Meet the Man Who Looks After Nederland’s Frozen Dead Guy – 5280 | The Denver Magazine

Posted on by

Meet the Man Who Looks After Nederland's Frozen Dead Guy - 5280 Photo by Chet Strange

Taking care of the cryogenically frozen corpse saved Brad Wickham's life.

It was 2014, and Brad Wickham was done with death. Hed spent the past 25 years working as a respiratory therapist in hospital emergency departments, where the relentless cycle of seeing patients die caused him such trauma that hed been diagnosed with PTSD. Wickham turned to alcohol and drugs to cope. Realizing he needed a fresh start, Wickham moved from Missouri to Nederland because he heard he might find work there. Eventually he didthough there was one catch: Would he be willing to spend time with a dead body?

Although small, Nederland has an outsize reputation, partly due to a local named Bredo Morstoel, a Norwegian man whos been dead for 30 years. In the early 1990s, Morstoels family brought his corpse to town, aiming to create a cryonics facility, but legal issues required them to leave the country before it came to fruition. Bredo stayed behind and became the centerpiece of Nederlands Frozen Dead Guy Days (March 13 to 15), a winter festival with live music and eccentric events like coffin racing. Bredos relatives pay someone to take care of Morstoel during the other 362 days of the year. Since 2014, that person has been Wickham.

Morstoels body rests within a Tuff Shed near Nederlands Barker Reservoir. Every two weeks, Wickham, now 61, empties around 1,000 pounds of dry ice into a wooden container that holds the casket, keeping the corpse near minus 110 degrees Celsius. The ritual provides him an opportunity to catch up and chat with the man hes come to think of as family. That might be the part where a therapist could come in handy, Wickham says, but Ive kind of grown sentimental about it. I know he depends on me.

This article appeared in the March 2020 issue of 5280.

Keep me up to date on the latest trends and happenings around Denver. 5280 has a newsletter for everyone.

Denver's Mile High Magazine

Originally posted here:

Meet the Man Who Looks After Nederland's Frozen Dead Guy - 5280 | The Denver Magazine

Grieving Families in Philippine Drugs War Turn to Theater for Healing, Therapy – The New York Times

Posted on by

MANILA Relatives of some of the thousands killed in the Philippines' war on drugs acted out their journey of loss and healing in a theater performance in Manila on Wednesday, capping a month-long therapy program for grieving urban poor families.

Bereaved mothers, wives and children took to the stage at a high school in the business center of the capital in front of a crowd of 500, most of them students. They danced to pop songs, and performed monologues and political sketches.

"If you would look at the performers, there are so many smiles. They were dancing in joy," said organizer Flavie Villanueva, a former drug user-turned-priest who is critical of President Rodrigo Duterte's anti-narcotics campaign.

"The first time they came to me, there was nothing but tears, anguish and anger," said Villanueva, who launched 'Paghilom' - 'healing' in Tagalog - in 2016 to comfort grieving families.

More than 5,600 suspected drug dealers and users have been killed in police anti-narcotics operations since Duterte took office in July 2016, according to government data. Thousands more died in mysterious circumstances, some shot dead by masked gunmen riding pillion on motorcycles.

Rights group said the police summarily executed suspects. But police said they acted in self defense after suspects violently resisted arrest.

"Through 'Paghilom,' I let out all my tears," said Analyn Mamot, 33, whose husband, an illegal drugs user, was killed by unidentified gunmen two years ago. "Now I feel new, like a new personality is alive in me."

(Reporting by Eloisa Lopez; Writing by Neil Jerome Morales; Editing by Raissa Kasolowsky)

Read the rest here:

Grieving Families in Philippine Drugs War Turn to Theater for Healing, Therapy - The New York Times

CBD and Its Impact on the Evolving Global Regulatory Framework – Traders Magazine

Posted on by

While the advantageous properties of cannabidiol, known popularly as CBD, have come to light fairly recently, the product itself has been in existence for thousands of years. In fact, the earliest known use of CBD oil is documented to be its usage by Chinese Emperor Sheng Nung, circa 2737 BC. The emperor used the product to prepare a cannabis-infused tea, which he used to treat a variety of ailments ranging from gout to malaria, to rheumatism to memory enhancement.

Cannabidiol or CBD is one of the 100 chemical compounds found in the marijuana or cannabis plant. Unlike THC (tetrahydrocannabinol), which is the main psychoactive compound in the cannabis plant and is responsible for the high sensation often associated with marijuana, CBD is not psychoactive, which means it has no mind-altering effects on the body. It also possesses strong analgesic and antibiotic characteristics as well as therapeutic properties that can ease the symptoms of nausea, anxiety, chronic pain, neurological maladies, seizures and many other ailments, which is why the product is touted as a beneficial medical aid.

Despite its merits however, the compound does face a fair share of social stigma, mainly due to its association with marijuana plant, which is often regarded as a gateway drug.

Efforts to distinguish the effects of this compound were undertaken in earnest in the 1940s by an Illinois University team who were able to isolate CBD for the first time. This experiment revealed that the CBD compounds, although extracted from the cannabis plant, did not possess the psychoactive qualities that are commonly linked to the plant.

These efforts were unfortunately thwarted during President Ronald Reagans tenure, through his War on Drugs campaign, which impacted the development of the cannabidiol (CBD) industry considerably. Although various studies, including a 1980s experiment by Dr. Mechoulam and a team of international researchers, were able to establish the application and efficacy of CBD as a specific treatment for patients of epilepsy, the strong public aversion to cannabis at the time resulted in inadequate media coverage of the achievement, which put efforts to develop CBD as an epilepsy treatment on the back burner.

In subsequent years, however, many instances came to light, of epilepsy patients benefiting from the use of CBD, the most notable being the story of Charlotte Figi, a young girl born with Dravet Syndrome, a chronic form of epilepsy which caused her to suffer nearly 300 attacks per week. Figi was administered a specially prepared cannabidiol oil, known as Charlottes Web, as a last resort by her parents. This attempt proved successful, with the CBD oil helping to drastically reduce the frequency of Charlottes episodes to just 2 to 3 times a month.

The story of Charlotte Figi, as well as reports from other patients fueled a renewed interest in the benefits of CBD products and led to enhanced levels of awareness and support even from factions of the public who were previously wary of this cannabis-based compound.

Several prolific advancements are being observed in the cannabidiol (CBD) market in the present scenario, with its therapeutic qualities facilitating heightened interest in the product from the medical domain.

CBD and its application potential in antiseizure medication to ease epilepsy symptoms

Cannabidiol and medical cannabis have several interesting aspects, the most prominent being their widespread potential in medical applications. These applications may be segmented broadly into three spheres complex motor disorder treatment, pain management and mental healthcare.

CBD is touted as an ideal treatment solution for a variety of ailments, however, scientific evidence suggests that its strongest potential lies in the management of some of the most severe epilepsy syndromes in children, such as Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome (LGS) and Dravet Syndrome. These conditions are typically resistant to antiseizure medications. Many studies have tested cannabidiol for epilepsy, with results showing a significant reduction in the frequency of seizures, in some cases even stopping the episodes altogether.

In fact, in June 2018, the US FDA granted approval for prescription usage of a cannabidiol for epilepsy treatment, dubbed Epidiolex. This medication is a purified form of CBD oil and has proved efficient in treating two forms of epilepsy.

Cannabidiol is also a common medication to treat anxiety as well as for patients who suffer from insomnia. Studies suggest that CBD could help patients relax better and enhance their sleeping patterns.

CBD is also considered a suitable option for management of various types of chronic pain. A European Journal of Pain study involving an animal model, revealed that CBD, when applied on the skin, could lead to a significant reduction in inflammation and lower pain stemming from arthritis. Another report also studied the mechanism which allows CBD to inhibit neuropathic and inflammatory pain, which are considered to be two of the most challenging types of chronic pain to treat.

Changing regulatory framework worldwide and the subsequent impact on cannabidiol acceptability

While the legislative landscape regarding cannabidiol regulation has been murky for a while, in recent years there has been a considerable shift at the highest levels, which is likely to facilitate easier access to CBD in the years ahead. In fact, in 2018, the WHOs ECDD (Expert Committee on Drug Dependence), made a recommendation for cannabis to be shifted from Schedule IV to Schedule I, which will permit its use as for medical applications under less severe protocols.

Cannabidiol regulations are witnessing a change on a global scale, with many nations acknowledging and accepting the benefits offered by the product. For instance, Slovakia has recently eased its regulations on the use of CBD, with the government deleting it from its list of psychotropic ingredients, which essentially classes cannabidiol as a non-regulated substance in the region.

Likewise, Australia has also observed a change in legislation in 2017, following which the classification of cannabidiol was changed from a Schedule 9 drug to a Schedule 4 drug, making the product legally available in the nation.

The history of cannabidiol through human history has been long and illustrious, from medicinal to industrial applications, to its prohibition and social eschewal, to its journey back to public awareness and acceptance. The recent years are touted to have been an exciting time for the cannabidiol (CBD) market.

CBD is also a field of immense interest to many researchers, retailers and medical professionals, as the pursuit for holistic treatments derived from natural ingredients and its commercialization becomes more and more prominent. The future prospects of CBD are bright, with prominent brand retailers such as Boots and Holland & Barrett expressing an interest in stocking a more vast range of CBD products on their shelves.

Global Market Insights Inc. has a market report dedicated to global cannabidiol (CBD), available at:https://www.gminsights.com/industry-analysis/cannabidiol-cbd-market

Saloni Walimbe is Research Content Developer at Global Market Insights

Follow this link:

CBD and Its Impact on the Evolving Global Regulatory Framework - Traders Magazine

Can the UK and Scotland Set Aside Differences to Fight Drugs? – OZY

Posted on by

As a police officer, Brian Casey helped wagethe U.K.swar on drugs. Now, as a Church of Scotland minister, he spends much of his time dealing with its casualties.

Between a fifth and a quarter of the funerals the Rev. Casey conducts at his parish church in the economically deprived Glasgow district of Springburn are for people whose deaths are drug-related victims of an expanding epidemic that raises serious questions about U.K. and Scottish drug policy.

I joined the police in 1991, and we were fighting the war on drugs we are still fighting the war on drugs 28 years later and we are losing it, Casey says. Im seeing the other side of it now, when Im dealing with the families that have gone through this grief.

Scotlands drug-deaths crisis and the difficulty of getting rival U.K. and Scottish governments to cooperate effectively to address it was highlighted last week at two separately organized drug summits in Glasgow.

The U.K.s Home Office held a gathering of drug experts and policymakers from across the country on Thursday. The Scottish government, which had for months been planning a similar conference in Glasgow, responded by rescheduling its summit for Wednesday.

While the back-to-back events point at rival political agendas, participants at both summits had plenty to talk about. Datareleased last year showed that drug-related deaths in Scotland had soared 27 percent to 1,187 in 2018 compared with the previous year, the worst toll since records began in 1996 and a higher death rate than any other European country.

While U.K. Conservative ministers appear determined to use the law to crack down on drugs, the Scottish government wants to shift to treating addiction as primarily a health issue. Members of the governing Scottish National Party last year backed the decriminalization of illegal drug use.

Casey says viewing the crisis as a public health matter would be more effective in reducing addiction and would slash drug-related crime. This isnt about politics this is a social justice, a health issue, he says. Rather than criminalizing people or demonizing them, we need to treat them with respect.

The most rapid growth in drug-related deaths in Scotland was among people aged between 35 and 44, although there has also been a jump in deaths of 45-to-54-year-olds, a cohort that includes members of the so-called Trainspotting generation, named after a 1993 Irvine Welsh novel that featured heroin addiction in the 1980s.

Our drug services are still stuck in the late 1980s.

Annemarie Ward of Favor U.K., a charity for recovering addicts

Official data suggests the death rate in Scotland is more than three times higher than in England, a statistic that in part reflects a higher use of illegal drugs north of the border, but which critics say also points at an inadequate response by Scottish authorities.

Annemarie Ward, chief executive of Faces and Voices of Recovery (or Favor) U.K., a charity for people recovering from addiction, says Scottish treatment and rehabilitation is under-resourced, its users are stigmatized, the success of faith-based recovery programs are ignored and many addicts are merely parked on the heroin substitute methadone.

Our drug services are still stuck in the late 1980s, Ward says, as Favor U.K. supporters gather at the Springburn parish church to plant crosses commemorating drug-related deaths.

Karen Duffy, a heroin addict for two decades, plants a cross for her brother, who died last year of an overdose involving methadone and street Valium, often badly adulterated tranquilizer pills that can now easily be bought on the internet for home delivery and can cost as little as 25 cents each.

Duffy, 40, says years on methadone had not helped her out of addiction. It was only after a second amputation operation to her leg this time above the knee that she was given the chance to go into residential therapy to address issues underlying her addiction.

It took me losing the same leg twice to get offered treatment, she says.

However, Scottish public health minister Joe FitzPatrick says there is no clear evidence that rehabilitation reduces drug deaths or that drug treatment in England is more successful than in Scotland.

FitzPatrick, who last yearset up a national drugs-death task force, says the experience of Portugal demonstrated the need for a joined-up strategy. That country hasslashed drug deaths since 2001 by removing criminal sanctions on personal possession and focusing on harm reduction and health promotion.

That shows we need to make a seismic shift in policy toward a public health approach, FitzPatrick says, also citing areport by the cross-party U.K. Parliaments Scottish Affairs Committee in November that indicates there is a strong case for decriminalization of drug possession for personal use.

But while justice and health issues are devolved to Edinburgh, Westminster retains control of drug policy, and the Conservative U.K. government has repeatedly waved aside calls for even a limited softening of the law or how it is enforced.

U.K. ministers have also blocked attemptsto set up a drugs consumption facility, or fix room, in Glasgow that would give addicts a safe environment in which to inject heroin.

It makes sense for [drug] policy to be devolved, but if that is not going to happen then I hope that the U.K. government would at least look at how their policies could complement rather than jar against the public health approach that we are trying to take, FitzPatrick says.

Still, he insists that the Scottish government welcomes the U.K. summit and that its event was rearranged to complement, not compete, with it.

The U.K. Home Office also struck a cooperative tone. This is not a party-political issue, and, like the Scottish government, we see working in partnership as essential to making progress, it says.

Donny Balloch, a retired drug treatment worker and former addict who credits his recovery to rehab, says he fears the Glasgow gatheringswere just about point-scoring and political waffle, but adds: I would love to be surprised though.

By Mure Dickie

OZY partners with the U.K.'s Financial Times to bring you premium analysis and features. The Financial Times Limited 2020.

View post:

Can the UK and Scotland Set Aside Differences to Fight Drugs? - OZY

Philippines’ Duterte Resumes Loan Talks With Backers of U.N. Drugs War Investigation – The New York Times

Posted on by

MANILA Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte has allowed talks about loans and grants from countries that backed a U.N. investigation into his bloody war on drugs to resume, his office said on Wednesday.

A document dated Feb. 27 addressed to all agencies and state-owned firms signed by Duterte's Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea said the suspension on loan and grant negotiations was being lifted.

The document did not provide an explanation nor did Medialdea immediately respond to a request for comment.

The U.N. Human Rights Council approved a resolution in July backed by 18 countries to compile a report on Duterte's drugs crackdown, launched after he was elected in 2016 on a platform of crushing crime.

The government says at least 5,600 people have been killed in what police say were shootouts with dealers resisting arrest while activists say the toll is far higher.

Duterte ordered a halt on loans from the 18 countries on Aug. 27, "pending the assessment of our relations with these countries".

It was not clear which loans were involved, nor their size, though the government said then that none covered infrastructure projects so the suspension would not have a significant impact on the economy. It also said loans already being implemented would not be affected.

Countries on the 47-member human rights council that voted in favor of the investigation resolution include Australia, Denmark, Iceland, Spain, Ukraine and the United Kingdom.

Duterte has more than once taken a stand against the international community over perceived criticism of his anti-narcotics campaign.

He once threatened to pull the Philippines out of the United Nations and he unilaterally withdrew the country from the International Criminal Court after it said it was conducting a preliminary examination into alleged crimes against humanity.

(Reporting by Karen Lema; Editing by David Clarke)

Read more here:

Philippines' Duterte Resumes Loan Talks With Backers of U.N. Drugs War Investigation - The New York Times

Grieving families in Philippines war on drugs turn to theater for therapy – New York Post

Posted on by

MANILA Relatives of some of the thousands killed in the Philippines war on drugs acted out their journey of loss and healing in a theater performance in Manila on Wednesday, capping a month-long therapy program for grieving urban poor families.

Bereaved mothers, wives and children took to the stage at a high school in the business center of the capital in front of a crowd of 500, most of them students. They danced to pop songs and performed monologues and political sketches.

If you would look at the performers, there are so many smiles. They were dancing in joy, said organizer Flavie Villanueva, a former drug user-turned-priest who is critical of President Rodrigo Dutertes anti-narcotics campaign.

The first time they came to me, there was nothing but tears, anguish and anger, said Villanueva, who launched Paghilom healing in Tagalog in 2016 to comfort grieving families.

More than 5,600 suspected drug dealers and users have been killed in police anti-narcotics operations since Duterte took office in July 2016, according to government data. Thousands more died in mysterious circumstances, some shot dead by masked gunmen riding pillion on motorcycles.

Rights group said the police summarily executed suspects. But police said they acted in self-defense after suspects violently resisted arrest.

Through Paghilom, I let out all my tears, said Analyn Mamot, 33, whose husband, an illegal drugs user, was killed by unidentified gunmen two years ago. Now I feel new like a new personality is alive in me.

Read more here:

Grieving families in Philippines war on drugs turn to theater for therapy - New York Post

Level the playing field in the marijuana industry – The Boston Globe

Posted on by

Massachusetts crafted its marijuana laws as a noble experiment, a test of whether the Commonwealth could create an entirely new industry in which people of color had a fair shake. Without a course correction, though, that experiment is in danger of failing.

In the more than three years since the law passed in Massachusetts, about 40 shops have opened in what is now a $400 million industry. But, while one shop in Grove Hall is in the final stages of approval, no entrepreneur of color has opened up a recreational marijuana store.

The major barrier is money. It doesnt matter how many programs the state offers to minority entrepreneurs if they cant get a loan to start a business or cant get their applications granted before their money runs out. Thats the hurdle that the state needs to help applicants clear if it wants to make good on the vision of an equitable and diverse industry that benefits the communities most affected by the war on drugs.

Not only are the existing shops short of minority participation; the pipeline doesnt look great either. Would-be pot sellers have to clear two hurdles: first, getting local approval, and then going through the states review. As of Feb. 6, the Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission is reviewing 699 applications, a tiny fraction of which are from the communities that the law was meant to support.

One way to reduce the burden on minority applicants is to speed up the process, because costly delays are themselves a financial hindrance. The cost of delays was brought to light in dramatic fashion in December by Leah Cooke Daniels, who holds one of the certifications granted by the state as an economic-empowerment business, or those from groups disproportionately harmed by the war on drugs, such as low-income, Black, and Hispanic communities. She interrupted a public CCC meeting, shouting that she has been waiting for months for her marijuana license from the state. Cooke Daniels, who is a Black military veteran, said these delays had cost her about $375,000.

But thats not the only unwarranted cost. Even before joining the CCCs long queue, an applicant has to sign a contract with the host municipality. And while the law mandates that the state must prioritize equity in its licensing process, there is no such requirement for cities and towns. In fact, they hold almost-unchecked control. As a result, some localities have been accused of turning their local negotiation processes into a shakedown, with most of them imposing additional costs on prospective pot companies well beyond the 3 percent fee and optional 3 percent local sales tax allowed by state law. (Case in point: Jasiel Correia, the embattled former mayor of Fall River, who was charged with bribery, extortion, and fraud, among other crimes, in a 24-count federal indictment that alleges he shook down marijuana companies that wanted to launch in his city.) Recently, WGBH reviewed nearly 500 of these local contracts called host community agreements between municipalities and prospective cannabis vendors. What they found wasnt pretty: roughly two-thirds of those agreements ask for more than the standard fees from marijuana companies.

Municipalities have found many ways to get around the laws ceilings. Chelsea, for instance, included a one-time $100,000 donation to substance abuse programming in the city and an annual donation to local youth sports. They called these payments charity. But, as a local lawyer told WGBH: Its extortion, straight up. . . . If it is charity, it should not be present in a legally binding contract."

A legislative effort to crack down on host community agreements and give the CCC oversight over them is pending in the Legislature. But reform must not stop there: While a few municipalities have added an equity requirement, the state should extend it to all cities and towns.

Additionally, the state should follow jurisdictions like Oakland, Calif., and Illinois in establishing an equity loan fund with a dedicated stream of money from marijuana tax revenue. A Globe story found that not a penny of the $67 million that has come to state coffers from adult-use marijuana taxes has benefited communities harmed most by the war on drugs. Last year, an effort by state Senator Sonia Chang-Daz to legislate it via a budget amendment failed. Hopefully, legislators will understand the urgency of enacting it into law as soon as possible.

Theres time to rescue the states experiment. But if it wants an equitable marijuana industry, the Legislature will need to act before its too late.

Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us on Twitter at @GlobeOpinion.

Read the original:

Level the playing field in the marijuana industry - The Boston Globe

The Case Against Joe Biden: Former VP’s Long Career Shows a Recurring Theme of Appeasing the Right – Democracy Now!

Posted on by

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! Im Amy Goodman, with Juan Gonzlez.

JUAN GONZLEZ: Well, we end todays show with a closer look at the comeback candidate of Super Tuesday, former Vice President Joe Biden, who won nine states, including delegate-rich Texas, while the AP reports Bernie Sanders won the largest prize of the night, California.

AMY GOODMAN: For more, we go to Toronto, Canada, where were joined by Branko Marcetic, staff writer at Jacobin magazine, reporter at In These Times, author of a new book called Yesterdays Man: The Case Against Joe Biden.

He may not be yesterdays man after Super Tuesday, Branko. Can you talk about why you wrote a book on Joe Biden and what you think its most important to understand about him?

BRANKO MARCETIC: You know, Biden, very early, when he announced, it was clear he was going to end up being the front-runner. Obviously, he was not only the vice president, a sort of traditional passing of the torch from the previous popular president, and that he was inheriting that popular support, but also he was a guy, similar to Clinton in 2016, who has a lot of intraparty support. And, you know, I felt, if people are going to vote, they should probably be aware of his record, particularly African-American voters, who, I argue in the book, Biden has really systematically betrayed, even though hes gained their support year after year, election after election.

I think the main thing that people need to know about Biden is his approach to politics, which is very much based on his 1978 reelection campaign, which came at the sort of conservative shift in U.S. politics, is based on appeasing the right and sort of taking the platform of his Republican opponent and trying to make it his own and kind of siphon away support like that. And thats really been the case in every election and really how hes governed. So thats why, in the 80s and the 90s, you see Biden going actually further on the tough-on-crime and tough-on-drugs messaging than even Reagan and Bush were calling for. Biden was constantly saying that they were not going far enough. He was pushing for a drug czar, when Reagan and even Rudy Giuliani, if you can imagine that, were saying such an idea was insane, pushing for expansion of civil forfeiture and that kind of thing.

And in the '90s, you see him, even though he says in 1995 he claims, I'm close to retiring. But the thing that has made me stay in the race is I want to defeat these guys. I want to defeat the Gingrich Republicans that came in '94. These guys are terrible. And what does he do? In 1996, he passes welfare reform, which was defined by Senate Republican Majority Leader Trent Lott as the, quote, holy grail of the GOP's legislative agenda. Welfare kind of disappears really across the South and the Southwest United States as conservative governors use that welfare reform to basically just use the money to put up their own budgets. He passes NAFTA. He repeals Glass-Steagall. He partners with Clinton to try and cut spending and to cut the federal bureaucracy spending, and federal employment goes down to pre-1960s levels, even before to levels before Roosevelt took power.

And this is really the way its always been. Part of the reason why he ended up being the architect, the Democratic architect, of the Iraq War was he was worried about an election. He was worried about being challenged from the right in 2002 by an opponent who could rival him in fundraising, and his safe bet was to sort of go and support the Iraq War, which a lot of African Americans did not support. And, in fact, Biden, talking to a group of African-American columnists shortly a month after voting for the war and this is a classic Biden thing, is he votes for something, and he says to this mostly black audience he says, you know, Well, I think actually the war is a terrible idea, and I dont want it. You know, I dont think its going to happen. You know, Saddam and al-Qaeda are not in cahoots at all. Thats ridiculous.

AMY GOODMAN: We have 10 seconds.

BRANKO MARCETIC: When, of course, he had been saying the exact opposite before. So, this is as the Republican Party gets more and more extreme to the right, having Biden as president, and even going up against Trump, is a real worry.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, were going to do Part 2, post it online at democracynow.org. Branko Marcetic is staff writer at Jacobin magazine, In These Times reporter. His new book, Yesterdays Man: The Case Against Joe Biden.

And that does it for our show. If youd like to see our five-hour Super Tuesday broadcast, go to democracynow.org.

We have a number of job openings here in our New York studio, from our newsroom to outreach and development. Information and application deadlines at democracynow.org.

See the original post:

The Case Against Joe Biden: Former VP's Long Career Shows a Recurring Theme of Appeasing the Right - Democracy Now!

Biden’s Long Career Shows a Predisposition for Appeasing the Right – Truthout

Posted on by

Following his Super Tuesday wins, we look closely at the record of former Vice President Joe Biden, from his central role in supporting the Iraq War to expanding the so-called war on drugs. We speak with Branko Marcetic, the author of Yesterdays Man: The Case Against Joe Biden. Bidens approach to politics is based on appeasing the right and taking the platform of his Republican opponent and trying to make it his own, Marcetic says.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! Im Amy Goodman, with Juan Gonzlez.

JUAN GONZLEZ: Well, we end todays show with a closer look at the comeback candidate of Super Tuesday, former Vice President Joe Biden, who won nine states, including delegate-rich Texas, while the AP reports Bernie Sanders won the largest prize of the night, California.

Get the news you want, delivered to your inbox every day.

AMY GOODMAN: For more, we go to Toronto, Canada, where were joined by Branko Marcetic, staff writer at Jacobin magazine, reporter at In These Times, author of a new book called Yesterdays Man: The Case Against Joe Biden.

He may not be yesterdays man after Super Tuesday, Branko. Can you talk about why you wrote a book on Joe Biden and what you think its most important to understand about him?

BRANKO MARCETIC: You know, Biden, very early, when he announced, it was clear he was going to end up being the front-runner. Obviously, he was not only the vice president, a sort of traditional passing of the torch from the previous popular president, and that he was inheriting that popular support, but also he was a guy, similar to Clinton in 2016, who has a lot of intraparty support. And, you know, I felt, if people are going to vote, they should probably be aware of his record, particularly African-American voters, who, I argue in the book, Biden has really systematically betrayed, even though hes gained their support year after year, election after election.

I think the main thing that people need to know about Biden is his approach to politics, which is very much based on his 1978 reelection campaign, which came at the sort of conservative shift in U.S. politics, is based on appeasing the right and sort of taking the platform of his Republican opponent and trying to make it his own and kind of siphon away support like that. And thats really been the case in every election and really how hes governed. So thats why, in the 80s and the 90s, you see Biden going actually further on the tough-on-crime and tough-on-drugs messaging than even Reagan and Bush were calling for. Biden was constantly saying that they were not going far enough. He was pushing for a drug czar, when Reagan and even Rudy Giuliani, if you can imagine that, were saying such an idea was insane, pushing for expansion of civil forfeiture and that kind of thing.

And in the 90s, you see him, even though he says in 1995 he claims, Im close to retiring. But the thing that has made me stay in the race is I want to defeat these guys. I want to defeat the Gingrich Republicans that came in 94. These guys are terrible. And what does he do? In 1996, he passes welfare reform, which was defined by Senate Republican Majority Leader Trent Lott as the, quote, holy grail of the GOPs legislative agenda. Welfare kind of disappears really across the South and the Southwest United States as conservative governors use that welfare reform to basically just use the money to put up their own budgets. He passes NAFTA. He repeals Glass-Steagall. He partners with Clinton to try and cut spending and to cut the federal bureaucracy spending, and federal employment goes down to pre-1960s levels, even before to levels before Roosevelt took power.

And this is really the way its always been. Part of the reason why he ended up being the architect, the Democratic architect, of the Iraq War was he was worried about an election. He was worried about being challenged from the right in 2002 by an opponent who could rival him in fundraising, and his safe bet was to sort of go and support the Iraq War, which a lot of African Americans did not support. And, in fact, Biden, talking to a group of African-American columnists shortly a month after voting for the war and this is a classic Biden thing, is he votes for something, and he says to this mostly black audience he says, you know, Well, I think actually the war is a terrible idea, and I dont want it. You know, I dont think its going to happen. You know, Saddam and al-Qaeda are not in cahoots at all. Thats ridiculous.

AMY GOODMAN: We have 10 seconds.

BRANKO MARCETIC: When, of course, he had been saying the exact opposite before. So, this is as the Republican Party gets more and more extreme to the right, having Biden as president, and even going up against Trump, is a real worry.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, were going to do Part 2, post it online at democracynow.org. Branko Marcetic is staff writer at Jacobin magazine, In These Times reporter. His new book, Yesterdays Man: The Case Against Joe Biden.

And that does it for our show. If youd like to see our five-hour Super Tuesday broadcast, go to democracynow.org.

Read more from the original source:

Biden's Long Career Shows a Predisposition for Appeasing the Right - Truthout

U.S. & The Philippines: Parting ways – Frontline

Posted on by

ONE of President Rodrigo Dutertes stated goals since coming to power in 2016 has been to distance the Philippines from the tight political and military embrace of the United States, the former colonial power. His immediate predecessor, Benigno Aquino, had forged a particularly close relationship with the U.S. as the Barack Obama administration launched its military pivot to the East. The Philippines at the time was also playing a leading and vocal role in the territorial dispute in the South China Sea.

Encouraged by the Obama administration, the Philippines had taken the dispute to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) where it got a favourable ruling, which dismissed much of Chinas claims to the South China Sea. But Duterte, after taking over as President, decided to put the territorial dispute on the back burner, indicating that he preferred a negotiated settlement to the South China Sea dispute. He said that implementing the ICJs decision would have meant getting sucked into an unwinnable war with China. Under Duterte, bilateral ties with China have flourished, with Beijing investing in many multibillion-dollar developmental projects. At the same time, Duterte, despite his periodic anti-American rhetoric, was careful to maintain the strong military links between the two countries. However, in the second week of February, he surprised the U.S. and even some of his domestic political allies by announcing that he had decided to scrap the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) between the two countries.

The military pact, signed in 1998, allowed the U.S. Army to rotate its forces in Filipino military bases. The two countries used to hold more than 300 annual joint military exercises. The announcement by the Philippine President was followed by an official notice of termination issued by the Filipino government on February 10. The military pact will lapse after 180 days, the mandatory notice period that was agreed on by both sides when the deal was first initialled.

After Duterte was elected to office, Filipino officials started talking about the need to review the Mutual Defence Treaty the two countries had signed at the height of the Cold War 69 years ago. The Philippines Secretary of National Defence, Delfin Lorenzana, stated in March last year that the security environment in the region had become much more complex since then. The Philippines is not in conflict with anyone and will not be in war with anyone in the near future, he said.

After Donald Trump became President, the U.S. started conducting more military exercises and joint patrols in the disputed waters of the South China Sea. The Philippine government under Duterte made it clear that it did not want to get involved if trouble broke out between the U.S. and China in its neighbourhood. Lorenzana warned that there was a likelihood of a shooting war erupting because of the increasing frequency of U.S. naval ships passing through the disputed waters.

Duterte, who had been threatening to scrap the VFA as he moved closer to Beijing and Moscow, finally bit the bullet after the U.S. imposed a travel ban on some of his closest advisers for alleged human rights violations. Among the senior Filipinos affected by the ban is Senator Bato Dela Rosa, who was earlier in charge of Dutertes controversial war on drugs, which human rights activists claim has come at a cost of more than a thousand encounter killings.

In response to the ban, Duterte also announced that he had advised his senior officials to boycott the U.S. and desist from travelling to the country. Only the Secretary of Foreign Affairs was exempted from the ban. Duterte said he was toning down relations with the U.S. and revealed that he had turned down an invitation to attend a U.S.-ASEAN summit meeting to be hosted by Donald Trump in the first week of March. He said his decision was based on geopolitical and strategic considerations.

The scrapping of the VFA has also put another complementary military treaty, the Enhanced Defence Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), in peril. The EDCA, signed in 2014, provided U.S. troops unfettered access to Philippine military facilities and allowed them to pre-position defence equipment in the country. Under the U.S.-Philippines Mutual Defence Treaty, it would have been mandatory for the Philippine Army to fight alongside the U.S. Army in the eventuality of hostilities breaking out.

Mike Pompeo, the U.S. Secretary of State, during a visit to Manila last year, reasserted this position, giving the impression that he was blissfully unaware of the current governments fear of getting entangled in a war instigated by the U.S. As the South China Sea is part of the Pacific, any armed attack on Philippine forces, aircraft or public vessels will trigger mutual defence obligations, Pompeo stated. The Secretary of National Defence said that his government doubted the U.S. sincerity in its commitment to its country. It is not the lack of reassurance that worries me, Lorenzana said. It is being involved in a war that we do not seek and do not want.

The termination of the VFA in a way has made the 1951 Mutual Defence Treaty irrelevant. A leading member of Dutertes Cabinet, Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra, said that the withdrawal from the VFA had made the Mutual Defence Treaty a hollow agreement. The decision by the Philippines President also took many of his Cabinet Ministers and the leadership of the countrys armed forces by surprise. Many in the top echelons of the Philippine political and security establishment, like their counterparts in India, have been strong votaries of military engagement with the U.S.

The Philippine Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Teodoro Locsin, said in January that the continuance of the military agreement with the U.S. would be more beneficial for the country compared with any benefits that could accrue if it was to be terminated. The Filipino elite believe that they owe a debt of gratitude to the U.S. It was U.S. military help that staved off a left-wing revolution in the country in the early 1950s. The Philippines was among the first Asian countries to join U.S.-led military alliances such as the Southeast Asia Treaty Organisation (SEATO) at the height of the Cold War.

After the fall of the Marcos dictatorship, mass protests forced the eviction of U.S. forces from their two biggest military bases in the Philippines, the Clark Air Base and the Subic Bay Naval Base, in 1991. Within a decade after that, the U.S. military made a comeback with the signing of the VFA.

The U.S. military helped the Philippine Army defeat armed Islamic insurgents in Marawi city on the island of Mindanao in 2017. U.S. Special Forces and surveillance drones were deployed in the siege of Marawi, which lasted a few months. The U.S. also lent a helping hand in the fight against the Moro insurgency which erupted in the 1970s in the south of the country. The Philippine Secretary of National Defence was apparently not in favour of terminating the VFA. He told the Philippine Senate last year that the VFA assured critical help to the country in times of crisis. Lorenzana said that the VFA had facilitated the transfer of $1.3 billion in military assistance to the Philippines.

Some of Dutertes closest political allies have started questioning openly his decision to terminate the VFA. There are rumours being spread in the Philippine media that the Armys top brass is so angry with the decision that they are even contemplating a military coup. The head of the Philippine Armed Forces, Gen. Felimon Santos. Jr., said that the VFAs abrogation would adversely impact military cooperation with the U.S. He warned that many of the joint exercises and war games planned with the U.S. Army in 2020 could be called off by Washington. The Navy chief, Vice Admiral Robert Empedrad, has defiantly stated that his forces will continue with the joint exercises with the U.S. Navy. Sections of the Philippine Army are known to be trigger-happy and have made abortive attempts at overthrowing popularly elected governments in the past.

After Duterte announced the termination of the VFA, President Trump said he was not too concerned by the move. He said that he was okay with the decision as well save a lot of money. At the same time, he insisted that he shared a very good relationship with his Philippine counterpart. Duterte said that Trump wanted to save the defence deal but had told the U.S. President that he did not want to do so for a number of reasons. One is that the Americans are very ill-mannered, he said.

Duterte stressed that the U.S. got a better deal out of the arrangement, pointing out that after large-scale joint military exercises, they did not leave any of their weaponry behind for the use of the Philippine Army. Duterte accused the U.S. of treating the Philippines like a dog on a leash and dismissed claims that the U.S. forces were acting as a deterrent to China. He accused the Pentagon of secretly keeping nuclear weapons on Philippine territory.

It is about time that we rely on ourselves. We will strengthen our own defences and not rely on other countries, the President told his Cabinet Ministers. Duterte said that the Chinese military posed no threat to the security of his country. They do not mean harm as long as we do not also do something that is harmful to them, he said.

However, the Assistant U.S. Secretary of State for Political/Military Affairs, R. Clarke Cooper, said that the move would jeopardise continued military cooperation between the two countries. The U.S. Secretary of Defence, Mark Esper, said the move by the Philippines would have a significant negative impact on bilateral strategic ties. Esper said the decision would send the wrong signal to other allies of the U.S. in the region who were telling the Chinese government to obey international rules of order. He was alluding to the South China Sea territorial dispute in which countries such as India and Vietnam are openly siding with the U.S.

Under the pretext of exercising the freedom of navigation rules, the U.S. has been sending its warships and conducting joint military exercises with its allies in the South China Sea. Terminating the VFA will negatively impact Philippine defence and security arrangements as well as overall bilateral relations with the U.S. and perhaps even at a subregional and multilateral level, Esper warned.

Read more here:

U.S. & The Philippines: Parting ways - Frontline

Marijuana Businesses Are Playing The Waiting Game In The State’s Budding Industry – New Hampshire Public Radio

Posted on by

Think about some things your community could really use, say a new traffic light, improved high school football fields, maybe even a new public park. All of these things and many more have been paid for by marijuana shops in various communities across the state. The pot shops negotiate these perks directly with the local communities in contracts called Host Community Agreements, or HCAs. No state or federal agency keeps track of these agreements in negotiations. WGBH News' Tori Bedford and Amanda Beland went through nearly 500 host community agreements and found that nearly two thirds of them call for these incentives and that the agreements aren't really helping the communities envisioned by the legal marijuana system here. Tori and Amanda documented what they found in a two-part series for WGBH News. They spoke with WGBH News' All Things Considered Arun Rath about the series. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Read part one and part two of the series.

Arun Rath: So first, give us a quick sketch of what you found when you scrutinize these agreements?

Amanda Beland: So really part one looked at host community agreements and the incentives that you mentioned. Under state law, municipalities can ask for an impact fee that's capped at 3-percent of a business's gross annual sales. What we found in the majority of the agreements in the state was that communities were requesting more than that fee.

Tori Bedford:-And in part two, we looked at how that system obviously disadvantages all businesses, all small businesses in the state. But there is a system that was supposed to be set up when Massachusetts started recreational marijuana here. They promised people of color, minority-owned businesses, people who'd been disadvantaged by the war on drugs. They promised then that they would have an advantage in that they would get to skip the line. And what we found in part two is that that is not the case. And there were many, many situations where there are business owners who are just waiting around, while wealthier businesses who are not part of this so-called priority programs were getting to skip the line by making these payments and incentives.

Rath: Amanda, how did you find the actual agreements and how did you go through them?

Beland: So it really depended on the municipality. If I went on the city or town website and they had a process, I followed that. Otherwise it was really just emailing the city or town clerk. It took me about three months to gather all of the agreements and to go through them. That's not all the agreements in the state. They're about 15 or 20 cities and towns that either never got back to me or got back to me partially. There were two towns that charged me ? or wanted to charge me money ? for the agreements: Orange and Millville. I appealed both of those estimates to the Secretary of State's office. We ultimately did not get the agreements.

Rath: Did you find that mostly it was the towns initiating these exchanges or the businesses who were making the offers?

Bedford: We actually saw that it was both. Bigger businesses can come in, they're multi-state operators. They can say, hey, we can offer you these incentives. You should pick us. A couple of days before we published this, I was reading in the "Boston Herald," there's an article by Erin Tiernan which was talking about how the town of Dartmouth was putting out advertisements for marijuana businesses to come in. And in their public advertisement, they lay out what they're asking for: "a community impact fee equal to 3-percent of the establishments gross sales, $25,000 in annual contributions to local nonprofit organizations and $340,000 to town services over the first four years of operation."

That's public. And this kind of shows how normalized it is. And I was talking to Ed DeSousa, who runs RiverRun Gardens out of Newburyport, he's also featured in our story. He was saying that he gives charitable contributions to Newburyport, but because they're not in his agreement, that's where he draws the line. He ultimately was saying you still have to pay to play. This is what Ed had to say about it:

"It takes a community to accept the business in because even though it's free enterprise, the community can just outright demonize your business. However, if you're contributing to the community, they're going to see the light at the end of the tunnel."

Rath: Can you talk about how the process affects the minority owned businesses? And these are the businesses that were supposed to have the leg up getting into the marijuana business?

Bedford: There were a lot of minority businesses saying, hey, we were told ... like Chauncey Spencer, who is featured in this story. He was told that he was going to be first in line and that he was a priority candidate. But he's still waiting because while the CCC has recognized that this is a problem for these candidates who were told that they could skip the line, the people who applied before they changed the regulations are still waiting. So he's one of those people. So now you don't have to necessarily have a property or secure the capital to get your application processed. But he had to do all of that, so he's still paying $5,000 in rent on this empty building. He's driving Lyft and Uber. He doesn't know what to do.

There's this guy, Marcus Johnson, who's a Social Equity candidate. He is a businessman He was kind of ruthless about this. And he was saying, you know what? Any business that you go into, you need to be a business man. You need to be able to make these deals. You can't be crying about it. You need to have the capital. But at the same time, after I talked to him for a couple of hours in a shop, he opened up to me about his father, who was killed as a result of the war on drugs in Cambridge when Marcus was 10 years old. He sees this ultimately as a way to get justice for what happened to his father and to help his community:

Bedford: "You ever think about like what he would think of you in your success in this field.

Johnson: "I think he'd be happy that like this can become full circle, like there's a bright side of that of how his life ended and how it can continue through me."

Rath: Looking forward from the series and from this reporting, what's next? Is there any indication that these practices will change? Given that a lot of people seem really unhappy about them and they also seem to be against the rules as they were originally set out?

Beland: Well, there's a bill that's been approved in the House that will now be up for debate in the Senate, hopefully in the next couple weeks. If approved and signed by Governor Baker, it would provide some more clarification on alot of these issues. I can't say if it would solve them. It would give the CCC, the Cannabis Control Commission, the authority to review the host community agreements. Right now, they aren't. And it would also limit what can be charged in the agreements to that 3-percent community impact fee.

Bedford: And having conversations with Shaleen Title, who's a Commissioner for the CCC, I think that they are desperate to get ahead of this and exert some kind of control, but they do feel that their hands are tied. I think everyone in the state is calling for that. The problem is, while we figure all of this out legislatively, it just can't happen fast enough for these people who continue to pay exorbitant rents, insane fees. They're just kind of waiting around. They've signed these contracts. There are so many of them that I don't know what's going to happen now. So it really just can't happen fast enough.

Go here to see the original:

Marijuana Businesses Are Playing The Waiting Game In The State's Budding Industry - New Hampshire Public Radio

Group works to eliminate the stigmas of substance abuse – C&G Newspapers

Posted on by

Christian and Kaitlin Powell, both certified recovery coaches as part of Wellness INX, speak to a group Feb. 12 at Families Against Narcotics headquarters.

A look at one groups list related to the societal stigmas of drug addiction.

Photo by Nick Mordowanec

Advertisement

MACOMB COUNTY In the middle of the afternoon Feb. 12 in Clinton Township, at the headquarters of Families Against Narcotics, nine people stood at easels and jotted down the first words that came to their minds regarding drug and alcohol addiction, mental health, and being in recovery.

These terms were familiar, that nearly everyone has heard at least once: Loser, bum, drunk, junkie, crazy, loony, quitter, manipulation.

When the exercise was complete, those in attendance looked on in silence as the words were strewn across the walls, pondering what it meant to see what is all too familiar.

All in all, most things are negative when it comes to addiction. It kind of negates the positives, one woman said.

Another woman, who said she was 31 years clean, said stigmas dont apply to her anymore because shes heard them all.

The mere fact of saying something can be a catalyst for change, she said.

Rather, its about looking beyond the stigma and seeing the individual.

We cant change the whole world, said Kaitlin Powell, a nationally certified recovery coach with Wellness INX. We can change the world one person at a time, with ourselves.

She and her husband, Christian Powell, conducted the anti-stigma training session over two weekends. Christian Powell said that about 50% of people who attend do so because they are already in the field and want to expand their own education or certification; the other 50% are perhaps referred by intensive outpatient programs or therapists.

He told the attendees that language impacts the world in both ways. Following decades of epidemics, like crack cocaine, and false promises perpetuated by the War on Drugs and a just say no mentality, the zeitgeist has been altered the past 20 years due to substance abuse disorders becoming more prevalent.

Even amid the opioid epidemic, a feeling of optimism exists.

Christian Powell called it almost a self-evident truth that when grassroots organizations, such as FAN or Unite to Face Addiction, are audible, people will feel more empowered to fight back. Thats why he and Kaitlin, who are both five years into their own recoveries, are in this battle.

We like to think of ourselves as recovery coaches to recovery coaches, so were trying to mentor the next generation of individuals who jump into this field not only to equip them with knowledge and ethics, but even furthermore just being there as a support system for them, Christian said.

Kaitlin said court systems, hospitals and even some corporations are more conscious in terms of the impact of language, explaining conditions with less harshness and more empathy.

Its not always about entering the peer recovery field and saving others by the power of testimony, Christian acknowledged. More so, its about creating boundaries and sustaining the impact for the long run.

All we want to do is fix itDavid Clayton, FAN regional director and outreach coordinator, has been in recovery for about 6 1/2 years. He recalled a time when people he knew avoided talking to him because of his addiction.

Clayton makes his way around the state, speaking to middle schools, high schools, at conferences, and at institutions of higher learning. He said, Society and news and social media paints this horrible image of addiction, but its really about letting them know what the face of addiction is.

He said the chances of speaking to a group of people, of any age, and not finding someone directly or indirectly affected, is very rare.

It does take time (to change stigmas), he said. It does take a lot of education. Were not going to shift someones dead-set mindset on something overnight. Unfortunately, someone has to become personally affected by it to kind of shift it.

That has included working with law enforcement, who he said realized that arresting their way out of the problem isnt working. As more law enforcement members became personally affected and knew loved ones battling addiction, it propelled a monumental shift in the old police mentality.

Theyre people like you or I, Clayton said. They just have this title of being someone who protects and serves our community. Protecting and serving our community isnt just about writing tickets and traffic stops and solving crimes.

FAN Regional Coordinator for Hope Not Handcuffs Lisa Boska said anti-stigma training involves education and doing the simple things, like teaching different verbiages something as simple as not calling someone an addict.

I still think a lot of the public is just not getting it, she said.

As someone who has worked and retired from an emergency room setting, as a patient advocate, she used to possess the same stigmas toward patients. She would wonder why she kept seeing the same people come through the doors.

Now, she speaks with social workers and medical staffers to relay her current worldview.

I let them know that this is something (people with substance abuse disorders) didnt ask for. This is something where they want to get better, Boska said. They dont wake up and say, I want to use.

She joined FAN about 4 1/2 years and became a state-certified coach. Now, Hope Not Handcuffs is over three years old, has upwards of 750 angels and has helped nearly 4,000 people seek help and avoid incarceration.

However, it took her own personal experience to truly realize that addiction does not discriminate. Her sons are part of the program, years after she told them it was their choice they decided to put something in their arm.

All the years of attending church services, or volunteering with school PTOs, or driving them to their various sporting events couldnt stave off their demons.

We did all the things, she said. And when parents are in total denial, were hurting our children that are suffering from this disease because we dont understand it and keep enabling them, enabling their disease and we dont mean to, but we dont know anything else. All we want to do is fix it. We dont understand how to fix it.

Societal evolutionDeaths from opioids have been rising in Michigan since 1999. In 2018, death totals leveled off a bit, with declines of 3% for all drugs and 1% for opioids.

In 2018, 2,036 people died from opioid overdoses. Deaths from all drugs combined totaled 2,599.

Andrea Taverna, senior advisor for opioids strategy for the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, said the state is still very much in a crisis mode.

Statistics do vary because everyones pathway is different, she said. MDDHS can, for example, look at peoples Medicaid plans and examine the amount of claims for assisted treatment. Of course, not everyone affected is enrolled in Medicaid.

The stigma paradigm in the United States is complicated. Those with chronic health conditions or diseases, such as diabetes, dont receive the same vitriol as those may with drug or alcohol use even though those could also be diagnosed as behavioral choices potentially aided by genetic and environmental risk factors.

(Substance abuse disorder is) really quite similar to any chronic disease, she said.

There is a concern of how individuals personal biases might infiltrate areas of the medical community as well. When people who may be using feel an intense sense of judgment from the rest of the public, Taverna said, they may be discouraged from seeking services.

Its also about engaging with local communities and supporting people already in recovery, by relating substance abuse with normal people among us in society.

On Nov. 14, 2019, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, MDDHS and the Michigan Opioids Task Force announced steps to combat three key areas of the ongoing epidemic: preventing opioid misuse, ensuring that opioid users can access high-quality recovery treatment, and reducing harm to themselves and their communities.

That has included a $1 million media campaign, utilizing federal grants that make citizens statewide privy to the epidemic via broad-based TV, radio, billboards, social media, paid search, mobile and public transit ads. They will run through April of this year.

Taverna said there are layers to the strategy, adding that everyone can change their worldview and evolve. Just as criminal justice was the primary measure of dealing with such problems in the past, the process is continually changing.

The message is that stigma is a very serious challenge, but that victims of opioid abuse disorder can recover, can lead good lives, she said.

Advertisement

Read the original here:

Group works to eliminate the stigmas of substance abuse - C&G Newspapers

Democrats think they’re voting on healthcare but they’re actually choosing whether or not to legalise marijuana – indy100

Posted on by

Every Democrat thinks they know what they're voting for today Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden: radical or establishment; socialism or moderate centre-left; "Medicare for all" (otherwise known as letting poor people access healthcare as well as the rich) or the status quo.

But there is one issue which many people are voting for, even if they're not aware of it.

That one issue? Weed. Pot. Dope. Cannabis. Ganja. Marijuana. You get the picture.

At the South Carolina debate last month, Sanders reiterated his position on hardcore legalisation on this front.

We have a criminal justice system that is not only broken but is racist, and has more people in jail than any country on Earth. And one of those reasons for that is a horrific war on drugs.Were going to effectively legalise marijuana in every state in the country.

Were going to provide help to the African-American, Latino, and Native American community start businesses to sell legal marijuana, so that a few corporations dont control the legal marijuana market.

He announced his support for what he's calling legalisationlast year. (On 24 October at... 4:20pm. Because obvs.)

Currently 33 states have legalised cannabis for medical use, and 11 have done so for recreational use. But on a federal level (aka nationwide) it's still illegal. This creates all kinds of conflicts and issues which could be resolved with Sanders' plan.

But what about Biden?

Joe Biden is now looking like he might come out as the frontrunner after all. Despite the past weeks giving life to everyone hoping for someone a little different (either in ideology or identity) to literally every president who has gone before, a huge Biden win in South Carolina has deflated that dream. Perhaps a career politician with a problematic record but a "safe pair of hands" vibe is what Democrats will go for after all, proving the 2018 midterms successofradical left-wing candidates (especially women and people of colour) has been quickly ignored forgotten.

Biden has stated that he thinks cannabis should be "basically legalised", but his stance is confusing and weird (much like everything else he's said recently). He stated that:

There are some in the medical community who say it needs to be made a Schedule II drug so there can be research studies, as not whether it is a gateway drug but whether or not it, when used in other combinations, may have a negative impact on people overcoming other problems, including in fact on young people in terms of brain development a whole range of things that are beyond my expertise. There are serious medical folks who say we should study it more.

There are "some in the medical community" who say all kinds of things. But we're talking about "serious folks", apparently. OK, Joe.

It all stands in stark contrast to Sanders' take, which is much more in line with the general consensus according to a 2019 Pew Research Centrepoll two thirds of Americans supported legalising cannabis. This was quite a change from 2000, when two thirds said it should be illegal. It's almost as if Biden is wildly out of touch with the electorate.

What's the backgroundof federal legalisation?

The persecution of marijuana intensified after President Nixon's War on Drugs in the early 1970s. Nixon temporarily categorised marijuana in Schedule 1 (along with hallucinogenics and opium), the most restrictive category of drugs, pending review by a commission he appointed. In 1927 the commission unanimously recommended decriminalising the possession and distribution of marijuana for personal use, but Nixon ignored this guidance and marijuana remains categorised as Schedule 1 to this day.

By the time George W Bush took office, the War on Drugs had largely run out of steam, as people realised the negative impacts (namely on minority communities) of such zealous prosecution, yet Bush allocated even more money to the cause, promoting programmes including student testing.

Over subsequent decades, the impact of these draconian laws has been huge.

According to the FBI Unified Crime Statistics, marijuana accounted for more than a third(36.8 per cent)of possession and use drug crime arrests in 2018. This places a huge burden on law enforcement and uses up valuable resources which could be allocated towards more pressing issues.

In fact, despite marijuana being broadly considered the least damaging drug, police may actually be disproportionately prioritising it.Christopher Ingraham writes in The Washington Postthat:

The federal government incentivises aggressive drug enforcement via funding for drug task forces and generous forfeiture rules that allow agencies to keep cash and other valuables they find in the course of a drug bust. And because marijuana is bulky and pungent relative to other drugs, its often easy for police to root out.

Marijuana use is roughly equal according to race, yet African Americans are almost four times more likely to be arrested for unlawful possession than white people. In 2017,people of color made up86 per cent of marijuana arrests in New York in 2017.

This is presumably in part what Sanders was driving at when he mentioned the "African-American, Latino, and Native American community".

But it's not just about rooting out inequality, legalising marijuana could also have a hugely positive impact on the economy.

A New Frontier Data report released in Octobersuggestedthat, if federally legalised, the cannabis industry could produce close to $130bn in additional tax revenue and over onemillion jobs nationwide.

In many ways, it would also benefit the people already trading in this space. Currenly many cannabis businesses in states where it is legalstruggle to find banks which will work with them given the murkylegality of it at a federal level. There are also complex taxation discrepancies which limit cannabis businesses' abilities to implement the deductions that other businesses can, so their tax bill can end up being up to 90 per cent higher.

Sounds great... are there any drawbacks?

Sort of. Interestingly, while two thirds ofAmericans support legalising marijuana, Repubicans are disproportionately opposed to it, despite being the party of libertarianism and individualism. It seems they're here for everyone's personal responsibility when it comes to paying extortionate prices for healthcare, but want to control what people choose to do with their bodies anyway.

The case against federal legalisation is essentially that it will encourage more people to use marijuana. There is some evidence of this being the case, in particular a study released in November which showed an increase in use for people aged 26 and older. (Turns out teenagers don't much care whether they're getting high legally or not.)

However many have pointed to the possibility that the causation here is flipped (were people using marijuana more because it was legal or was it legal because more people used it?). Perhaps more crucially, this data was based on self-reporting, so one could argue that people are more likely to admit to using a legal substance than an illegal one.

The short-term health risks of cannabis use (impaired coordination and lowered inhibitions leading to potentially risky behaviour) palein comparison to that of legal drugs like alcohol (possible short-term outcome: death).

In the long term, heavy drinking can lead to a host of potentially fatal health problems, while marijuana use has not been proven to have any more severe conseques in some cases it can exacerbate pre-existing (or pre-disposition to) mental health conditionssuch as psychosis and schizophrenia (although alcohol has been linked todepression and anxiety). There is no evidence thatsmokingmarijuana leads to lung cancer in higher numbers than smoking tobacco. When it comes to social effects, marijuana is also not demonstrably more dangerous than legal drugs: driving under the influence of THC is statistically less likely to cause an accident than driving while drunk. Cannabis is also not linked to violent behaviour, while alcohol is.

But by far the biggest concern even among supporters of marijuana legalisation is the possibility that this will create a problematically powerful industry, consolidating all of the money that can be made into the hands of the already rich and powerful.

Sanders knows this, and has a plan, apparently. He essentially wants to ban companies which make "cancer-causing products" (read: alcohol and tobacco) from entering the industry, and put regulation in place to limit monopolies. But it's unclear exactly how he could achieve this. Indeed, it doesn't seem like something which could be fixed by way of executive order on day one, and Republicans still control the senate, so passing any kind of regulation is going to be a struggle.

If Sanders becomes president, can he actually pull this off?

Sanders is suggesting he will sign an executive order which effectively allows him to bypass congress (see: Trump's travel ban).

Technically, there's no reason why this can't be done, but it's the additional areas he's promised to act on that could be an issue, such as the aforementioned de-monopolisation, as well as expunging past convictions.

There are alsoa number of interested groups who wouldnot be happy.

Alcohol companies are still trying to figure out where they stand on this:a study from Georgia State Universityfound that alcohol sales fell by 15 per centin states where only medical marijuana had been legalised and by 20 per centin counties where recreational marijuana is legal. This would seem like it would be a reason to oppose legalisation, however the alcohol industry has actually quietly been investing in the legal cannabis industry for decades, suggesting they view it as a space for expansion, rather than competition.

A report from 2016 shows that the pharmaceutical industry is heavily opposed to further legalisation of cannabis in the US. Interested parties included Purdue Pharma, which has since filed for bankruptcy in the wake of a series of lawsuits related to Oxycontin and its impact on the opioid epidemic in the USA. Studies show that marijuana can be used as an alternative to opiate-based pain medication.

It's worth noting that while Sanders has publicly condemned his rivals for accepting money from the medical insurance and pharmaceutical industries, he is not entirelyimmune to these types of donations either, unlike for example Michael Bloomberg (who is awful, but is also self-funded).

What does all of this mean?

The valueof the issue at hand is pretty subjective, but it's not hard to argue that the legalisation (or lack thereof) of marijuana on a federal level would have huge impact on both an economic and social level.

Ultimately, Democratic voters are making a choice today, not just based on healthcare (which is the main dividing factor among the two frontrunners) but also on whether they want to continue in a vein of prohibition or individualism.

The latter is very much a Republican value, but perhaps one which in this case, the Democrats would do well to embrace.

Continued here:

Democrats think they're voting on healthcare but they're actually choosing whether or not to legalise marijuana - indy100

Bill would call for state of emergency to address Baltimore crime – WBAL TV Baltimore

Posted on by

ARE SKEPTICAL ABOUT THE PROPOSAL. DAVID: ACCORDING TO THE BILLS SPONSOR, THIS LEGISLATION DOES NOT GIVE THE GOVERNOR THE AUTHORITY TO CALL IN THE NATIONAL GUARD TO FIGHT CRIME. IT EXPANDS THE GOVERNORS POWER TO DIRECT STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT RESOURCES TO ADDRESS CRIME. THE LEGISLATION GIVES THE GOVERNORS OFFICE THE POWER TO DECLARE A STATE OF EMERGENCY IN BALTIMORE CITY IF THE NUMBER OF MURDERS REACHES THREE PER 100,000 IN A MONTH. IT WILL ALLOW STATE POLICE AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES TO PATROL THE STREETS OF BALTIMORE. >> THAT IS THE GOAL OF THIS. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. LETS STOP THE CRIME. DAVID: THE LEGISLATION ALSO AUTHORIZES THE USE OF ADDITIONAL PROSECUTORS TO HANDLE ALL OF THE STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT CASES. >> I DISAGREE WITH THE WAY THE CITY STATES ATTORNEY IS HANDLING HER CASES RIGHT NOW. I DONT THINK SHES PROSECUTING ENOUGH. THERE IS A LOT OF NOLLE PROSSE WE ARE HEARING. DAVID: THE GOVERNORS PRESS OFFICE ISSUED A STATEMENT STOPPING SHORT OF SUPPORTING THE MEASURE. "IT IS ENCOURAGING TO SEE THAT SOME LEGISLATORS ARE FOCUSED ON ADDRESSING THE VIOLENT CRIME CRISIS IN BALTIMORE CITY, WHICH THE GOVERNOR HAS REPEATEDLY SAID IS THE MOST URGENT ISSUE FACING OUR STATE. THE GOVERNOR WILL CONSIDER ANY LEGISLATION THAT COMES TO HIS DESK." SENATE PRESIDENT BILL FERGUSON SAYS THE REPUBLICAN CAUCUS TOLD HIM THEY WANT TO HELP FIX THE CITYS PROBLEM. >> THEY WANT TO BE PART OF THE SOLUTIION. WE WELCOME THEIR IDEAS. I THINK WE JUST HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IS THE RIGHT BALANCE APPROACH TO INVEST IN COMMUNITIES TO CREATE REAL PEACE AND SAFETY. DAVID: THE PROPOSAL ALLOWS THE GOVERNORS OFFICE TO CALL IN STATE POLICE, MDTA POLICE, MTA POLICE, DGS POLICE AND OFFICERS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES TO FIGHT CRIME. THIS WOULD ALSO FILL THE GAP OF A POLICE SHORTAGE IN THE CITY. MEANWHILE, BALTIMORE DELEGATES ARE PRESSING AHEAD WITH LEGISLATION TO ALLOW STATE POLICE TO PATROL DEEPER ONTO I-83. DELEGATE MAGGIE MCINTOSH TOLD A HOUSE COMMITTEE SHES OK WITH THE GOVERNORS PREFERENCE THAT PATROLS BE DONE BY MDTA POLICE. >> THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS TO KEEP OUR POLICE IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS. DAVID: THE BILL IS BEING MET WITH SKEPTICISM BY CITY DEMOCRATS. AND BEING INTRODUCED SO LATE IN THE SESSION COULD REDUCE ITS CHANCES FOR PASSAGE. ANDRE: LATE THIS AFTERNOON, BALTIMORE CITY STATES ATTORNEY MARILYN MOSBY RELEASED A STATEMENT ABOUT THIS BILL, STATING INSTEAD OF BLAMING HER AND OTHER CITY LEADERS HE SHOULD LOOK IN THE MIRROR. SHE IS TALKING ABOUT THE GOVERNOR, ADDING HE SHOULD COME OUT OF THE ERA OF ZERO TOLERANCE

Bill would call for state of emergency to address Baltimore crime

Updated: 5:13 PM EST Mar 3, 2020

A bill in Annapolis would give Gov. Larry Hogan the authority to declare a state of emergency in Baltimore City based on the number of homicides.Senate Minority Leader J.B. Jennings, a Republican whose 7th District encompasses portions of Baltimore and Harford counties, sponsored the legislation. The bill does not give the governor the authority to call in the National Guard for crime-fighting, but it expands his power to direct state law enforcement resources to address crime.The legislation gives the governor's office the power to declare a state of emergency in Baltimore City if the number of homicides reaches three per 100,000 in a month. There were 348 homicides in Baltimore in 2019, which marked the fifth-consecutive year of more than 300 homicides in the city.The bill also allows the governor's office to call in Maryland State Police, Maryland Transportation Authority police, Maryland Transit Administration police, Department of General Services police and Natural Resources police to fight crime. This would also fill the gap of a police shortage in Baltimore City."That's the goal of this. Enough is enough. Let's stop the crime," Jennings said.The legislation also authorizes the use of additional prosecutors to handle all of the state law enforcement cases."I disagree with the way the city state's attorney is handling her cases right now. I don't think she's prosecuting enough. There is a lot of nolle prosse we are hearing," Jennings said.The Baltimore City State's Attorney's Office released a statement Tuesday afternoon, saying: "The governor and his allies have become increasingly desperate as they try and ram their old-school, tough-on-crime agenda through the Legislature. Governor Hogan has blamed me for crime. He has blamed the Senate judiciary chair, the mayor, the city delegation and Democratic leadership. But he ought to take a look in the mirror. As city representatives, we have all put forward sustainable solutions that would reduce crime in the city -- investments in education, public health programs, and more -- but the governor won't listen. Instead, he wants to usurp the authority of elected officials and bring his disproven and outdated crime strategy to Baltimore City. I urge him to come out of the era of zero tolerance policing, mandatory minimums, a failed war on drugs, and mass incarceration into an era of evidence-based solutions that promote public health, public safety, and will actually reduce crime. Stop pointing fingers and start leading."The governor's press office issued a statement stopping short of supporting the measure: "It is encouraging to see that some legislators are focused on addressing the violent crime crisis in Baltimore City, which the governor has repeatedly said is the most urgent issue facing our state. The governor will consider any legislation that comes to his desk."Senate President Bill Ferguson, a Democrat who represents Baltimore City's 46th District, said the Republican Caucus told him they want to help fix the city's problem."They want to be part of the solution. We welcome their ideas. I think we just have to figure out what is the right balance approach to invest in communities to create real peace and safety," Ferguson said.Baltimore City delegates are pressing ahead with legislation to allow state police to patrol deeper onto Interstate 83. Delegate Maggie McIntosh, a Democrat who represents Montgomery County's 43rd District, told a House committee she's OK with governor's preference that I-83 patrols be done by Maryland Transportation Authority police."The most important thing is to keep our police in the neighborhoods," McIntosh said.The bill is being met with skepticism by city Democrats, and it being introduced so late in the session reduces its chances for passage.

A bill in Annapolis would give Gov. Larry Hogan the authority to declare a state of emergency in Baltimore City based on the number of homicides.

Senate Minority Leader J.B. Jennings, a Republican whose 7th District encompasses portions of Baltimore and Harford counties, sponsored the legislation. The bill does not give the governor the authority to call in the National Guard for crime-fighting, but it expands his power to direct state law enforcement resources to address crime.

The legislation gives the governor's office the power to declare a state of emergency in Baltimore City if the number of homicides reaches three per 100,000 in a month. There were 348 homicides in Baltimore in 2019, which marked the fifth-consecutive year of more than 300 homicides in the city.

The bill also allows the governor's office to call in Maryland State Police, Maryland Transportation Authority police, Maryland Transit Administration police, Department of General Services police and Natural Resources police to fight crime. This would also fill the gap of a police shortage in Baltimore City.

"That's the goal of this. Enough is enough. Let's stop the crime," Jennings said.

The legislation also authorizes the use of additional prosecutors to handle all of the state law enforcement cases.

"I disagree with the way the city state's attorney is handling her cases right now. I don't think she's prosecuting enough. There is a lot of nolle prosse we are hearing," Jennings said.

The Baltimore City State's Attorney's Office released a statement Tuesday afternoon, saying: "The governor and his allies have become increasingly desperate as they try and ram their old-school, tough-on-crime agenda through the Legislature. Governor Hogan has blamed me for crime. He has blamed the Senate judiciary chair, the mayor, the city delegation and Democratic leadership. But he ought to take a look in the mirror. As city representatives, we have all put forward sustainable solutions that would reduce crime in the city -- investments in education, public health programs, and more -- but the governor won't listen. Instead, he wants to usurp the authority of elected officials and bring his disproven and outdated crime strategy to Baltimore City. I urge him to come out of the era of zero tolerance policing, mandatory minimums, a failed war on drugs, and mass incarceration into an era of evidence-based solutions that promote public health, public safety, and will actually reduce crime. Stop pointing fingers and start leading."

The governor's press office issued a statement stopping short of supporting the measure: "It is encouraging to see that some legislators are focused on addressing the violent crime crisis in Baltimore City, which the governor has repeatedly said is the most urgent issue facing our state. The governor will consider any legislation that comes to his desk."

Senate President Bill Ferguson, a Democrat who represents Baltimore City's 46th District, said the Republican Caucus told him they want to help fix the city's problem.

"They want to be part of the solution. We welcome their ideas. I think we just have to figure out what is the right balance approach to invest in communities to create real peace and safety," Ferguson said.

Baltimore City delegates are pressing ahead with legislation to allow state police to patrol deeper onto Interstate 83. Delegate Maggie McIntosh, a Democrat who represents Montgomery County's 43rd District, told a House committee she's OK with governor's preference that I-83 patrols be done by Maryland Transportation Authority police.

"The most important thing is to keep our police in the neighborhoods," McIntosh said.

The bill is being met with skepticism by city Democrats, and it being introduced so late in the session reduces its chances for passage.

Read more from the original source:

Bill would call for state of emergency to address Baltimore crime - WBAL TV Baltimore

The ‘opposite of addiction’ theory: How community can drive recovery – Big Think

Posted on by

In today's society, it seems that we are in a never-ending war with drugs.

Digging deeper into the psychology of addiction will tell you a story that looks like this: the chemicals in drugs (and our body's reaction to them) cause people to crave them, become dependent on them. Their bodies and minds change and adapt to create a demand for the drug of choice.

'It's a lifelong journey' most people who struggle with addiction will say. A life-long journey of awareness, of choices to do the right thing, of willpower, and of acknowledging this weakness in themselves. There is nothing inherently wrong with this explanation, except that it does not show you the most important parts of the recovery process.

Again and again, we have seen the evidence that supports the "opposite of addiction" theory is relevant not just for recovering addicts but also for people who struggle with mental health conditions as well.

Image by i3alda on Shutterstock

The opposite of addiction is not sobriety, it is community. This idea was brought forth first by author Johann Hari using the Rat Park experiment. Past studies of rats have given us a deeper understanding of addiction. Given a choice between water laced with cocaine or pure water, the experiments showed that isolated rats will often choose the drug, once they discover it. When they do, this quickly becomes a habit and they eventually ingest enough of the drug that they die.

Similar experiments were done in the 1940s. However, in the 1970s, psychology professor Bruce Alexander made one major change: the rats were placed in the same cages instead of separate ones. When housed together, many of the rats tried the drug-infused water, but none of them became heavy users. They often switched back to the clean water, and there were no drug overdoses. Alexander later conducted additional studies where he placed addicted solitary rats into cages with other rats (as well as stimulation in the form of toys). The change of environment and social settings resulted in the rats no longer relying on the drug-laced water.

These experiments point to a strong need for human connection that helps us thrive. The most important things needed for the long-term recovery of addiction are empathy, compassion, and connection.

The importance of community and human connection has been proven multiple times in the past...

There is an abundance of proof that community and connection drive recovery in many different ways. According to this 1993 study, a spouse/significant other's involvement in behavioral marital therapy "significantly improved" outcomes for recovering alcoholics. A more recent study from 2008 suggested that people who struggle with addiction have a better prospect of successful long-term recovery if they participate in peer-support groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous.

Again and again, we have seen the evidence that supports the "opposite of addiction" theory is relevant not just for recovering addicts, but also for people who struggle with mental health conditions as well.

"At the core of every addiction is an emptiness based in abject fear," Dr. Gabe Mat says in his book "In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts." "The addict dreads and abhors the present moment, they bend feverishly only toward the next time, the moment when the brain, infused with the drug of choice, will briefly experience itself as liberated"

Both Alexander and Mat were explaining the idea that addiction, while a deeply personal struggle, may require more than a personal recovery process. Addiction itself can be isolating and empty - it only makes sense that the recovery process not only addresses the physical addiction but the emotional emptiness problem, as well.

"Addiction is an adaptation. It's not you - it's your cage." - Bruce Alexander

Not only is community beneficial for addiction recovery but it can also help aid the maintain recovery of mental health conditions such as depression and anxiety.

Photo by Monkey Business Images on Shutterstock

A fascinating 2001 research experiment analyzed the results of 48 separate studies on group therapy. The purpose of this data collection was to determine whether or not group therapy was more or less effective than individual therapy or no therapy at all.

The information about these studies breaks down like this:

The results of this experiment strongly prove that group therapy is effective and beneficial.

The benefits of group therapy have been speculated for years (you can find another example here), but the results of this massive experiment further prove the theory that community aids in the recovery of not just mood disorders but for other problems of the human condition such as addiction.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

See original here:

The 'opposite of addiction' theory: How community can drive recovery - Big Think

Kenney Was a Coward in Letting Phillys Safe Injection Site Fail – Philadelphia magazine

Posted on by

Opinion

When push came to shove for his administration's Big Idea in addressing the opioid crisis, the Mayor's failure to use his position of power turned out to be a political and moral disaster.

Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney. Photo by Matt Rourke/AP

When the public rails against a project that would ultimately be in its best interest, you have to consider it a failing of the projects messenger.

With more than 3,000 people dead from overdoses in Philadelphia in the past three years and an estimated tens of thousands addicted to opioids here, the city has become the deadliest in the nation in the current opioid crisis. And it was Mayor Jim Kenney who officially sounded the battle cry in 2018, declaring a disaster in Kensington, the nations deadliest opioid site. As the problem worsened, the idea of a safe injection site a bleeding-edge proposal to provide a safe environment, services and support to those suffering from addiction, in a city-sanctioned location was hotly debated among residents.

But when Safehouse, the nonprofit that last week got a judges approval to open a safe injection site, chose, quite by surprise, to put the first such facility in South Philadelphia rather than Kensington, all hell broke loose.

The backlash isnt rooted so much in why Safehouse made its decision South Philly has seen overdoses increase dramatically in recent years but in how it went about it.

City Council members claim they were informed about the sites proposed location only days before the public found out, with no community meetings or forums held in South Philly prior to the announcement. How did Safehouse think it could drop a safe injection site in the middle of one of the citys most densely populated and densely opinionated neighborhoods without a whiff of prior notice and not spark an uproar? Although Safehouse doesnt depend on taxpayer dollars to support its operations, the nonprofit thats received the Mayors blessing deserved more of his actual backing.

That Kenney wasnt at Safehouses ill-fated press conference in South Philly last week was the epitome of cowardice. Its hard to imagine that he didnt already know what was going to go down. Angry residents berating recovering opioid addicts, experts and advocates including former Governor Ed Rendell at a heated press conference made for a disheartening spectacle to watch.

I was torn between feeling compassion for the advocates who are trying to save lives and empathy for the residents who felt betrayed by a last-minute intrusion into their backyard. In the end, the residents won; Constitution Health Plaza cancelled plans to host the safe injection site in its facility.

But the publics anger is misplaced. The person with the influence, resources and power to avert this catastrophe chose to throw the advocates under the bus. Kenney must have know this safe injection site was coming to South Philly long before everyone else found out and failed to rally the same levels of public awareness and political mobilization he has for other causes.

Philadelphia was about to become the first city in the nation to have a supervised injection site of this magnitude a huge deal and a major feather in his cap. What could have been more important than showing up for this? This isnt Kenneys first rodeo, and he knows better. It was only a few years ago that he massaged his political allies, community leaders, and big-lobby dollars to get City Council on board to pass his controversial soda tax. It baffles me that he wouldnt apply this same level of public advocacy and political pressure to get support for his pet project on this life-and-death issue. Imagine how a week of speeches, glad-handing, public appearances and wheel-greasing from the Mayor could have changed the narrative.

For people like Council President Darrell Clarke, who has wrestled with understanding how safe injection sites are safe, or Councilmember Kenyatta Johnson, who argued that we didnt have Safehouse crackhouses growing up in South Philly, ignorance is bliss. What many either dont know or wont tell you is that the opioid epidemic in this city is ending more black lives than gun violence. Yet they continue their war on drugs moral shaming as people continue to die around them. What is their alternative one that, like Safehouse, wouldnt cost taxpayers a dime?

We may never know, because the misinformation and mass hysteria being projected by some Councilmembers right now has fomented a mob mentality around safe injection sites not just in South Philly, but throughout the city. Councilmember David Oh is already proposing a bill that would essentially ban such locations in Philly, and it seems to have growing bipartisan support. Safe injection sites are Kenneys Big Idea for the opioid crisis, and the Safehouse debacle has Council this close to shutting it down.

The Kenney administration did little to help Safehouse gain footing in the community. From his absence at the press conference to his passive-aggressive response on Facebook, the Mayors leadership on this issue has failed the countless activists and advocates who have been fighting the opioid epidemic in our city.

Martin Luther King Jr. once said, The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.The blood of thousands of future overdose victims will be on the hands of a stubborn City Council and a cowardly mayor who seems to lack the will to confront strong opposition head-on.

Original post:

Kenney Was a Coward in Letting Phillys Safe Injection Site Fail - Philadelphia magazine

Have atheists become defenders of the good? – The Tablet

Posted on by

There is a frightening word to which many people in the Church have closed their minds, which is gaining support at a rapid rate of knots and threatens to leave practising Catholics behind in its wake. That word is "humanist".

With that word, humanist, many people now describe not just themselves, but also the things they respect. Often Catholics do not approve of the word. Disapproving, they ignore the change; ignoring it, they drop out of the culture.

Last year the number of humanist funerals soared in Scotland and humanist weddings did so in England and Wales. English couples rushed to use Scotlands more post-Christian arrangements. This Christmas, humanist pastors started work in Northern Ireland.

Christians usually see these trends as events impinging on Christianity, when in fact they are occurring without it and have positive content themselves. Perhaps the feeling of being on the back foot in these culture wars has again made it congenial to Catholics to think institutionally and defensively. But thats no good.

A missionary Church cannot fall behind the things which its audience cares about, especially if it does not want to fall in with them. Yet how many Catholics inquire to see what makes humanism so attractive a term or to wonder if anything in that attraction is Christian?

What is happening is that humanist has become the main way to describe and defend that which is spiritual.

In the Observer, Mark Kermode praised 1917 and The Shawshank Redemption as humanist films because they speak about hope. The website Spiked! defends humanism, and by that means that Spiked! champions agency, the new term for free will and emancipation, and free speech, the sphere of conscience.

The album Humanist has just been released by a songwriter who says he is not religious but does "recognise the need for deities. Humanism is often associated with real feelings rather than formality: its what likeable in Hockney; its how Vox praises the new film Emma.

Not speaking this lingo means tacitly neglecting any defence of conscience, free will, and spirituality, made in terms that todays society can accept: the very concepts at the heart of Gaudium et spes. The very things in papers and websites which Christians should be latching onto as seeds of the Gospel are not being shared or said by them at all. Around us is a renewed culture, and Christians need to appropriate it.

In his book True Humanism (1936), Jacques Maritain argued that philosophers taking the human being as their starting point did not need to reduce reality to the human, or reduce what is human to the simply material.

Maritains thought was that when Christine de Pizan and Pico della Mirandola were flourishing, humanism was Christian humanism, but that by 1936, humanism became short for secular humanism.

If the Church engages at all, it opposes secular humanism with its Christian humanism as though 1936 were the present day. But often, in 2020, humanists recognise the need for the spiritual. The way people use humanism as a term of approval shows that New Atheism (Dawkins neo-Darwinism and so forth) is not now the problem.

Humanism now is not anti-Christian in tone. This is actually worse for the Church. The urgent problem is the currency of strong alternative language for good that the Church cannot hear and will not speak.

Nietzsche is somewhere in this story, too, Maritain was right about that; with the Nietzschean idea that Christianity encourages weakness. Every human sin confirms that bias. Marxism features too, because the Soviet version of the texts was published for a generation before Marx-before-Engels (what Maritain calls the young Marx) was rediscovered. Before long it looked like two forms of un-freedom: religion and politics, church and state.

When students grow up, it is more the questions that have been closed down for them that come to define their choices, than the skills which they are meant to have acquired. There is great danger now that atheists are defending agency, free expression and the human spirit, while the Church comes to be associated with cruelty, cover-up and grief.

Look no further than Philip Pullmans celebrity to see that the tables have been turned. Atheists who reject an idea of God that was never worthy of acceptance will defend humanity, they will be the humanists; and Catholics will fail to put across their trust in the God-made-man.

The century now underway is not unlike the fourth century in this respect. Then as well there was a more sympathetic hearing for Christians who presented Christ as divine but human than for Christians who emphasised divinity at the expense of humanity. The successful proselytisers were the Arians.

The fallacies promulgated in schools should be lanced. Before modern science, no one was trying (and failing) to do science. Before natural science existed, people engaged with the same real world, just in different terms. Their sacramental idea of nature, with God as the first, final and primary cause, can co-exist with our success in mastering secondary causes.

What is more important? When you meet someone whom Karl Rahner considers an anonymous Christian, who considers himself not religious; what matters first? To win an argument which to him is theoretical? To speak in your own institutions language? Or to relate to him in what Escriva calls the one same language of the heart? If you thought the natural virtues can be built on by the theological ones, why would you start with theology, bowdlerising theology in the process?

Why would the Church start with that bureaucratic aridity the Pope has rejected when we could achieve dialogue with the mercy Francis commends?

At a time when public discourse is being cut up into echo chambers and silos, when people seek actively to confirm their bias, the Church is another silo: one which does not communicate what it means and seems to say the opposite. So we need to start with the word that means something to others.

The integral humanism Maritain advocated means seeing the transcendent and the individual together, but it is with individuals that all individuals must begin. Catholics and the Catholic clergy should stand up for humanism, and use exactly that word.

Only by using an intelligible language can the Church gain a hearing for its claim to have a longer and deeper view. The Church has "baptised" natural theology before. Christ is the true human being. Humanism is the beginning of a faith that works.

Andrew Macdonald Powney works in publishing but used to teach RS in schools.

Continue reading here:

Have atheists become defenders of the good? - The Tablet

Atheists and Christians: Are Atheists Deficient In Love? – Patheos

Posted on by

By guest writer William M. Shea, PhD

Beloved, if God so loved us,we also must love one another.No one has ever seen God.Yet, if we love one another, God remains in us,and his love is brought to perfection in us.We have come to know and to believe in the love God has for us.God is love, and whoever remains in love remains in God and God in him. (1 John 4:11-16)

************************************Why would Christians think that God does not love atheists? After all, Yet, if we love one another, God remains in us, and his love is brought to perfection in us.

Do Christians think that atheists love is any less, or any more exclusive, than Christians love?

Ive met and known many atheists in my teaching career, and I havent found in them any more deficiency of love for others than I have found in Christians. In many individuals and groups I do detect there is a marked deficiencyNazis for example and anti-Semites. I have two adult sons, one of whom is, like his parents, a practicing Christian and the other not. I must say, after years of reflection, I conclude that there is love for one another in both, and even, a surfeit of faith as I conceive it.

Even at the risk of screwing up our understandings of God-talk, a few questions about the endless arguments between atheists and theists are still in order. Are there any new arguments or we voicing the same old ones? I dont think there is much new going on. Are the arguments properly counter-posed or are they passing one another in the night? I think they are often but not always passing in the night. Does incomprehension reign on both sides of the argument? I think so. What are theyreallyfighting about anyway? Not easy to say!

When I run up against a wall of incomprehension, criticism and rejection of the way of life of my fellow Christians, I can react in three ways (and I do!): strenuous and defensive opposition, conversion to the other side of the wall, or deepening my understanding the wall and what is on the other side. The first makes me a warrior in a fruitless war (my Irish Catholic psyche likes this!). The second would make me an atheist. The third, a reflection on atheism and my differences with it would at least put me on the path laid out so vigorously by the last four popes, the path Pope Francis calls the path of understanding and encounter. I hope to stay with the third. After all, Ive been at it for the past fifty years!

An Atheist In Possibility

So here is a starting point in my reflection: the recognition that I am an atheist in possibility (in actuality sometimes for a moment or two), and I have been since the age of ten when my first serious questions about the God of my ancestors and my church community, the Jewish and Christian God, occurred. The occasion was viewing of the Movietone film scenes of the Holocaust and the concurrent personal experience of an agonizing physical injury (1945). I have not and did not become an atheist in actuality except for those few moments in which I felt the dark side. I never left my community of faith and belief, but my faith, hope and belief have passed through the fires of doubt and wonder. How could there be such pain, violence and death if God is living and loving? How could St. James have penned the words above if he lived in the same world I do?

On and off, for long periods of time, for months and once even for two years, I feared there was no one on the other end of my spiritual telephone, for no one was getting back to me, no one answered my questions. I might even go so far as to say that most Christians know exactly what I am talking about, that is, the dark side. Even the saints give evidence of what they called periods of dryness when there is silence from other end of the line. Even saints knew about pain and evil and faced death everyday.

Two Different Atheisms

Allow me to make two distinctions. Among other things in my years of research I found two quite different strands of atheism. One strand clearly sees the meaning and even the value of religion while considering it imaginary. The other strand takes religion to be an aberration of mind and spirit, a threat to the advancement and freedom of humanity, a passing fancy, the detritus of history. Following this second line of thought the Parliament of Iceland recently, and with but one negative vote, declared that religion is a mental illness. What a unique moment in the history of parliaments that was!

Time and space seem to be the arena of our knowing and even of being. If so , either we cannot know IT (agnosticism) or IT cannot be (atheism). IT must be there or here or IT isnt simply isnt! The atheist says IT isnt and the theist says IT isnt here or there yet IT is. According to the history of the empirical method we have inherited in the West east least since David Hume (d. 1776) what is not within the horizon of our sense experience and cannot be measured in any way, cannot be known: What real musthere or there, an object, a thing and the relations between things that can be sensed or measured.

As Frederick Woodbridge put it broadly and bluntly: If you want to know if the stone is real, kick it. If you cant kick it, better silence or denial. Should this simplification be valid there is no basis, no evidence, for concluding that IT exists. But theists (and other religionists) insist there is in fact a real even though IT is not kickable. To sharpen up the difference, may I suggest that one side is saying God is nothing and unreal, while the other side is saying God is real but No-thing? The second is where I stand: God real but not a thing. But if God is real yet unkickable how do I know that God is real? One must press hard on that question if philosophical atheism is to be encountered. Lets be frank: there are a lot of very intelligent people who think God is nothing.

A second distinction may help. God isknownas the supposition to any and every experience and knowing, to any and every thing, implicitly at first but at last brought to the linguistic surface by common sense (religions) and then clarified by explication in an adequate metaphysics. But the Incarnation and Resurrection (the Christian gospel) arebelieved.This distinction between knowing and believing is crucial to any encounter between atheism and theism. We shouldnt collapse believing into knowing, and Christians easily do so. But we Christians say: Ibelievein God, the Father almighty The first Vatican Council (1869) taught that we can know that God exists, but it didnt teach that weknowGod to be a trinity ofpersonaein onenatura.Such matters intrinsic to Christian faith arebelieved,notknown.

It may help to keep these distinctions in mind as the next post addresses Atheism and Religions.

Visit link:

Atheists and Christians: Are Atheists Deficient In Love? - Patheos

Anchored faith: Brothers death leads to atheism, then ministry for Hall of Fame golfer – Current in Carmel

Posted on by

As a 5-year-old, Nancy Fitzgeralds faith in God was not just shaken but destroyed.

While at the familys Michigan lake house, she found her 2-year-old brother Stephen in the lake and tried to save him.

The babysitter said it was my fault he died and I killed him, Fitzgerald said. As an adult, I understand that now it was a reaction of horror. But as a 5-year-old recipient, I just felt guilt and shame. At that time, I asked God to fix him. But my dad finally told me (the paramedics) werent able to save him and Stephen died and was in heaven. I said, Who would want to be with a God who killed him? That was with me for 27 years. I became a cynic.

Nancy Fitzgerald shows her form in the U.S. Senior Womens Amateur. (Submitted photo)

My reaction to a God that would allow this to happen was an extreme unhealthy fear. I was terrified he was going to kill me.

Fast-forward to age 32 and Fitzgerald, who considered herself an atheist, said she felt something missing in life despite a successful college golfing career at Indiana University, earning two masters degrees from IU and a successful amateur golfing career.

I was winning golf tournaments all over the world, but there was a missing link, she said. I figured it had something to do with God. I was staying with Christians during a golf tournament and began reading Scriptures.

That led to extensive research. She peppered Christians with questions like, How do you know the Bible is true?

I researched it to the point that I could no longer disbelieve, Fitzgerald said. The evidence is overwhelming.

As a result, she wanted to share that faith, eventually leading the longtime Carmel resident to found the Carmel-based ministry Anchorsaway. Sessions are held on Tuesday evenings from mid-January through April. The sessions, which are open, is primarily designed high school juniors and seniors.

Fitzgerald started on that path when her oldest son was a senior in high school in 1989. She asked him what he was going to do when he encountered skeptics or atheists in college.

I think Christians need to be slow to speak and quick to ask peoples stories as to why they didnt believe, she said. Instead of preaching, sometimes we need to be good listeners.

Fitzgerald led Bible study sessions in her home, where she began to answer questions about Christianity.

Nancy Fitzgerald with the late Chuck Colson.

They were fascinated with it, she said of the students. They called themselves Christians because they went to church, but it wasnt until we really got into it that they got excited about their faith and how to love others that think differently. We started with a group of six kids, and in a few years we had 150 kids in our great room at home.

Fitzgerald studied for a year with the Colson Fellows Program, founded by the late-Chuck Colson. A former special counsel to President Richard Nixon who went to prison for several months for obstruction of justice during the Watergate scandal, Colson became an evangelical Christian and founded a prison ministry.

Chuck Colson said, You are going to have to give up your golf to do this, Fitzgerald said. I willingly backed off of golf and jumped full time into ministry because of the importance of what we teach of a life with Christ versus a life of golf.

Fitzgerald, the 1997 U.S. Senior Womens Amateur Champion and a 1990 Indiana Golf Hall of Famer, decided she could play fewer tournaments.

I want to be remembered for making a little difference in a life rather than winning golf tournaments, she said.

Fitzgerald said that is not to diminish what she describes as the greatest game ever and one that has provided a wealth of friends and experiences.

But my heart is with kids, she said.

Fitzgerald has made it her mission to teach students how to use the ministry.

Its how to develop a real faith in Christ that not only allows us to answer our questions, (but) to give us purpose and hope in a mixed-up world, and to realize weve all messed up but God loves us anyway, she said. If you believe in Christ and he died and rose again, were forgiven and he gives us new chances. We need to take advantage of it. Rather than looking in the past with regret, were looking in the future with hope.

Fitzgerald and her husband, Ed, a retired heart surgeon, have four children and 10 grandchildren, who all live in Denver.

While at Greenfield-Central High School, Katie Peters had been taught Nancy Fitzgeralds curriculum on understanding the Christian faith.

Now, she has returned for a refresher course on the Anchorsaway Worldwide Curriculum to share with others.

Several parents hosted it in their homes and opened it to high school juniors and seniors in the area, Peters said. The people who did it were trained by Nancy.

Peters, 25, is now a Greenfield-Central dietician.

I want to do what folks did for me and bring it to this area, Peters said. Even though I went to a private Christian university (Samford University), the material I learned (from Anchorsaway) made me confident in what I believed. It gave me a solid foundation.

Peters said the curriculum provides evidence and reasoning for Christian beliefs.

Its defending your faith but also tackling real issues people face every single day, she said.

For more, visit anchorsaway.org.

See the original post here:

Anchored faith: Brothers death leads to atheism, then ministry for Hall of Fame golfer - Current in Carmel

The candidate of the nonbelievers | Opinion | dailyitem.com – Sunbury Daily Item

Posted on by

Once upon a time, Bernie Sanders would have had another political vulnerability besides his socialism namely, his atheism.

In 2016, a Democratic National Committee staffer had to apologize after the WikiLeaks hack exposed an email he wrote that suggested using Bernies atheism against him in the primary.

This year, Bernies religion, or lack of it, has barely made a ripple or even occasioned any comment. It used to be expected that serious presidential candidates would have religious faith and discuss it, in keeping with the religious coloration of the country they sought to govern. Just as the taboo against openly socialist candidates has given way, so has the old norm about religiosity eroded nearly to the vanishing point.

Sanders, a secular Jew, doesnt call himself an atheist. The way he puts it is that hes not actively involved with organized religion, and that he believes in God, just not in a traditional matter. To me, he has said of his religion, it means that all of us are connected, all of life is connected, and that we are all tied together.

Asked by Jimmy Kimmel whether he believes in God, he said, I am what I am. And what I believe in, and what my spirituality is about, is that were all in this together.

Functionally, this means his religion is indistinguishable from the vision of solidarity undergirding his socialist politics.

Indeed, the connection to Israel that Sanders touts to prove that he is not anti-Israel had much more to do with a political commitment rather than a religious one.

He lived for a time on a kibbutz in 1963 as a guest of a secular, socialist youth movement. According to The New York Times, the kibbutz saw the Soviet Union as a model, and often flew the red flag at outdoor events. Sanders told a publication called Jewish Currents that it was there that I saw and experienced for myself many of the progressive values upon which Israel was founded.

His brother said of Bernie in a 2016 Washington Post interview that he is quite substantially not religious.

This makes Sanders an outlier in American life, but less of one than he used to be. According to the Pew Research Center, 26 percent of Americans say that they are atheist, agnostic or nothing in particular, up from 17 percent in 2009. The growth of the religiously unaffiliated can be seen across all demographic groups and regions, but is especially pronounced among young people who are, of course, disproportionately Bernie supporters. Only 35 percent of millennials attend religious services weekly or once or twice a month, while 64 percent attend a few times a year, seldom or never.

The nonreligious are Bernies base. A Pew survey in January found that Joe Bidens most supportive religious group was black Protestants at 44 percent, followed by white Catholics and white evangelicals at 37 percent each. Bernies best groups were agnostics (36 percent), atheists (30 percent) and the unaffiliated (28 percent).

In New Hampshire, Sanders lost to Amy Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg among voters who attend religious services once a week or more and won among voters who never attend. A rare bright spot for Bernie in South Carolina was beating Biden among voters who never attend church, 36 percent to 24 percent.

Theres no rule that presidents have to be believers, or Thomas Jefferson never would have occupied the office. But presidential religiosity has advantages. Bill Clinton used it to signal to otherwise politically hostile parts of the county that he understood their values. It fortified George W. Bush under incredible pressure during the war on terror. Barack Obama tapped the rhetorical power of church oratory.

The Sanders phenomenon is another indication of the weakening of American exceptionalism. When the social scientist Seymour Martin Lipset wrote about it decades ago, he underlined American religiosity and resistance to socialism.

If he captures the Democratic nomination, Bernie Sanders will test how much either still matters or applies.

Rich Lowry is on Twitter @RichLowry.

Original post:

The candidate of the nonbelievers | Opinion | dailyitem.com - Sunbury Daily Item