Daily Archives: June 24, 2017

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

Posted: June 24, 2017 at 2:58 pm

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 original:

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

Posted in Bankruptcy | Comments Off on Augusta native sworn in as newest Bankruptcy Court judge – The Augusta Chronicle

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

Posted: at 2:57 pm

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.

Original post:

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

Posted in Socio-economic Collapse | Comments Off on South Africa’s central bank row points to dangerous levels of intolerance – eNCA

Dangerous levels of intolerance exposed in Reserve Bank row – Independent Online

Posted: at 2:57 pm

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.

*The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Independent Media.

The Conversation

Read the original here:

Dangerous levels of intolerance exposed in Reserve Bank row - Independent Online

Posted in Socio-economic Collapse | Comments Off on Dangerous levels of intolerance exposed in Reserve Bank row – Independent Online

Whom Are You Fooling?The Jewish Press | Rabbi Dani Staum | 30 … – The Jewish Press – JewishPress.com

Posted: at 2:56 pm

Photo Credit: Jewish Press

In the End By R Jack Riemer

In the end, man destroyed the heaven and the earth. The earth had been tossing and turning, and the destructive spirit of man had been hovering over the face of the waters. And man said: Let me have power over the earth. And it was so. And man saw that the power tasted good, and so he called those that possessed power wise, and those that tried to curb power he called weak. And there was evening, and there was morning, the seventh day. And man said: Let there be a division among all the peoples of the earth. Let there be a dividing line, or a wall, between those that are for me and those that are against me, and it was so. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

And man said: Let us gather all of our resources into one place, and let us create instruments of power to defend ourselves: Let us make a radio to mold mens minds, and a draft to control their bodies, and flags and symbols of power to capture their souls. And it was so. And there was evening, and there was morning, the fifth day.

And man said: Let there be censorship to divide the light from the darkness. And it was so. And man made two great censorship bureaus to control the thoughts of men, one to tell only the truth that he wanted to be heard abroad, and one to tell only the truth he wanted to be heard at home. And it was so. And there was evening, and there was morning, the fourth day.

And man said: Let us create weapons that can kill millions and hundreds of millions from a distance, and let us make clean bombs, and let us learn sanitary germ warfare, and let us make guided missiles. And it was so. And there was evening, and there was morning, the third day.

And man said: Let us make God in our image. Let us say that God thinks what we think, that God wants what we want, that God commands what we want Him to command. And man found ways to kill, with atomic power and with radiation fallout, those that were living, and those that were not yet born, and he said: This is Gods will. And it was so. And there was evening, and there was morning, the second day.

And then, on the last day, a great cloud went up over all the face of the earth, and there was a great thunder over all of the face of the earth, and there was a great cry that reached up from over all of the earth, and then man, and all of his doings, was no more. And the earth rested on the last day from all of mans labors, and the universe was quiet on the last day from all of mans doings, which man in his folly had wrought. And there was nothing. There was no more evening, and there was no more morning there was no more day.

It is mind-boggling that despite Moshe Rabbeinus warning to Korach and his followers of what would occur if they persisted in their rebellion, they did not waver or even hesitate.

Moshe said, Through this you shall know that G-d has sent me to perform all these acts, that it was not from my heart G-d will create a phenomenon and the earth will opens its mouth and swallow them and all that is theirs, and they will descend alive into the pit then you shall know that these men have provoked G-d (Bamidbar 16:28-30). Korachs assembly was comprised of people who had witnessed all the miracles Moshe initiated and had seen him standing atop Har Sinai during the revelation of Matan Torah. Yet here they brazenly persisted in their attempted coup, undeterred. It seems analogous to imprudent sailors who refuse to abandon their sinking ship even as it plunges into the depths with safety boats available.

The Gemara (Eruvin 19a) states that even at the doorway of purgatory, the wicked will not repent. A person can be so utterly blinded by his opinions and feelings that he may fail to adhere to logic and reason. He can become so consumed and convinced by the veracity of his mission that there is no convincing him otherwise, even though the truth of where he is heading seems so obvious to everyone else. This can happen to even the greatest of men. They fall prey to their own machinations and intrigues, as did Korach and his worthy followers.

Rav Shlomo Levinstein relates (Umasok Haohr) that a person once approached the Tchebiner Rav, Rav Yissocher Dov Berish Weidenfeld ztl, to inform the Rav that he had appointed himself as a Rebbe, and he planned to invite people to seek his blessing and advice.

The Rav knew the man well and knew that he was far from worthy of such a title. When the Rav asked him why he felt he was worthy of the position, the man emphatically replied, Why not? If the Bais Yisroel can be the Gerrer Rebbe, and Rav Aharon Rokeach (known as Rav Arele Belzer ) could be the Belzer Rebbe, why cant I become a Rebbe as well?

The Tchebiner Rav was stunned. He replied by quoting the aforementioned statement from the Gemara and asked the man how it is possible for a wicked person not to repent when he sees an ignominious end awaiting him.

The Rav explained that at times a sinner whose soul has been sent to Gehenom to be purged of its iniquities may be on the verge of being released, but still requires a little more time. But then the soul of a righteous person being led to Gan Eden may be led past Gehenom, so that he can seize those lingering souls and insist that they ascend with them.

The Rav looked into the self-appointed Rebbes eyes and said, A wicked person while being led into purgatory will still not repent because he will continue to delude himself of his righteousness. Even at that fateful moment, he will be convinced that he is being led towards Gehenom so that he can rescue the lingering souls while on his way to his eternal reward. He wont even be able to fathom his own culpability.

G-d has endowed man with an imagination that can help him build worlds and accomplish incredible feats. Yet, at the same time, man can destroy himself and his world in the most horrific manner.

The Torah states (Bamidbar 26:11) that the sons of Korach did not die. Rashi explains that although Korachs sons were at first part of their fathers rebellion, while the dispute was unfolding they did teshuvah. Therefore, a special place was designated for them in purgatory where they still dwell.

Rav Shalom Schwadron ztl noted that if the sons of Korach repented before the punishment began they would not have been affected at all. If they repented after the ground opened up beneath them, it would have been too late. So why does it say that they have an elevated place in purgatory? When exactly did they repent?

We must conclude that they repented as the earth was opening beneath their feet. They saw that they were about to be swallowed up, and, at that moment, they began to contemplate that they may have been mistaken. Even at that moment their repentance accomplished something.

What is truly frightening is that the rest of the rebels, including Korach himself, did not harbor any such thoughts of repentance, even then!

Moshe had warned Korach and his adherents of what would transpire if they didnt desist, yet even when they saw it begin to happen, they obdurately maintained their position, even as they descended into Gehenom.

We often read about the tragedies of our ancestors in the Torah with a certain measure of disregard for the folly of their actions. We would be wise to realize that these sins were committed by people of stature, righteous individuals who were privy to the greatest miracles ever performed. If they could stumble so profoundly, we are surely far more vulnerable.

The Mishna in Avos tells us that that Jealousy, desire, and honor remove a person from the world. The tragedy of the meraglim was the result of the pursuit of honor, the rebellion of Korach was the catastrophic result of unbridled jealousy, and the tragedy in Shittim (where the men of Klal Yisrael were enticed to sin by the women of Moav) was the result of intemperate lust/desire. These three tragic accounts are generally read on consecutive Shabbosos during the weeks preceding the Three Weeks of mourning for the Bais HaMikdash: Parshas Shlach contains the story of the spies, Parshas Korach relates the story of the rebellion, and Parshas Balak contains the story of Shittim.

These accounts demonstrate that even the greatest of people must be wary of the dangers of their own passions and pursuits. A person needs to seek the guidance and counsel of teachers and mentors to ensure that the path he is following and the pursuits he is engaged in are not the results of his own foolish machinations, despite his best intentions.

My Rebbe, Rabbi Berel Wein, noted that the twentieth century was a century of Korach. In his words, Rebellion against tradition and the old and the veneration of new theories of social engineering, morality and religion have been the unfortunate hallmark of this, the bloodiest of all centuries. Nowhere has this been more noticeable than in Jewish life. Socialism, Communism, Secularism, Nationalism, atheistic Zionism, Reform, Conservatism, Reconstructionism, Feminism and other assorted theories and movements arose in this century to claim the place of prominence in fashioning the Jewish people and its future. All of them have proven themselves to be woefully inadequate for the task set forth.

Much of the ruin currently clearly visible in the Jewish world is directly traceable to the rebellion against Moshe and his Torah, against Holyoke and tradition, which marks every one of these theories and movements and is in fact the common denominator for all of them. From our perch just above the abyss of Jewish destruction and assimilation, there are determined Jews who shout out loudly that Moshe is true and his Torah is true.

But there are many sons of Korach who still maintain the belief in the false shibboleths of this past century. After an intermarriage rate approaching seventy percent in America, one strains to hear the admission of error from these groups. Unless there is an honest reappraisal of theory and belief on the part of these groups, these sons of Korach will not survive.

Originally posted here:

Whom Are You Fooling?The Jewish Press | Rabbi Dani Staum | 30 ... - The Jewish Press - JewishPress.com

Posted in Germ Warfare | Comments Off on Whom Are You Fooling?The Jewish Press | Rabbi Dani Staum | 30 … – The Jewish Press – JewishPress.com

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

Posted: at 2:55 pm

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.

See the original post here:

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

Posted in Government Oppression | Comments Off on 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: at 2:55 pm

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.

Read more:

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

Posted in Government Oppression | Comments Off on Darjeeling unrest: Mamata Banerjee govt not solving Gorkhaland issue for political benefit, says BJP – Firstpost

Beware of the dark side in both politics and in life – Hi-Desert Star

Posted: at 2:55 pm

The best time of day in Landers is the early morning hours in the cool of the day when the summertime flies are still asleep.

It has become my retirement ritual to smoke a morning cigar and follow our national happenings on Fox and Friends.

This ritual has inspired me to write opinions about the national political debate on the opinion page of our local newspaper.

None of my opinions are really welcomed by the paper but to their credit, most are printed.

You see, I was before the election and am to this very day an avid Trump supporter who is, in my opinion, the greatest American hero of my lifetime.

His election by the people has given me great joy and a renewed hope that my country will return to being the land of the truly free.

Former President Obama has taken up residence in the Dark House of Washington to direct radical left politics.

I am sure our paper will call this term racist but it is really about morality, about honesty, about truth and fairness.

The term, Dark House, reflects the divide between good and evil, between the oppression of government and the interests of the people, it is the divide between Darth Vader and Han Solo in the Star Wars saga.

The dark side navigates the national interest by protecting those who are complicit with the dark agenda and punishing those who stand with the people of America.

This dark side small ball reduces the political discourse to hate mongering when the function of our government should be to protect and facilitate people opportunities.

The dark side ignores our laws, deceives and condones violence against Americans as necessary to further the dark agenda.

Our political system, our justice system, even the medical community are only tools to punish all who may dissent.

Our court system is about making political statements not the law of our land.

The Internal Revenue Service is about making political statements not administering the collection of taxes in a just manner.

Our intelligence services are about making political statements not protecting the security of the people.

Our foreign services before Trump have been about making political statements here at home and not making our world safer.

The dark side has only one creditable issue that must be addressed by our current Republican politicians.

Politicians of the left rightly disparage the wealth gap in America but wrongly champion the redistribution of wealth as the solution.

The so-called Affordable Care Act is not really about the health of the people but about further depleting the wealth of the middle class.

Redistribution from on high is a perversion of our world order as our world has always existed.

Our world is a competitive place.

In biological terms, our world moves according to the survival of the fittest.

In economic terms, our world moves according to the effort personally expended to build a future for you and yours.

Effort does not always bring the results we crave but effort always results in a more fulfilled life.

America has always been about hard work and the pride it brings to the individual.

Instead of the middle class carrying the burden of healthcare for the poor and those with pre-existing conditions, lets be fair, our hard-working politicians should tax stock market transactions.

A $1 health care tax per transaction would bring $30 billion a month to the crisis.

This seems only fair but the swamp will resist.

Politicians of both parties, including Barack Obama, are in debt to the special interests of the few.

Go here to see the original:

Beware of the dark side in both politics and in life - Hi-Desert Star

Posted in Government Oppression | Comments Off on Beware of the dark side in both politics and in life – Hi-Desert Star

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

Posted: at 2:54 pm

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.

See more here:

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

Posted in War On Drugs | Comments Off on How the CIA Turned Us onto LSD and Heroin: Secrets of America’s … – Reason (blog)

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

Posted: at 2:54 pm


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 ...

Continue reading here:

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

Posted in War On Drugs | Comments Off on Do you want better streets or a bigger ‘war on drugs’? – Fresno Bee

War on drugs just got tougher – Watertown Public Opinion

Posted: at 2:54 pm

It was just 14 months ago when Pennington County Sheriff Kevin Thom told a state oversight council that meth use had gone off the charts and was out of control in parts of South Dakota.

Since then, the state has appropriated several hundred thousand dollars to bolster treatment opportunities, start a marketing campaign to warn youth and others of the dangers of meth, and to incentivize those on probation and parole to stop using a drug that is almost instantly addicting.

It appears, however, that these efforts have been akin to putting a finger in a dyke that is about to crumble. Meth use has skyrocketed in the past year and is often a key ingredient in violent crimes.

Now, however, meth and the madness and mayhem it creates has a rival and experts say its potency makes it far more dangerous. Its called fentanyl analog and should alarm everyone who is concerned about public health and public safety.

On Tuesday, the Lawrence County States Attorneys Office announced that nine people were indicted on 50 felony drug charges. The primary drug cited was fentanyl analog. The investigation that led to the indictments came after two Spearfish residents, ages 23 and 38, died in January after using the synthetic opioid that the National Institute on Drug Abuse says is 50 to 100 more times potent than morphine, making it extraordinarily lethal.

The Lawrence County indictments come just one week after a 19-year-old Chamberlain man was arrested for possessing 20,000 fentanyl pills worth $500,000.

Until recently, fentanyl has been seen as primarily a big-city problem in a few states. In 2014, the Centers for Disease Control reported that 80 percent of fentanyl seizures occurred in 10 eastern states.

Since then, however, this killer drug has swept through the nation and now has surfaced in central and western South Dakota where many of us feel insulated from drug epidemics and their fatal consequences. The drug, however, has the potential to sweep through a state like a plague. In New Hampshire, for example, the number of fentanyl-related deaths climbed from 145 to 283 from 2014 to 2015, according to the National Drug Early Warning System. The states population is only around 1.3 million people.

In Lawrence County, 37-year-old Eric Reeder now faces 20 felony charges, including two counts of first-degree manslaughter. Spearfish police said the suspect told them he ordered the fentanyl on the darknet and they were delivered to him. Also facing a first-degree manslaughter charge is 32-year-old Ashley Kristina Kuntz.

The Lawrence County Sheriffs Office, the Lawrence County States Attorneys Office and Spearfish police are to be congratulated for pursuing this case and seeking convictions on manslaughter charges. Its become all too clear that our ongoing war on drugs has become a lot tougher and the stakes are even higher.

It is a problem that requires an immediate and strong response from law enforcement. In the meantime, we all have a duty to report any suspected drug activity to law enforcement and to do everything possible to protect our families and loved ones from this devastating drug.

See original here:

War on drugs just got tougher - Watertown Public Opinion

Posted in War On Drugs | Comments Off on War on drugs just got tougher – Watertown Public Opinion