Bankruptcy – money_selfhelp

Posted on by

Bankruptcy is a legal process to help debtors (people who owe money) get relief from the debts they cannot pay and, at the same time, help creditors (people who are owed money) get paid from whatever property or assets the debtor has that he or she does not need to live. Deciding to file for bankruptcy is a very tough decision. You may be feeling overwhelmed and bankruptcy seems like the only option. But think about the decision carefully because it can really affect you for a long time. Also, bankruptcy does not remove all debt, and there are certain types of debt that cannot be discharged (eliminated) in bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy may not always work to save your home or property, so you need to get advice from a bankruptcy lawyer about whether or not bankruptcy is a good option for you. Since there are different types of bankruptcy, one may be better for you than another, or bankruptcy may not be a good solution for your type of problems at all.

To decide if you should file for bankruptcy, you need to know:

Bankruptcy is governed by federal law, so it is the same from state to state. But each state may have different exemptions (assets you can keep even when you file for bankruptcy).

There are four common kinds of bankruptcy cases, named by the chapter of the federal Bankruptcy Code that describes them.

A bankruptcy discharge releases a debtor from being personally responsible for certain types of debts. So, after a bankruptcy discharge, the debtor is no longer legally required to pay any debts that are discharged.

The discharge prohibits the creditors of the debtor from collecting on the debts that have been discharged. This means that creditors have to stop all legal action, telephone calls, letters, and other type of contact with the debtor. This prohibition is permanent for the debts that have been discharged by the bankruptcy court.

You cannot discharge all debts in bankruptcy. Some of the most common debts that you cannot get rid of in bankruptcy are debts from child or spousal support, most student loans, most tax debts, wages you owe people who worked for you, damages for personal injury you caused when driving while intoxicated, debts to government agencies for fines or penalties, and more.

For more information, read the Bankruptcy Code section 523(a)

The Bankruptcy Code allows each individual who files for bankruptcy to keep basic assets that are necessary for the debtor's fresh start after bankruptcy. That property is the debtors exempt property.

Each state has its own list of property that can be exempt. California gives debtors a choice between the state law exemptions found in Code of Civil Procedure section 704 and a set of bankruptcy-only exemptions in Code of Civil Procedure section 703.140 that mirror the Bankruptcy Code exemptions that were in the federal law when the California law was adopted.

The length of the bankruptcy case depends on the type of bankruptcy you file. If you file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, your debts can be discharged in as soon as 4 to 6 months. With a Chapter 11 or 13 bankruptcy, it can take as long as 5 years because you may still be making payments for some of the debts.

Automatic stay When you file for bankruptcy protection, the federal court issues a notice of automatic stay that stops creditors listed in the bankruptcy petition from pursuing you for any debts until the bankruptcy court lifts the stay. Although this may stop an eviction or foreclosure sale for a short time, it will not provide any long-term protection if you do not have any equity in the property. If, for example, you are a tenant with a month-to-month tenancy, you do not have any property interest to protect for the benefit of creditors, so your landlord can get a stay lifted very quickly. The same is true for a lender who is foreclosing on property where the debtor has no equity.

Bankruptcy is a specialized area of law that is very complex. And the issues are not always apparent or simple. The bankruptcy laws changed in October 2005 to discourage many people from filing for bankruptcy. So the law became more complicated. And there are more situations where a mistake can result in your case getting dismissed. If your case is dismissed, the bankruptcy court often imposes a penalty of 180 days before you can refile, and in this time period a lot can happen. This is why it is so important to have a lawyer advise you and help you with your bankruptcy.

Find a lawyer who can help you work through the issues, alternatives you may have, and consequences of your choices.

If you decide to represent yourself in bankruptcy court, read a guide for Filing for Bankruptcy Without an Attorney.

To find a good bankruptcy lawyer:

Bankruptcy Basics This pamphlet was created by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. You can download it in PDF format. You can also watch a series of videos about bankruptcy.

LawHelpCalifornia Bankruptcy Links to information on what to do if you can't pay your debts, rebuilding good credit and more. (Select your county or enter your zip code for information specific to the area that you live in.)

LawHelpCalifornia Debt Collection, Garnishment, Repossession Links to information on collecting your judgment, what to do if you can't pay your debts, rebuilding good credit and more. (Select your county or enter your zip code for information specific to the area that you live in.)

Official Bankruptcy Forms These bankruptcy court forms are posted by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

San Francisco Law Library's Student Loans and BankruptcyIssues This guidecan help you find books about student loans and bankruptcy options.

What Can I Do If I Can't Pay My Debts? A State Bar of California pamphlet. Also available in Spanish and Chinese.

Facts for Consumers Consumer Protection Information posted by the Federal Trade Commission.

Bankruptcy FAQs Find answers to frequently asked questions about bankruptcy.

Read the rest here:

Bankruptcy - money_selfhelp

Takata reportedly planning to file for bankruptcy – CNBC

Posted on by

Kazuhiro Nogi | AFP | Getty Images

The logo of the Japanese auto parts maker Takata is displayed at a car showroom in Tokyo on January 13, 2017.

Takata's board is convening to review bankruptcy plans over the weekend, The Wall Street Journal reported, citing sources.

The company is planning bankruptcy filings in both the U.S. and Japan, and has tentative plans to sell operations to rival firm Key Safety Systems for $1.6 billion, sources told the Journal.

Sumitomo Mitsui Banking is reportedly providing the company with bankruptcy financing, the report said.

The auto parts supplier made the airbag components that spawned lawsuits against several major automakers after the devices were linked to deaths and injuries. The company pleaded guilty to criminal wrongdoing and was told to pay $1 billion in penalties for giving automakers misleading safety reports on the airbag systems.

In the U.S., 19 automakers are still recalling the 42 million vehicles outfitted with Takata airbags, the Journal said.

In May, Toyota, Subaru, Mazda and BMW all settled with plaintiffs for more than $550 million.

Read the full story in The Wall Street Journal

Go here to read the rest:

Takata reportedly planning to file for bankruptcy - CNBC

Augusta native sworn in as newest Bankruptcy Court judge – The Augusta Chronicle

Posted on by

On Michele Kims first day clerking for U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge John S. Dalis, he told her he had the best job in the world, she later said. Kim is about to find out for herself.

On Friday afternoon in the historic federal courthouse in Augusta, Kim was sworn in as the newest Bankruptcy Court judge in the Southern District of Georgia.

An Augusta native, Kim graduated from the University of Georgia School of Law with honors in 2006 and was admitted to the bar the next year. In addition to clerking for Dalis, Kim clerked for Judge Anthony Alaimo. She worked for the King & Spalding law firm in its Atlanta office specializing in financial restructuring and bankruptcy law.

Get used to the view, District Court Chief Judge J. Randal Hall told Kim as she took a seat on the judges bench with Hall and Chief Bankruptcy Court Judge Susan D. Barrett.

Its important for a judge to have good character, integrity and ability, Hall said. Kim has all of those qualities and more, he added.

Dalis, who retired Jan. 31 after nearly 30 years on the bench, said Friday that he and his wife were as proud as parents. He has known Kim for more than 30 years and knows she will serve with honor.

With assistance from her husband, Ryan Babcock, and mother, Hyun-Sook Kim, Kim donned the black robe she will wear for her judicial career.

She will serve as the Bankruptcy Court judge in the Brunswick courthouse.

Reach Sandy Hodson at (706) 823-3226or sandy.hodson@augustachroncile.com.

Read the rest here:

Augusta native sworn in as newest Bankruptcy Court judge - The Augusta Chronicle

Mesothelioma Survival Rate | Factors Affecting Survivorship

Posted on by

Approximately 55 percent of mesothelioma patients live longer than 6 months, while roughly 35 percent live longer than one year. Only 9 percent of people diagnosed with mesothelioma survive longer than 5 years.

This question is commonly asked by those who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma, a fatal form of cancer caused by asbestos. Unfortunately, as with most diseases, there is no one answer to how long a mesothelioma patient will live.

The good news is that survival rates for mesothelioma patients are improving. A 2015 meta-study looked at 20 years worth of results from 1992 2012, and during that period the two major forms of mesothelioma (pleural and peritoneal) have both seen an improvement in survivorship.

According to the study, peritoneal mesothelioma survivorship has especially shown significant improvement, largely due to new forms of treatment, such as hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC).

The type of treatment a mesothelioma patient receives can affect survival rates. Whether this is due to the treatment itself or to other factors (e.g., if the patient is too ill to undergo a more aggressive treatment) may not always be apparent. While there has been no single study showing survival rates based on treatment across all types of mesothelioma, separate studies have been done on the two most common forms of mesothelioma.

For pleural mesothelioma, patients who undergo a pleurectomy/decortication (P/D) or extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP) both of which are usually part of a multimodal treatment plan generally have a much higher rate of survival than those who receive chemotherapy alone.

For peritoneal mesothelioma, patients who undergo cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with HIPEC have significantly higher rates of survival. When combined with systemic chemotherapy as an adjuvant treatment, the 5-year survival rate of patients who undergo CRS + HIPEC can be as high as 67%.

The survival rate for mesothelioma patients depend on a variety of factors. These include things such as the patients age, health, and the treatment they receive. Ever individual case is different, and one survival rate may not necessarily apply to a specific patients case.

Mesothelioma staging can impact survival rate significantly. Patients diagnosed at an early stage (Stage I or Stage II) have a much higher survival rate than those diagnosed at a later stage (Stage III or Stage IV). For example, the 5-year survival rate for Stage 1 peritoneal mesothelioma patients is 87 percent, but only 29 percent for Stage IV.

Younger mesothelioma patients have higher rates of survival than older patients. This is due in part to the fact that older people in general have lower survival rates. In addition, with age comes a variety of health-related conditions that can make a mesothelioma diagnosis more deadly.

According to data provided by the National Cancer Institutes SEER database, women have a higher 5-year survival rate (16%) than men (9.3%). It is not entirely clear why this is so, though some reasons may include that women are generally diagnosed at a younger age, they are more likely to get regular medical checkups, and they may be in better overall health.

There is some evidence that African-Americans who have mesothelioma have a slightly longer 5-year survival rate than Caucasian mesothelioma patients. However, because Caucasians have a much higher incidence of mesothelioma, there may not be enough cases of African-Americans who have the disease to make a substantive determination.

Several studies have shown that certain genetic factors can affect survival rates among patients. For example, mesothelioma patients who have certain mutations of BRCA1-associated protein-1 (BAP1) appear to have much better survival rates than other individuals who develop the disease, according to one study.

Mesothelioma survival rates are determined by a standard measure known as the relative 5-year survival rate, which indicates how many patients are still alive 5 years after being diagnosed with the disease.

According to the most reliable studies, the relative 5-year survival rate for mesothelioma is about 9 percent, which is better than it was a decade or more ago. However, this simplified number does not tell the whole story. As shown above, survival rate can depend heavily on the type of mesothelioma a person has, what treatment options are available to them, and certain other health and lifestyle factors.

Many different clinical trials and other studies are being conducted on an ongoing basis to identify the factors that affect survival rate and, hopefully, discover ways to increase survival among mesothelioma patients. The results of these studies can be helpful for patients who meet certain criteria, but they may not be useful for determining an overall survival rate across the broad spectrum of mesothelioma patients.

Therefore, while survival rate can be a useful statistic in some cases, it can be misleading in others. Patients and loved ones should always rely on the advice and guidance provided by their doctors to understand how they can improve their prognosis and life expectancy, rather than looking to a single statistic.

American Cancer Society. Learn About Cancer: Malignant Mesothelioma.

Baumann, Francine, et al. Mesothelioma patients with germline BAP1 mutations have 7-fold improved long-term survival. Cancer Research. 2016; 76(2):206-215. DOI: 10.1093/carcin/bgu227

Faig, Jennifer, et al. Changing Pattern in Malignant Mesothelioma Survival. Translational Oncology. February 2015; 8(1):35-39. DOI: 10.1016/j.tranon.2014.12.002

Hassan, R. "Mesothelin Targeted Cancer Immunotherapy." European Journal of Cancer. August 2007. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2007.08.028

Kepenekian, V., et al. Diffuse malignant peritoneal mesothelioma: Evaluation of systemic chemotherapy with comprehensive treatment through the RENAPE Database : Multi-Institutional Retrospective Study. European Journal of Cancer. September 2016; 65:69-79. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2016.06.002

Milano, Michael T., and Zhang, Hong. Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: A Population-Based Study of Survival. Journal of Thoracic Oncology. November 2010; 5(11):1841-1848. DOI: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e3181f1cf2b

SEER Cancer Statistics Review 1975-2013. National Cancer Institute.

Oliveira, Guilherma H., et al. Characteristics and Survival of Malignant Cardiac Tumors: A 40-Year Analysis of Over 500 Patients. Circulation. 14 October 2015; DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.016418

Sciarrillo, Rocco, et al. Abstract 332: Spliceosome inhibition as novel strategy against diffuse malignant peritoneal mesothelioma. Cancer Research. 15 July 2016; 76(14 Suppl):Abstract nr 332. DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.AM2016-332

View original post here:

Mesothelioma Survival Rate | Factors Affecting Survivorship

MicroRNAs May Be Key to Better Immunotherapy for Mesothelioma – Surviving Mesothelioma

Posted on by

Australian scientists say it may be possible to artificially reduce the levels of a protein that helps mesothelioma tumors hide from the immune system.

The new research published in the Journal of Thoracic Oncology could open the door to more effective immunotherapy treatments for pleural mesothelioma.

A cell surface protein called PD-L1 is key to the effectiveness of several new immunotherapy drugs including Keytruda (pembrolizumab), Opdivo (nivolumab), and avelumab.

An estimated 40 percent of mesothelioma tumors overexpress this protein, which is part of the processthat allows several different kinds of cancers to escape detection and attack by the immune system.

Now, a new study conducted at the Asbestos Diseases Research Institute at the University of Sydney has revealed more about the mechanismsbehind PD-L1 expression in malignant mesothelioma. The results suggest that it may be possible to downregulate this tumor-protecting protein from the inside out.

MicroRNAs are short, single-stranded RNA molecules that regulate gene expression,which, in turn, governs all kinds of cellular processes.

Among 72 test subjects with malignant pleural mesothelioma, the Australian team found that 18 (25%) tested positive for PD-L1 overexpression. The PD-L1-positive mesothelioma patients showed key differences in the action of certain microRNAs.

In the same patient series, PD-L1 expression was also associated with downregulation of microRNAs previously shown to have tumour suppressor activity in malignant pleural mesothelioma, writes Steven C. Kao, the lead author on the paper.

When the researchers manipulated these microRNAs by transfecting mesothelioma cell lines with artificial microRNAs or mimics, they found that they were able to downregulate the expression of the PD-L1 protein.

The new findings are significant because mesothelioma patients who overexpress PD-L1 have poorer outcomes than patients who dont.

The Australian researchers found that test subjects whose mesothelioma tumors tested positive for PD-L1 were more likely to have either the biphasic or sarcomatoid subtype of mesothelioma and tended to experience shorter survival.

The median overall survival of the PD-L1-expressing mesothelioma patients was just 4 months, compared to 9.2 months for the mesothelioma patients with negative PD-L1 staining.

Together, these data suggest that tumour suppressor microRNAs contribute to the regulation of PD-L1 expression in malignant pleural mesothelioma, writes Dr. Kao.

Source:

Kao, SC, et al, Tumour suppressor microRNAs contribute to the regulation of PD-L1 expression in malignant pleural mesothelioma, June 16, 2017, Journal of Thoracic Oncology, Epub ahead of print

Continue reading here:

MicroRNAs May Be Key to Better Immunotherapy for Mesothelioma - Surviving Mesothelioma

South Africa’s central bank row points to dangerous levels of intolerance – eNCA

Posted on by

File: The recommendation by South Africas Public Protector that the Reserve Banks mandate change, says much about Busisiwe Mkhwebane, none of it flattering.

Steven Friedman, University of Johannesburg

What kind of financial system is sure to collapse if the central bank cares about peoples well-being?

The recommendation by South Africas Public Protector that the Reserve Banks mandate change, says much about Busisiwe Mkhwebane, none of it flattering. It says just as much about mainstream economic debate -- and none of that is flattering either.

Mkhwebane recommended that the central banks constitutional mandate, which makes protecting the currency its primary goal, be changed to one which requires it to promote balanced and sustainable economic growth while ensuring that the socio-economic well-being of the citizens are protected. She also said the constitution should require the bank to achieve meaningful socio-economic transformation.

This triggered a wave of protests, as well as an announcement from the South African Reserve Bank that it would take the matter to court. The Reserve Bank had no option. The constitutional court has ruled that the Public Protectors findings are binding unless they are challenged in court. Her recommendation wildly exceeded what she is allowed to do by the constitution or democratic good sense - and the Reserve Bank could not allow it to stand.

Democratic constitutions are changed by large majorities of the people or their elected representatives not by individuals. By making a binding recommendation that the constitution be changed, Mkhwebane signalled that she either doesnt understand or does not care for democracy.

Her report is also very useful to a faction of the governing party which wants to deflect charges of state capture by claiming that white monopoly capital already controls the state. There are real questions about the fitness for office of a Public Protector whose report seems more interested in protecting connected politicians and business people than with taking the peoples will seriously.

But the reaction did not stop at insisting that Mkhwebane has no business telling the people what the constitution should say. Much of it objected not only to her saying what the Reserve Banks mandate should be, but to anyone at all doing that.

An important debate

The prize for the wildest reaction went to the commentator who declared that Mkhwebanes ideas on the Banks mandate were inspired by someone who denied that the Nazi genocide happened. Others stopped short of tarring constitutional change with the same brush as mass murder but were united in claiming that to suggest that the Reserve Banks mandate be broadened is economically illiterate and deeply damaging.

Absa, who was the subject of a separate finding by the public protector on the issue of a controversial bailout, asked a court to rule that her proposed change posed a serious risk to the financial system. For its part the rating agency Standard & Poors, happy as ever to police the boundaries of economic correctness, warned that any interference with the Reserve Banks independence could trigger new downgrades.

To insist that anyone who proposes changing the Reserve Banks mandate is economically damaging and stupid is as contemptuous of democracy and dangerous to the economy as Mkhwebanes excess. It is undemocratic because it seeks to close down policy debate by declaring that only one view of the Reserve Banks mandate can ensure a healthy economy. It is dangerous because it blocks the search for economic remedies by seeking to bully even those who propose only mild changes to what the country now has.

The idea that the Reserve Bank should have a broader mandate is neither radical nor dangerous. The most famous central bank, the US Federal Reserve, has a broader mandate. Its dual mandate requires it to seek maximum employment as well as price stability.

The Australian equivalents mandate includes maintenance of full employment and economic prosperity and welfare of the people. The European Central Bank, famed for its love of austerity, has a mandate to seek sustainable growth.

And the the Bank of Englands website says that, subject to its goal of price stability, it aims to support the governments economic objectives.

In South Africa, not only has the view that the central banks mandate is too restrictive been repeated periodically but it may well have been implemented for a while. In 2010, then finance minister Pravin Gordhan wrote to then Reserve Bank governor, Gill Marcus, proposing a mandate which included growth and employment. Marcus reacted positively, which suggests that the bank acted on Gordhans letter. The financial system survived.

The US, European and Australian financial systems have also not collapsed. Their mandates have not triggered a downgrade and no one has accused these societies of economic illiteracy.

So either double standards are being applied or we are being told that restrictive central bank mandates are essential only if countries are in particular parts of the world (such as Africa) and governed by particular types of people (Africans).

And why does a change in the Banks mandate undermine its independence? A central bank loses its independence if politicians (or anyone else) can tell it what to do, not if its mandate changes.

For all its flaws, the Public Protectors proposal would retain the Reserve Banks independence, leaving it to the bank to decide what promotes the well-being of the people or transformation.

Closing down debate is common

None of this means that the Reserve Banks mandate must change. Or that central bank independence must go. But it does mean that no one should be discouraged from debating the issue, as people routinely do in other democracies and market economies. What, besides that prejudice which we prettify by the term Afropessimism, explains the insistence that we may not debate what is freely discussed in most other places?

Closing down debate in this way is common in South Africa. It also lies behind complaints of policy uncertainty which does not mean, as it does elsewhere, that government keeps changing its mind and sending mixed messages the macro-economic framework has been stable for more than two decades. It means, rather, that some people who some others may take seriously raise policy ideas the economic mainstream does not like.

This demand that people can say anything they like about economic policy as long as the mainstream likes it too offers a misleading view of the economy. It says that there is nothing wrong with it except political interference and that it will flourish if politicians simply leave alone what is done now.

The contrary evidence is offered by mainstream organisations such as the International Monetary Fund and the South African Reserve Bank itself which have shown that the current economic rut is a product of problems in the private economy as well as what government does.

This means that the economy must change. This, in turn, requires new ideas. They will not emerge unless everything is up for debate and ideas are not silenced because they trigger the fears and prejudices of a few.

Steven Friedman, Professor of Political Studies, University of Johannesburg

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

21 June 2017

Analysts said the inflation outlook for the rest of year meant the Reserve Bank may now contemplate cutting rates or easing monetary policy to boost growth.

21 June 2017

Malikane, a former Wits University professor well known for his radical views, said on Tuesday he could not comment due to his role as Finance Minister Malusi Gigabas adviser.

20 June 2017

'Amending the constitution is something different because it means all chapter nine institutions...may feel they want to amend the constitution,' said ANC Spokesperson Zizi Kodwa.

Read more here:

South Africa's central bank row points to dangerous levels of intolerance - eNCA

Oppressive politics is on the rise: Donald Trump’s support for strongmen is fueling a global crackdown on activism – Salon

Posted on by

In its 56 years of existence, Amnesty International has stood up for those who dare to speak truth to power in the face of oppression and abuses of human rights. We have seen regimes come and go, and have seen the power of courageous and peaceful protest in bringing about change. But what we are seeing now around the world is a dangerous and sweeping trend of dehumanizing and divisive rhetoric seeping into politics, resulting in oppressive policies that are putting human rights defenders at risk.

Its not just happening in a few isolated areas.

Agendas that advance an us versus them mentality and that feed on hate and fear threaten to push back human rights and stifle dissent around the world.Very recently, this poisonous political climate hit home for our organizationwhen Taner Kilic, the chair of Amnesty International Turkey, was arrested on the completely fabricated charges of being tied to a political movement connected to last years coup attempt.

The evidence against Taner would be laughable if the consequences werent so dire. Turkish authorities are claimingthat his use of a popular encrypted messaging app is an indication of criminal behavior. They are seizing on any link, however tenuous, to try to justify keeping Taner in detention. Taner is just one of thousands, including reporters, activists, and former government employees, who have been imprisoned, unemployed or disappeared as part of President Erdogans brutal crackdown on anyone who dares to be or is even perceived to be critical of his government.

Using imprisonment or the threat of arrest to silence critics is nothing new. Thirty years ago, I myself was imprisoned in a South African jail for five months for my activism against apartheid. But today, leaders like Erdogan seem to be more emboldened than theyve been in decades in being so open about their oppression.

The fact that many of these leaders have the tacit and sometimes blatant approval of leaders like President Trump makes the stakes for human rights defenders that much higher.Trump has already hosted and praised Erdogan in Washington, D.C. while Turkish security forces attacked protesters.

His notorious affinity for VladimirPutin may also encourage further hostility toward civil society by the Russian government. Amnestys Moscow office was inexplicably sealed for days late last year. Just this week, hundreds of protesters were arrested across the country. Also this month, Russian NGO leader Valentina Cherevatenko was charged under a law that requires organizations that receive federal funds to register as foreign agents. She faces years in prison. The prime minister of Hungary, Viktor Orban, liked this law so much that he successfully championed a similar iteration of it in his own parliament. Orban had previously caught our attention with his cruel hostility to migrants and refugees at the border, and rose to power on an unapologetically anti-immigrant agenda. He was thefirst leader of an E.U. or NATO country to formally endorse Trumps presidential campaign and claimed to have been invited to the White House shortly after Trumps election.

Trump has also expressed admiration for Philippines president Rodrigo Duterte, who justified thousands of extrajudicial killings by demonizing drug dealers and addicts. Duterte said it was funny that Amnesty would be calling on him to stop the killings.

And despite the warm reception given to Donald Trump in Saudi Arabia, human rights defenders are left to languish out of sight. Activists like the blogger and poet Raif Badawi, who has spent four years of a 10-year sentence in prison for writing pieces critical of the government, and faces being whipped publicly for 1,000 lashes.

While no one country can claim to be the vanguard of human rights, when particularly powerful countries like the United States turn a blind eye to human rights abuses, it contributes to a global climate in which other governments follow suit. Theresa May recently said that she was willing to repeal human rights laws that stand in the way of counterterrorism efforts.

Thats why its more important than ever that those who believe in human rights to stand firm wherever justice, freedom, truth and dignity are denied. Even if it seems like the powers that be arent responsive. We are already seeing our persistence pay off. Despite President Trumps dismissive rhetoric and hateful policies like the Muslim ban, the State Department has been quietly returning to a human rights focus, raising the number of refugees to be allowed into the country and even speaking out on behalf of Taner Kilic.

Change only happens when we stand up and speak out. We will not allow the politics of hate and fear to become normalized. When human rights defenders are unfairly maligned as enemies of the state, everyone suffers.

More:

Oppressive politics is on the rise: Donald Trump's support for strongmen is fueling a global crackdown on activism - Salon

Darjeeling unrest: Mamata Banerjee govt not solving Gorkhaland issue for political benefit, says BJP – Firstpost

Posted on by

Kolkata:West Bengal BJP president Dilip Ghosh on Saturday claimed that the ruling Trinamool Congress is not willing to resolve the Darjeeling unrest to gain political benefit in the region by trying to create a divide between Nepali and Bengali communities.

Representational image. Reuters

Ghosh, who earlier advocated a tripartite meeting between the Central and state governments and the Gorkha Janmukti Morcha (GJM) leaders to resolve the unrest, alleged that the Mamata Banerjee government is trying to fuel "anti-Nepali sentiment" among the Bengalis living in north Bengal.

"The state government is not willing to discuss the Darjeeling unrest because they do not want to solve it. The issue gives them political benefit," Ghosh told IANS.

"They are trying to create a divide between the Nepali community and the Bengalis living in the hills. North Bengal is not a stronghold of Trinamool. That's why they are trying to strengthen their base by fuelling anti-Nepali sentiment," he said.

Taking a swipe at Chief Minister Banerjee, the BJP leader said that "it's funny she had to depend on the army, which she once termed as extortionists, to save her face in Darjeeling".

"The state police have no role in the hills now. They have been driven away to the plains. The army has been called in to maintain law and order," Ghosh said.

The picturesque Darjeeling district in the northern West Bengal is on the boil for more than two weeks over demands for a separate state of Gorkhaland. It has been facing an indefinite shutdown for the last 10 days.

While GJM, which is spearheading the movement for Gorkhaland, has repeatedly rejected any possibility of talks with the state government accusing it of "oppression and high handedness", the state government maintains that it is ready for a discussion after the situation in the area becomes normal.

More:

Darjeeling unrest: Mamata Banerjee govt not solving Gorkhaland issue for political benefit, says BJP - Firstpost

Trump reinstates sanctions on Havana, calls for ‘a free Cuba’ – Gardnernews.com

Posted on by

Natalia Castro Guest Columnist In December of 2014, President Obama announced that the U.S. and Cuba would restore diplomatic relations, and by March 2016 promised the removal of the U.S. trade embargo on Cuba; allowing American money to fund the undemocratic government in power in Havana. After Obama met the Cuban leader, Raul Castro, brother of former dictator Fidel Castro, Obama vowed that change would happen in Cuba and that Castro understood that. Now, at the call of millions of Cuban-Americans and to fulfill a critical campaign promise, the only thing that has changed is President Donald Trump who has now reversed the Obama policies on Havana, calling for a free Cuba in his June 16 speech announcing the new U.S. policy. What you have built here a vibrant culture, a thriving neighborhood, the spirit of adventure is a testament to what a free Cuba could be. And with Gods help, a free Cuba is what we will soon achieve, Trump said. Cubas 2016 Human Right Watch report painted a damning picture of the nation Obama was convinced change was approaching. Despite lifting the sanctions, the report concluded, The Cuban government continues to repress dissent and punish public criticism Short-term arbitrary arrests of human rights defenders, independent journalists, and others have increased dramatically in recent years. Other repressive tactics employed by the government include beatings, public shaming, and termination of employment. Obama opened the doors to U.S. trade with corporations, not run by the Cuban people, but run by the Cuban military to fuel this oppressive government. Now, President Trumps policy change will assist both Cuban Americans and the Cuban people by once again attempting to persuade the government there to stand for the values of liberty and justice in order to have a relationship with the United States. In Trumps address in Miami on the issue, Trump made clear that U.S. cash will no longer flow to the Cuban military monopoly, Grupo de Administracin Empresarial (GAESA) but can be used to develop economic ties with the small, private business sector. With the military run GAESA acting as one of the largest barriers to private entrepreneurship in Cuba, this will urge the Cuban government to finally provide economic liberty to the people. In order to ensure that human rights progress is made, Trumps policy change will mandate regular reporting on Cubas progress toward greater political and economic freedom. Trump has made clear Cubas relationship with the United States will depend entirely on their willingness to improve the heinous acts their government has committed. Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning affirmed in a statement that, The decision to stop rewarding the communist dictator has reaffirmed the United States position as a global leader in the pursuit of individual liberty for all. By refusing to fund a government that continues to jail and torture political dissidents, President Trump sent the clear message that the U.S. does not only spread wealth, it also spread the values of our country; individual liberty, justice, and democracy. To ensure this, person to person travel between the two countries will once again be halted. For a nation which relies on a state-run tourism industry to fuel their government, this will stop U.S. travelers from fueling the Cuban governments oppression. While preventing ordinary citizens from traveling, Trump will still allow direct relatives to travel to and from the island. Son of Cuban immigrants, Marco Rubio assisted with the policy change and summed up the Trump Administrations aim at the Miami event in noting that, Less than a year and a half ago an American president landed in Havana to outstretch his hand to a regime. Today, a new president lands in Miami to reach out his hands to the people of Cubamore than anything else this change empowers the people of Cuba, not the government, not the regime, but the people; so that they can enjoy the freedom and liberty with the very clear message that America is ready to outstretch its hand. The United States has been a defender of freedom in Cuba before, and with President Trumps action, is finally reclaiming that status. Trump vowed to put America first, and on Cuba, he has proved that that also sometimes means putting American values first. Natalia Castro is a contributing editor for Americans for Limited Government.

Read more from the original source:

Trump reinstates sanctions on Havana, calls for 'a free Cuba' - Gardnernews.com

History Channel tells stunning secret story of War on Drugs from the beginning it was a political war on people – American Enterprise Institute

Posted on by

From a very important article in The Intercept by Jon Schwartz The History Channel Is Finally Telling the Stunning Secret Story of the War on Drugs (emphasis added):

The History Channel is showing a new four-part series called Americas War on Drugs. Not only is itan important contribution to recent American history, its also the first time U.S. television has ever told the core truth about one of the most important issues of the past 50years.

That core truth is: The War on Drugs has always been a pointless sham. For decades the federal government has engaged in a shifting series of alliances of convenience with some of the worlds largest drug cartels. So while the U.S. incarceration rate has quintupled since President Richard Nixon first declared the war on drugs in 1971 (see chart above), top narcotics dealers have simultaneously enjoyed protection at the highest levels of power in America.

On the one hand, this shouldnt be surprising. The voluminous documentation of this fact in dozens of books has long been available to anyone with curiosity and a library card. Yet somehow, despite the fact the U.S. has no formal system of censorship, this monumental scandal has never before been presented in a comprehensive way in the medium where most Americans get their information: TV.

Thats why Americas War on Drugs is a genuine milestone. Weve recently seen how ideas that once seemed absolutely preposterous and taboo for instance, that the Catholic Church was consciously safeguarding priests who sexually abused children, or that Bill Cosby may not have been the best choice for Americas Dad can after years of silence finally break through into popular consciousness and exact real consequences. The series could be a watershed in doing the same for the reality behind one of the most cynical and cruel policies in U.S. history.

That this series exists at all shows that were at a tipping point with this brazen, catastrophic lie. We have to push hard enough to knock it over.

You can watch a 4-minute overview of the series above and you can watch full episodes of the series online here:

Episode 1 Acid, Spies, & Secret Experiments

Episode 2 Cocaine, Cartels, & Crack Downs

Episode 3 Gangs, Prisons, & Meth Queens (requires sign-in with your cable TV provider)

Episode 4 Heroin, Terrorists, & Kings of Pain (requires sign-in with your cable TV provider)

Bottom Line: As Ive written before, Im confident that in a future, more enlightened, advanced, open-minded and tolerant America, well look back on Americas immoral, senseless, expensive and failed War on Drugs Otherwise Peaceful Americans Who Chose to Ingest or Smoke Plants, Weeds and Recreational Substances Proscribed by Arbitrary Government Regulations with the shame, contempt, and embarrassment that it so rightfully deserves for such cruel, intolerant, and inhumane treatment of our fellow citizens (and our children and family dogs). Kudos to The History Channel for making such an important contribution to bringing us much closer to that future reckoning with such an embarrassing and shameful chapter of Americas history that matches (if not exceeds) Americas previous failed, costly and shameful War on Alcohol Otherwise Peaceful Americans Who Chose to Ingest Recreational Beverages Proscribed by Arbitrary Government Regulations during the 1930s.

See the rest here:

History Channel tells stunning secret story of War on Drugs from the beginning it was a political war on people - American Enterprise Institute

How the CIA Turned Us onto LSD and Heroin: Secrets of America’s … – Reason (blog)

Posted on by

America's War on Drugs, History Channel"There's a huge story to be told," says Anthony Lapp, "about the actual extent of the U.S. government's involvement in drug trafficking."

And that's exactly the story Lapp and his co-producers Julian Hobbs and Elli Hakami tell in a mesmerizing four-part series that debuted this week on cable TV's History Channel. Through dramatic recreations and in-depth interviews with academic researchers, historians, journalists, former federal agents, and drug dealers, America's War on Drugs (watch full episodes online here) tells true tales of how, for instance, the CIA and Department of Defense helped to introduce LSD to Americans in the 1950s.

"The CIA literally sent over two guys to Sandoz Laboratories where LSD had first been synthesized and bought up the world's supply of LSD and brought it back," Lapp tells Nick Gillespie in a wide-ranging conversation about the longest war the U.S. government has fought. "With that supply they began a [secret mind-control] program called MK Ultra which had all sorts of other drugs involved."

The different episodes cover the history of drug prohibition, the rise of the '60s drug counterculture; heroin epidemics past and present; how drug policy has warped U.S. foreign policy in Southeast Asia, Central America, Afghanistan, and beyond; the bipartisan politics of prohibition; and much more. America's War on Drugs features exclusive and rarely seen footage and documents how, time and time again, the government was often facilitating trade and use in the very drugs it was trying to stamp out. The show's website adds articles, short videos, and more information in an attempt to produce an "immersive experience" that will change how viewers think and feel about prohibition.

Lapp, who has worked at Vice, Huffington Post, and elsewhere, tells Gillespie that he is particulary excited to see his series air on the History Channel because it's an indicator the drug-policy reform is in the air. Though not a libertarian himself, he says "a great trait of libertarianism...is that knowledge and reason will eventually win out over keeping things in the dark, making things taboo." Even when it veers off into questionable territory (such as the role of the government in creating the crack epidemic of the 1980s), America's War on Drugs performs the invaluable function of furthering a conversation about drug policies and attitudes that have caused far more harm than they have alleviated.

Audio production by Ian Keyser.

Image: America's War on Drugs, History Channel.

Subscribe, rate, and review the Reason Podcast at iTunes.

Listen at SoundCloud below:

Don't miss a single Reason podcast! (Archive here.)

Subscribe at iTunes.

Follow us at SoundCloud.

Subscribe at YouTube.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

This is a rush transcriptcheck all quotes against the audio for accuracy.

Nick Gillespie: Hi I'm Nick Gillespie and this is the Reason podcast. Please subscribe to us at iTunes and rate and review us while you're there.

Today we're talking with Anthony Lappe who along with Julian Hobbs and Elli Hakami has produced a four part docuseries called America's War on Drugs for the History Channel. You can go to history.com to watch the series and read more about our country's longest war. The series aired this week and it will be in reruns on History Channel, so check it out there.

Anthony, thanks for joining the Reason podcast.

Anthony Lappe: It's great to be here Nick.

Gillespie: Give us the big picture first. Who's your audience for this and what do you hope to bring to people through the docuseries?

Lappe: The exciting thing about this project really is the fact that it's on the History Channel. I honestly didn't believe it was actually going to air until it started airing on Sunday night and I was sitting there watching it because what we do here is actually pretty radical. I don't think anyone has ever really told this story fully on mainstream cable television before. We take a very critical look at the entire history of the war on drugs. In particular, looking at American foreign policy and how the Central Intelligence Agency is not just been involved in a couple of bad apples here and there. In couple rogue operations as a lot of these drug trafficking allegations have been called before.

But actually very directly involved in drug trafficking not only drug trafficking but in the largest drug trafficking stories of our time. Whether that's in the secret tests that introduced LSD to the United States or heroin during the late 60's and early 70's from southeast Asia, to cocaine during the late 70's and early 80's onto opium and heroin coming out of Afghanistan. There's a huge story to be told there about the actual extent of the US government's involvement in drug trafficking.

Gillespie: Let's talk first about the old days of MK Ultra and mind control and the way that the CIA actually helped introduce LSD evolved drugs into America, to American minds. What was going on in the 50's with the CIA and how did they become involved in introducing LSD to Americans?

Lappe: This is a story that a lot of your listeners may have heard about, people have heard about MK Ultra and I had as well, but I never really understood the full origins of the story. They go all the way back to the 1950's. During the 1950's of course, US and the Soviet Union are locked in a battle for hearts and minds around the world and psychoactive drugs were a big part of the Cold War psychological warfare programs on both sides.

The CIA had heard rumors that the Soviet Union was starting to use LSD at this point as a truth serum to see if they could break spies and get them to expose details, admit they were spies et cetera. The CIA literally sent over two guys to Sandoz Laboratories where LSD had first been synthesized and bought up the world's supply of LSD and brought it back. With that supply they began a program called MK Ultra which had all sorts of other drugs involved.

In particular they started doing secret tests around the country. Some of them using in veteran's hospitals and through the military. Others were in mental hospitals, a lot of basic, pretty much a lot of them were unwitting people, mental patients. But one of the incredible stories we found, I never knew this before, is that Ken Kesey, famously the author of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and really the guy who started the famous acid tests in the San Francisco Bay area, it was really the godfather of acid movement. As a Stanford grad student, or sorry an undergrad, was part of a test at the Menlo Park Veteran's hospital. Loved it so much that he got a job in the lab, stole all the acid, went up to San Francisco and started his acid test. That was the origins of how LSD was introduced into United States. This was also happening in other places around the country. It was just that Ken Kesey was the progenitor of the entire movement. It literally was the CIA.

Gillespie: That is a real challenge to all good thinking Libertarians like myself. Small L Libertarians who say that the government can never do anything right. The manage to strangely change the course, not of, I guess maybe of Cold War history, but certainly of American cultural history through their actions. The first episode of the series, and again check these out on history.com, the History Channel if you have, you can download their app and take a look at it. Plus there's other material there that's well worth delving into.

You look at the prehistory of Richard Nixon's declaration of a war on drugs in the early 70's, what were some of the motivating factors you found behind Nixon declaring war on drugs? Very early in the 70's he talked about, famously used the phrase, declaring a war on drugs, that illegals drugs were the number one enemy facing America. What was going on, things like pot and acid and heroin rose to that level of attention from the federal government?

Lappe: You really had two strains happening. You had the psychedelic movement which was heavily influenced by acid which the CIA itself had introduced, which is just my blowing right. Then you had pot as well which basically increasing numbers of young people were smoking. Nixon declares famously this war on drugs in June 1971. At the same time there was a massive heroin epidemic that really was ravaging mostly the eastern seaboard. What a lot people don't realize is that too in part, you could argue another case of blow back from our own operations.

During the mid 60's to late 60's there was a famous, everyone knows, a war against communist forces in Vietnam but also next door there was a gigantic secret war happening in Laos that officially we were not supposed to be fighting. Both politically it was radioactive for Johnson to declare another front but there were also treaties that said that we couldn't have troops on the ground both with Laos and we had an agreement, a sort of tacit agreement with the Soviet Union they wouldn't put troops on the ground.

There was a massive clandestine CIA operation in Laos running this secret war. People have probably heard of this CIA airline called Air America. Basically we go into business helping a local warlord named Vang Pao. When we started the war in the mid 60's, around 65, Vang Pao was a sort of somewhat populous, anti-communist leader of the Hmong hill people in Laos and was peripherally involved in growing opium because that's really what the cash crop was in that area.

By 1968, 1969 into 1970 Vang Pao was the biggest heroin trafficker on the planet. Some of his partners were the Sicilian mobsters that we had gone into business to put in Havana Cuba and south Florida to try to kill Fidel Castro. Basically we had created this huge network or aided this huge network of international drug trafficking that created a massive heroin epidemic which has only been surpassed by the current opioid crisis and we go into that later.

What happens is, there's all this heroin in the theater of war in southeast Asia, a lot of troops are getting hooked, famously they all start bringing this heroin back and heroin really starts devastating the inner city and there was a legitimate belief by a lot of people that really it was out of control and crime rates were really skyrocketing especially in cities like New York. So Nixon was under a lot of pressure. He had run in 1960 under the banner of law and order and the country was literally falling apart by 1971 in his eyes.

Gillespie: As you were saying, the crime really ratcheted up. It started in the 50's but it really ratcheted up in the 60's, there was the perception that people were leaving cities in droves to avoid crime. You talk, I think, in the first episode, it's something that in 1960 the government figures had something like 50,000 heroin addicts around the country or heroin users and it had crept up to something like 200,000 or 500,000 by about 1970.

Lappe: Yeah.

Gillespie: Part of it Nixon was a law and order guy and there's, you go into this a bit at your site as well as in the show that John Ehrlichman one of Richard Nixon's chief lieutenants in a 1990, 94 interview with Dan Baum who ultimately published a story in Harper's about this, that he said that the war on pot and the war on drugs was really a way to control black people. There was also this sense that the urban American was going to hell in a hand basket as well.

Follow up question for that is, the war on drugs gets birthed out of mixed feeling and Nixon and there's some footage in one of the episodes of Ronald Reagan denouncing the use of acid in the 60's and obviously became drug warrior himself as president. There was a strong bipartisan element to the war on drugs because even people, Jimmy Carter seemed to be okay with the idea of pot legalization or decriminalization until events overtook him and he became a staunch drug warrior. People like Bill Clinton, people like Barack Obama also added to the drug war. What is the, I guess that's a long wind up for a pretty simple question, what is it about the war on drugs that pulls such support from Democrats and Republicans across the board?

Lappe: I think this is pretty deep question because I think it goes to what I found in working on this project which is really one of the most epic projects I've ever worked on in my life in terms of the amount of research we did. I think drugs have always played a scapegoat role in our society where we see other social forces, in particular economic forces and other things that have been pressures on communities and it's very easy to point the finger at drugs. In some ways it's a natural reaction to try to crack down on them in the harshest way. Of course by cracking down on drugs are an inanimate object, there is no such thing as a crack down on drugs. You're cracking down on people. And when you crack down on people, that has a reverberating effect. It also can be used as a tool.

Nixon is probably one of the most cynical politicians in our history but maybe not the worst in my opinion. He saw it purely, in my opinion, as a political move. As a way to take out this, he believed he had all these enemies that were growing around him, all these social movements, you had black nationalism, you had increasingly radicalized hippie movement that had turned from a peacenik movement into a more dangerous, whether underground type of operations. There was a feeling that society was unraveling to some degree. That was in large part because it was because we lived in a oppressive racist society and there was a war that in 1968, everyone knew was at a stalemate or that we had lost but continued going on. People don't realize half the people died, of our soldiers after 1968 when Nixon ran under this completely cynical lie that he had a secret plan to end the war [Editor's note: Journalism historian Joseph W. Campbell has documented that Candidate Nixon never publicly made such a pledge, which continues to be cited frequently.].

There was all these other forces going on in drugs were very easy way to demonize people.

Gillespie: At the website, at history.com, among the various things you have in timelines or whatnot that are worth going back to. The early attempts to link cocaine with black people and if you want to crack down on cocaine because white women may be taking it or something, you crack down on black people. When pot became illegal, under federal law, became effectively illegal in the 1930's, it was identified with Mexicans. Chinese and opium was a problem. It is fascinating in the 60's you have with something like LSD the youth movement and hippies and then again when ecstasy which was made illegal in the 80's thanks in large part to Joe Biden.

The identification of a subculture or subgroup or a particular ethnic group that you can crack down on is one of the really haunting elements, I think, of the drug war and that comes through in this, in this series. Talk a bit about how particularly after 9/11 part of the series, and I think you're absolutely right in looking at it, that what this does in a way that is really fresh and interesting is look at how foreign policy, US foreign policy has been both guided and infected by the drug war. Talk a bit about the post 9/11 era and how have fears of narco-terrorism really changed the way we go about our foreign policy?

Lappe: Narco-terrorism is a term that started, that was introduced after 9/11, shortly after really. We show how in the first Superbowl after 9/11, the Partnership for Drug Free America began running this very eerie infamous ad now where you had a bunch of kids saying, "I supported terrorists, I supported a suicide bomber, I did this." Basically saying because I did drugs I was helping all of these different terrorists groups et cetera. When the incredible irony is that our own government has been knee deep in drug trafficking for decades.

There was a big push though it was completely ironic and what we show in our last episode which is the post 9/11 era, is we actually have an undercover DEA agent. This was a huge theme that we saw throughout our series was the tension between the DEA and the CIA. I'll paint the picture of what was happening in Afghanistan.

In the late 1990's, opium has always been one of or the biggest cash crop in Afghanistan. During the 1990's there was a massive civil war. All sides were using opium to finance themselves. The Taliban comes in to power and starts taxing at first, opium growers but by the late 90's the Taliban is having a huge PR problem. They're chopping off women's heads in stadiums and they're blowing up the Buddhas. They were becoming an international pariah. They pulled this incredible PR coup where they said they were cracking down on opium. When really all they were doing were stockpiling it. Basically they launched this whole fake crackdown that got the UN off their back. The US, we even in 2000, sent them $40 million of aid money to help, quote unquote, crackdown on opium. But really what was happening was they were stockpiling opium and then after 9/11 used those stockpiles to ramp up their war effort.

At the time of 9/11, Afghanistan was about 30% of the world's heroin. Today it's about 90%. What Afghanistan has become is a drug war. People never talk about it in that context but Afghanistan is a giant drug war. The Taliban have, to quote REM, lost their religion. They're really are not much of a religious force any more as they are just any other militant insurgency group that is trying to take down a government. There isn't much, they're not putting a lot of effort into their Sharia program. They basically have become gigantic drug traffickers. But also our allies in Afghanistan. Including in the early days, Hamid Karzai's brother, Wali Karzai was the biggest heroin trafficker and drug lord who controlled all the traffic in Kandahar. Who was completely protected by the CIA.

I talked to soldiers who literally their job was to guard the opium fields of our local warlord allies. This heroin has had a major impact on the world's drug stage. It should be noted a lot of the heroin that comes into the United States is coming from Mexico now but a lot of it is coming from Afghanistan, especially on the east coast and in Canada. It's a really incredible story that no one really talks about. There's a great reporter that is one of our contributors to the show named, Gretchen Peters, wrote a book called, Seeds of Terror. That essentially is her thesis.

We also have great stories about the undercover DEA agents who were fighting to try to take down drug traffickers at the same time the CIA was undermining their efforts.

Gillespie: It's a phenomenal drama that unfolds and it has these dark, rich, historical ironies that abound throughout the series. The odds are good now at least and actually in a story that's up at the website, you guys talk about Jeff Sessions, the Attorney General under Donald Trump. Who has really, he's pledged to really redouble efforts at least domestically, on the war on drugs which you guys point out at least in it's Nixonian phase has been going on for 50 years. It's really more like a 100 years when you go all the way back to things like the Harrison Narcotics Act.

It's failing, it doesn't seem to have much effect on drug usage rates, they seem to be independent of enforcement, there's obviously problems with surgeon opiod use that is it's own tangled web of unintended consequences and weird interventions into markets. At the same time the odds are phenomenal that pot is going to be fully legal in the US within the next decade if not before. During the campaign, weirdly Donald Trump seemed to be at times okay with the idea of different states deciding what kind of marijuana policies, obviously the Sessions factors a big difference from that. Are you optimistic that we're at least entering the beginning of the end of the drug war, to borrow a terrible Vietnam phrase that there's light at the end of the tunnel in terms of American attitudes towards currently illegal drugs, and rethinking the drug war?

Lappe: There's no doubt that things are moving in that direction in the same way there's no doubt that things like gay rights and LGBT rights are moving in a certain direction. Jeff Sessions essentially is a weird outlier, historical blip, as you said, to try to pin Trump down on any one ideology or stance is literally impossible. He said we were going to stop all our foreign wars, yet he's sending 8,000 more troops in Afghanistan. Whatever Trump has said on the war on drugs is sort of irrelevant.

But Sessions is just a weird dinosaur throwback to another era that I think is just going to be, if he survives the next three years. Will just be a blip in the road towards eventually people moving, starting with marijuana towards legalization both for, at least, nationwide to medicinal use if not most states towards recreational use. Because people are seeing that it doesn't really have any negative effects, there isn't really a gigantic increase in use and there's great benefits to society in terms of being able to tax it and make it a normalized thing. I think a big part of the problem with drugs and Dr. Carl Hart at Columbia is one of the most iconoclastic guys on this and he's in our series, he's out on the far fringes of this. But what he really says is, the problem with drugs is not drugs. The problem is drug use and misuse and people being idiots with drugs and not knowing how to use them.

Gillespie: But it's hard to know how to use them if you're not allowed to freely and openly discuss the facts, your experiences, your parents, we have enough problems with alcohol abuse and that's fully legal. When you start talking about these other drugs it's hard to get good information.

Lappe: Right. It's the same thing with these abstinence programs. You see wherever there's abstinence programs there's more STD's, there's more pregnancies because people are ignorant. I think that's a great trait of libertarianism even though I don't believe in everything you guys believe in. Is that knowledge and reason will eventually win out over keeping things in the dark, making things taboo. I think that people are rational and when it comes ... There's always going to be people who are going to abuse something, just the same way people abuse alcohol or any substance. I think there is a general consensus that we're moving in a particular direction and I think that ultimately it's going to be better for society.

Gillespie: I hope so and think that your series that was on History Channel will being rerun there as well as it's available on history.com along with a lot of other articles and timelines, does a really good job of helping to start that discussion which has been waiting to happen for decades now.

We have been talking with Anthony Lappe who along with Julian Hobbs and Elli Hakami has produced a great four part series for History Channel called, America's War on Drugs. It's available online and look for it on your basic cable package.

Anthony, thanks so much for talking to the Reason podcast today.

Lappe: Thanks a lot, it was a lot of fun.

Gillespie: This has been the Reason podcast, I'm Nick Gillespie, thanks for listening. Please subscribe to us at iTunes and rate and review us while you're there. Thanks so much.

Continue reading here:

How the CIA Turned Us onto LSD and Heroin: Secrets of America's ... - Reason (blog)

Crime novelist Winslow calls out Trump on drug wars – The San Diego Union-Tribune

Posted on by

For the second time in three years, local crime novelist Don Winslow has taken out a full-page ad in a national newspaper criticizing the governments war on drugs, an issue that has formed the backbone of several of his bestselling books.

The Julian residents newest salvo is in Sundays New York Times, framed as a series of posts on Twitter from Winslow to President Donald Trump, who uses the social media platform often to air his thoughts.

Winslow, 63, has spent almost 20 years researching and writing about drugs Americas appetite for them, the Mexican cartels that torture and kill each other to control distribution, the police on both sides of the border who try to stem the tide or corruptly become part of the flow. His books The Power of the Dog and The Cartel are violent, searing and critically acclaimed epics about the cost and futility of the war.

In addition to his novels, hes written about the subject numerous times in essays for major newspapers and magazines in the U.S., Mexico and Europe. He favors legalization, treatment and rehabilitation instead of mass incarceration.

In an essay published last week on Time.com, Winslow criticized Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions for being either woefully or willfully ignorant of the facts surrounding drugs. Both have called for a renewed crackdown emphasizing law enforcement instead of public-health strategies.

After five decades of this war, drugs are cheaper, more plentiful and more potent than ever, Winslow wrote. If thats Trumps idea of success, Id hate to see his version of failure.

He added, Rather than make a real effort to address the drug problem at its roots at a time when more Americans die from opiate overdose than from car accidents Trump and Sessions hand us fantasies such as the border wall, which will do nothing to slow the flow of drugs, and facile, intellectually lazy lock em up soundbites that make for good politics but horrible policy.

In May, Trump said the cartels have literally taken over towns in the U.S. The drug epidemic is poisoning too many American lives, and we are going to stop it in many different ways, he added. One of them will be the wall.

In 2015, Winslow took out a full-page ad in the Washington Post urging Congress to change directions with the nations drug policy. The only way to win the war on drugs is to stop fighting, he wrote. A half-century of failed policy, $1 trillion and 45 million arrests have not reduced daily drug use at all.

Winslow is currently on a tour promoting his newest book, The Force, which came out Tuesday. Its about the leader of an elite New York Police Department unit caught up in corruption while fighting the influx of drugs and guns to the city.

The author will be at Warwicks in La Jolla on Monday and at Mysterious Galaxy in Clairemont on Friday.

RELATED: Don Winslow calls 'The Force' the cop novel he's always wanted to write

john.wilkens@sduniontribune.com

The rest is here:

Crime novelist Winslow calls out Trump on drug wars - The San Diego Union-Tribune

Do you want better streets or a bigger ‘war on drugs’? – Fresno Bee

Posted on by

Fresno Bee
Do you want better streets or a bigger 'war on drugs'?
Fresno Bee
President Richard Nixon did not see the slaughter of innocents when he launched the War on Drugs. Of course, his staff thought he did it to punish hippies, anti-war protesters and blacks. Politicians invent wars as diversionary tactics when they ...

Read more:

Do you want better streets or a bigger 'war on drugs'? - Fresno Bee

HC rules game of rummy is not gambling – Times of India

Posted on by

Nagpur: Coming to the rescue of an Amravati businessman, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court quashed a charge sheet against him while holding that the playing rummy can't be brought under the definition of gambling.

"Petitioner is one of the members of the recreational club and it's his contention that they were playing rummy. Game of rummy is not gambling," a division bench comprising Prasanna Varale and Murlidhar Giratkar ruled, while citing earlier Supreme Court verdicts.

Gajendra Kedia, a reputed businessman running an ice factory, moved the court for quashing and setting aside the charge sheet filed at Rajapeth Police Station on June 14 last year.

He rented out his premises in December 2015 to the Shivleela Sporting and Social Club at Saturna in Amravati with a view to promote social and recreational activities, including sporting games such as carom, chess, hockey, football, cricket, card games and rummy. It was one of the well-known clubs of the area having about 70 members, including the petitioner, who are over 45 years.

The club sought permission from the Amravati commissioner of police for running indoor entertaining games of like card room, table tennis and rummy on its premises on January 15 last year.

On May 23, 2016, when the members were engaged in playing game of skill rummy with false table counters, at about 5.30pm, police officials raided the club without any permission. They seized the entire possessions of the club including the membership cards, false table counters, tables and chairs.

Read more here:

HC rules game of rummy is not gambling - Times of India

Wall Street Likes Gambling Market Outlook – South Florida Reporter

Posted on by

Money talks, and when those who handle the money talk, casino leaders listen.

Such was the case earlier this month when four experts gave Wall Streets perspective of the gaming market during GameOn, a two-day conference for casino gaming operations executives across the country, presented by AGS at the MGM National Harbor near Washington, D.C.

The news was mostly good. They say casino fundamentals are strong, with a boost from table games. Some more mergers and acquisitions are forthcoming. And even though skill-based games have yet to provide a solid revenue source, investors will continue to be interested.

The past couple of years, from a gross gaming revenue standpoint, its been at GDP or just a little short, said Chad Beynon, an analyst with Macquarie Capital. The trends are pretty positive, although earlier this year there were some weather issues in certain parts of the country. But the data weve seen so far is pretty good.

Beynon said he also is encouraged by the upcoming gaming products he has viewed at shows.

Theres a lot of good stuff out there, he said, citing IGTs new products, but adds projections can be indefinite until the games are actually played.

If Whole Foods has a new lower priced concept and 1,000 units, thats a tangible number you can put into your number. That doesnt quite translate to our product.

Brad Boyer, associate VP of equity research for St. Louis-based Stifel Nicholas, said investor sentiment is also strong, with a nice tailwind behind Macau, fueled by VIP play, as well a wave of consolidation.

And he agreed with Beynon, expanding on his thoughts.

Follow this link:

Wall Street Likes Gambling Market Outlook - South Florida Reporter

Euthanasia survey hints at support from doctors, nurses and division – The Sydney Morning Herald

Posted on by

Most NSW doctors and nurses support a controversial medical euthanasia bill headed for Parliament, according to research that could prompt new debateabout the medical fraternity's willingness to accept changes to assisted suicide laws.

A bill, to allow patients to apply for medically assisted euthanasia in specific circumstances when older than 25 (an age when informed consent is deemed reached), will be introduced to the NSW upper house in August for a conscience vote.

About 60 per cent of doctors support the Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill and fewer than 30 per cent oppose it, according to a surveyby market research company Ekas emailed to a database of 4000 NSW doctors it deemed "opinion leaders" and returned by about 500.

A smaller sample of about 100 nurses had support running at 80 per cent in favour of the law reform and opposition at fewer than 10 per cent.

A crowd-funding campaign forAnnie Gabrielides,a motor neurone disease suffererwho has progressively lost her ability to speak and is a euthanasia advocate, paid for the research.

"I'mconsistently hearing from doctors and medical expertsexpressing their sincere support of my campaign, but they're reluctant to speak out," she said.

The results suggest the medical profession and its famously powerful unions, not just Parliament, will be divided when debate on the bill kicks off.

The Australian Medical Association, which opposes changes to euthanasia law, warnedthe research could overstate doctors' support.

"It is likely that doctors with more strongly held opinions are responding to these surveys so caution must be used," AMA NSW president Brad Frankum said.

A national AMA poll of 4000 doctors last year found 50 per cent of doctors believed medical professionals should not be involved in assisted suicide, a spokesman emphasised.

But only slightly less than four in ten said they should, according to a news report.Combined with 12 per cent who neither agreed nor disagreed that left physicians close to evenly splitin some respects.

And anAustralian Doctorpoll of about 370 medicoslast year found about 65 per cent of doctors supported a change to the law on physician-assisted suicide ifstrict conditions, such as patients nearing the end of their lives and suffering "intolerable pain", some of which are mirrored in the NSW proposal, were met. About half told the journal they would be willing to help perform aprocedure.

NSW Nurses and Midwives Association general secretary Brett Holmes said: "The vast majority of nurses support change that enables medically assisted dying. Nurses know patients often choose more drastic means [to medically ending their life] in fear they cannot choose later."

A parliamentary report cited polls from the '90s that found nurses' support for euthanasia reform reached as high as about 75 per cent.

A dozen polls in the past decade hadfound between 75 to 80 per cent of Australians backed medically assisted euthanasia.

Western Sydney anaesthetistAnneJaumeesdoes too after working in palliative care for 15 years: "All their lives they want dignity and patients want that up until the end, too."

The bill is the product of cross-party collaboration and will only allow for applications frompatients expected to die within the coming year and experiencing extreme pain, suffering or incapacitation.

Safeguards proposed included allowing relatives to challenge applications in the Supreme Court,assessmentsby independent doctors and being subject to a 48-hour cooling-off period.

But Maria Cigolionisaid, while proponents arguedthe bill came laden with safeguards, it required no review of what palliative care patients had first sought before applying to end their lives or for alternatives to be suggested.

Overseas safeguards had been loosened so euthanasia could be applied forby people also suffering from psychosocial problems, Dr Cigolioni said.

"Instead of spending money on euthanasia reforms, we should be investing in psychosocial support programs to address suffering."

"People [will hasten the solution of death] when so many other things need to be looked at as the potential cause of that suffering," she said. "Once you change a criminal law [to allow] people to be killed, then [its conditions] can be extended beyond just being terminally ill, [and expand to include] the disabled and the aged and children, as it has in the Netherlands and Belgium."

The state budget last week announced a $100 million increase in funding for palliative care, something experts said would bring levels of NSW services into line with other states.

AMA policy recognises a divergence in doctors' views on euthanasia but it states doctors should not be involved in dispensing treatment that shortens a patient's life.

See more here:

Euthanasia survey hints at support from doctors, nurses and division - The Sydney Morning Herald

A Dutch euthanasia pioneer surveys the wreckage and despairs – BioEdge

Posted on by

If there is anyone who could be called a patron saint of Dutch euthanasia, it is the psychiatrist Boudewijn Chabot. In 1991 he gave one of his patients, Mrs B, a lethal dose of medication. After accompanying her until she died he reported himself to the police and was subsequently tried. In 1993, the Supreme Court declare that he was guilty of assisting a suicide, but did not punish him and allowed him to keep practicing medicine.

Physically, there was nothing wrong with Mrs B. Nor did she have depression. But her personal life was tragic and Dr Chabot felt that she in a state of existential distress that she should be allowed to die. It was a landmark case in the steady advance towards legalisation in 2002.

That was 25 years ago. Now Dr Chabot looks back and is horrified. Writing in one of the leading Dutch newspapers, NRC Handelsblad, he says that legal safeguards for euthanasia are slowly eroding away and that the law no longer protects people with psychiatric condition and dementia.

The Dutch are complacent about their famous law, he says. But there is no room for complacency.

Under current legislation, euthanasia is only legal if a doctor believes that three conditions have been met: (1) the request must be voluntary and deliberate; (2) there must be unbearable suffering with no hope of improvement; and (3) there must no reasonable alternative to euthanasia.

However, as euthanasia has sunk its roots deeper and deeper into Dutch medicine, the second and third conditions have shrivelled up. Patients define what is unbearable and they define what is a reasonable alternative. Unhappiness can be unbearable and a nursing home may not be a reasonable alternative. So, as one ethicist has observed, requirements (2) and (3) add little to the requirement of a voluntary and thoughtful request. Autonomy has trumped medicine. As a result, the number of euthanasia cases roughly tripled between 2007 and 2016, from 2000 to 6000.

In itself, this does not bother Dr Chabot. After all, he is the Grand Old Man of Dutch euthanasia. He says that he is prepared to accept tens of thousands of euthanasia cases. But he is aghast at the rapid rise in the number of people with psychiatric illness or dementia who have been euthanised:

What does worry me is the increase in the number of times euthanasia was performed on dementia patients, from 12 in 2009 to 141 in 2016, and on chronic psychiatric patients, from 0 to 60. That number is small, one might object. But note the rapid increase of brain diseases such as dementia and chronic psychiatric diseases.More than one hundred thousand patients suffer from these diseases, and their disease can almost never be completely cured.

One sign of the changing times is the rapid expansion of the services of the End of Life Clinic Foundation (Stichting Levenseindekliniek). This organisation offers euthanasia to patients whose own doctors have refused. They never offer to treat the underlying illness, whether it is physical or mental.

By 2015, a quarter of euthanasia cases on demented patients were performed by these doctors; in 2016 it had risen to one third. By 2015, doctors of the End of Life Clinic performed 60 percent of euthanasia cases in chronic psychiatric patients, by 2016 that had increased to 75 percent (46 out of 60 people).

Last year, Dr Chabot points out, doctors from the End of Life Clinic each performed about one euthanasia every month. What happens to doctors for whom a deadly injection becomes a monthly routine? he asks.

Now the End of Life Clinic is recruiting psychiatrists to service the mentally ill and demented. One obvious problem is that there is a shortage of good psychiatric help in the Netherland which tends to take a long time have an effect, in any case because of budget cuts.

Without a therapeutic relationship, by far most psychiatrists cannot reliably determine whether a death wish is a serious, enduring desire. Even within a therapeutic relationship, it remains difficult. But a psychiatrist of the clinic can do so without a therapeutic relationship, with less than ten in-depth conversations? Well

Dr Chabot is deeply sceptical about euthanasia for the demented: we are dealing with a morally problematic act: how do you kill someone who does not understand that he will be killed?.

How? It turns out that sometimes a relative or doctor secretly laces their food or drink with a sedative to make it easier to give them a lethal injection. In one notorious case last year, the sedative didnt work and relatives pinned the terrified woman to the bed while the doctor gave the lethal injection. Dr Chabot was astonished to discover that surreptitious administration of medication has previously occurred, but has never been mentioned in an annual report.

Isnt anyone paying attention to these developments, Dr Chabot asks.

The euthanasia practice is running amok because the legal requirements which doctors can reasonably apply in the context of physically ill people, are being declared equally applicable without limitation in the context of vulnerable patients with incurable brain diseases. In psychiatry, an essential limitation disappeared when the existence of a treatment relationship was no longer required. In the case of dementia, such a restriction disappeared by making the written advance request equivalent to an actual oral request. And lastly, it really went off the tracks when the review committee concealed that incapacitated people were surreptitiously killed.

After surveying the wreckage of the euthanasia law, Dr Chabot concludes bitterly,

I dont see how we can get the genie back in the bottle. It would already mean a lot if wed acknowledge hes out.

Michael Cook is editor of BioEdge. Dr Chabots original article in NRC Handelsblad was translated by Professor Trudo Lemmens, of the University of Toronto Faculty of Law. Excerpts have been republished from his blog with permission.

Read more:

A Dutch euthanasia pioneer surveys the wreckage and despairs - BioEdge

Medical students’ perspectives on euthanasia – BioEdge

Posted on by

What do medical students think about euthanasia? A new article in the journal Chest discusses some of the concerns held by the next generation of US medical professionals. The authors of the paper, students from several of the leading medical schools in the country, express grave concerns about the normalisation of euthanasia in end-of-life care.

Commenting on new legislation introduced in US states such as Colorado, the authors remark:

Doctor-patient trust, the authors assert, is founded upon the notion that doctors will commit to doing their best to heal and care for patients and will not intentionally kill those entrusted to their care. The students fear that PAS/E violates the fundamental bond of trust.

Indeed, the authors call upon doctors to return to the original meaning of euthanasia:

The American Medical Student Association currently has a position of conditional support for physician aid in dying.

MORE ON THESE TOPICS |

View original post here:

Medical students' perspectives on euthanasia - BioEdge

Doctor bidding for euthanasia dies – Pune Mirror

Posted on by

Dr Bharat Lotes organs had begun failing due to cancer on Sunday, following which he slipped into a coma

The medical officer from Chiplun, who had been battling pancreatic cancer for the last few months, passed away on Monday at Deenanath Mangeshkar Hospital in Erandwane. He was admitted at the facility on March 30. In the past, he had written a letter, asking for euthanasia and intended to submit it to the Bombay High Court (HC) soon.

According to the hospital authorities, Dr Bharat Lote passed away on June 19 around 3.30 pm due to multiple organ failure. His treatment has cost Rs 32.5 lakh, of which the family has paid Rs 24 lakh. The hospital has waived off Rs 3.5 lakh on the amount as a goodwill gesture, the family has informed.

Lote, 56, used to be a medical officer at the primary health centre at Chiplun, before he was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer early in March, which he battled for months. His body was taken to his native place in Satara on Tuesday. Lote is survived by his wife and two sons. His elder son Pratik said, His condition started deteriorating from Sunday onwards, after which he stopped speaking. He then slipped into a coma at 8.30 pm on Sunday. He was again put in the intensive care unit.

Doctors found fungal infection in his blood and he was not responding to high-end drugs. Pratik said that over time, his kidney and other organs also failed due to the infection.

Dr Satish Pawar, director of health services, said, The state government has sanctioned Rs 24 lakh for Lotes treatment, which was communicated through a letter. The file has been sanctioned and all technical terms have been cleared within a week. The family will receive the funds soon.

Read more from the original source:

Doctor bidding for euthanasia dies - Pune Mirror

Letter to the Editor: Connecticut lawmaker wrong to advocate for euthanasia – New Haven Register

Posted on by

A Massachusetts court convicted Michelle Carter of involuntary manslaughter for the death of her boyfriend, Conrad Roy. Roy had obviously been suffering from depression when Carter sent him repeated text messages urging him to go ahead and kill himself. Eventually he complied. He sat in his truck while the cab filled with carbon monoxide. Carters encouragement of Roys suicide, including her instruction to him to get back into his truck, is deplorable. Few would dispute this.

If he had been suffering from metastatic cancer, rather than depression, there are undoubtedly those who would have been praising Carter for her act of compassion. Of course, Carters actions were morally reprehensible, and they would be just as bad had Roy been suffering physically rather than psychologically.

If you agree that Carter lacks moral decency you should take a close look at Connecticut state Rep. Josh Elliott. He has introduced HB 6238, An Act Concerning the Option to Die with Dignity. Elliott, along with his friends at Compassion and Choices, wants to make it legal for Connecticut doctors to prescribe lethal cocktails of medications to patients that are suffering from severe physical pain. Make no mistake; Rep. Elliotts proposal is just as morally corrupt as Carters actions. Physicians helping patients commit suicide, is no better than manipulative, teenaged girls pushing their boyfriends to asphyxiate themselves. Doctors have plenty of means to help patients who are in suffering or in pain. There is no need to engage in euthanasia.

Rep. Elliott should concern himself with our states actual problems, like our current financial situation. Although, if he is like most Democrats, he will probably argue that this bill will help state residents by reducing carbon emissions. Those carbon monoxide suicides really do burn through a lot of fossil fuels.

Advertisement

Frank J. Mongillo III, M.D.

New Haven

Continue reading here:

Letter to the Editor: Connecticut lawmaker wrong to advocate for euthanasia - New Haven Register