Send comments, tips,
and suggestions to:
DrugWarRant
Join us on Pete's couch.
couch

DrugWarRant.com, the longest running single-issue blog devoted to drug policy, is published by the Prohibition Isn't Free Foundation
facebooktwitterrss
October 2014
M T W T F S S
« Sep   Nov »
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Archives

Authors

Passing the blame

Recently, it seems like the Washington Post is trying to become the U.S. version of the Daily Mail, given its editorial section antipathy to marijuana.

This time, they give the platform to Roger Roffman, with whom I have had some disagreements in the past. He writes: Marijuana’s addictive risk shouldn’t be ignored.

In it, he talks about his own awareness that the way he was using marijuana was interfering with other things he wanted to do. Of course, he blames this on some evil property of marijuana itself rather than on his own decision-making and prioritization. It’s like blaming football addiction for your lack of cutting the lawn on Sunday. No, you just didn’t want to get your ass off the sofa.

Roffman wants education and treatment to be a necessary condition of marijuana legalization.

Hey, I’ve got no problem with making education and treatment available to those individuals like Roffman who have difficulty managing their lives, regardless of the activity with which they’re obsessed.

But to hold marijuana legalization hostage seems petty and irresponsible.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

50 comments to Passing the blame

  • When we talk about a problem like Roger Roffman’s we should first realize that we are talking about that small minority percentage (that the prohibitionists try to keep creeping up higher) of people who have a problem quitting marijuana. Its in the single digit numbers depending on which prohibitionist you listen to.

    Its seldom if ever a problem in the case of marijuana with physical withdrawal. Its all habitual and requires breaking a habit. Not like stopping smoking tobacco. Like stopping drinking coffee (without the headaches). For most users it requires no outside help or assistance.

    If we were to stop sending non problematic marijuana users to court mandated treatment that is unnecessary for the majority (except as a political tool used to control behavior) our nation would have no problem funding help for an individual like Roger. Without a percentage of the marijuana pie proceeds. The savings in court costs alone would more than pay for Roger and his low percentage ilk. We would also have many fewer assembly line cures from the mental health community who would now be centered on the real problems. Instead of collecting their assembly line fees.

    Poor Roger.

  • claygooding

    I have no problem with the passing of bills to cover the costs of marijuana addiction as long as after 2 years and no addiction costs have materialized it is cut from the taxes,,not just absorbed by the states legislature to cover other drugs addiction problems,,they seem to demand that marijuana take care of any problems it may cause but it shouldn’t take care addiction to other drugs.

  • divadab

    Typical right-wing prohibitionist projection – Roger is essentially saying “what’s true for me is true for you also. Since I can’t regulate myself neither can you and therefore we need big brother to regulate us for our own good.”

    What a weakling this Roger guy is – and he assumes everyone is weak like him. Well, we’re not. Your problem is your problem, not mine. IN fact, it’s only a problem for a small minority. Roger’s prescription is absurdly expensive, unnecessary, and an insult to any concept of liberty.

  • Frank W.

    There’s always the toxicology report that gets “leaked” and shows THC in the corpse’s body. And you can bet Action NewsTeam Fuck-all trumpets it all over creation as if they’re not deliberately inciting strife (Ferguson comes to mind). Why didn’t they trumpet the recent story about the NE treatment center mogul who got busted for scamming Medicare?

  • kaptinemo

    Shorter Roffman: adults must slurp pablum because babies can’t chew steak. The ‘steak’, in this case, being freedom.

    This is the same kind of puerile crap that Walter Lippmann wrote about long ago when he said that some people, to keep their hands from shaking, would voluntarily wear manacles.

    My viewpoint matches that of ol’ Tom Jefferson’s: “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery”

  • Servetus

    Education and treatment? Because the world is so stupid it doesn’t know how to smoke weed? B.S. It’s one of the few things people get right. Getting along with one another, not so much.

    Mr. Roffman’s problems with his wife Cheryl were likely the result of what I call mismatched highs. Roger Roffman is stoned, and Cheryl Roffman isn’t, so naturally there can develop some mental conflict or social disconnect in their relationship. It’s the same incompatibility one finds at parties when a person on Quaaludes mingles with another person on coke. Different highs are their own different universes.

    It’s too easy to blame a drug for one’s own personal failings. That’s why people do it. And in doing it, they give some drugs an undeservedly bad reputation.

    • claygooding

      Like nearly every person that got caught with marijuana,,it was the marijuana’s fault,,,”if I could have quit officer I would have” or some such drivel attempting to shift the blame from themselves to the weed.
      In the long run it did more harm than good because law enforcement began to believe marijuana was addictive enough to need prohibiting..

  • strayan

    If I play PC games all weekend and don’t pay any attention to my girlfriend, OF COURSE there is going to be some relationship dissatisfaction. That’s why I don’t play PC games all weekend. If I did play PC games all weekend and ignored the effect this was having on the relationship I’d just be an ‘asshole’. However, it’s much easier to blame those ‘damn addictive games’ (perhaps even for both parties), than confront the fact that their spouse is an asshole.

  • Accountability and responsibility – two words that are missing from Roger’s lexicon.

    The above posters said it as well as need be said.

    Apparently, the bottom line of some police departments are being affected by acceptanc of marijuana as medicine, as evidenced by the constant raids upon legal shops:

    http://www.enewspf.com/latest-news/health-and-fitness/56229-recent-police-raids-on-medical-marijuana-gardens-in-california-cut-off-treatment-for-children-living-with-epilepsy.html

  • claygooding

    halfway through the 3 day federal hearing on marijuana scheduling but haven’t found anyone posting updates,,I had hoped someone in the area would post highlights or perhaps record and post the testimony,,I so want to see the government hand a judge their science on the dangers of marijuana.

    • Crut

      .
      .
      No official statements yet, but here is an uplifting account from someone who attended the hearings: http://theleafonline.com/c/politics/2014/10/federal-prosecutors-appear-concede-cannabis-medical-benefits/

      • kaptinemo

        This is just the sort of thing I have been saying FOR YEARS must happen. The lies about cannabis must be publicly challenged in court…where there are penalties for telling those lies.

        Public ridicule of the lies – and the liars telling them – will go a long way to putting a stake in the heart of the monster. I get the distinct impression the prohibs assigned to this case are beginning to realize they’ve stepped into a minefield…a potentially career-destroying one.

        I wonder if I can interest them in some freshly-made petards. They’ll be needed to replace the ones they have already, the ones that they’re about to be hoist by.

      • allan

        Thanks for posting Crut, if that’s the card the feds are playing (discredit Carl Hart) they’re (to quote Jackson Browne) running on empty.

      • darkcycle

        Dr. Hart just slaughtered that prosecutor. It was brutal.

      • Tony Aroma

        I REALLY hate to bring it up, but this has all been done before. Way back in 1988 a federal judge issued the “monumental” decision that marijuana should NOT be in schedule 1. It still is. Just saying.

        25 Years Ago: DEA Judge Ruled Pot Should Be Reclassified Under Federal Law

        • Duncan20903

          .
          .

          Administrative law judges don’t make rulings, they make recommendations. Take a look at the very last sentence in his so called ruling. “The judge recommends that the Administrator transfer marijuana from schedule I to schedule II.”

          Recommends! What I really don’t understand is why the DEA stonewalled for 16 years. That in and of itself is the most compelling part of the ruling by judge Young indicating that the DEA is just plain lying. If they’d just gone ahead and heard the petition when it was the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs the body of evidence would have been much, much less compelling and they could have just gone ahead and ignored it anyway. The ruling by judge Young has already lost a lot of its moral authority simply because it was issued so long ago. Substances with accepted medicinal use can stop having accepted medical uses. (See: methaqualone) I wonder if we could scam anyone into believing that because of FDA approval that there are people who have taken to abusing maggots or leeches to get high and play perverted sex games?

          Sheesh, an administrative law judge’s title isn’t even properly capitalized.

    • kaptinemo

      “I so want to see the government hand a judge their science on the dangers of marijuana.”

      I do, too, That should be a single page, with very short text, consisting of two words: “Fifth Amendment.”

      Because just about all the prohibs have are discredited studies in which weasel-words like ‘could’…’should’…’ought’…’might’…” etc. figure prominently, but no solidly quantifiable proof regarding deleterious effects are ever supplied, just wild speculation with the above-mentioned weasel-words attached.

      Anything they say regarding the ‘danger’ of cannabis is bound to earn them a charge of perjury. They’ve been handed a revolver with all but one chamber loaded and told to play Russian Roulette. Only, it won’t be their brains that get splattered, but their careers; losing this case might get their names in the History books…for all the wrong reasons.

      • darkcycle

        Unfortunately, that California circuit court has had many of it’s rulings overturned by higher courts. It is considered a very liberal court I am told.

    • John

      I found a blog written by a lawyer in Sacramento called Eastern District of California Blog; he seems to be following the case closely and reporting what he finds:

      http://edca.typepad.com/eastern_district_of_calif/schweder-marijuana-case/

  • primus

    I get the feeling they didn’t do their homework. If they had watched even a couple of Dr. Hart’s YouTube videos, they would have prepared for an extra week. He is formidable, mainly because he doesn’t look like he has as much on the ball as he does. They underestimated him. They thought that with his unconventional appearance, the lack of M.D. after his name and some credibility destroying (in their minds) information about family members who had drug problems, that they could discredit him, and didn’t need anything more. I doubt the prosecutor could even read and understand the degree that Dr. Hart possesses in Psychopharmacology. They were oh, so wrong. Now that they have ceded that there IS medical use for cannabis, they have lost the case. It is improperly scheduled, and that is the crux of the matter. The rest is just more smoke and mirrors.

    • darkcycle

      Yeah, that was awesome. Total beatdown.
      I actually thought about neuropsychopharmacology, but it turned out I was better with software than hardware. I still find myself fascinated by that stuff.

  • Duncan20903

    .
    .

    One thing I’ve never regretted, actually that makes me feel like a flippin’ genius was not mating with a [expletive deleted] that didn’t share my way of life. If my wife were to ever say to me, “Your mind goes to a different place, and talking with you when you’re stoned is really frustrating. I can’t help but think that, if you really cared about me, you’d want to be with me. You, not the stoned you. I feel rejected by you, and it hurts.” My response would be, “That is me. You’re projecting sweetie. It’s you who’s rejecting me you dumb [expletive deleted]. If you don’t like it pack up your stuff and hit the road.” But I’m not just a flippin’ genius, I’m a lucky flippin’ genius because there just aren’t that many women out there like my girlie girl. It does appear to me that most guys get stuck with women like Cheryl. Hey, if he’s happy being whipped, who am I to disagree? (Cue the Eurythmics…)

    Frankly, as long as they leave me alone I really wouldn’t even fart in their general direction if they want to make me go listen to Roger or one of his clones regurgitate his brand of hogwash. Make me take a test to prove I’ve been listening. Blah blah Ginger Blah, no doubt. Quite frankly I don’t have much hope that we’re going to get much better and we can just laugh at the clowns behind their backs.

    One thing that I don’t for the life of me comprehend is why anyone would want to quit enjoying cannabis in the first place. Oh my word, would you look at this, I’m getting kicked in the kismet here. Yesterday I wrote a screed about my miserable experience with cocaine, the problems, near death, almost incarcerated, how could I have been so stupid piece which I ended up not posting because it contained too much soul nudity, had no significant relationship to drugs law reform beyond the fact that if life were an NFL game busting a guy for cocaine problems would be a 15 yard penalty for “piling on” and frankly there’s no particular reason why anyone would or should care about someone’s personal stupidity more than a quarter of a century in the past. Today that piece would be perfect counterpoint to the statement which opened this paragraph. Oh well, it doesn’t much change anything. That screed is only a mouseclick back but I’m still not going to post it for the reasons previously stated but with the fact that it would also just appear to be self serving tripe added.

    counterpoint: In music, counterpoint is the relationship between voices that are interdependent harmonically (polyphony) yet independent in rhythm and contour.

  • Duncan20903

    .
    .

    Ah heck, I forgot to mention that people need to keep in mind that it’s typical in the prohibitionist cohort that when the definition of a word annoys them they simply redefine the word. Since they’ve done that with the word “addiction” it’s just silly to argue that cannabis isn’t addictive, because it is. Of course now addiction is more of a mild annoyance than a horrid condition which makes life really suck but there you go.

    Oh, I’ve noticed that they’re having a little bit of trouble with their current project to redefine the word “freedom” to include the right to tell other people what to do. It makes me kind of hopeful that they won’t succeed with this one. It might have been a mistake to take on a word which affects more than a few percent of the population.

    You’ve got to remember that the rules are different when you’re through the looking glass.

    “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
    “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
    “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

  • claygooding

    Now there is a movement in Japan to plant hemp around the radiation leak zone because of the property of the hemp plant to eat the poisons and radiation.

    Sick me,,,I am wondering what a quarter ounce oz of Fukishima Rad will go for.

    • primus

      You want that ‘glow’ that comes only from radiation? I can see you now, walking down a dark street with your shirt off, just two glowing lungs floating along.

      • allan

        and when headlights are needed Clay just removes his pasties…

        • kaptinemo

          Hey, it works at Chernobyl. And Japan was a major producer of hemp until we infected them with our anti-cannabis neurosis during the Occupation. Now few Japanese even know they ever grew it, it’s been so thoroughly expunged from their culture.

          If we think we’re having trouble re-legalizing hemp in the West, give some thought to our fellow reformers in Japan and Russia and elsewhere, places that our anti-cannabis neurosis has been so deeply ingrained that reformers have to put up with much worse than we do.

          As you can see from the video, Reefer Madness is alive and well in The Land of The Rising Sun, and the prohibs did it to them. So much suffering to atone for…

        • NorCalNative

          Sorry Clay, I will NEVER get the image Primus and Alan present out of my mind.

          Funny stuff.

    • Servetus

      The U.S. Dept. of Energy tried this approach, not with hemp, but with just regular plants. It didn’t work. Bunnies who ate the radioactive plant material started glowing and hopping all over the place, spreading the radioactive menace far and wide. The experiment produced some radioactive beavers as well.

    • Duncan20903

      .
      .

      clay, it appears that lately you’ve been craving that warm thrill of confusion, that space cadet glow. Are you expecting the imminent arrival of the worms?

      I did mean to answer your question about vaping coca leaves in the boycott cocaine thread. I’ll do that now, but it does come with a price and you should keep in mind that this is (barely) educated speculation.

      I’m just about certain that it would work if the leaves were dried (cured?) well and finely ground to increase surface area by as much as possible. Then you’ve got to figure out the optimal temp. I highly doubt that it’s the same as cannabis, probably much lower. As I understand it the reason why powder can’t be smoked is because the cocaine is destroyed by the heat before it starts to smoke. That’s why people make crack, because it lowers the temp required to start producing fumes.

      The only other thing that I can imagine would make that flop is that the percentage of cocaine in a pile of coca leaves is too small to make it work.

      .Oh, now your price. No money, just a small favor. If you ever actually do this you need to tell me that it didn’t work or never mention it, your choice. Regardless of my problems it’s got no upside and lots and lots of downside risk if it works and were to become public knowledge.

      /snip/
      Are there any queers in the theater tonight?
      Get ’em up against the wall
      There’s one in the spotlight
      He don’t look right to me
      Get ’em up against the wall

      That one looks Jewish
      And that one’s a coon
      Who let all this riffraff into the room
      There’s one smoking a joint and
      Another with spots

      If I had my way I’d have all of them shot
      Pink Floyd – In The Flesh?
      .

  • mr Ikasheeni

    The NYTimes still force mandatory drug testing for prospective hires.

    • Tony Aroma

      I’m all in favor of this hearing, and hope the outcome is positive and actually has an effect outside the courtroom. But how in the heck is the scheduling of mj a Constitutional issue?

      While the Controlled Substances Act could potentially be declared unconstitutional, and should, how does a decision to place a drug in a particular schedule fit into the picture? It could be declared a wrong decision or a biased decision or a stupid decision. But the scheduling decision itself has nothing to do with the Constitution. As long as the CSA itself is constitutional, then any decisions authorized by it must also be constitutional.

      Am I missing something here?

      • Windy

        Yes, the CSA and the “law” that created it are both clearly unconstitutional (as well as the Marihuana Tax Act and thousands of others). The fed gov was never granted the power to regulate or ban any drugs or other ingestible substances; if an action cannot be found in the enumerated powers section of the Constitution, the fed gov is forbidden from doing it.

        • Tony Aroma

          They’re NOT challenging the constitutionality of the CSA, as far as I can tell. Read my entire comment.

          The CSA is justified under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which has ben modified to read “To regulate any activity that could in any way possibly affect Commerce”

          The part in italics was added to the Constitution by SCOTUS in the Wikard v. Filburn decision. Still, it doesn’t seem to me the power to regulate implies the power to ban, which is the exact opposite of regulation.

        • Windy

          Tony, the commerce clause is NOT part of the enumerated powers, it is merely a preamble explaining why the Founders felt there was a need for the fed gov.
          Additionally the commerce clause only applies to interstate commerce, the fed gov is only supposed to arbitrate when there is a trade issue in contention between two or more States, it was never given the power to regulate commerce within a State or even to regulate commerce between the States, so such a ruling as in Wikard v. Filburn is clearly unconstitutional and SCOTUS really exacerbated the error with the Angel Raich decision.

  • allan

    a bit OT… nice and very couchish piece on Oregon’s M91:

    A strange reason to legalize marijuana

    It made me think we’ve got folks on the couch that aren’t even on the couch…

  • kaptinemo

    Oh, boy, Couchmates, you’re gonna love this one;

    For Marijuana, a Second Wave of Votes to Legalize

    A little taste:

    “Opponents were, by their own admission, late in forming a united organization, and their campaign had only about $10,000 for advertising, with spots running on two Portland radio stations starting last weekend.

    “They’ve done a pretty good job of shutting everybody up,” said Joshua K. Marquis, the district attorney in Clatsop County and an opponent of legalization, referring to the pro-91 forces.

    and some more:

    “A few weeks before the “Marijuana and Our Youth” meeting, legalization supporters pointed out to federal and state authorities that a small drug treatment center funded by government grants was sponsoring a tour of the state by Kevin A. Sabet, a co-founder of a national anti-legalization group, Smart Approaches to Marijuana. They reminded all parties that federal and state laws prohibited the use of public funds to influence elections.

    The State of Oregon agreed and issued a stern warning that any group receiving public money — a list that included 70 counties, tribes, schools and nonprofit agencies that provide drug treatment or substance-abuse prevention programs — had best tread carefully.

    The result was a sudden silence in the antidrug contingent and a muted meeting here in Keizer. Even though private funds were substituted to avoid the appearance of impropriety, talk of Measure 91, organizers said, was taken off the table out of concern for jobs and future government grants. A central constituency in the opposition, heavy on health care professionals, was stifled.

    For how many years have we been saying it, here? FOR HOW MANY YEARS? (Yes, I was shouting.) You don’t swing your sword at the Hydra’s heads; for every one you chop off, two grow. No, stab the frakker in the heart.

    Read it. Just read it. And realize what we can do when we’re pissed off enough.

    • Frank W.

      You can’t stifle ActionNews Team! I just saw a noon news report on 91 and it was totally from the police point of view, which quoted sheriffs fretting about the bloody carnage on the roads.
      After the report, we were helpfully reminded it’s voting time and where to drop off ballots. Plus a big grow bust near Ashland. October Surprise?

    • Kevin Sabet- “It looks bad — I want to be on the other team,” he said, laughing.

      Sorry, Kev. We are a truth based movement. No room here for your talents.

    • allan

      Thanks Kap!

      hey, lookie here:

      Contributors included O.penVAPE… good for O.pen (they do know which side their bread is buttered on).

      And tho’ polls here say 2 different things I’m still saying M91 w/60%. The yes on 91 commercials are excellent btw.

    • kaptinemo

      You will also see something in that article, first voiced here on The Couch, about all it would take is two election cycles. That’s it.

      That’s all it would take for the effect to sink into a pol’s head that this issue is taking off at warp speed, and to fail the litmus test that this issue represents to almost an entire generation is to face eventual political extinction. Most below the age of 50 turn thumb’s-down on prohibition as a failed job in need of scrapping. That’s as clear and sharp as a new axe blade…one awaiting the political career of a pol who doesn’t understand demographics signal the end of the DrugWar.

      On this issue, there can be no wishy-washying, no namby-pamby fence sitting. On or off. For or against. No more BS excuses; no more about ‘needing more time’, and ‘needs more study’. Here it is, Mr. and Ms. Pol, right here, right now, make your stand, before the new, cannabis-savvy electorate replacing the ignorant older one. And, remember: we OWN the ‘Net.

      Some reform people back in 2012 said don’t make any efforts in 2014 and just concentrate on 2016, but I believe that events are going to catch many reformers by surprise, and 2014 may just be very fruitful, indeed.

  • Duncan20903

    .
    .

    So last night as I lay in me bed and the endo-cannabinoids started flooding my brain taking me to the reality that I call betwixt and between awake and asleep it suddenly occurred to me that I, and perhaps all of us here, had missed two very important parts of the reality down Roger’s rabbit hole. I drifted off to sleep wondering just how one can more easily see stuff that isn’t there and why the heck I have a blind spot directly in front of my eyes.

    What Roger managed to hide from me even though it was right in front of my face is that he’s exploiting the coming ballot initiatives to sell a book for personal profit. He’s managed to take a position of which both sides are in favor of part and totally against the rest. His “opinion” column is simply a device to advertize the sizzle to as many people as possible. No prohibitionist would read a book if it just endorses re-legalization.

    Now how the heck can you make sure that you’re seeing that which isn’t there? I’m really kind of disappointed with myself for not realizing that he never went to rehab. I can’t imagine that he would have left that out if he had done so, particularly since he apparently was somehow involved in rehab for profit subsequent to quitting. Well folks, there you have it, he’s in favor of the “addiction” model and re-legalization. Please buy his book so you can see what kind of talent it takes to straddle a picket fence! I can just hear him telling his proctologist, “It was a million to one shot, Doc. Million to one.” Remember, all proctologist stories have the same ending.

    But talk about a picture perfect example of playing both ends against the middle…

    (note to self: the only intelligent people that still appear to believe the horse shit about cannabis are trying to turn a profit. This one is right up there with remembering that the idiots in the MSM have no clue about the meaning of the word repeal when it comes to matters of cannabis law.)

    • Duncan20903

      .
      .

      Butt speaking of assholes, I think that business must be slow in Hades.

      Washington ‘Pot Czar’ Mark Kleiman Endorses Marijuana Legalization In Oregon
      10/26/2014

      Wholly poppycock Batman! It’s the Professor!!

      Yes Robin, and he’s up to his old tricks again! Pretending to be an “expert” and using “Big Marihuana” as a red herring while regurgitating bald faced lies, half truths, and hysterical rhetoric all over the hallowed halls of higher education!! To the Batmobile and hurry!!! We must protect Gotham City!!!!

  • “Florida Medical Marijuana Is Actually Not Done, According to Latest Poll”
    http://t.co/VtH4AycmEP

    The firm conducted the survey using cell phones and landlines between October 22 and 27 and found that 62 percent of “likely voters” will approve the initiative, with a 3.4 percent margin of error.

    • Duncan20903

      .
      .

      Florida polls are extremely easy to rig if the pollster is so inclined. The western panhandle may as well be Alabama. Even in the Miami-Dade/Hollywood/Ft. Lauderdale megalopolis if you drive 20 miles west you’ll be in banjo music country. Are there any Public Policy Polling numbers available? I’ve noticed that PPP has a very high degree of accuracy.

      Hey, wanna see some cannabis youth use statistics? San Francisco is arguably the cannabis capital of the United States. The city has had storefront medicinal cannabis vendors for longer than California has had the Compassionate Use Act and was the first California to codify regulation of the City’s authorized medicinal cannabis vendors.

      The Florida jack booted thugs typically say that they don’t want Florida to be like California. So here’s reality according to the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. I present the 2013 youth use rates of cannabis in Florida, San Francisco and the nationwide numbers as a surprise bonus:

      Ever used marijuana (one or more times during their life)
      USA: 40.7%
      Florida: 38.7%
      San Francisco: 28.2%

      Tried marijuana before age 13 years (for the first time)
      USA: 8.6%
      Florida: 8.3%
      San Francisco: 5.9%

      Currently used marijuana (one or more times during the 30 days before the survey)
      USA: 23.4%
      Florida: 22.0%
      San Francisco: 16.3%

      http://nccd.cdc.gov/youthonline/App/Results.aspx?TT=G&OUT=0&SID=HS&QID=QQ&LID=FL&YID=2013&LID2=SF&YID2=2013&COL=T&ROW1=N&ROW2=N&HT=C3&LCT=LL&FS=S1&FR=R1&FG=G1&FSL=S1&FRL=R1&FGL=G1&PV=&TST=False&C1=&C2=&QP=G&DP=1&VA=CI&CS=Y&SYID=&EYID=&SC=DEFAULT&SO=ASC

  • Servetus

    Seems like our good friends at the Justice Department are reading up on old Gestapo tactics:

    Some legal cases do more than raise eyebrows — they push the legal envelope to change the law. Such is a federal case in Las Vegas now working its way through the courts. The question is whether federal agents can disrupt service to a house and then, masquerading as helpful technicians, gain entry to covertly search the premises in hopes of finding evidence that might later justify a search warrant.

    The NSA’s total information awareness allows agents to imitate the Gestapo’s habit of altering or adding to surveillance reports to make a targeted citizen, bureaucrat, or co-worker look guilty of something. In the Gestapo, this was often how the top people eliminated political and career rivals, both in and out of the German counter-spy services. Perhaps the Justice Department will now get a taste of its own Gestapo justice, and self-annihilate.