Daily Archives: January 9, 2022

Learning Objectives

For many decades, the United States has used several strategies to try to deal with drugs. These strategies generally fall into four categories: treatment, prevention, harm reduction, and, for certain drugs, criminalization and the use of the criminal justice system, or, as we will call it, the war on illegal drugs. We now turn to these strategies.

Treatment programs are intended for people who already are using drugs, perceive they have a drug problem, and want to reduce or eliminate their drug use. This strategy is probably familiar to most readers, even if they have not used drugs themselves or at least have not had the benefit of a treatment program. Treatment programs often involve a group setting, but many drug users also receive individual treatment from a psychiatrist, psychologist, or drug counselor. Perhaps the most famous treatment program is Alcoholics Anonymous, a program that involves alcoholics meeting in a group setting, acknowledging their drinking problem and its effects on family members and other loved ones, and listening to each other talk about their situations. Other group settings are residential settings, sometimes called detox units. In these settings, people check themselves into an institution and stay there for several weeks until they and the professionals who treat them are satisfied. Perhaps the most famous residential treatment program is the Betty Ford Center in Rancho Mirage, California; this center was established by and named after an acknowledged alcoholic who was the wife of President Gerald Ford.

The Betty Ford Center is a residential detox unit for people with alcohol and other drug problems.

In addition to or in conjunction with group treatment programs, individual treatment for drug addiction may involve the use of good drugs designed to help wean addicts off the drug to which they are addicted. For example, nicotine gum, patches, and other products are designed to help cigarette smokers stop smoking.

The various forms of treatment can be very effective for some addicts and less effective or not effective at all for other addicts; most treatment programs have a high failure rate (Goode, 2012). A sociological perspective suggests that however effective treatment might be for some people, the origins of drug use ultimately lie in the larger societyits social structure, social interaction, and the drug cultureand that these roots must be addressed for serious reductions in drug use to occur.

Because it is always best to try to prevent a problem before it begins, an important strategy to deal with drug use involves prevention. The major prevention strategies involve drug education or drug testing (Faupel et al., 2010). Many education-based prevention programs focus on children and adolescents. This focus reflects the fact that use of most drugs begins during adolescence, and that if adolescents do not begin using drugs during this period of their lives, they are much less likely to do so when they become adults. Some education strategies follow what is called an informational model: they involve public-service advertising, the distribution of drug pamphlets in medical offices, and other such efforts. Several studies question the effectiveness of strategies based on this model (Faupel et al., 2010).

Other education programs take place in the secondary school system and on college campuses. The most famous such program is almost certainly DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education), which involves police officers speaking to middle-school children. DARE programs have been carried out in more than 7,000 schools across the nation. However, several studies find that DARE programs do not generally reduce subsequent drug use among the children who attend them compared to children who do not attend them (Faupel et al., 2010).

Drug testing is very common in todays society, and you may well have been required to have a drug test as part of an application for a job, involvement in a school sport, or other activity. At least half of US workplaces now perform required drug tests. Drug testing is expensive, and many critics say it is not cost-effective in view of the low prevalence of illegal drug use in the United States (Faupel et al., 2010).

A third strategy involves harm reduction. As this term implies, this strategy attempts to minimize the harm caused by drugs. It recognizes that many people will use drugs despite efforts to prevent or persuade them from doing so and despite any punishment they might receive for using illegal drugs. Our nation is currently using a harm reduction approach with regard to alcohol and tobacco. It recognizes that tens of millions of people use these products, and designated-driving programs and other efforts try to minimize the considerable harm these two drugs cause.

A specific harm reduction strategy with regard to illegal drugs is the provision of clean, sterile needles for people who inject themselves with heroin, cocaine/crack, or other drugs. Many of these users share needles, and this sharing spreads HIV, hepatitis, and other diseases. If they have a supply to sterile needles, the reasoning goes, the transmission of these diseases will be reduced even if use of the drugs with the aid of the needles does not reduce. Critics say the provision of sterile needles in effect says that drug use is OK and may even encourage drug use. Proponents reply that needle-based drug use will occur whether or not sterile needles are provided, and that the provision of sterile needles does more good than harm. Other nations have adopted this type of harm reduction much more extensively than the United States.

Another harm reduction strategy involves the use of drug courts, which began in the 1990s and now number more than 2,500 across the United States. In these courts, drug offenders who have been arrested and found guilty are sentenced to drug treatment and counseling rather than to jail or prison. Evaluation studies show that the courts save much money compared to imprisoning drug offenders and that they are more effective than imprisonment in reducing the offenders drug habit (Stinchcomb, 2010).

Law Enforcement against Prohibition

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) is an organization of current and former police and other criminal justice professionals, including prosecutors, judges, and FBI agents, who advocate for the legalization of illegal drugs. Because many of these professionals were on the front lines in the war against drugs and often put their lives in danger, their views about drug policy cannot be dismissed lightly.

One of their members is MacKenzie Allen, a 65-year-old deputy sheriff who worked in Los Angeles and Seattle, including time as an undercover agent who bought illegal drugs and made countless arrests for drug offenses. Although Allen strongly disapproves of drug use, his many years in law enforcement led him to realize that the drug problem is best understood as a public health problem, not a legal problem. He notes that the United States has lowered cigarette use through public education and without outlawing cigarettes. Can you imagine the mayhem had we outlawed cigarettes? he writes. Can you envision the cigarette cartels and the bloodbath that would follow? Yet, thanks to a public awareness campaign weve made a huge dent in tobacco use without arresting a single cigarette smoker.

Allen adds that most of the problems associated with illegal drug use are actually the result of the laws against drugs. These laws create a huge illegal market, much of it involving violent cartels, he says, that promises strong profits for the manufacturers and sellers of illegal drugs. He is also critical of other aspects of the war on drugs:

Another LEAP member is Joseph D. McNamara, the former police chief of San Jose, California. McNamara also criticizes the violence resulting from the laws against drugs. Like an increasing number of law enforcers, he writes specifically about marijuana, I have learned that most bad things about marijuanaespecially the violence made inevitable by an obscenely profitable black marketare caused by the prohibition, not by the plant. He continues, Al Capone and his rivals made machine-gun battles a staple of 1920s city street life when they fought to control the illegal alcohol market. No one today shoots up the local neighborhood to compete in the beer marketHow much did the [Mexican] cartels make last year dealing in Budweiser, Corona or Dos Equis? Legalization would seriously cripple their operations.

As these statements indicate, the legal war on drugs has had many costs. It is difficult to know what to do about illegal drugs, but in bringing these costs to the attention of elected officials and the American public, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition is making a difference. For further information about LEAP, visit copssaylegalizedrugs.com.

Sources: Allen, 2001; Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, 2011; McNamara, 2010

The most controversial drug strategy involves the criminalization of many drugs and the use of the police and the rest of the criminal justice system to apprehend and punish the users, manufacturers, and sellers of illegal drugs. As the brief history of drug use at the beginning of this chapter indicated, the United States has banned certain drugs since the late nineteenth century, and it accelerated this effort during the 1970s and 1980s as concern grew about heroin, crack, and other drugs.

In judging the war on illegal drugs, two considerations should be kept in mind (Meier & Geis, 2007). One consideration is the philosophical question of the extent to which the government in a free society should outlaw behaviors that may be harmful even if people (lets assume we are talking about legal adults) want to engage in them. Americans do all kinds of things that may harm themselves and that may directly or indirectly harm other people. For example, many Americans eat high amounts of candy, ice cream, potato chips, hamburgers, and other fat food that causes obesity, great harm to individual health, premature death and bereavement, and tens of billions of dollars in health costs and lost productivity annually. Although obesity almost certainly causes more harm overall than illegal drugs, no one is about to say that the use of fat food should be banned or restricted, although some schools and workplaces have removed candy and soda machines. Americans also engage in many other activities that can be very harmful, including downhill skiing, contact sports, skydiving, and any number of other activities, but no one is about to say that we should be prohibited from engaging in these efforts. Where is the logic, then, in allowing all these behaviors and in not allowing the use of certain drugs? A philosophical argument can be made that all drug use should, in fact, be allowed in a free society (Husak, 2002), and perhaps this is an issue that you and your classmates will want to discuss.

The second consideration is the social science question of whether laws against drugs do more good than harm, or more harm than good. In a rational society, if a law or policy does more good than harm, then we should have the law or policy. However, if it does more harm than good, however much good it might do, then we should not have it, because the harm outweighs the good.

In considering this issue, critics of drug laws say they do much more harm than good, and they often cite Prohibition as an example of this dynamic. Prohibition was repealed because our society decided it was doing much more harm than good and was thus a triumphant failure, as one author has called this period of our history (Okrent, 2011, p. 67). Prohibition caused several harms: (1) the rise of organized crime to earn illegal profits from the manufacture, distribution, and sale of alcohol; (2) the violence and murder among organized crime gangs that fought each other over drug turf; (3) the wounding and death of innocent bystanders from gunfights between organized crime gangs; (4) the wounding and murder of police officers who enforced Prohibition; (5) rampant corruption among police officers and political officials who took money from organized crime to ignore violations of Prohibition; and (6) the expenditure of much time, money, and energy by the criminal justice system to enforce Prohibition.

Prohibition did reduce drinking and the violence associated with drinking. But some scholars say that the organized crime violence caused by Prohibition was so common and deadly that the homicide rate grew during Prohibition rather than lessening (Jensen, 2000), though other scholars dispute this finding (Owens, 2011). In yet another problem, many people during Prohibition became sick and/or died from drinking tainted liquor. Because alcohol was no longer regulated, illegal alcohol often contained, by accident or design, dangerous substances. As an example, 15,000 people in the Midwest became sick with a severe neurological problem after drinking an illegal alcohol laced with a paint thinner chemical (Genzlinger, 2011).

Critics of todays war on illegal drugs say that it has reproduced the same problems that Prohibition produced. Among these problems are the following:

One of the harms associated with the war on drugs is that police officers die in the line of duty when they are killed by drug sellers or users.

Because of all these problems, drug law critics say, the United States should legalize marijuana, the most benign illegal drug, and seriously consider legalizing some or all other illegal drugs.

Proponents of the drug war reply that if drugs were legalized or decriminalized (still against the law, but violations would be treated like traffic offenses), many more people would use the newly legal drugs, and the problems these drugs cause would increase. Responding to this argument, drug law critics say it is not at all certain that drug use would increase if drugs were legalized. To support their view, they cite two pieces of evidence.

First, illegal drugs are relatively easy to obtain and use without fear of arrest. If people have decided not to use illegal drugs now, it is unlikely they will use them if the drugs were legalized. Support for this argument comes from national data on high school seniors (Johnston, OMalley, Bachman, & Schulenberg, 2011). In 2010, 82 percent of seniors said they could easily obtain marijuana, and 35.5 percent said they could easily obtain cocaine. Despite these numbers, only 35 percent had used marijuana in the past year, and only 3 percent had used cocaine in the past year.

Second, marijuana use in the United States decreased in the 1970s and 1980s after several states decriminalized it. As we noted earlier, marijuana use also declined in the Netherlands after they decriminalized the drug in the 1970s. Moreover, even though use of marijuana is legal in the Netherlands, its rate of marijuana use is no higher than the rate of marijuana use in the United States (Drug Policy Alliance, 2012). In another international comparison, Portugal decriminalized possession of all drugs in 2001; after it did so, teenage drug use declined (see Note 7.28 Lessons from Other Societies).

At this point, it is impossible to know how much, if at all, the use of illegal drugs would rise if they were legalized. Critics of the drug war say that even if the use of drugs did rise, the benefits of legalizing or decriminalizing them would still outweigh the disadvantages (Feiling, 2010).

What Happened after the Netherlands and Portugal Decriminalized Drugs?

As the United States ponders its drug policy, the experience of the Netherlands and Portugal provides some provocative lessons.

The Netherlands decriminalized drugs in 1976. Under the Netherlands policy, although criminal penalties remain for possessing hard drugs (cocaine, heroin, etc.) and large quantities of marijuana, drug users are not normally arrested for possessing drugs, but they must receive drug treatment if they are arrested for another reason. Drug sellers are not normally arrested for selling small amounts of drugs, but they may be arrested for selling them in large. Marijuana use in the Netherlands dropped in the immediate years after it was decriminalized. Although it increased somewhat since then, as in some other nations, it remains much lower than the US rate. According to the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 23 percent of Dutch residents ages 1564 have used cannabis at least once in their lives, compared to 40 percent of Americans ages 12 and older (2005 figures). Dutch use of cocaine and heroin also remains much lower than American use. Reflecting the Netherlands experience, most of the nations in Western Europe have also decriminalized marijuana possession and use, and their rates of marijuana use also remain lower than the US rate.

In 2001, Portugal became the first European nation to remove all criminal penalties for drug possession. Portugal took this step because it reasoned that fear of arrest keeps drug addicts from seeking help and because it recognized that drug treatment costs far less than imprisonment. Anyone convicted of drug possession is sent for drug treatment, but the person may refuse treatment without any penalty.

In the first five years after Portugal decriminalized all drug possession, teenaged illegal drug use declined, new HIV infections from sharing needles declined, and the prison population also declined. Meanwhile, the number of drug addicts receiving treatment increased by 41 percent. A researcher who reported these trends commented, Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success. It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does. A Portuguese drug official agreed, The impact [of drugs] in the life of families and our society is much lower than it was before decriminalization, and noted that police are now freer to spend more time and energy on high-level dealers. Adult drug use in Portugal has risen slightly since 2001, but so has adult drug use in other European nations that did not decriminalize drugs. Portugals increase has not been higher than these other nations increase.

Although the Netherlands, Portugal, and other Western European nations certainly differ from the United States in many ways, their experience strongly suggests that decriminalization of drugs may cause much more good than harm. If so, the United States has important lessons to learn from their experiences.

Sources: Hughes & Stevens, 2010; Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2008; Reinarman & Hendrien, 2004; Szaalavitz, 2009; Tracey & Jahromi, 2010

Allen, M. (2011, February 23). Why this cop asked the President about legalizing drugs. Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mackenzie-allen/why-this-cop-asked-the-pr_b_827338.html.

Blow, C. M. (2011, June 11). Drug bust. New York Times, p. A21.

Drug Policy Alliance. (2012). Drug policy around the world: The Netherlands. Retrieved from http://www.drugpolicy.org/facts/drug-facts/marijuana-facts#medical.

Faupel, C. E., Horowitz, A. M., & Weaver., G. S. (2010). The sociology of American drug use. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2011). Crime in the United States, 2010. Washington, DC: Author.

Genzlinger, N. (2011, October 1). Bellying up to the time when America went dry. New York Times, p. C1.

Goode, E. (2012). Drugs in American society (8th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Hughes, C. E., & Stevens, A. (2010). What can we learn from the Portuguese decriminalization of illicit drugs? British Journal of Criminology, 50(6), 9991022.

Husak, D. (2002). Legalize this! The case for decriminalizing drugs. New York, NY: Verso Books.

Jensen, G. F. (2000). Prohibition, alcohol, and murder: Untangling counterveiling mechanisms. Homicide Studies, 4, 1836.

Johnston, L. D., OMalley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E. (2011). Monitoring the future. National results on adolescent drug use: Overview of key findings, 2010 Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. (2011). Ending the Drug War: A Dream Deferred. Medford, MA: Author.

McNamara, J. D. (2010, July 25). Legalize pot, former San Jose police chief says. San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved from http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/25/IN1K1EGQRJ.DTL.

McVay, D. A. (n.d.). Drug War Facts (6th ed.). Retrieved from http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms.

Meier, R. F., & Geis, G. (2007). Criminal justice and moral issues. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2008). FAQ drugs: A guide to drug policy. Retrieved from http://www.minbuza.nl.

Okrent, D. (2011). Last call: The rise and fall of prohibition. New York, NY: Scribner.Owens, E. G. (2011, October 2). The (not so) roaring 20s. New York Times, p. SR12.

Reinarman, C., Cohen, P. D. A., & Hendrien, K. L. (2004). The limited relevance of drug policy: Cannabis in Amsterdam and in San Francisco. American Journal of Public Health, 94, 836842.

Stinchcomb, J. B. (2010). Drug courts: Conceptual foundation, empirical findings, and policy implications. Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy, 17(2), 148167.

Szaalavitz, M. (2009, April 20). Drugs in Portugal: Did decriminalization work? Time. Retrieved from http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,1893900.html.

Tracey, M., & Jahromi, N. (2010, December 15). Importing the Portuguese model of drug reform. The Nation. Retrieved from http://www.thenation.com/article/157124/importing-portuguese-model-drug-reform.

Read the original here:

7.5 Drug Policy and the War on Illegal Drugs Social Problems

The War On Drugs are scheduled to head out on tour this winter in support of I Dont Live Here Anymore, this websites favorite album of 2021. The tour is still happening, but due to the ongoing COVID surge thanks to the Omicron variant, the band has adjusted its plans.

In a message on the groups official website, Adam Granduciel explains that the War On Drugs have cancelled their Feb. 5 and 6 shows in Toronto due to the government of Ontarios indoor capacity restrictions. Those gigs have been replaced by gigs in Pittsburgh and Cincinnati, and Granduciel promises the band will make it to Toronto later this year to continue the bands treasured relationship with the city.

Granduciel is also kindly requesting that everyone wear a mask to the shows. I know were all over masks but for one, it makes me more at ease cuz now I dont get self conscious (and dark) when I see yall yawn out there, he writes, but also because we want our fans, our crew and our band to stay healthy so we can honor the commitments weve made to every city on this tour.

Finally, in order to exist within the tightest possible tour bubble, there will be no support acts on the tour. Granduciel shared extensive appreciations of each of the artists who are being booted from the shows, including Lo Moon, Caroline Kingsbury, Rosali, Joseph Shabason, and TOMI. It sounds like he has genuine affection for both Toronto and the no-longer-opening bands.

Heres the full message:

Hi all, just wanted to give a quick update about our US tour that begins in Austin on January 19th.

First off, were disappointed to announce that due to the government of Ontarios indoor capacity restrictions, our Toronto shows on February 5 and 6 at the Queen Elizabeth Theatre have unfortunately been cancelled. Automatic refunds will be issued to all ticket holders in the next 30 days.

Weve always loved playing for you in Toronto and have had some of our most memorable nights as a band there playing like a hurricane at Massey Hall in 2017, the power going out an hour before our show at Lees Palace in 2014, playing two sweaty, sold out horseshoe Tavern shows, the massive Slave Ambient artwork/window display that the folks at Soundscapes made for us (that I still cherish). Were so disappointed to be doing this, but we promise well make it up to you in 2022 (and beyond). Wheels are already in motion as they say

Weve added a show in Pittsburgh (Feb 5) as well as a show in Cincinnati (Feb 6). Yay! Tickets for those are available on our website. Obviously, were beyond excited for these additions.

Were also requesting that as many of you as possible wear a mask when you come see us play this tour especially if youre in the first few (50) rows. I know were all over masks but for one, it makes me more at ease cuz now I dont get self conscious (and dark) when I see yall yawn out there but also because we want our fans, our crew and our band to stay healthy so we can honor the commitments weve made to every city on this tour. Seriously, we would really appreciate it.

Second, due to this latest Covid surge and our need to exist within the tightest possible tour bubble, there will be no support acts on this run. We know how excited all of the opening acts were for this tour and we sincerely appreciate them being so fn understanding.

Lo Moon was scheduled to be with us through Atlanta. We met years ago when Charlie was asked to play on their wonderful and CLASSIC debut record, Lo Moon. We became fast friends and theyll still be joining us as MAIN SUPPORT on our EU/UK tour in March and April. Were beyond excited to travel around with them. Their new song Dream Never Dies is out now!

Caroline Kingsbury wrote me out of the blue on Instagram asking to open our tour when we announced it back in July. I had never heard of her but I listened to a few songs and I knew SHE NEEDED TO PLAY MADISON SQUARE GARDEN. Big songs, big voice. Great hooks. I loved it. Please check her out and support her when she comes through your town. I know that well be doing some shows together this year one way or another.

Our friend Rosali from Philly was going to play all the midwest shows with us since she has relocated to the rural calm of Michigan. Every one of her records is on heavy rotation at one point or another and her latest record, No Medium is a true stunner. She makes singing and writing songs sound easy and effortless. maybe it iswhat a life. we love you Rosali! Were gonna miss playing Birds of Paradise and Because the Night with you every night :((((

We became instant friends with Toronto native Joseph Shabason when we opened for Destroyer in 2011 on the most epic 7 week tour Ive ever been on 6 months before Slave Ambient came out. Basically Chris Koltay was forcing us to go to Culvers to eat butter biscuits and Joseph was also DYING to go to Culvers So he ditched the comforts of the Destroyer tour bus and enjoyed some of the biscuits that Koltay had ordered for the table. Weve been close ever since. Honestly this guys got a million great records to his name. We suggest you check them all out. He also played saxophone on the outro of Eyes to the Wind.

Finally, when Shawn and I were mixing our record into some sort of strange mush back in late 2020 I remember hearing 3 songs on repeat coming from his kitchen. Having no luck with Shazam I asked his wife what I was listening to. It was rough mixes of what would become TOMIs Sweet, Sweet Honey EP and I fell in love with it immediately. I was really looking forward to hearing her sing these songs down the west coast but thatll have to wait until some other time!!

okwow, king of social media. thank you and we love you all. We cant wait to see you. Its been a long road. Were beyond excited. Take care of one another xoxo

Read the original:

The War On Drugs Drop Opening Acts, Adjust Tour Schedule Due To Omicron - Stereogum

Among the victories of Saudi Arabia and Vision 2030 is the winning war against drugs. The government has seized enormous quantities of drugs this year and it is not the first time that this happens in the GCC nation. However, control over drug dealing and smuggling is one thing that the country has gotten the grasp of in 2021.

Between the years 2015 and 2019, a lot of Captagon pills, also known as synthetic amphetamine, were hauled in the Middle East. Half of the pills taken were actually in Saudi Arabia, according to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime. This has raised concerns that maybe those drug operations were to help and support terrorist networks. The terrorist group Hezbollah, for instance, was a primary suspect of the major productions of Marijuana and Captagon.

Since this issue came to light, the Kingdom has done immaculate work to fight drugs. Starting with a campaign against it, their mission is to: protect society, support the national economy and improve international trade, according to The National.

Just that past year, Saudi Arabia has taken a hold of copious amounts of illegal drugs and smuggled alcohol. With a breaking record of 37,000 kilograms of drugs and 4,155 liters of alcohol, the drugs included hashish, heroin, cocaine, etc. Evidently, the Syrian authorities hauled 500 kilograms of Capatagon pills that were headed to the Kingdom. More of these pills were smuggled from Lebanon. The amount was staggering that a Saudi official said, The quantity of drugs and psychotropics smuggled from Lebanon is enough to drown not only Saudi Arabia but also the entire Arab world. Consequently, Saudi Arabia banned fresh produce shipments from Lebanon, as a way to control the situation.

Seizing such a respectful quantity, only emphasized the Kingdoms success in asserting control over imports and exports. An example of measures taken to protect the nation includes 41 ports around the country equipped with modern security techniques, K-9 units among other ways to detect illegal substances. Additionally, there are ways for people to tip-off the government and report any drug-related case. People can contact this number, 00966114208417, or send an email to 1910@zatca.gov.sa for tip-offs.

See more here:

Saudi's War on Drugs: The Plan and How Serious It All Is - Scoop Empire

The War on Drugs stopped by The Ellen Degeneres Show with Lucius to perform the title track from their 2021 album I Dont Live Here Anymore. Check it out below.

The band has also launched Season 2 of The Super High Quality Podcast; the new season is a four-part audio documentary centered on the people, places, and things that define I Dont Live Here Anymore. Host and guitar tech Dominic East details the albums progression from the 2018 demo sessions, the 2019 full-band recordings, and the 2021 rehearsals at which the War on Drugs reunited after 18 months apart.

The War on Drugs first shared a video for I Dont Live Here Anymore in September. The first season of The Super High Quality Podcast launched in November 2020.

Check out Pitchforks interview The War on Drugs Find Lightness on the Edge of Town.

This content can also be viewed on the site it originates from.

Go here to read the rest:

Watch the War on Drugs and Lucius Perform I Don't Live Here Anymore on Ellen - Pitchfork

Legalizing recreational pot is good news to a lot of the region's residents.

Politicians, business owners, lawyers and activists have been quoted extensively on what they think about the legalization of recreational marijuana. So The Day posed a questionto readers to find out what residents in southeastern Connecticut think.

The legislature passed a recreational cannabis bill last year. Provisions of the law prohibit police from citing the smell of marijuana as a reason for probable cause to stop or search a person's car, enable people to possess up to 1.5 ounces of cannabis and grow their ownmarijuana, and aim to award retaillicenses to those who have been disproportionately impacted by the war on drugs, among other stipulations.

The Day asked readers: Would you be opposed to having a dispensary in your town? Why or why not? And, do you find legalization to be a positive or a negative development, why or why not? With nearly 100 responses, this story could only quote a selection of respondents while summarizing the opinions of others.

Day reader Sarah Woodin said she feels "cannabis consumption is at least as safe as alcohol consumption and should be treated as such." Will Shanahan said legalization is "good for the economy and people shouldn't be in jail for weed."

These two answers reflected the dominant thinking in the query responses. Readers talked increased tax revenue and money for both the state and municipalities. They said having a dispensary in town would actually be better than the high number of bars and liquor stores. And they said using weed should not be a crime.

"We incarcerate non-whites more than whites, our prison system should not be as large, private, or for profit as it is, and if you really want to debate the medical and effects on society then most prescription drugs should be illegal as well as tobacco and alcohol, while marijuana should be available for anyone of legal adult age - 18," said a respondent who went by theinitials C.S.

Others also touched on what became an ongoing discussion during legislative debate to legalize recreational marijuana: how the war on drugs targeted people of color for incarceration.

"I feel marijuana is safer than alcohol, and the reason it was illegal was more about controlling people (mostly people of color) and not about harm reduction," Stephen Schofield said.

Respondent Carter Courtney said something similar: "Thousands of lives will not be ruined by overzealous police and prosecutors, and jail populations will decrease."

Some respondents, including Tom Donnee, said people are going to use marijuana whether it's legal or illegal. "Arrests have done nothing but ruin people's lives," he said.

Susan Dombrowski was adamant. "It's literally a weed," she said. "Get over it already. People in jail for selling plants, in America? Ridiculous!"

Jan Magnussen said cannabis, like alcohol, should be legal, controlled and taxed, as that will "remove income from criminal networks, and avoid criminally charging people for use."

Other respondents also said legal retail sale of marijuana would stop people from buying or selling it on the streets.

Though Chris Jawaka said legalization is a positive development, he isn't sure it will stop the "black market." "The problem is that the legal retail stores are going to be forced to charge so much in taxes that it's not going to do anything to put the street dealers out of business," he said.

Lauren Davis said legal sale of marijuana "reduces the risk of consuming street-bought substances possibly laced or tampered with."

Liquor vs. marijuana

Greg Ellis said marijuana is no worse than liquor or cigarettes, "in fact, it can be argued it is safer than either and it has been shown to have medical benefit."

"Towns have zero issue selling liquor or tobacco at any gas station or even within a few hundred feet of a school," he added."To deny a dispensary the same standing is puritan hypocrisy."

Rob Justice said marijuana is "definitely not as dangerous as alcohol, both in terms of behavior and health." And Vana Parker called cannabis a "natural medicine" that is "far better for us than alcohol."

Thomas Moriarty had a local twist on the subject: "East Lyme has seven package stores, why not one outlet that sells a different intoxicant?"

Maria Bareiss said what several other respondents noted about New London and Norwich that the cities could use the economic boost of marijuana businesses before saying New London "could afford to lose about half our liquor stores."

"I would happily have three dispensaries and three liquor stores," she added.

Ken Mayer pointed out that, "We currently have liquor stores, sell cigarettes and have a 'gentlemen's club' in town," and adding a dispensary to the mix wouldn't be a negative.

Dean Morse argued that legalization was delayed for years "due to total ignorance and lobbying from the liquor industry. Marijuana stores should have been open long ago."

Economic incentive

Day readers extolled legalization's effect on state and local economies, in particular the ripple effect of having more businesses in cities such as New London and Norwich.

According to the state law, whichtook effect July 1, municipalities have the discretion to allow or prohibit cannabis businesses within their borders, as well as regulate signs and operating hours of such businesses. In October, Stonington residents voted 2,106 to 1,816 to allow cannabis businesses in town. Just this month, the Stonington Planning and Zoning Commission agreed to seek a six-month moratorium on accepting applications from anyone who wants to operate such a business in town.

The Waterford Planning and Zoning Commission voted in December to place a moratorium on the application, installation and creation of any cannabis establishment fora year until the commission adopts regulations in support or against such establishments.

In November, more than 100 people gathered in downtown Norwich to hear the nuts and bolts of the new law, how to get into the business and how it could benefit the city financially. Mayor Peter Nystrom greeted the collection of entrepreneurs, residents, city leaders and curious attendees by admitting he was a "naysayer" a couple years ago when the state considered legalizing recreational cannabis. "But I'm a realist," he said, accepting that the new law could benefit Norwich.

In Preston, the Planning and Zoning Commission last year approved a six-month moratorium on cannabis establishments to allow time to review the new state law legalizing cannabis growing and retail sales and adjust zoning regulations. The state law allows towns with up to 25,000 residents including Preston to have one retail cannabis establishment and one "micro-cultivator," defined as a licensed grower with between 2,000 and 10,000 square feet of growing space. These restrictions are in place through June 30, 2024, when the state may consider increasing them.

Discussions on how to handle legalization and possible moratoriums have been ongoing in East Lyme, Old Lyme, Montville, New London and Groton, as well, with New London and Montville municipal leaders in particular expressing support for the new law.

Joshua Kellytold The Day thathaving a dispensary in town "means we get 3% sales tax revenue, I'd rather have that than have a dispensary one town over and let them get that revenue."

Liz Richard said revenue from legalization will "benefit every town with a dispensary, for exposure, for connecting communities and building trust between law enforcement and citizens."

Jeff H. said legalization will bring a considerable tax benefit to towns "to afford to pay for education and health needs."

Multiple people said they'd welcome a dispensary in Norwich.

"I have multiple sclerosis and I go to the local dispensary, I would love one here in Norwich," Chiara Garrison said.

Respondent B.T., who is supportive of a recreational dispensary in Norwich, said legalization has afforded "a once-in-a-lifetime chance to capitalize on an economic opportunity that has the potential to fill vacant mills and storefronts in Norwich's struggling downtown and in areas such as Greeneville and Taftville."

"As a community disproportionately affected by the failed War on Drugs, Norwich should seize the chance to revitalize its local economy by being a hub for recreational cannabis in Southeastern Connecticut," B.T. added.

Opposition

A small number of respondents opposed legalization and the possibility of retail recreational marijuana purveyors on mostly moral grounds. Some argued the health effects could be destructive.

Joe McCoy took issue with the fact that marijuana has not been federally legalized. "No matter what the State of Connecticut says, marijuana is not legal in any state for any purpose at all," he said. "State nullification of federal law will lead to more of the same thing. It's primarily blue states that are nullifying pot laws. This can lead to red states nullifying other laws."

Others also said they'd be opposed to it because cannabis isn't legal on the federal level.

Some expressed opposition because of a supposed effect on young people.

"I would be fully opposed due to the increase in minors having better access as well as an unnecessary abundance of out-of-town traffic coming to pick up a still federally illegal substance," Justin B. said.

George Sprecace contended that, "The current younger generations already have an overabundance of stupids! And immatures."

Raymond Cieplik and others said the impact of marijuana on the developing brains of young people is unknown and "pot will make its way to kids as it becomes more accessible."

Nanette Hay said she doesn't want to drive "with people under the influence" of marijuana.

Michael Silvia said, "We already have enough people sitting around with their heads in the clouds," adding that a dispensary will only attract "unproductive people."

Richard Pascal said the law essentially authorizes "additional buzzed driving." He added, "Society should be consistent in its efforts to decrease drugged or drunk citizens. Never mind the harmful health effects with smoking that marijuana causes, and there are reported negative effects on personality and the brain. They call it 'dope' for a reason. Society needs more productive citizens, not less productive ones."

Frederick Shakir put it succinctly: "Promoting intoxication is bad for the individual and for the society."

Dave Nowakowski said he didn't find the legislature passed thismeasure in good faith. "I feel the legislature passed the law based mostly on tax income potential and competition with neighboring states," he said,"as opposed to best interests of the residents of CT, particularly our underage residents."

s.spinella@theday.com

Read more here:

The Day - What Day readers think of marijuana legalization - News from southeastern Connecticut - theday.com

The nominees for international group of the year at Februarys Brit Awards are truly international: Theres ABBA from Sweden, BTS from South Korea, Mneskin from Italy, and two American acts R&B superduo Silk Sonic and rock band The War on Drugs.

See latest videos, charts and news

See latest videos, charts and news

This is the second nomination in that category for both BTS, who lost last year to HAIM, and The War on Drugs, who lost in 2015 to Foo Fighters. (In Britain, of course, American acts, such as HAIM and Foo Fighters, are considered international.)

Despite the Grammys recent postponement of their planned Jan. 31 show to the spring due to the fast-spreading Omicron variant, the Brit Awards are still on for Feb. 8 at The O2 Arena in London.

Five American acts are competing for international artist of the year Billie Eilish, Doja Cat, Lil Nas X, Olivia Rodrigo and Taylor Swift.

This marks the first time in 29 years that the Brits will present one, gender-neutral category for international solo artists. Two of this years nominees won in the defunct international female solo artist category. Eilish won that award in both 2020 and 2021. Swift won it in 2015; she was nominated three other times, losing to Lana Del Rey (2013), Lorde (2018) and Eilish (2021).

A total of 25 artists are nominated for best international song at this years Brits. (Fifteen singles are nominated, but six are by multiple artists). The roster includes nine artists from the U.S. (Eilish, Doja Cat, SZA, Lil Baby, Lil Nas X, Lil Tjay, 6lack, Rodrigo and Polo G), three from Canada (Drake, Justin Bieber and The Weeknd), three from Germany (ATB, Topic and Jonasu), two from Nigeria (CKay and Joeboy), two from Sweden (A7S and Galantis), and one each from Australia (The Kid LAROI), Ghana (Kuami Eugene), France (David Guetta), Britain (Little Mix), Italy (Mneskin) and The Netherlands (Tisto).

In an odd twist, Frenchman Guetta is nominated for both song of the year, which is the province of British acts, and best international song, which is reserved for acts from outside of Britain. Thats because at least 50% of the artists on his two song of the year nominees are British. He teams with Joel Corry and Raye for Bed, and with Becky Hill for Remember.

But only one-third of the artists on his best international song contender, Heartbreak Anthem, are British. He teams on that record with Swedens Galantis and British group Little Mix. (This also explains why a British group is up for best international song.)

The award for international group was first presented in 1986. It has gone to 18 groups from the U.S., three from (or founded in) Australia (INXS, Crowded House and Tame Impala), two from Ireland (U2 and The Corrs), and one each from Canada (Arcade Fire) and France (Daft Punk).

Here are the nominees for 2022 Brit Awards in the three international categories:

International group:

ABBA

BTS

Mneskin

Silk Sonic

The War On Drugs

International artist:

Billie Eilish

Doja Cat

Lil Nas X

Olivia Rodrigo

Taylor Swift

Best international song:

ATB,Topic&A7S Your Love (9PM)

Billie Eilish Happier Than Ever

CKayfeaturingJoeboyandKuami Eugene Love Nwantiti Remix (Ah Ah Ah)

Doja CatfeaturingSZA Kiss Me More

DrakefeaturingLil Baby Girls Want Girls

Galantis,David Guetta&Little Mix Heartbreak Anthem

Jonasu Black Magic

The Kid LAROI.&Justin Bieber Stay

Lil Nas X Montero (Call Me by Your Name)

Lil Tjay&6lack Calling My Phone

Mneskin I Wanna Be Your Slave

Olivia Rodrigo Good 4 U

Polo G Rapstar

Tisto The Business

The Weeknd Save Your Tears

The winners in all three of these categories will be chosen by The Brits voting academy, which consists of industry professionals.

Originally posted here:

BTS, Maneskin & More Are International Nominees at the 2022 Brit Awards - Billboard

Major Curtiss Hartley| Columbia Daily Tribune

Sitting down to write this column, it is 12 degrees at lunch time in Columbia. So that means it will likely get a little warmer over the course of the day and then we are in for a cold, cold night. My smart phone tells me it should get down to about seven degrees.

Man, that is pretty cold. Thank goodness I am inside!

Sadly, not everyone is inside right now. Not everyone will be inside tonight.

Warm space to offer shelter to our neighbors facing homelessness is at a premium every Columbia winter. Night at the Inn is a wonderful community organization that basically only functions during the winter, out of various community churches, offering warm beds to as many as they can. John Trapp is one of Columbias leading advocates for those facing homelessness and he leads the board there.

Just this week it was in the news that temporary warming centers have been opened both by the City of Columbia and The Salvation Army. The city has put cots at Wabash bus station for weekend nights and we are adding as many as we can find at The Salvation Army Harbor House (our shelter for people facing homelesssness, pretty full year-round). Believe it or not, it can be hard to find enough cots to put out for this kind of thing!

Welcome Home (focused on veterans) and St. Francis House are the two other big options, and we are so lucky to have them. Yes, it is going to be a tough winter, with nowhere near enough community resources to meet the need.

Smack in the middle of tough times, here is a story that warms my heart that you might enjoy.

Just yesterday, we heard from one of our supporters here at The Salvation Army who has befriended and is trying to help a man who has been living unsheltered. What is his story? He hit hard times several years ago when he had an accident, was prescribed opiate-based painkillers (percocet), and got addicted (other than that he had not had problems with drugs or alcohol).

Fast forward and it has been five years since the gentleman got himself off of the percocet and he has been trying to get back on track. He moved to Columbia because he had been promised a job at a new restaurant an offer that quickly disappeared as COVID hit and the restaurant never opened. Our unsheltered friend has been struggling ever since.

Today, with nothing but a good heart and a story that might have happened to many of us, this fellow has just himself and the assistance of one person. For her part, she is helping him here and there where she can, including putting him up in one of our finest local, budget hotels (warm, dry, safe, and even with cable). We are hoping we can get him into The Salvation Army Harbor House as a resident, working toward his own job and housing.

So, that is the big deal for now. Certainly, this is always true, but for the next two months or so, we really should consider focusing our charitable impulses on issues of living and dying. When you consider where to give your time; when you consider where to give your money; there are so many great causes, but with the extreme cold there is extra urgency. Please, find a way to give time and money to organizations that help fight the cold.

One person can make a difference. Working together, we can make an even bigger one.

Major Curtiss Hartley is a leader of The Salvation Army in Mid-Missouri, with facilities in Columbia and Jefferson City. The Salvation Army provides a wide range of community services to address poverty and other issues, seeking to rebuild lives and create lasting change.

Visit link:

Columbia's War on Poverty: Fighting the cold - Columbia Daily Tribune