenry could insist that this odious deal be tossed out and the rest of that fortune distributed to those U.S. communities hit hardest by the opioid epidemic. Can you guess which ones those might be?

This article also appears in theMay 2022issueof U.S. Catholic (Vol. 87, No. 5, page 42).Click hereto subscribe to the magazine.

Advertisement

Image:Unsplash/Add Weed

See original here:

We need practical justice for victims of the war on drugs - U.S. Catholic magazine

Monday 16 May 2022 6:30 am

By: Eliot Wilson

Eliot Wilson is co-founder of Pivot Point and a former House of Commons official.

Those who like to think they take the long view of history will tell you that the war on drugs started in 1971, when Richard Nixon declared illegal narcotics to be public enemy number one. Yet its lineage extended far further back than that: in the US, Congress banned alcohol for nearly 15 years from 1920 to 1933. But the combative tone, the idea that we are locked in a struggle against drugs or the drug trade persists. It pervades the language we use, from beating addiction to clamping down on drug abuse.

Every so often, a political figure or pressure group will edge forward into the spotlight and suggest that there should be some greater nuance to our approach to drugs. These can be minor suggestions, such as non-custodial sentences for possession, or radical ideas, like wholesale legalisation.

There is always a backlash, because the media, following whats assumed to be the public mood, prefers the chiaroscuro of drugs are bad to the sfumato of well, actually and a more creative and measured approach.

The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, is the latest politician to step into this debate. Last week he was touring the United States as the capitals global ambassador, and during his visit to Los Angeles he included a tour of a cannabis factory, or cannabis dispensary and cultivation facility in Californias language. Policy in the US is moving quickly: the non-medical use of cannabis is now legal in eighteen states, and decriminalised in a further thirteen. The direction of travel is clear, and it seems only a matter of time until cannabis is a legal and recreational substance across America.

Khan won re-election on a pledge to establish a London drugs commission, and has called for an evidence-based approach to legislation and control. Last week he used the opportunity of his visit to Los Angeles to announce his making good of that pledge. Indeed, Khan has asked Lord Falconer of Thoroton, Tony Blairs lord chancellor and a shadow minister, to chair a review of the status of cannabis (which is a class B drug). The review will not extend to class A substances like cocaine and heroin.

It is always sensible to assay Khans public utterances for authenticity. One should note that neither City Hall nor the London Assembly has power over criminal justice, which is reserved to Parliament in England. The mayor, always alive to the chance of publicity, will hope to influence the debate. With due caution, it is fair to agree that a radical and firm proposal from the man with the biggest individual electoral mandate in the country would carry a degree of weight.

He is likely to have noted that regulating the sale and supply of cannabis in Los Angeles has created a new revenue stream for the city government. Here, after all, is a widely used commodity begging to be taxed like alcohol or tobacco. The legalisation has also cut cannabis-related arrests by 56 per cent, no small prize when police budgets and resources are stretched so thinly. The potential gains for a mayor are obvious to see.

Sadiq Khan is not home secretary, so he cannot directly influence public law on drugs, no matter what Charlie Falconer may conclude. The mayor is, however, chair of C40 Cities, a group of mayors of nearly 100 cities organised to tackle climate change. Might it be possible to assemble a similar coalition to address the issue of drugs and drug-related crime on an international urban basis?

Drug policy is an emotive issue. I tend towards liberalisation: it is the criminal context of drugs which has contributed hugely to the harm, and there is no rational basis for banning cannabis while alcohol and tobacco are legal. People should also generally be free to make informed choices for themselves. Whatever your view, it is obvious that the war on drugs is being lost, and lost comprehensively. Something has to change.

Khan is offering a possible way forward to this contentious policy area, and this should be cause for celebration. Not always an easy man to trust, the mayor has the opportunity to lead not just a national but an international debate, the chance to show courage and leadership on a problem which affects society from top to bottom. He can ask for the evidence he wants: will he be brave enough to follow through?

Read more:

Sadiq Khan could be leading the way in deserting the foolish war on drugs - City A.M.

Police arrested two Lower Burrell residents after they raided two Lower Burrell homes where they found more than $75,000 worth of drugs, drug paraphernalia, a loaded shotgun and $38,000.

Police on May 13 arrested Dalton Smith, 25, and Tessa Myers, 23, both of Lower Burrell, after searching their home on Thor Drive and a second site on Lori Drive.

The search warrant was secured as part of an investigation by the Westmoreland County Drug Task Force along with the Pennsylvania Attorney Generals Office, North Huntingdon police and Lower Burrell police, said Westmoreland County District Attorney Nicole Ziccarelli.

Items seized at the two locations on Thor and Lori drives included a loaded Kel-Tec shotgun, about 6 pounds of marijuana, 1.7 pounds of THC wax, 53 boxes of psilocybin mushrooms, 74 grams of Gold Coast vape cartridges, more than 400 THC vape cartridges, a vacuum sealer, a scale, various pills and a money counter, said Lower Burrell police Detective Steve Aulerich.

Police charged Smith with felony counts of possession of drugs with the intent to deliver and illegal possession of a firearm as well as counts of drug possession and resisting arrest.

Police charged Myers with manufacture, delivery or possession; possession of controlled substances; and use and possession of drug paraphernalia.

The first raid occurred about 9 a.m. May 13 when a marked Lower Burrell police cruiser parked in front of the house on Thor Drive with its emergency lights turned on, according to a criminal complaint.

Using a loudspeaker, police ordered occupants of the house to surrender.

After nobody responded, police tried to use a battering ram to get through the front door but had difficulty because Smith was pressing against it, the complaint said.

After police broke through the door, Smith fled down a hallway, closing a door behind him, police said. Police broke through that door and found Smith and Myers in a bathroom, according to the complaint.

Agents raided the home on Lori Drive after finding documents Smith had with that address listed.

Smith was charged with illegal possession of a firearm because he pleaded guilty to a felony in 2017 and is not permitted to have a gun.

I thank the members of the Westmoreland County Drug Task Force, the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General and local officers from North Huntingdon, Lower Burrell and Arnold for their dedication and commitment to fight the war on drugs in our county, Ziccarelli said in a news release. This is of paramount importance to my office and the safety and security of our communities.

Smith and Myers are in the Westmoreland County jail. Smiths bail was set at $20,000, and Myers bail was set at 10% of $20,000.

Their preliminary hearings are scheduled for 10 a.m. May 24 before District Judge Tamara Mahady in Unity.

Staff writer Tony LaRussa contributed.

Mary Ann Thomas is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Mary at 724-226-4691, mthomas@triblive.com or via Twitter .

View post:

More than $75000 worth of drugs, gun, cash found at Lower Burrell home; 2 arrested - TribLIVE

I saw the headlines on the local news, and then the national news.

Another drug bust in Tulia, with 10 arrested and charged. You know what that little voice in my head said each time I saw a headline about the latest Tulia bust?

"Boooooooooyyyyy, Isure hope you did it correctly this time around."

Why? Well, if you don't recall....there was a slight incident with Tulia and a drug bust, way back in 1999.

Ever hear about that? Let me tell you a little story about a tiny Texas town and one heck of a conman cop.

Man Who Crashed Car into BSA With Gun Connected to Infamous 1999 Tulia Bust

Man Who Crashed Car into BSA With Gun Connected to Infamous 1999 Tulia Bust

At least, that's what we were supposed to believe. It sounds like the plot from a cheesy '80s cop thriller. Supposedly, an undercover cop in Tulia, TX singlehandedly brought down a massive drug ring. Serpico style.

It's the kind of story I could see Mel Gibson starring in, if he passed up Lethal Weapon.

Believe it or not, this is only where the story begins. From here, it gets completely unbelievable.

Tulia, at the time, only had a population of around 5,000 people.The late 90s were when the War on Drugswas waged without mercy, anditty bitty Tuliawas supposedly the sight of an insanely large drug ring.

Tom Coleman was the man called in to go undercover and clean things up.

60 Minutes via YouTube

He displayed an almost superhero like ability to bring down the bad guys when he brought down 46 people in his investigation.

In one fell swoop, Tom Coleman arrested around 10 percent of Tulia's black population on various drug charges. Crime stood no chance against the mullet-wearing super cop from Texas.

He had a somewhat "checkered past," as 60 Minutes would later call it, but that simply makes him an anti-hero. Right?

60 Minutes via YouTube

Despite his slightly sketchy past, Tom was momentarily hailed as a hero. During this entire spectacle, the Texas Attorney General at the time honored him and his mullet as outstanding officer of the year.

That was until the trials started.

I suppose, and this is purely hypothetical, that if people weren't skeptical at first, they had to start questioning Tom's work when one of the defendants didn't even look like the suspect described by Coleman.

Also, several defendants had rock solid alibis. When they were supposedly selling cocaine to Tom they had actually been at work, a fair, and even another state.

The alleged kingpin was a hog farmer who lived in what 60 Minutes referred to as a "one room shack." He's no Tony Montana or Frank Lucas.

So what the hell was going on?

Many have characterized what happened to the Tulia 46 as a miscarriage of justice. That might be putting it lightly.

There was no corroborating evidence presented against the Tulia 46. No wire had been worn by Tom. No photos had been taken.

During the arrests, there were no drugs. There was no drug paraphernalia. No weapons or stacks of cash.

Not even a pet tiger a la Scarface.

It soon became apparent that it was only the word of this one detective, against the Tulia 46. Tom's word, it has since been pointed out, had some inconsistencies in it.

While many of the Tulia 46 were proven innocent, others spent the next few years in prison fighting for their freedom..

After years of fighting, Governor Rick Perry pardoned the Tulia 46 in 2003.

Presidential Candidate Rick Perry Gives Address At National Press Club In D.C.

Tom Coleman was referred to by one judge as "the most devious, non-responsive law enforcement witness this court has witnessed in 25 years on the bench in Texas."

The FBI began investigating him for a possible hate crime. He was indicted on perjury charges.

While we all can celebrate the fact that the Tulia 46 were pardoned, it doesn't change what happened. It doesn't change the fact that the 46 have to live a life with the shadow of these events looming over them.

Some have called it an indictment on the war on drugs and institutional racism in the justice system.

In an interview with 60 Minutes, Tom says he's definitely not a racist. The case just led him to arresting around 10 percent of a small town's black population.

Of the 46 arrested, almost 40 of them were black.

Whatever the case, one can't help but wonder the impact that the 1999 Tulia Bust had on those people wrongly convicted and what their lives would be like if Tom Coleman had never come to town.

Check to see how crime compares in your city versus elsewhere.

There are families still looking for answers and closure in these twelve Texas cold cases.

We want you to stay legal so here is a list of 20 strange laws you could break in the state of Texas.

See the rest here:

Recent Tulia Drug Bust: Hope They Did Better This Time - mix941kmxj.com

Owen Lavine is a journalism sophomore and Mustang News opinion columnist. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of Mustang News.

Republican Governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis, signed a bill dubbed the Dont Say Gay Bill into law on Feb. 24, which, according to the bill, prohibits discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in grades kindergarten through third grade.

This fascistic and traditionalist piece of legislation has been condemned by LGBTQ+ groups globally. Marie-Christine Mahe, Vice President of Stonewall SLO, a queer democratic club, called the legislation deplorable, in an email to Mustang News.

It really resonated with me because I felt just the same [as I did] nearly 50 years ago and its so sad that young people are still going through the same thing, Mahe said.

Like most pieces of conservative legislation, this one only serves to stop a manufactured fear placed upon a scapegoat demographic who falls outside of the W.A.S.P., or White Anglo-Saxon Protestant, hegemony.

The War on Drugs was launched by reactionary conservatives who thought society was degenerating due to drug use, and thus sought to ban drugs, which has been an absolute failure on every metric. The anti-abortion movement has worked thick and thin to make abortion illegal, something they have unfortnately been successful at recently.

People did not stop using drugs or having abortions despite them being criminalized and likewise, people will not stop being queer because we make it illegal to talk about.

These movements in conservative media are rooted in two deeply fundamental post-civil rights era conservative fears:

Candace Owens, a prominent conservative pundit, leveraged those essential fears in her wildly contradictory speech to the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) just a day after the Dont Say Gay Bill went into law.

Owens opens her speech by explaining that sometimes, when female bears give birth, male bears will attack the cubs so the females will go back into heat. She concludes this story by questioning the motives of schools and politicians decrying that they are masking [children], injecting them [and] sexualizing them through the education system.

Owens harps on the conservative distrust of governmental institutions when handling children. This is an ancient concept in conservative thought stemming from the Reagan era which is best understood through Reagans very own words: The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, Im from the government and Im here to help.

Owens goes on to declare women entering the workforce as the start of the United States Government trying to co-parent with mothers and fathers.

She spells it out herself in no uncertain terms, when women began leaving home to be like a man, is when our children were put at risk.

They are at risk of learning about gay people, and at risk of learning that two children, one dog, a stepford wife and a white picket fence may not be the recipe for a happy life. And, of course, they are at risk of developing empathy for the victims of white supremacist capitalism. These are the risks Owens believes exist for American children if mothers leave the home.

If, as conservatives, you want to keep the next generation of children from thinking that being gay is normal, then keeping that information sequestered is very important. A 2011 study found that institutional, familial and peer support was essential when coming out for many queer people. As such, conservatives have decided to attack schools ability to teach children to accept queer people.

Queer people wont disappear as a result of this law or conservative rhetoric, being queer in this country will only become more dubious and dangerous than it already is.

Continued here:

Anti-LGBTQ legislation is grappling to save the nuclear family - Mustang News

Last week, voters in the Philippines went to the polls and, by an overwhelming margin, chose the son of the countrys deposed dictator as their next president.

Ferdinand Marcos Jr., widely referred to by his nickname, Bongbong, ran on a ticket with Vice President-elect Sara Duterte the daughter of incumbent President Rodrigo Duterte, a populist most famous for his policy of extrajudicial killings of suspected drug dealers, who pushed the Philippines toward authoritarianism during his six years in office. Neither of these candidates ran away from their parents: on the contrary, they embraced them. And voters in the Philippines rewarded them for it.

Opponents and observers have raised questions about the legitimacy of the election, pointing to a climate of pervasive disinformation, reports of malfunctioning ballot-counting machines, and alleged voter fraud. But on Friday, Leni Robredo, the outgoing vice president and leading rival of Marcos, admitted defeat and urged her supporters to accept the majoritys decision.

That majority seemed to ratify a proudly illiberal governing ethos. During his presidency, the elder Duterte who was prevented by term limits from running again jailed political opponents, cracked down on press freedom, and built an online disinformation machine that buoyed the Marcos-Duterte ticket. And yet, at the same time, close observers of the Philippines say the strongman political style was authentically popular.

President Duterte has the highest approval ratings of any president in modern Philippine history, with his low points in the polls rivaling other presidents highs. That he proudly violated individual rights and attacked the separation of powers was not a turnoff, but a draw. Marcoss overwhelming victory underscored the point.

Duterte is the first president who represented an alternative vision for the direction of the country. Marcos is a continuation of that vision and wants to make that known, says Dean Dulay, a political scientist at Singapore Management University who studies democracy in the Philippines.

Its not that Filipino voters rejected democracy, exactly: survey data still shows strong support for holding competitive elections. Rather, its that they are rejecting liberalism: seeing constraints on power, including fundamental rights against being murdered by ones own government, as impediments to their leaders ability to bring about a better Philippines.

Marcoss victory on these terms is part of a worldwide illiberal turn. The past decade of global politics has shown that the Philippines is not the only country where strongman politics appeal to a large constituency; what its recent election shows is that this political style can be not only popular but durable. The liberal ability to address this reality is proving to be one of the defining political issues of the 21st century.

On many issues, including vital ones like the Philippines relationship to the US and China, its not very clear what a Marcos presidency will be like. His campaign was extremely light on policy, offering little in the way of concrete solutions to ordinary Filipinos problems.

What he did do, however, is link himself to two strongmen: his father, Ferdinand Marcos Sr., and his predecessor, Duterte. The tactic succeeded, thanks in large part to the recent history of democracy in the Philippines and Dutertes ability to create an alternative to it.

In a 2021 article titled The ground for the illiberal turn in the Philippines, University of Chicago sociologist Marco Garrido argues that the experience of democratic politics after the 1986 revolution against Marcos Sr. failed to live up to voters expectations. Filipino politics had long been dominated by a coterie of wealthy and corrupt families; neither elections nor popular protest movements seemed capable of enacting fundamental social reform.

This string of failures has led many Filipinos to turn away from the promise of liberal democracy and reject people power as a means of achieving it, Garrido writes.

In the 2016 election, Duterte offered a clear break, despite being the scion of an influential regional political family.

As mayor of Davao City, a city in the southern Mindanao province roughly the size of Dallas, he pioneered a brutal tough-on-crime policy involving extrajudicial killings of alleged criminals (a policy that earned him the nickname The Punisher). A magnetic public presence with a tendency for outrageous statements he has bragged about extramarital affairs and, on separate occasions, referred to both President Barack Obama and Pope Francis as a son of a whore he sold himself as a plain-spoken alternative to the political status quo. In a tightly contested election with several candidates, he won a plurality of the vote.

In office, Duterte took a wrecking ball to the Philippines liberal-democratic institutions. The centerpiece of his administration was a war on drugs that adapted his Punisher approach nationwide, in which police and vigilante forces slaughter suspected drug dealers and users in the streets killing between 6,000 and 30,000 people.

This willingness to flout the rules extended to other basic liberal democratic rights. Since 2017, the Duterte government has imprisoned senator Leila de Lima an outspoken critic of the government on flimsy drug charges. In 2018, he hounded the chief justice of the Supreme Court and ultimately forced her out of office. In 2020, his government imprisoned leading journalist (and Nobel Peace Prize winner) Maria Ressa on cyberlibel charges and revoked leading independent TV broadcaster ABS-CBNs broadcasting license.

Garrido terms this form of government a disciplinary state. The experience of democracy has taught many Filipinos, particularly the upper and middle class voters that form Dutertes base, he writes, to see the democratic state as a source of disorder: as corrupt, pliant (vulnerable to depredation by powerful actors), and populist (catering primarily to the lower class). In a disciplinary state, by contrast, a strong leader steps in and imposes order by strictly enforcing valued rules ... their willingness to overreach traditional bounds is a large part of their appeal.

In his research, Garrido found that Filipinos held these views alongside support for formal democratic institutions like elections. Instead of moving to outright dictatorship, they wanted to discipline democracy by circumscribing its scope with respect to certain freedoms, particularly due process and the right to vote.

Garrido sees this attitude at work in Filipino attitudes on Dutertes drug war. Though many Filipinos expressed some worry about the consequences of the policy, his data show that the policy remained consistently popular throughout Dutertes time in office reflecting the idea that its okay to break some rules and take some dangerous actions in pursuit of establishing order.

Dutertes approval ratings tell a similar story. He has been consistently popular, outstripping every other president since the fall of Marcos Sr. In October 2020, Dutertes approval rating reached a staggering 92 percent in one survey the highest recorded at the time for any leader on the planet.

An important explanation for these numbers, according to Garrido, is both simple and dark: illiberalism has proven to be popular.

The data suggest that Filipinos are willing to put up with extrajudicial killings, political repression, and the gutting of liberal institutions because they see Duterte as a strong leader. They question his methods but not their effectiveness, he writes. While there remains significant opposition to Dutertes strongman tactics, it would seem that in general Filipinos are developing a taste for illiberal rule.

Marcos Jr. doesnt have Dutertes personal charisma. What he does have is a strong support base in the countrys north due to his familys patronage network and an ability to link himself to both the past six years of governance in the Philippines and an earlier period of strongman rule.

Though his fathers dictatorship was famously brutal and corrupt, the Marcos campaign projected a vision of the ancien regime as a golden era: a time of domestic peace, low crime, and shared prosperity. By running with Sara Duterte, he was able to sell himself both as a continuation of the Duterte model and an avatar of make the Philippines great again-style nostalgia politics.

Social media disinformation about the actual history of the Marcos regime did play a significant role in spreading this message, though perhaps not in the way one would think. Dulay, the Singapore-based researcher, examined the data on Filipino views of the Marcos era and found that surprisingly few voters literally believed the lies Marcos Jr. and his boosters on YouTube and TikTok were selling. Instead, Dulay argues, the propaganda tapped into a general feeling that the Philippines had gone astray in the democratic era and that the Marcos-Duterte model represented something different and better.

What [the videos] actually evoke is a kind of emotional response this is how it used to be, look at our country now, he says. Its not purely about information itself, but the way that its conveyed: so much of it is the music, the feel of the video.

It is this gut feeling that the system wasnt working that Duterte picked up back in 2016 and that Marcos rode to victory in 2022.

The story of the Duterte-Marcos ascendancy is not a unique one: In broad strokes, backlash against a political system seen as corrupt and out of touch has empowered right-wing populists all over the world.

In 2010, Viktor Orbn won an overwhelming victory in Hungary against an incumbent socialist government mired in scandal. In 2014, Indias Narendra Modi defeated Rahul Gandhi, scion of the Gandhi-Nehru dynasty that dominated Indian politics since independence. In 2016, Hillary Clintons unpopularity played a significant role in Donald Trumps shock victory. And in 2018, Jair Bolsonaro won the Brazilian presidency amid a massive corruption investigation that implicated large swaths of the Brazilian elite.

These successful demagogues differ in many ways. But they all possess an ability to tap into public discontent with the status quo.

Their campaign messages varied by local circumstance, but all put forward a vision of re-establishing public order and social hierarchy. They alleged that the liberal elite was too soft on some subversive element of society be it criminals, immigrants, Muslims, or the LGBTQ community that was rotting society from within, and they promised to come in and clean house.

One temptation, common among American liberals in particular, is to dismiss this messages popularity as some kind of trick played on voters: the result of disinformation or a lack of political knowledge. But this is too simple a reading. Yes, lies and voter misperceptions have figured into the ascent of right-wing demagogues but there is also a genuine constituency for their illiberal message.

A useful close look at this dynamic comes out of Israel, also home to a resurgent illiberal right. In 2016, the Israeli sociologist Nissim Mizrachi published a study on the failure of his countrys left-wing parties to gain support among the socially marginalized Mizrahi Jewish community (Jews of Middle Eastern descent). His interviews, both with left-wing activists and Mizrahi voters, convinced him that there is a gulf in fundamental moral vocabulary: The Israeli left has proven incapable of understanding that the Mizrahi voters do not share their philosophically liberal premises.

Mizrahim, despite their inferior social and economic position relative to the Ashkenazim (European Jews), were not swayed by appeals to inclusive social policy or an expanded welfare state. Instead, Mizrachi finds, they express a vision that places obligations to the particularity of the Jewish people and Israeli citizens first. They disliked the lefts sweeping and thus threatening disruption of the boundaries of the Jewish collectivity in favor of universalistic solidarity.

The lefts conceptual toolbox, including its deep and correct belief that Palestinians are owed political rights by dint of their humanity, left it poorly equipped to understand what these voters believed. Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who evolved into a more Trump-like illiberal demagogue during his historically long time in office, exploited this moral gulf to hold power: positioning himself as a champion of this alternative moral vision against the once-dominant left-liberal establishment.

Mizrachis diagnosis of the Israeli situation is worth taking seriously as a global matter. It is increasingly clear that there are large swaths of voters across democratic polities for whom liberal values are not fundamental, who see liberalisms champions in the political elite as out of touch or worse.

The challenge for liberals today is to hold two ideas in their heads at once: that far-right leaders are not only illiberal but a threat to democracy, and that there is a significant democratic constituency that finds their illiberalism not only tolerable but actively appealing. This is the lesson of the 2022 Philippine election and of other recent elections one that liberals ignore at their peril.

Go here to read the rest:

The Philippine election is the latest example of illiberalisms popularity - Vox.com

In Brazil, 18 May marks the Anti-Asylum Fight Day. For decades, this movement of mental-health workers and human-rights defenders has tried to make society aware of the serious violations carried out in mental asylums. A lot has changed since their first manifestos were released in the 1980's, especially after the approval of the Psychiatric Reform in 2001, which led to the creation of a Psychosocial Care Network that became an international reference forhumanised mental-health care.

Since the mid 2010's, however, the financial resources allocated to these facilities have shrunk, flowing instead towards psychiatric hospitals or therapeutic communities - institutions, usually linked to religious organisations, that offer treatments to people with a problematic dependence of alcohol or other drugs and that focus on separating them from their homes and families, sending them to remote places far from cities. The report "Public funding of Brazilian therapeutic communities between 2017 and 2020" from the human rights NGO Conectas shows that approximately $100 million was invested in three years to these controversial institutions.

Furthermore, according to an inspection carried out in 2017, in all 28 therapeutic communities analysed there was some degree of at least one type of human rights violation. Leonardo Pinho, president of Abrasme (Brazilian Association of Mental Health), participated in the release event of Conectas' report and assessed that the therapeutic communities are installed without a clear and transparent project built upon the participation of the civil society. It is not, therefore, a proper public policy, as therapeutic communities rely exclusively on "political lobbying," he says.

A constant fight against asylums and madhouses - or whatever replacements are created afterwards - also happens in other Latin American countries. In Argentina, for example, the law to combat asylums was signed in 2010, but there have been few advances since then, according to the Observatory of Mental Health and Human Rights of the province of Crdoba: "Some of the slogans ('A 2020 without asylums') that accompanied the sanctioned norms ended up being mere expressions of wishes. The governments responsible for the implementation process, whether due to a lack of commitment or political will, ineptitude or apathy, never made the necessary investments to carry out the enormous challenges posed by the regulations."

Back to Brazil, a manifesto written by a group of psychologists for the celebrations of 18 May, 2022 tells the story of madness, even preceding madhouses as we currently know them. In the 15th century, it reads, the "ships of the mads" would take undesirable people away from society, "not to find a cure, not to dock somewhere" but "with no destination, just to drive them away." Authors then compare these boats to the ones used to transport slaves, which crossed the seas just to take black people from freedom to forced work, in order to affirm that nowadays asylum and policies for the war on drugs are designed to enforce racism.

"The selectivity with which black and white people who use drugs are treated is wide open," the text assesses. "Only by understanding the complexity of structural racism and the wounds of the asylum and the war on drugs will we, in fact, advance in the care of those people excluded in the name of mental suffering."

Image by Hans Eiskonen

See the rest here:

The anti-asylum movement fights for just mental healthcare - Fairplanet

Thirty-six years after the people of the Philippines swept the Marcos family from power in a peaceful popular uprising, they have returned it to the presidency via the ballot box. Last weeks electoral landslide for Ferdinand Bongbong Marcos Jr, son of the late dictator, was a shocking and frightening moment for those who survived the violence of his fathers regime and witnessed the plunder of as much as $10bn from the country. The incoming president claimed more than double the votes of his closest opponent, Leni Robredo, a human rights lawyer and the incumbent vice-president.

Disinformation (extensive, heavily organised and lucrative for those behind it) has played a crucial role. Across social media, the true history of Ferdinand Marcos Srs rule of torture, executions, debt and economic crisis has been erased by the lie of a golden age of stability and prosperity. At the same time, its members were celebritised, with TikTok videos presenting them as an aspirational, influencer-style figures while Mr Marcos Jr sidestepped major debates and tough interviews. Simultaneously came relentless and often misogynistic attacks on Ms Robredo.

It is not just that the population is highly technologically literate but often less media literate. There are deeper issues. The People Power revolution of 1986 was unfinished. The political elites remained in place; influential families hold up to 90% of elected positions. Most of the money amassed by Mr Marcos Sr was never recovered, and schools failed to teach the new generations the full story of his rule. The political advance was not matched by social and economic progress; the political dynasties and big conglomerates have ensured that the Philippines remains one of the most unequal societies in Asia.

The outgoing president, Rodrigo Duterte, has also contributed. His brutal and erratic authoritarianism notably a war on drugs which has killed thousands, including children proved popular. He has strengthened the police and army, creating a culture of impunity, while undermining democratic institutions including independent media. He allowed the late dictator to be buried in a cemetery for war heroes, helping to rehabilitate his image. Critically, his daughter Sara Duterte decided not to stand for president, running (successfully) as Mr Marcos Jrs vice-president.

The Philippines must contend with the aftermath of the pandemic: almost a quarter of the nation now live below the poverty line. The country is balancing uneasily between the US and China, with repercussions for the wider region. Mr Marcos Jr has nothing to offer, though some insist that he will not be as ruthless as his father. He has already painted himself as a victim of the press.

Other countries should also take heed. As one leading expert on disinformation notes, this success reflects problems seen in many advanced democracies, not just in the global south; Facebooks public policy director for global elections previously described the Philippines as patient zero. Reiterating the truth is not enough. Reaching out to excluded communities and crafting compelling narratives is essential. Ms Robredos campaign created real passion at the grassroots, but the efforts came too late. The Marcos familys return to the top is a triumph of determination and has been a long time in the making. In that respect alone, their opponents and progressives elsewhere could learn something from them.

Read the original here:

The Guardian view on the Marcos familys return: bad news for the Philippines - The Guardian

Four candidates are running in today's Democratic primary for Senate in Pennsylvania, and the race has gotten some coverage for its nontraditional front-runner.

Rep. Conor Lamb, who represents the state's 17th congressional district, was considered the favorite early on but has struggled against Lt. Gov. John Fetterman, a brash, 6'8 former mayor who came to prominence in 2020 for picking fights with his Republican counterparts in states that claimed the presidential election had been stolen from President Donald Trump.

Going into today's primary, Fetterman holds a comfortable lead, even after suffering a stroke over the weekend. But on one issue, Fetterman stands out from the average Democratic front-runner: legalizing marijuana.

As Politico reported today, Fetterman supports legalization; he even sells campaign T-shirts with marijuana leaves. In fact, the top three Democrats in the primary support legalization to some extent, though Lamb previously voted against a federal cannabis bill in 2020, saying last month that he thought any effort toward legalization "needs to be done slowly and very carefully."

Indeed, while Democratic lawmakers have hemmed and hawed over legalization since taking power last year, many Democratic candidates are using the issue to stand out from the pack. So far this year, two candidates for U.S. SenateThomas McDermott Jr.from Indiana, and Gary Chambers Jr.from Louisianahave smoked pot in campaign ads. And in the Democratic primary for governor in Florida, the top two candidates spent the early days of the campaign arguing over who supported legalization more.

As Politico notes, this is a shrewd campaign strategy: Marijuana initiatives tend to drive turnout among younger voters, who are typically the hardest to get to show up. But this is more than just a youth issue: More than two-thirds of Americans support legalization, a record high. Even while acknowledging that the war on drugs has been a failure, President Barack Obama literally laughed at the idea of legalization and pursued prosecution of offenders as zealously as any of his predecessors during his time in office.

Even if Fetterman wins his party's nomination, he still faces a tough fight in November, as Republicans are favored to do well across the board. But the trend of Democrats (and some Republicans) who not only support legalization but openly advocate for it, is a welcome change and a sign that the issue might be moving in the right direction.

View original post here:

Democrats Pivot to Pot for Votes. Will It Work? - Reason

Graphic by Owensboro Times

As mothers, it is of great concern for the immediate and future safety of our children. With the instability of our country and our county, we are putting our full trust into Bradley Youngman to protect OUR children, ALL children, and fight the war on drugs.

Our county cannot continue its current path. We need leadership with a vision and the skills of successful implementation. Brad has the plans and experience to protect us, our streets, our schools and his campaign has been run with that of full transparency.

Youngmans career started at an early age. Outside his high ranking military accolades, he started his law enforcement career while still in college at USI. He has continued to serve in numerous state and federal law enforcement agencies, offices and task forces as well as being involved in our community philanthropic events.

More than anything, Brad is a servant leader. He leads by example not just from the sidelines.

We ask you join us in supporting Brad at the polls on May 17. Vote for change. Vote for leadership. Vote for Brad Youngman.

Written byBeth Kelley and Lauren Lee

Original post:

Letter to the Editor: Youngman would be servant leader as Sheriff - The Owensboro Times