Colorado Prepares To Fight AG Sessions & Trump Feds Over Marijuana

AG  Jeff Sessions comes across like a character out of the 1936 farce "Reefer Madness".

The recent remarks of AG and proto-Confederate leftover Jeff Sessions against states with recreational marijuana laws, now has Colorado lawmakers ready to defend the state's $1 billion market and thousands of jobs dependent on that market.  Sessions' antagonistic remarks in a number of venues, some of which I highlight below, set Colorado lawmakers' on edge from their first utterance two weeks ago. Now, they are ready to do whatever necessary to defend the CO economy (faltering because of fracking pullbacks owing to a glut of shale oil)  and that includes revision of existing laws spawned by Colorado's Amendment 64 - passed by a clear majority of the state's voters in 2012.

Sessions' recent aggressive and outdated remarks meanwhile harken back to an era where virtually nothing was understood about marijuana and hence, it  served as a vehicle for government propaganda and control.  Who can forget the 1936 government -produced farce entitled "Reefer madness"?   This was an obvious propaganda exploitation effort revolving around the melodramatic events that ensue when high school students are lured by pushers to try marijuana. Their travails extend from a hit and run accident, to manslaughter, suicide, attempted rape, and descent into madness.  At least one voice over insinuates that "these are bad people" doing the business of spreading demon weed.    This farce could have been produced by Jeff Sessions, given its cornpone, low brow cheap messaging, especially after Sessions was recently heard  to bloviate "good people don't smoke marijuana". Uh, yes they do, especially if they have physical infirmities and diseases which the weed ameliorates. Or, they're on cancer treatments (like chemo) and it helps them stop barfing enough to eat.

Originally it had been financed by a church group under the title "Tell Your Children". Its primary mandate was circulation and screening to parents as a  putative morality tale, attempting to teach them about the dangers of any cannabis use by their kiddies. Perhaps two decades later any viewing of this dreck became so laughable that it emerged as a cult film - shown to audiences primarily as joke material. Which is rightly the niche to which it belongs..

Enter now Sessions, ardent segregationist and putative top "lawman",  who plans a new "war on pot", despite the fact any such crusade will directly affect millions of Trump voters - which may well cost the GOP the 2020 presidential election. Let's also process, factoring into this, that MJ has helped propel billions of dollars into states' tax coffers that otherwise wouldn't have been available. Not to mention thousands of jobs - especially for returned vets-  who otherwise might be unemployed - or only able to be Walmart workers.  In Colorado, these vets are putting their service skills to use by acting as guards for transport of MJ retail sales money. As one Iraq vet said, "if I lost this job I don't know what the hell I'd do, especially at the pay rate".  Is Sessions and his DOJ bunch prepared to live with this if they mount an attack on all MJ states?

Sessions said in Arizona last Tuesday, “you would have thought the biggest issue in America was when I said, ‘I don’t think America’s going to be a better place if they sell marijuana at every corner grocery store.’ (People) didn’t like that; I’m surprised they didn’t like that.”

But like most of Sessions’ blurtations on cannabis, he was dead wrong, and showed his take was more fit for fake news hysteria. Consider that marijuana is non-deadly, and barely 9 percent of those who try it develop an addiction.  By contrast, heroin is an opioid that killed more than 12,000 Americans in 2015, and 23 percent of heroin users become addicted. (Worth noting: Prescription opioids such as OxyContin, morphine and Vicodin accounted for an additional 16,000 American deaths in 2015.)  If Sessions were really serious about combating a drug epidemic and not merely posturing, he'd go into coal country where opioids are now proliferating.

Sessions recently said, “I think one of (Obama’s) great failures … is his lax treatment in comments on marijuana.” It’s true that Obama told The New Yorker in 2014, “I don’t think (marijuana) is more dangerous than alcohol.” In 2016 Obama told Rolling Stone he believed cannabis should be treated like “cigarettes and alcohol.” Sessions blasted such remarks as lax, but they were actually fact-based. A straightforward research effort, including stats from the National Institutes of Health would have disclosed to Sessions that excessive alcohol use kills nearly 90,000 people each year in the U.S., while cannabis use alone is responsible for zero deaths in recorded history.

Alcohol and opioids combined kill more than 100,000 Americans each year, cannabis kills none. That is, there are no existing statistics to show cannabis has been singularly connected to any traffic deaths or other deaths.  There have been claims by assorted exploitative agents of misinformation to link MJ either to murders they themselves committed or the suicides of others, but not to the extent of isolating MJ as any unique, proven culprit. For example, Richard Kirk of Denver has claimed he should be found not guilty of first-degree murder because he was having "edible marijuana-induced hallucinations" when he shot his wife.  But most sober people put this in the same category as mass killer Ted Bundy's blaming his exposure to porn for his serial killing of women in the 1970s-80s

Journalists have also easily tracked down megabytes of anti-cannabis propaganda from Sessions’ recent interviews on the subject, and his “corner grocery store” opinion was far from the most egregious.  Sessions’ supposed surprise on the subject  is also unfathomable and discloses his brain may be trapped in a 1950s time warp. Or, possibly even the 1936 era of "Reefer Madness".  Why should Sessions be surprised that Americans “didn’t like” his anti-legalization stance in an era when 60 percent of Americans want legal cannabis, one in eight U.S. adults say they currently consume marijuana and state legalization initiatives are going eight for nine on Election Day?   Let alone his baseless campaign against a non-lethal plant-based drug that has, by every available metric, proven itself to be significantly safer than many of the other substances we vend recreationally?

In this light and with good ol' Johnny Reb Jeff on the warpath, Colorado is now taking defensive steps to protect itself against fed assault on Sessions' watch. That includes state lawmakers (including GOP) signing a "in case of crackdown" bill to allow cannabis recreational cultivators to transfer their plants to the medical arena to avoid federal confiscation. As we know, the medical MJ side has been around much longer than the recreational and will be much harder for good ol' boy Sessions and his crew to undermine. (The major downside is that the state would collect a lot less in taxes because medical MJ is taxed at a significantly lower rate).

Even Gov. John Hickenlooper is now getting involved and has advised lawmakers on the optimal defensive approaches as a possible Trumpie fed crackdown looms. Once an Amendment 64- MJ skeptic "Hick" said in a recent Denver Post interview:

"I'd say that the (marijuana) experiment - as it continues to move forward- has gone certainly better than I anticipated and I think better than many people have anticipated."

This was not long after having, earlier this month, joined other governors of states that have legalized cannabis consumption in sending a letter to Sessions. In that missive, the governors requested the Trump cabinet members to "engage with us before embarking on any changes to the regulatory and enforcement system". 

Hick himself has held out no hope for any reversal of existing policies without great mishap. This in turn has driven him to cooperate with state legislators to toughen defenses.  One of these is to scrap the implementation of recreational MJ clubs, at least for now, until Sessions casts his jaundiced eyes on some other hot topic (porn?) . Recall "Initiative 300" passed in CO last November.  This extends Amendment 64 and allows MJ users to use it publicly, e.g. in bars, cafes and even Yoga studios. Hitherto, those who purchased MJ had to return to their own homes and be out of public view.

The good aspect is Colorado is prepared to go to the mat against any potential Sessions' MJ crusade, to protect jobs and economic interests. As one lawmaker wryly commented: "Funny how these guys come down on the 'nanny state' - unless it's a nanny state they advocate."

Indeed.  So, it really appears the invocation of "nanny state" depends on which citizen actions require a state "nanny".

Colorado's "Year of Green" (MJ): The Highs, the Lies and the Lows

One of the first retail MJ customers delivers high fives at a Denver Pot Outlet in January.

Now that nearly 365 days have elapsed it is possible to assess the past historical year whereby one state (Colorado) came to be the marijuana mecca of the world.  Enough data is now available to show how successful Amendment 64 has been, in legalizing the retail sale of marijuana. Despite that, too many are unaware of the level of success, as well as the level of failure - given the fact that one less-publicized aspect of 64 is  that local communities, even counties, could opt out. (This had been an important part of the amendment's wording, allowing choice in whether any given locale would take on MJ retail sales or exclude them.)

First, some of the facts compiled from the Denver Post ('Legalization Review', Dec. 28):


- Colorado's annual demand for MJ:  130. 3 metric tons

- Adults 21 and older using MJ at least once per month:   485,000

- Total medical MJ sales - January-October:  $326, 716, 273

- Proportion of MJ sales to out of state tourists in mountain communities - 90 percent

- The proportion of Colorado MJ users who consume it each day:  23 percent

- Amount brought in from taxes, licenses and fees - January-October: $60.1 million 


To read through the preceding, the unwary might conclude the state is awash in stoners, leaning against buildings and barely able to get themselves from point A to point B. They might also wrongly conclude retail pot stores are all over the state. In fact, the Post's stats show that more Colorado communities (165) have chosen to disallow retail pot sales than have accepted them (53).  Check that ratio again and it is more than three to one NO. Yet this is one of the aspects that has rarely been publicized.

According to industry spokesman Mike Elliot, of the Marijuana Industry Group:

"I think the local option is one of the best aspects of Amendment 64. If communities don't want this, it shouldn't be forced down their throats."

Well, that depends. What if, for an entire county, the Amendment passed, but its city council decided to ignore the voters' will?  The Post has noted two radically different approaches, one that respects the citizen and the other which basically spits on his vote.

For example, in Lakewood, CO in November, the City Council gave voters the chance to cast votes in a specific separate referendum that would have allowed the opening of pot retail stores. According to Mayor Bob Murphy, "the issue was important enough that city leaders felt the decision ought to go to a vote of the people, rather than be decided by the city council".

The referendum result was to scrap pot shops in Lakewood for now by a 53- 47 % majority.

Colorado Springs, conservative bastion of military interests that it is, chose to go in the opposite direction, making a city council decision that took it out of citizens' hands. They probably knew, given the fact the amendment passed by 5,000 votes in 2012, they might not win and they didn't wish to take that chance. In other words, they didn't trust we the citizens to make the right decision.

The fallout as many have noted, is that the $6-9 million a year the Springs might have gotten via taxes, fees - to fund its Pioneers Museum - will now go to neighboring Manitou Springs which has recently allowed retail pot, wisely noting COS' negative is Manitou's gain. Sadly, the City Council will have to continue to beg for $ for its daffy museum, but most of us will have no sympathy for them - given they already "made their bed".

The Lies and the Lows:

Yes, there were lies and lows that emerged over the year. First, some of the lows:

- The death of an African college student from Wyoming who - after eating an MJ cookie and not attending to the warning dose- jumped off a building

- A father of two, shooting and killing his wife after he ate several MJ candies and began hallucinating.

- Incidents of MJ edibles ingestion by children rushed to ERs

- NY Times columnist Maureen Dowd comes to Colo. and eats an MJ cookie without noting the dose, then writes a crap column about her "psychotic" experience.

Since these transpired, Colorado MJ regulators and the businesses have gone all out to more properly assay THC content in each product, including cannabis oil.  They have also packaged edibles more securely with  more prominent warning messages and the THC doses in edibles such as cookies, candies.   Of course, as many in the MJ business have pointed out, parents are also expected to do their part in minding what their kids are doing.

The lies:

- You can openly buy MJ on the street (only in the black market- not the regulated one!)

- If an adult purchases marijuana edibles only he or she can transport them across state lines. (Absolutely not!)

- People who purchase marijuana at a retail outlet can then smoke it  -like a cigarette- on the street. (No you may not, you are expected to take it back to your domicile to use it)

- Any kid can just grab an MJ edible off the shelf of a pot retail shop. (Fact: No kid is even allowed close to an MJ shop and no kid would be permitted entry!)

- MJ businesses can openly advertise their wares in newspapers, magazines and on billboards. (Absolutely not - any marketing has to be via word of mouth!)

- MJ edible candies look exactly like name brand candies such as Tootsie Rolls, M & Ms, Snickers bars.

- More people have been busted for driving under MJ influence than for alcohol.

Meanwhile, the Denver Post in its editorial yesterday, did correctly note that with the implementation of the new law, marijuana use by Colorado citizens has increased. But this would be expected if any new business had opened up, in any state, and it sought growth. After all, to survive a business must grow which means building a customer base. And many of these will be people who are curious about the product, and have never tried it before.

As the owner of the Pot retail chain Euflora observed on MSNBC's series 'The Pot Barons of Colorado', many of her customers are trying it for the first time, largely in the form of the edibles. As word spreads on how good the edibles are, and their mellow effects - taken in the proper dose - then many more new customers sign on. Basically, their numbers are only limited by the types, amounts of product they desire.

But as the earlier stat cited from the Post showed, that still means only 485,000 people using even once per month. That is barely 9 percent of Colorado's population, so it's not as if the whole state is under the influence of pot or even a tenth of the state's populace.  This is important so that outsiders keep it in perspective.

There is still much to be done, and the next year may well show if the pot business is here to stay or if it turns out to be merely a temporary craze. My bet is that - having seen the MSNBC series and the Post's review - it is likely to stay and become a credible model for responsible MJ businesses for other states.

There will always be naysayers, of course, and this is to be expected with the end of any era of prohibition, look at the 1930s with alcohol. But in the end, the fewer laws on the books which can put people away - take away their freedom for an individual choice - the better. And the more the states can regulate and tax the more likely they are to be able to fund such things as education and pensions - when other sources are collapsing.  It is certainly to be preferred over casinos!

Two Dumb States File Pot Lawsuit Against Colorado - Can You Believe It?

Question: Does the oft misrepresented principle of "states' rights"* mean that a couple states can overturn the voting preferences and state amendments cast by a neighbor state? If I represent Louisiana can I file a lawsuit against Mississippi for not using its educational funds properly - or building too many casinos? If I live in a gun control state like New York can I file a lawsuit against a state like Virginia because too many guns purchased there are ending up in NYC with dire consequences?  If I live in Nebraska and Oklahoma can I file a joint lawsuit against Colorado because "too much retail marijuana is flowing into our states and we can't control it....BWHAHAHAHHAA!"

Clearly not  - because if all those things could happen, then we'd have chaos from coast to coast. Each dumb state (that would actually believe it can inveigh on another's voting priorities- which entails issues of states' prerogatives* not rights) would demolish the fabric of the country by continually undermining the ballots cast by citizens in other states to promote or legalize assorted behaviors, actions..

Yet when I picked up The Denver Post Friday, there on the front page - midway down- was the headline:

'Nebraska, Oklahoma Sue Colorado Over Pot Law'

And even wifey, currently suffering from the H3 N2 variant of flu could only scream - mostly through her nose:

"ARE THEY NUTS!?"

Well, probably more dumb than nuts if they really think they can get this before the Supreme Court and win..  I mean, good god, what a couple of dumbo whiners! SO you're too cheap to spend the needed money to enforce your own repressive anti-pot laws and so you blame Colorado for your woes? What are YOU smoking?

Even the Post in its editorial yesterday called this effort bullocks since the two states couldn't even quantify the alleged damage they're suffering. For example, how many total ounces (or pounds)  exactly are transiting into their states from CO in a given month or year?  (Which would clearly disclose violation of the part of CO law prohibiting cross-state transport of MJ.) Unless they can quantify the extent of injury  it's basically an empty complaint and has no legal heft. I'd even go as far as to assert their evidence is wholly anecdotal, not even rising to the level of 'circumstantial'.

The technical wording of their grievance according to the Post::

"Marijuana flows from this gap into neighboring states, undermining Plaintiff' states own marijuana laws, draining their treasuries and placing stress on their criminal justice systems."

Oh, BWWAHHAHAHAHHAAAA! Mayhap you have too damn many laws to enforce, and IF - I say IF you backed off, especially on the pot laws, you'd need less money to lock people up or enforce your dumb, overly restrictive laws. (See my Dec 7th  post, 'Yes, We Have Too Damned Many Laws').

Fortunately, our attorney general, John Suthers(a Republican, btw) is prepared to go to the wall on this gibberish, even though he himself was never a fan of Colorado Amendment 64  which  gave the green light to set up pot retail shops two years ago. But at least Suthers respects the law and the will of the people (56 percent of CO voters affirmed the passage of 64, including a slim majority in conservative El Paso County).  As he noted (ibid.)

"It appears the plaintiffs' primary grievance stems from non-enforcement of 'federal laws regarding marijuana as opposed to choices made by the voters of Colorado'"

Which is spot on correct. But merely because those 2 regressive states - among many other Red states, choose not to challenge the federal law (placing MJ on the controlled substances list)  and refuse to put up their own amendments, doesn't mean they have license to take down Colorado's.  And if the funds are too steep for all the pot enforcement they desire, well hell, do what CO did and enact higher state and excise taxes to pay for the MJ you allow. But don't whine on about Colorado's amendment and how it's straining your treasuries.

Anyway, AG Suthers is prepared to go to the mat on this, as he should be - as defender of Colorado laws, even those with which he might disagree. Meanwhile, Robert Mikos of Vanderbilt University - an expert on the intersection of federal power and state MJ laws, has noted (ibid.)  that "Oklahoma and Nebraska can't simply force Colorado to join their fight" - e.g. against any use of MJ. He also added that "congress can't force states to criminalize marijuana".

As for the Supreme Court, it is more likely than not they are sane and rational enough (one hopes!)  to see things as Prof. Mikos does. If, OTOH,  they acknowledged these two states'  egregious claim of CO violating the "Supremacy clause" then all states had better watch out for what they put on ballots. My guess, like Suthers, is that the SC will dismiss this lawsuit for the empty bollocks it is and deal with real, substantive matters.

---
* States have prerogatives, not rights, because states exist as governmental entities not as persons-individuals. Prof. Garry Wills (‘A Necessary Evil: A History Of American Distrust of Government’, Simon & Schuster, 1999)

OK, So I Gave In And Voted 'Lesser of Two Evils' - Will Others Do It?

I admit it, and can't deny it. While I railed against current Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper for his Neoliberal ways, including pushing fracking on our state as a way to encourage economic growth (and at the expense of citizens' health), I have had to admit the alternative was 100 times worse. So go ahead if you want and blame me for backtracking if I  believe that dysentery is a lot less horrific than Ebola - in effect voting for 'Hick' as opposed to his R-opponent, Bob Beauprez.

I am talking about the mail ballot which was filled out over a week ago. (In Colorado we can receive mail ballots and more than 50% of the population opts to do so -removing a lot of headaches at the polls - including voter ID challenges by the likes of 'True the Vote').  I do admit that I hesitated for something like ten minutes, even considering writing in 'Donald Duck', or leaving the space blank. But on reconsideration and realizing how close many local elections can be,  I filled in the blank for Hick.

Why? Because Bob Beauprez would be an unmitigated train wreck of a disaster, something I hope the younger demographic in our state appreciates and why they need to vote this midterm. For one thing Beauprez has made it clear that he plans to do all in his power to repeal Colorado State Amendment 64 - for the establishment of marijuana retail businesses - effectively rolling back the votes of nearly 57% of Colorado voters (including yours truly) in 2012.

As I said then, I  am not a stoner, nor do I use MJ even occasionally. Like tens of thousands of other sane citizens I voted for the amendment as a way to infuse more money into the state's meager coffers, via the excise, state and other taxes imposed on the product. (This was among the few options given CO voters have repeatedly voted against any other tax increases) That has been realized this year with more than $45 m taken in, and schools and other public enterprises the beneficiaries.

If Beauprez is elected and gets his way all that will cease. Schools will again struggle for adequate funding and even sick people who depend on medical MJ may have to do without (as medical MJ operations will be next). Out of state MJ tourists will have to go elsewhere for their 'edibles' - maybe Washington (which is far behind Colorado in getting its retail stores up to snuff, mainly because of inadequate grow supply - owing to delayed state approvals of MJ grow operations.)  And all the existing retail stores - such as the one Rachel Maddow visited over a week ago - will have to be shuttered.

Beauprez has also made it clear he intends to make contraceptives almost impossible to get for women of any age. He will also stand by prosecuting any woman who has an abortion even in cases of incest or rape. By his ideology, all such women will be expected to bear any conceived offspring to term because they are regarded as full 'persons'.

Needless to say, if the current Personhood Amendment fails,  as it will (according to polls taken by the COS Independent, 55% are against it) Beauprez will certainly push for legislation to make it a reality - especially if the Repubs take the two state houses.  (As they might).

Will Hick be the ideal guv? Hardly! His indiscriminate push to frack the state under is underwritten by the infusion of campaign cash from the oil and gas lobby, which already had a stranglehold in the state. It has also been largely responsible for knocking out at least two initiatives for putting fracking operations under local control. Be that as it may, Hick as governor would be a lot less vile than Beauprez. Again, dysentery vs. Ebola.

Lastly, current polling suggests the Colorado Amendment 105 is likely to be shot down. This is the proposal to label GMO foods so we know what the hell we are eating. But the same COS Indy polls published Oct.30-31 show 57%  voting against it.  Likely reason? The vast amounts of money poured into the campaign to brainwash voters with scare stories, including how food prices will explode and how imperfect it is, e.g.

. See also:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/10/anti-gmo-labelers-wage-massive.html

So, it looks as though these voters won't mind not knowing how much glyphosate they're loading into their bodies - leaving them open to Alzheimer's disease, or Parkinson's.

Many of the rest of us will have to be much more diligent in avoiding the sources of GMO foods, even if we have to spend more.

Why Pope Francis Has Erred By Condemning the Legalization of Recreational Drugs

Bill Maher suggested Pope Francis is "no longer his friend" after condemning recreational drugs. I wouldn't go that far, but the fact remains the Pope is wrong.


Bill Maher on his last 'Real Time' observed that given "Pope Frank" had recently come out against the legalization of recreational drugs, he "could no longer be friends".  This is perhaps comedic license, but it is well to consider the Pope's condemnation and also why he is wrong. (As I have to note for my Catholic friends and readers again, if the Pope is not speaking 'ex cathedra' then what he says is not "infallible" - not that I buy into the infallibility doctrine in any case. )

For those who need to be caught up, Francis condemned the legalization of recreational drugs as a  "flawed and failed experiment" - now lending his voice and opinion to a debate that's been energized from the U.S. (mainly after pot legalization passed in Colorado and Washington) to South America.  Evidently, the Pope told delegates at a Rome drug enforcement conference that "even limited steps to legalize recreational drugs are not only highly questionable from a legislative standpoint, but they fail to produce the desired effects."

At this point, one is justified in wondering if the Pope in fact displays the "Obama syndrome", i.e. deliberately tailoring his talk in order to fit the audience, as opposed to speaking from his own carefully forged, consistent principles. Anyway, he went on to say:

"Let me state this in the clearest terms possible: The problem of drug use is not solved with drugs! Drug addiction is an evil and with evil there can be no yielding or compromise."

In assorted news and media accounts the general take was that Francis was speaking from the perspective of his years ministering to addicts in the drug infested slums of Buenos Aires. At that time and in that context he often railed against drug abuse and drug traffickers. Which is fine as it goes, but he misses the point that it is the very legalization process which removes the drugs from the drug cartels and traffickers to the state  - where it can be specifically regulated as here in Colorado.(Though we must be cognizant that Argentina - Francis' homeland- has also recently legalized the recreational use of drugs).

The Pope also commits a secondary fallacy by implication. That is, that those of us who voted for Amendment 64 here in Colorado, for example, are also committing evil by then providing the legal basis for recreational use of marijuana. Since we are "compromising" - in  his mind - by voting to approve recreational drug use- then we must be siding with evil.

As I noted in previous blog posts the issue of "evil" is subtle and complex. We can agree - at least the rational humans- that evil doesn't exist as an external force or agency. This is the route of superstition. Then it follows evil inheres in human actions and can manifest in differing forms, such as practical evil, idealistic evil and others. For example, idealistic evil is that form which emerges when people stop thinking of others as human like themselves and instead put them into abstract brackets. The Nazis did it when they relegated the Jews in Europe to pests, then proceeded to construct gas chambers to exterminate them......like pests.

Practical evil can occur under the aegis and dictates of anti-human laws and edicts. For example, the "Jim Crow" laws in the South in the early 1960s which denied blacks service at lunch counters, and prevented them from using 'white' restrooms or 'white' drinking fountains, and making them sit in the rear of the bus.  Another example of practical evil is the current FISA law, which is actually a re-do of the original 1978 law, but now after having made Bush's illegal wiretapping legal. Thus, it paved the way for the indiscriminate mass wiretapping done by the NSA.

Drug trafficking falls under the rubric of personal evil, enacted to gain riches or the exploitation of others. But the error of the Pope is in conflating ALL drug use, including that protected under a state amendment, with "trafficking".

It is clear then that we need insights that are expanded beyond the Pope's narrow and provincial views, especially as he hasn't said one word about alcohol - the biggest recreational drug of all.

Insight can be gleaned again from Philosopher Alan Watts, in his book, 'Does It Matter' and the chapter 'Psychedelics and Religious Experience' (pp. 78-95). Watts, in the chapter, details his own experimentation with five "principal psychedelics" including: LSD-25, mescaline, psilocybin, di-methyl- tryptamine and cannabis.  He did so in order to find the "essential" core of the mystical experience and whether it might be accessed via one or more of these drugs.

The objective was to "expand consciousness to the point the individual discovers himself to be one continuous process with God, with the universe, with the Ground of Being..."

Note that Watts took LSD-25, for example, in an actual experiment conducted by Dr. Keith Ditman of the Neuropsychiatric Clinic of the UCLA Medical School (p. 79).   He was at first "unwilling to believe that any mere chemical could induce a genuine mystical experience."   Watts observed his first experience was "definitely not mystical" but after further experiments, now with Drs. Michael Agron and Sterling Bunnell with the Langley-Porter Clinic in San Francisco, this changed.  He states (p. 80):

"I was amazed and somewhat embarrassed to find myself going through states of consciousness which corresponded precisely with every description of major mystical experiences I had ever read. Furthermore, they exceeded both in depth and in a peculiar quality of 'unexpectedness' the three natural and spontaneous experiences of this kind I had in previous years."

Which is saying a lot! Watts goes on to assert that: "Of the five psychedelics I tried I found that LSD-25 and cannabis served my purposes the best."

What about the inherent "evil" of drugs as Francis claims? Basically, in light of the greater good of attaining mystical insight, Watts dismisses it as fictitious, misplaced. Which is how any serious rational observer would treat the absolutist proclamation of "evil". After going through an extensive discussion of the positive aspects of mystical insight conferred (e.g. awareness of relativity, awareness of eternal energy, awareness of all opposites as interdependent) Watts points to the biggest fear of the doctrinal religious (p. 88):

"Nothing could be more alarming to the ecclesiastical hierarchy than a popular outbreak of mysticism.- for this might well amount to setting up a democracy in the kingdom of heaven. And such alarm would be shared equally among Catholics, Jews and fundamentalist Protestants."

Ouch! Francis' shtick is busted. Watts goes even deeper (p. 91):

"Moreover, mystical experiences often result in attitudes which threaten the authority not only of established churches but also of secular society. Unafraid of death, and deficient in worldly ambition, those who have undergone mystical experiences are impervious to threats and promises. Moreover, their sense of the relativity of good and evil arouses the suspicion that they lack both conscience and respect for law."

In other words, the proscriptions against recreational drug use are not based on the drugs use per se, but on the users attaining states of conscious awareness believed to be detrimental to any society legislated and driven primarily by economic concerns. To quote Watts again (ibid.):

"Use of psychedelics in the United States by a literate bourgeoisie means that an important segment of the population is indifferent to society's traditional rewards and sanctions"

Meaning that some small kernel will never ever sell out to capitalist, material blandishments - aka consumerism. They therefore won't be driven to work 60 hours a week to purchase the next smartphone, notebook or whatever the latest fad is to drive consumption and joining the work-spend treadmill.

In the case of the Catholic Church or other authoritarian religions, recreational drugs will always be seen as "evil" because they inveigh against that very absolutist authority --  legislated by a top-down hierarchy which sees itself as the center of truth and power.  The "monarchical" image of the universe, if you will,  which "exhibits a specific distaste for religious insubordination."

Watts details also how this monarchical concept has diffused from the infected religions and also  polluted laws, as in the U.S., leading to the prosecution for drug and other offenses in many jurisdictions. As he writes (p. 92):

"How can a Republic be the best form of government if the universe is believed to be run as a monarchy? Thus, despite the theory of government by consent, the people of the United States retain, from the authoritarian backgrounds of their religions or national origins, an utterly naïve faith in law as some form of supernatural and paternalistic power."

He then adds:

"Our law enforcement officers are therefore confused, hindered and bewildered - not to mention corrupted- by being asked to enforce sumptuary laws, often of ecclesiastical origin, which vast numbers of people have no intention of obeying and which  in any case are immensely difficult or impossible to enforce."

Words which the other 48 states (apart from Colorado and Washington) might do well to consider, as well as Pope Francis  - when he's next tempted to bloviate on the "evil" of recreational drug use. I would also recommend he read Alan Watts' book as well, for real insights into the material world. One consideration for him to ponder might be how this material or natural world is "evil" if it is part of the Whole?  How can a plant or plants within it - which are the source of unity experiences via psychedelics - be the sources of evil?   They can't.  Hence, it follows that it is not the essence, the drug itself but rather its misuse which one must be wary of - but that can apply to vast spectrum: sex, alcohol, you name it. In this sense, the addictive character of whatever stripe (alcohol, drugs, sex etc.)  originates from a defect in brain dynamics. This is what needs to be treated and dealt with, not attempting to outlaw alcohol, sex or drugs.

The fault ("personal evil") is then in our misuse of what would ordinarily be a good, or a positive resource, not in the thing itself. Therein lies the irony and the bane of human existence, which most of us can't process but which Watts has encapsulated. That is, for most of us, the good to which we aspire always lies in the future because "we are unable to relate to the sensuous and material present". Sadly then, we "are most happy when good things are expected to happen, not when they are happening."

The legalization of pot in Colorado and Washington represent good faith efforts to turn that dynamic around  - even if most of the rest of the world, as well as the Pope, don't grasp it.

High Fives All Around As Coloradans Get High - Legally!

A new buyer at a retail store delivers high fives to all and sundry.

A huge influx of Coloradans lined up to buy legal pot on January 1st, the first day that the state's Amendment 64 (passed in 2012 with overwhelming voter support) allowed retail sales of up to 1 ounce to all Colorado citizens, age 21 or older.  Buyers had to produce an official Colorado ID and al the time there were enforcement observers ensuring that things ran according to expectations.

Contrary to the hysteria fed by anti-MJ zealots there were no riots, nor did pot-crazed maniacs take to the streets and begin trashing homes and autos, or hijacking innocent virgins to take to their pot dens. It was all very quiet and the only thing remarkable was the long lines, oh, and the worry by some retail stores that they might run out of product (enticing some to increase the price.)

Make no mistake, the problem of supply is real. Denver's 3D Cannabis Center owner Terri Fox recently told the press that she originally thought she had enough MJ to last through next month when she opened her store for recreational  pot sales. But at the rate the sales took place she will now have to close two days to re-evaluate supply. Incredibly, she served 450 customers and had to turn 60 away on account of diminishing product.  Still, Ms. Fox said the occasion was momentous and wished more stores could have opened in Colo. to relieve some of the load on  Denver area stores. (Colorado Springs is among hundreds of communities that were too intimidated by regulatory details and the "hassles" they might see, to permit any retail sales.)

Also, incredibly (or perhaps not if one thinks about it) many of the customers are first timers - who've never tried pot before - but have expressed a "curiosity" about its effects and at least trying it once "for this historic occasion". One young woman quoted in The Sunday Denver Post proclaimed that after her first toke she felt "relaxed" and then "wanted to laugh". (Another reason enforcement officers tell people to just go home after they purchase).

Meanwhile, Wyoming state police - aware of the steady traffic into Colorado to buy pot, have warned "Don't bring your Colorado-purchased marijuana into Wyoming."  Indeed, the new state MJ regulatory laws prohibit taking MJ across state lines - so any "tourists" are obliged to use it in Colorado. This is also one of the things the feds will be watching, to determine if they will swoop down with massive future  MJ raids or not.

A good guess is perhaps 1 in 5 of the new customers are "curiosity seekers" - though they've been warned by some that "curiosity killed the cat". And also there are media mavens out and about who have made clear their distaste for the new Colorado law, or legalization in any other states..

Both Ruth Marcus of the WaPo and David Brooks of the NY Times, have come out swinging, Marcus because of the risk of increased negative behavior associated with pot and Brooks because pot represents a lower grade degree of happiness - and we ought to all be aspiring to a higher grade. Well, true, yes if you have the money! As a one-percenter Brooks can afford to lecture the hoi polloi on enhancing their moral habits and aiming for "higher happiness", while continuing to defend Neoliberal market policies that keep people depressed, miserable and searching for relief.

Meanwhile, the WaPo's uber-blogger Matt Yglesias has skewered the complaints that MJ will be a "devil weed" and turn people -users into monsters. As he puts it:

"The main way smoking pot is likely to have a negative impact on nonsmokers is through driving under the influence, but booze has that exact same problem. Then on the flip side pot simply isn't associated with violent misconduct in the way that drunkenness is.

Consequently, a world in which commercially legal marijuana leads to a lot more pot smoking is potentially a much safer and healthier world if that extra pot smoking displaces a lot of boozing,"

Yglesias goes on to note the other primary worry is whether dual use of pot and alcohol could feed off each other, to create one grand horrific effect. But the evidence so far in sociographic studies is that pot and alcohol users are largely mutually exclusive demographics. Those who use pot tend to disdain alcohol and vice versa. Having used alcohol  - to the point of excess in college- I can see why pot users might avoid it. You can reach the level of some very high contentment but as is often the case, the price paid is getting violently ill. That's why I now only imbibe alcohol in moderation - maybe a beer while watching a football game, or a glass of wine with Christmas dinner - and that's it.

There is also the problem of how to prevent the black market in pot from overtaking the legal market, as The New York Times editorial observed yesterday.  Terri Fox, for example, has invoked locating wholesalers to solve the supply problem. But where will the wholesalers get their product? It seems to me the only practical solution to address supply is large scale MJ farms - like the farms that produce soybeans, corn and so forth.

Let's make no mistake here: the MJ supply problem for legal recreational retailers is inextricably tied to the problem of subduing the black marketers. If the latter can (illegally) reap more supply and thereby sell their illegal wares at lower cost than the legal retailers, then there is no way to quash the illegal black market in pot, as The Times noted.

Meanwhile, legal retail stores are having to up their prices because of inadequate supply. It's clear to me that the state has a vested interest in solving the legal supply problem asap.

Coloradans Had Better Be Unemployed If They Want to Partake of MJ Retail Stores

A retail store in the Denver area gets ready to open for business January 1st.

Well, the news is out that the first licenses in the United States that permit retailers to sell marijuana for recreational use from 1 January were issued in Colorado yesterday. Owners of marijuana (MJ)  dispensaries lined up to collect the permits in Denver and an initial batch of 42 licenses were issued, most to growers but around a dozen to shops.

Colorado already licenses more than 500 medical marijuana dispensaries, and only those outlets may apply to sell it for recreational use. State authorities have already approved 348 recreational sale licenses but businesses also require a local license, the first of which were those issued in Denver on Friday. Meanwhile, a festive atmosphere imbued the normally staid city licensing office in Denver on Friday. Justin Jones of Dank Colorado in Denver picked up his  grower’s and retailer’s licenses for recreational pot on Friday to add to his newly-acquired state license in readiness for expanding his medical business for recreational purchases on January 1st.

The good thing about the new law - approved under Amendment 64 last year- is that Colo. residents can smoke weed in their own domiciles even if their particular county (like mine, El Paso County) has prohibited the selling in retail stores. One can also drive provided that one's blood doesn't exceed a limit of 5 nanograms of the active ingredient in cannabis, THC, while operating the vehicle.

At the same time, Colorado’s Marijuana Enforcement Division spokeswoman Julie Postlethwait explained that the laws do not permit consumption of marijuana in public in any form nor on the premises of dispensaries in California-style pot cafes. As she related to the media:

“You buy it and take it to your private property to consume.”

NOW  - the bad news is that the law hasn't changed a thing in regard to how state employers deal with workers who smoke MJ. If they therefore catch you with even a smidgeon of THC in a random drug test  - you can be fired on the spot. Also, this means that they are in control of your MJ smoking habits whether on the job or OFF.

In other words, let's get it clear - if you are gainfully employed you still don't have the freedom to puff weed during off work hours, because any given positive drug test (say the next day)  can allow your employer to fire you.

The conclusion, harsh as it is:  The only citizens possessing the genuine freedom to partake of the new law will be those who are unemployed. The downside is that they won't be able to afford the product, at $200 an ounce.

Yeppers, life is indeed a bitch!

Colorado Gets Ready for Marijuana Retail Stores on January 1st

Workers trim and cut product in Garden City in preparation for opening retail stores on January 1st.


Well, I should say some Colorado municipalities are readying for retail MJ sales on January 1st, including Denver, Aurora and a few really small places like Garden City.   These places - say what you will - have shown that although setting regulations on the retail sale of marijuana may be difficult, they owe it to Colorado voters to do so. Instead of punking out (like Colorado Springs, Douglas County and most other places) because of the innate regulatory complexities (i.e. whether a person can smoke MJ in the open on his own private property, or whether MJ smoke can blow into a neighbor's yard) they understand that the passage of Amendment 64 last year means that in some manner the will of Colorado voters must be respected.

To that end, these locales deserve credit for having numerous Council Meetings to thrash out the particulars and details. And as we know, the 'devil' is always in the details. In the case of Denver, we now know (Denver Post, Dec. 10, p. 1A, '12 Plants Per Household') there will now be a limit of twelve MJ plants allowed to be grown per household.  This was decided by the Denver City Council last Monday and they will "continue to work on developing other rules and regulations as the January 1st deadline approaches."

The Council also made its final vote on Monday the 10th, approving the smoking of pot on private property - i.e, allowing people to smoke it in their yards - even if visible to others. The final vote on this was conducted without much fanfare. Earlier, to its credit, the Council shot down a bill by Council member Debbie Ortega that would have would have banned any such outside smoking if it was done within 1,000 feet of a school.

Later in the evening, there was unanimous agreement to make the zoning rules for recreational MJ the same as for medical MJ.

By Monday, December 16,  more rules and proposals had been set by the Denver City Council including weighing whether to decriminalize possession for those between ages 18 and 21.  Currently, those in this age group caught with less than an ounce of MJ can be prosecuted and given up to a year in jail or face fines up to $999. The new proposal being pushed is from Councilman Albus Brooks who sees too much inequity in how offenses are prosecuted.

Another matter that bears down on Denver, as well as Aurora, is the paper crush for new MJ retail employees. ('Push On to Clear Crush', Denver Post, Dec. 16, p. 1A). To get a state badge to work in Colorado's MJ industry, prospective employees must get fingerprinted and clear criminal and financial background checks. Already there is an enormous backlog to process the hundreds of workers who want jobs. According to the Post "State offices have been inundated this past month".

The Post provides an insight (ibid.):

"At 8 a.m. on a recent weekday would be tenderers and trimmers filed in bleary-eyed to the Marijuana Enforcement Division at 455 Sherman St. in Denver.

They lined up to get their paperwork stamped. The rules change with the circumstances, but on this day anyone who had come back 11 times - and gotten 11 stamps - was given th4e green light for license processing."

The Post added: "Those on the short end on stamps were cast into a lottery- their fates tied to green poker chips drawn out of a Folgers' bag."

Officers insist they are processing applications as fast as they can, but lack adequate manpower.

Messy? Sometimes intractable? Frustrating?  Time-consuming? You bet! But at least give kudos to Denver for rolling up its sleeves,  digging in and getting it done! Meanwhile, Colorado Springs - which wants money for its 'City of Champions'  Olympic museum - deserves  not one red cent from the state,  having dismissed the opportunity to earn its own keep via tax revenue from MJ sales. As one recent D. Post letter writer put it: "Colorado Springs has shown itself to be merely a deadbeat city. They deserve nothing!"

Meanwhile, little one square mile Garden City - tucked between two anti-MJ towns (Evans and Greeley) is doing well, having increased its revenue to $67,000 and now is able to pave over its roads, hire its first code enforcement officer and even raise money for new investment in its 66 businesses.

Those places in Colorado that have opted out of honoring Amendment 64 - by getting on their moral high horses, or by avoiding the onerous drafting of regulations -  deserve nothing. Let them sink in debt, or ....hope Uncle Sam pours money into their military -industrial complex facilities, in the case of Colorado Springs.

The funniest aspect? The State Dept. of Revenue plans to open an office in the Springs (an MJ rejecter) to help process Denver MJ employee applications, thereby relieving pressure on Denver. How about them apples?

Mail Call Brane: Readers Seeking Answers

Just curious as to the latest on Colorado’s MJ laws, and Implementing them.- Allan, Montreal, Quebec

A. The latest news is that on Wednesday the Colorado legislature made history, becoming the first in the nation to pass laws regulating recreational marijuana use. This now makes 4 major bills passed this year on marijuana legalization, and now the legislature awaits Gov. Hickenlooper to sign them. If he does sign them, and as a Dem Governor presiding over a D-legislature he ought to, then we will see the following (Denver Post, Thurs. May 9, p. 1A):


1-Marijuana will be sold in specially licensed stores that can also sell pot-related items such as pipes. However, only Colorado residents can own and invest in the stores, and only current medical marijuana dispensary owners can apply to open recreational pot shops for the first nine months. The first stores will open on Jan, 1, 2014.

2- Colorado residents will be able to buy up to an ounce of marijuana, the maximum legal amount for non-medical needs. Out of staters will be able to purchase only a quarter ounce at a time. The pot must also be sold in child-resistant packages, with labels that specify potency.

3- Voters will have the option of imposing heavy taxes on pot sales. A ballot measure set for November will ask voters to approve a 15 % excise tax and an additional 10 percent sales tax on marijuana. The excise tax will fund school construction while the sales tax will fund MJ regulation. Hickenlooper has already advised voters to pass the bills, and one wonders given his past MJ opposition, whether he will postpone signing the passed bills until November. And also, if the tax ballots don’t pass, then vetoing the four already passed MJ bills. I wouldn’t put this past a guy that once drank fracked water and claimed it was fine.

4- Incorporated marijuana collectives will be banned, so will MJ coffee shops, MJ-smoking in bars and gov’t run MJ stores. Though Colo. will have the most liberal MJ laws in the country – it will have the most restrictive laws in the country for MJ-themed magazines. These, like pornography, will have to be kept under the counter. (Publications such as 'High Times' have vowed to sue.)


5-Colorado drivers for the first time will be subject to a “stoned driving limit” (which is still being worked out). Juries will be allowed to presume that anyone testing above the limit was too high to drive.


Q. Were you aware that Sally Jewel, President Barack Obama's newest appointed Secretary of the Interior, is a pro-fracking hireling? Having read your blogs on fracking I wonder what you make of this appointment?
- Cheryl T., Wauwatosa, Wisc.


A. Okay, what Jewell actually said is: “ We must develop our domestic energy resources armed with the best available science, and this unbiased, objective information will help private, nonprofit and government decision makers at all levels make informed decisions about the responsible development of these resources. “ And yes, a number of right wing papers (i.e. The Washington Examiner) have taken this to be a strong endorsement of fracking. But as the Examiner puts it:


"Jewell was referring to hydraulic fracturing, or 'fracking, ' the process by which a pressurized mixture of (mostly) water and chemicals is injected into shale rock formations deep underground. The process provides access to natural gas deposits that would otherwise be impossible to reach. The technology has been in use for 60 years in Texas and Oklahoma, but its phenomenally successful use more recently in Pennsylvania to develop the Marcellus Shale and in North Dakota to develop the Bakken formation has sparked an energy revolution in this country.  Environmentalists oppose fracking, claiming it threatens groundwater even though the evidence for this claim is all but nonexistent.”


Of course, assuming this is so, then it would be an unmitigated disaster. Anyone who has read my prior blogs on fracking would see why, e.g. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/02/that-disgusting-oil-reeking-fluid.html
and  http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/03/doctors-muzzled-to-prevent-warning.html


The facts are substantial so that appeal to scientific basis must mean not going forward with fracking and applying the precautionary principle: the frackers must prove their methods aren’t harmful to ground water supplies, not the converse- that potential victims must prove the harm. Already there have been more than 1,000 documented cases of water contamination while methane leaks associated with hydraulic fracturing have caused houses and wells to explode.  Moreover, fracking doesn’t just contaminate water but air as well. Residents in Dish, TX have repeatedly complained of illness since frackers arrived. Air quality tests have revealed high levels of benzene in the air.


The notion of natural gas as “clean energy” is also a myth. While it emits half as much carbon as coal and 70% as much as oil, it still imposes a carbon burden. In addition, it emits large quantities of methane gas which is 30 times more potent than CO2.  These figures, though smaller than the coal and oil carbon burdens ought not be ignored given that we have now hit 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, a threshold not reached for nearly 3 million years (Denver Post, today, p. 1B). What the new threshold means is that we have far less margin for error. Do we really want to conduct an aberrant experiment to turn our planet into another Venus, with a runaway Greenhouse effect - making it uninhabitable for future generations?

The production of this fuel also isn’t “clean” as it damages water, air and infrastructure. It is, in reality, no different from fouling our own nest to get a temporary solution to an energy problem –which is really spawned by too high a global population and too concentrated energy use.


Here are 5 other facts on fracking that ought to cause alarm and get the attention of our politicos who are too often hostage to special (read 'monied') interests:

1- Fracking a single well requires more than a million gallons of water. Here in COS, a number of wells have consumed over 3 million gallons, and many have come up empty. This insanity is occurring in an arid region in which we’ve had severe drought the past three years. The wastewater produced by fracking also contains high levels of radioactivity that wastewater treatment plants aren’t equipped to deal with.


2- Dangerous fracking chemicals are kept secret. In many states, the drilling companies won’t disclose the chemicals used in the fracking fluid, claiming the mixture is a “trade secret”. But independent analysts have identified 41 known chemicals most highly toxic carcinogens.


3- There exists a “Halliburton Loophole” with respect to most laws and oversight applied to fracking. This means the effluent generate by the frackers as well as their shale driller cohorts is exempt the Clean Air Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act So, E coli, is controlled in your water but it’s A-ok if carcinogenic benzene piles up.  Pardon me, but this selective regulation shows the paws of big, I mean BIG, lobby money!


4- The number of fracking wells is now growing at an exponential rate, in 28 states.

5- Turning on your tap (see image in previous links) liberates water accompanied by methane which can catch fire.

Fracking is unacceptable as an energy extraction process, since it imposes severe long term health costs to extract a temporary energy fix.


Q. In your April 13 blog on Bird Flu you mentioned the reported mortality rate of highly pathogenic H5N1 avian influenza and that “studies of the levels of cytokines in humans infected by the H5N1 flu virus show elevated levels of tumor necrosis factor-alpha a protein associated with tissue destruction at sites of infection and increased production of other cytokines” What does this mean for getting sick? How sick can you get? - Delores, Bellingham, WA


A. Pretty damned sick! So sick in fact, that even if you don't die you will likely want to. The tumor necrosis factor-alpha a protein is implicated in severe inflammation and also potential degeneration of organs affected, including kidneys and lungs. Similar effects were reported during the Spanish Flu pandemic but of course the micro-biological, genetic marker tie- ins weren’t then available. However, doctors who performed the autopsies of some patients reported lungs turned to jelly as well as other organs. Basically, with the cytokine storm and tumor necrosis factor-alpha a protein, your whole body is sent into a death spiral of organ shutdown, shock,coma from immune system over-stimulation.

The closest I came to this was in December, 1968 when I got the Hong Kong Flu. I vomited for days, could barely breathe as I coughed up bloody mucus with each spasm, and felt like I had burst at least one lung. It was a god-awful experience I never want to repeat, and that flu barely killed 1 m around the world. The H5N1 will likely be 100 to 500 times more lethal and brutal.  I took more than 2 months to recuperate.


Q. I got a kick out of your brother Mike’s comments in your April 21 blog on the biblical exegesis test. He claimed that “the Jesuits themselves are the “storm troopers” of the RCC, and their purpose is propagation of the RC faith by any means possible? (i.e., SATAN!)”

What is he some kind of a crackpot? I couldn’t believe this guy couldn’t take the bible test or even answer one little question. And he claims to read the good book! It seems to me he’s got a lot of talk but little to show for it. I notice that since April 30 you have totally ignored him. Is this intentional? Alice K, Joliet, IL


It is. I think I mentioned in my blog on Colorado MJ issues and Mike's onerous errors (‘Reefer Madness Redux’, April 30) that since it's useless to try to argue or debate him (since he’s totally ignorant of the basic parameters that apply to the content of any worthwhile argument) . there'd be no further exchanges. At least not until he could pass a basic test in logic, for which I provided a link at the end of the blog.


Up to now, he’s not taken the test - which indicates to me he has no logic to demonstrate, nor is he the least interested in using logic in his arguments. This being the case, he's all about making noise and nothing more.

Therefore,  it’s a waste of time to engage him on any issue. He can believe whatever he wants to believe, but I don't have to give any heed to what I regard as noise.  If then he chooses to come to this blog (which he probably does to dredge for new material since he can’t think of any on his own) that’s his choice. As far as I am concerned his blog exists only as background noise in the blogosphere. It merits no more attention than noise, and certainly not being considered as any signal.  And if it is noise, then none of his harangues or "issues"  merit being dignified by any response.

Q. My husband of 44 just had his lab test come back and his PSA has tripled in 2 yrs. from 1.8 to 5.5.  I have pleaded with him to get a biopsy but he's terrified of sepsis as he read that this occurs in any cases with these biopsies. He also fears, after reading your own blog of July 19 last year (Notes on a prostate biopsy) having a young female physician assistant doing the procedure and not the actual urologist. He also fears the type of pain you described. Is there any way to get him to change? I fear he might have an aggressive cancer that might kill him!- Genevieve R.,  Los Angeles, CA

A. Your husband is actually quite right to be concerned, as the incidence of deaths, infections (including from sepsis, or massive blood poisoning via infection) have risen sharply, see e.g. http://www.naturalnews.com/033660_prostate_biopsy.html

As the article notes:

"....the research team found that having a prostate biopsy resulted in men being more than twice as likely to need hospitalization in the immediate post-procedure period. And once hospitalized, the men were at an increased risk of serious complications including bleeding and infection, flare-ups of underlying medical conditions (such as heart failure or breathing disorders) and death.


The researchers emphasized in their paper that their new data should remind doctors to carefully consider the risks and benefits of biopsy for individual patients before performing biopsies to look for cancer in the prostate"

See also: http://www.npr.org/2011/05/23/136501992/doctors-fret-over-rise-in-prostate-biopsy-infections


So what to do?  The best advice is to discuss the problem with one's personal physician, and this includes a cost -benefits assessment. In my case, the biopsy was done after PSA doubling, and then after the free PSA test, which also yielded a high probability of cancer. (The free PSA may actually be the most sensible next step. It measures the concentration of free prostate specific antigen, i.e. in the blood, relative to the bound form. The result comes back as a percentage. If it is 25% or higher then the chances are more than 90% the problem is enlargement of the prostate, not cancer. If the result is 5% or less, then the odds switch in the other direction: 77% that it's cancer and not benign hypertrophy.)


My biopsy, done after the free PSA,  then found an aggressive adenocarcinoma in two cores (Gleason socre 4+3) , and cancer present in five (lowest score Gleason 3+3). I was told by the urologist that watchful waiting could not be an option, so elected to have high dose radiotherapy. 

The infection risk from prostate biopsies can be contained with scrupulous cleanliness, and that means a thorough enema before hand. Also, the biopsy patient  takes a ciproflaxin  pill just before. Another alternative is to have the biopsy performed via the trans-perineal route (through the perineum) which carries vastly less risk of infection because the rectum wall isn't being penetrated by the tissue extracting needles. The problem is that this trans-perineal procedure is usually more costly, since in general the patient has to be put under (general anesthesia) and more staff are needed to be present.

Re: the physician assistant, I don't think the sex ought to matter - but whether the person is competent. A good way to find out is to become a temporary member of 'Angie's List' and then look up urologists and see what the reviews say.  The fact is that more and more physician assistants are now doing these procedures, and if they have the proper training - which most do - then the expertise should not be an issue.

FACT: You’re More Likely Dead from a Drunk Driver in FLA Than From an MJ User in Colorado!

Well, let's get it out into the open: Fact-based reality is a challenge for most repukes and Southern Tea party types in the best of times. In times of political upheaval especially with the North-South divide increasing due to hatred of Obama, it goes over the top. Especially for a certain blogger who yaps a lot but is unable to even pass a relatively simple test in his self-proclaimed area of expertise.


Enter then a recent, semi-serious blog in which he holds Florida up as an exemplar “vacation spot” (along with other formerly Rebel enclaves like MS, AL) while dissing all the “Yankee” states- i.e. north of the Mason-Dixon line- as well as Colorado. In the latter case he bloviates about the prospective traveler’s likelihood of getting killed – maybe run down or whatever- by a pot-crazed lunatic, given our state has passed Amendment 64 to allow recreational use of pot.


Of course, this is as much codswallop as his obsession over a non-existent "salvation" and  its schizoid driving forces: “Satan” and “Hell”. So one must wonder if those puerile, phantasmagorical ideations formed some kind of embolism in his deteriorating brain leading him to write so much crap about Colorado and marijuana!   The FACT is that any would-be traveler is much more likely to be killed by a drunk in Florida than even sideswiped by an MJ user here in Colorado. But don’t believe me, check out the state of Florida’s own statistics from a state site:  http://www.dmvflorida.org/florida-dui.shtml
Therein we learn:

"According to Florida DMV records there were 33,625 DUI convictions in Florida in 2011. Of the 55,722 DUI tickets issued in Florida in 2011 - 9,328 were issued by the FHP, 23,649 were issued by police departments in Florida, and 21,868 were issued by Florida Sheriffs departments.”


Comparable statistics in all categories for MJ users in COLORADO : O

We also learn the following DUI stats for assorted arrests in Florida counties:


· Hillsborough County (Tampa) - 3,256

· Miami-Dade - (Miami) - 2,274

· Duval County - (Jacksonvile Area) - 2,222

· Pinellas County (St Petersburg) - 1,824

· Palm Beach County (West Palm Beach) - 1,561

· Orange County (Orlando) - 1,383

· Brevard County (Melbourne) - 1,072

· Broward County (Fort Lauderdale) - 985

Comparable driving-related stats for MJ users in COLO, for all counties: Zero

We also learn about fatalities from this site: http://www.dui-usa.drinkdriving.org/Florida_dui_drunkdriving_statistics.php


For which we find:

717 fatal accidents in Florida where at least one driver had a BAC (Blood alcohol content) of 0.08% or above


803 people were killed in Florida in accidents where at least one driver had a BAC of 0.08% or above

154 people were killed in Florida in accidents where at least one driver had a BAC between 0.01% and 0.07%


These are startling stats! Look at them! That is a total of  957 deaths from drunken drivers! There are also likely hundreds of shooting incidents, including accidents, engendered by too high a BAC but the state (fortuitously) keeps no records on those. Meanwhile, the comparable stats for marijuana users in Colorado? Zero!

The hard truth, which this bozo seems not to process, is that you’re much more likely to lose your life from a drunken driver in FLA than from an MJ user in Colorado. Yes, the basis analog for the argument is different, but then he brought it on himself by harping on all the “ills” of pot use in Colorado – while neatly overlooking that marijuana is not the culprit in ANY state, rather alcohol is. It leads to more DUI deaths, more accidents – including by use of weapons- than MJ does in any parallel universe.


The guy’s fact base is so distorted that he actually impugned Gov. John Hickenlooper of CO despite the fact he was never a fan of Amendment 64. Indeed, in the wake of its passage, he was the one that  snarkily warned voters they’d best “not get high on Cheetos”.


Hickenlooper was also the one that proposed, after 64’s passage, a way to get MORE Federal oversight- working with the U.S. Attorney Gen. ! This so outraged many that Denver Post columnist Vincent Carroll was driven to write a column ('Come On, Governor, Defend 64!' , Nov. 8, 2012, p. 21A) to steer the Guv to the side of the angels. (Alas, he's gone more to the side of the 'devils'- as in recently drinking a glass of allegedly "fracked" water and declaring it "tastes fine, has no ill effects".)


Sadly, what all of this shows is that “Mr. Johnny Reb Blogger” has no clue what goes on in this state, nor the comparable damage done by alcohol relative to MJ. But then why be surprised when he earlier shot his yap off about Chicago being the the No. 1 city for homicides in the USA, when FBI uniform crime stats disclosed Detroit! Or, being totally unaware that the Vietnam conflict was started on a pretext, or that the ‘Amazing Race’ episode he calumniated was not about “forcing contestants to learn a communist song” but rather matching different symbols on posterboards.


But after all, why be surprised? This is the same character that wouldn’t even attempt a test in his own proclaimed specialty area, biblical exegesis, i.e. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/04/can-pastor-mike-pass-basic-test-on.html

This despite being given unlimited time to take it!


Perhaps, before  Mr. 'Goober' next blogs on MJ or Colorado, he might learn a bit more from other subjects. Say like: Sociology, crime statistics, American history......oh, and basic English.  Maybe at his FLA Smokehouse Bible College, assuming there are any offerings besides "bible study" and watching Woody Woodpecker cartoons!

Lawmakers in Colorado Want to Repeal the Marijuana Law? Are They Nuts?

Three months ago I noted the travesty of local Colorado communities attempting to invoke local laws to skirt around Amendment 64 passed in November with nearly two thirds of the votes.

I observed that, one by one, communities across the state were trying to peck it to death with idiotic "NIMBY" laws. Never mind this violates a STATE constitutional amendment. In principle, ALL the communities were subverting the will of their own voters, and their "laws" emerged as derelict and UNLAWFUL! Douglas County and its associated burgs started this nonsense and then was joined by others. Then, 3 months ago we learned from a Denver Post piece ('Greenwood Village Ordnance to Test Pot Legalization law', Feb. 2, p. 1A) )that the Greenwood Village City Council - undoubtedly packed with Village idiots-  jumped on the 'Ban the MJ in Our Burg' Bandwagon.


According to the Post story:
“An ordinance passed last month in Greenwood Village is poised to become a test case for how far cities can go to keep marijuana out of their communities after legalization.  In early January, the Greenwood Village City Council voted to ban use, possession and transportation of marijuana on city property."

In other words, any citizen of the state of Colorado caught transporting even 1 oz of MJ on village property would be tossed into the hoosegow.

Now, we learn, from today's Denver Post, it's even worse.  Some insane state legislators want to repeal the state constitutional amendment in entirety. They want to actually do an end run to subvert the will of nearly 2 of 3 Colorado voters.  In effect, spitting on their franchise and telling them by their arrogant actions that citizens don't count in this state, no matter how sizeable a majority a laws passes.

Leading the charge, at least one of them- is Rep. Frank McNulty of Highland Park. But as usual there are traitorous Dem reps- pussies involved too. One Dem, House Speaker Mark Ferrandino of Denver was quoted in the Post saying the plan is: "worth the conversation".

Worth the conversation? Overturning the will of the voters? Are U nuts?

Another Dem, Sen. John Morse of Colorado Springs,  blurted: "I am absolutely supportive of the idea."

Oh really? SO you will now add your name to the already long list of Democ- rats we can't trust? Who spout gibberish about being "for the people" but end up doing otherwise!

What's this all about? It's simple really! When Amendment 64 was first proposed - even before CO voters passed it- every freakin' manjack in the legislature knew that many i's would need to be dotted and t's crossed before the bill would emerge this summer. A host of regulations, including to do with taxes, and whether MJ could be smoked in apartments, or shared at houses etc. came to the fore. All of a sudden something that seemed fairly simple became ever more complex and .....our lawmakers punked out...taking the easy route of restriction and now attempted repeal - instead of doing the heavy lifting.

This is pretty typical of political punks in each party, however, so we must not be surprised. Also that many of those in the league of repression and/or repeal are in the pockets of Big PhRmA or Alcohol and don't want to see those special pet interests competing with MJ for sales. Hence, a clever smokescreen had to be invented. That is along the lines of taxes.

So what have these swine come up with? A new ballot measure in November, to pay for marijuana implementation- via TAXES. Then, if the voters don't ALSO pass that measure, it will be repeal for Amendment 64. (So, look for a clever rider to take down 64 with any rejection of the higher state taxes ballot).  This execrable strategy comes on the heels of a supposed academic paper out of the Univ. of Colorado- that claims that MJ sales and taxes therefrom would never pay for the costs of operation and the state would lose. This is funny bullshit reasoning given our esteemed punk lawmakers have no problems passing fracking leases which essentially give away the store to outside frackers, oil companies - while health costs are sent sky high.

Meanwhile, as this repeal plan continues to be vetted and rewritten (to try to make it more appealing) pro-MJ forces are coming together to counteract it.

And no, this isn't  merely about smoking pot. As someone who never has and likely never will, it's not about me not getting my "daily toke".

No, it's about respecting the will of the voters.

If we can't even exercise the ideals of democracy at this small, state scale, we have no business calling ourselves such or even mouthing rhetoric about "liberty".  We're all simply cogs in a vast corporate machine in which money and lobby interests trump the voters' will. You can be poisoned and get cancer from fracked water unleashed in your groundwater, but you can't smoke a joint.

We are governed merely by a corporate dictatorship which decides the benefits it will allow (mostly to corporations, big business), and which it will hurl into the dumpster (those to be enjoyed by individual citizens).

Obama Haters Need to Grow Up! AND 10 Takeaways from Election Night

Images on a Right whacko's blog.  (TOP: After the election was called for Obama, BOTTOM - just before). He is going into mental meltdown mode after Obama's win last night. Maybe he needs some MJ cookies.

As readers can see from the attached images, the Obama hating assholes haven’t relented despite a decisive electoral win over the lying, job-dismantling, petulant in defeat,  former BAIN CEO Mittens Romney. Can Obama expect cooperation from these fools? Don’t bet on it! The same blogger that posted the attached top and bottom images also had the temerity to scrawl on his blog:


“I wonder if Obummer really "won." Reports are coming in that (biased?) pollworkers in several states were giving ballots to individuals with no photo IDs. Which is why the Left has always opposed them. And...I wonder how many of those who voted (with no IDs) were even in this country legally!

No matter. "...be sure your sin will find you out" ( Numbers 32:23). As an evangelical Christian, I have personally seen and experienced much tragedy, hate, etc., and, although I may not understand at the time why things sometimes go the way they do, I put my faith in God, as opposed to confidence in man. In other words, I "walk by faith, not by sight" ( 2 Cor. 5:7 )."

  The last line was especially amusing as he had total faith the Mittster would win – and in a LANDSLIDE! How much dumbass faith is that? Maybe what we need to do is to get this hater into a nice video – DANCING with Obama – instead of hating on him.

But in my takeaways I will show why this nut is off his rocker. If ANY votes were “stolen” it was by the other side – likely in VA, FL and OH – making those states much closer by electronically switching votes (see two blogs ago – the link showing a machine vote switch in action)

The TEN Takeaways:


1- Nate Silver (538 blog) is a freaking pollster GURU! With a 90 % probability he basically nailed the result for Obama electorally – while taking all kinds of venom from Mittens’ Repuke Goon Gallery. The latter, as I noted before, simply couldn’t tolerate the nature of statistical reality and opted to diss it rather than accept it.

2- Willard Mitt was in the end his own worst enemy, as even assorted earlier defenders acknowledge this morning. No one in the end knew where this shapeshifter stood – he was a hard core Tea Bagger puppet in the REEP debates then morphed into a wannabe “moderate” during the presidential debates. In the end most intelligent people couldn’t reconcile his changes to who he really was,  or accept that what he said truly mattered to him - or to them!

3- Superstorm Sandy was indeed the ‘black Swan’ embodiment I noted earlier in a previous blog, and showed that indeed people need government when the going gets tough – while showing (with images of Gov. Chris Christie) Obama could work across the aisle and was indeed the grown up here.

4- The White Evangelical Cracker votes Mittens and his campaign kept insisting would arrive with “passion” (defeating or denying the polls like Nate Silver’s) didn’t emerge. The total white vote proportion was 72% and needed to be at least 74% for the Mittster to have a chance. The white cracker votes were at least cancelled out in Florida and Colorado by a 70%+ Hispanic turnout in those states. THAT turnout plausibly neutralized electronic vote thefts in those states. (Making the election close enough to toss to Willard Mitt, but now - thanks to the huge Puerto Rican Dem turnout in the I-94 central Florida corridor that state will likely have its 29 electoral votes for Obama.)

5- Obama took the Rust Belt states of Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin by finally giving a full throated defense of the auto bailout that people in those states could understand, especially using the ‘spokes on a bicycle wheel’ analogy of how jobs spread from Detroit outwards to other states which manufacture tires, auto parts, etc. This ensured large union turnout and likely neutralized the effort to electronically steal (switch) votes using a recently installed, uncertified electronic computer “patch”. (Union households went 60% to 38% for Obama, according to a CBS News poll this morning).

6- Virginia and Ohio going for Obama was also helped by a large women’s vote, for example in Ohio going to Obama by 56% to 40%. In Virginia women in Loudon County were appalled at their governor’s efforts to demand invasive ultrasound probes before allowing an abortion. Threats against contraception and hence increased health costs also caused women in Ohio to vote for Obama far more than their non-unon working class hubbies.

7- “The War on Women” coming to the fore, compliments of firebrand Christian idiots like Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock, assured at least six Senate seats going to the Dems including Clare McCaskill’s in Missouri and Joe Donnelly’s in Indiana. As even conservo Joe Scarborough observed this morning, this issue was one of idiocy,  not conservative identity.


8- The Youth vote in Colorado, coming out by nearly 60%-38% for Obama also hinged on the vote for Amendment 64 to make marijuana in small amounts legal for recreational use for all citizens 21 yrs. and older. This is another reason, as I will show below, Obama needs to get control of his agency – the DEA- to get them to back off State’s prerogatives as reflected in citizen initiatives. The alternative is to stir anti-government sentiment among youth in key states (like Colorado and Washington) which could be catastrophic for Dems.

9- The demographic reflected in the election disclosed whites no longer “control” the nation’s electoral map. Whites have continually been hard-assed against Obama in this cycle from the get go, with white men going for Mittens by nearly 66% to 34% and white women not much better at 56% to 38%. This racial split is deplorable and leads the impartial observer to at least suspect some racial motivation.


10. Obama Earned at least Political Capital He Can USE:

Obama will be told by the Extreme Reepos (like Mitch McConnell who delivered a most ungracious response last night) that he has no “mandate” because of the close popular vote, about 50%-49%, but by a large electoral win (likely with 332 final) he has at least political capital. How to use it?


A) GO OVER THE FISCAL CLIFF!

The “fiscal cliff” as I have pointed out before, is largely a confection invented by a certain Washington Neoliberal Elite to justify severe “entitlement” cuts down the road. They figure if they can get the Bush tax cuts to be retained for all now – yelping about a “massive recession” if we don’t- that they can use that as leverage to cut domestic benefits programs later. This is all so much HORSE SHIT! There is no fiscal cliff, and in fact DIVING over it is the best way to solve an otherwise intractable deficit problem (as even fiscal hawk David Walker would agree).

According to William Gale, an economist at the Brookings Institute and former adviser to George H.W. Bush:

“It will be much easier to negotiate a budget deal going over the cliff. It seems to be the only way we can boost revenues.”

Adds Matt McAlvanah, a spokesman for Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), the fourth-ranking Democrat:

“The willingness to go over the cliff is a means to force a deal,”

This is the point! The Repukes and Mitch McConnell, Eric Kantor and Weepy eyed Johnno Boehner, will make no “grand deal” on their own that includes ANY significant revenues no matter how much Obama may want them. Why would they? Their agenda now is to deny the Prez a Legacy, as opposed to being a one –termer.

The best means to attain deficit control and sobriety is therefore to go OVER the alleged “cliff” and in the process solve the problem without any need for Reepo cooperation or agreement to higher revenues. The revenues come automatically! By merely passively allowing ALL tax cuts to expire – the payroll tax cuts (which never should have been there in the first place since they FUND Social Security which the Reeps want to cut) as well as the Bush tax cuts for all classes, enormous deficit reduction is attained – without the bullshit and rigamorole to pander to the Reepos.

In fact, $500b would be saved the next fiscal year, and $3.7 trillion over ten years – with NO Bush tax cuts. The supposed consequences would not be catastrophic at all but only incrementally crimp some wanton consumption. (Most people never even noticed the payroll tax cuts coming into their pay packets each week!) . In large measure, the fantasy of the horrendous results of "diving" are based on the myth that tax cuts energize the economy and create jobs. But the opposite is true, as a Financial Times analysis of the Bush tax cuts showed (FT, 9/15/10) People – the Middle class- meanwhile, can then be told that this is a small price to pay to retain their government benefits which otherwise would require draconian cuts down the line.


B) Get Control of your Agencies and DEMAND the Reepos Finally Complete the Remaining Federal Office Picks from Last Term

Both are important and run in tandem. The REEPS must be made to understand that they cannot continue to hold up key picks for federal agencies, offices – and need to pay a price if they do. One method is a tack used several times by JFK, cut defense spending, contracts in their districts if they fail to cooperate.

It is also important Obama gain control of his federal agencies overall, instead of “letting the inmates run the asylum”, so to speak. A case in point is the DEA, which has been running amuck with raids on medical marijuana (MJ) dispensaries in CA, CO the last two years, despite Obama stating clearly in 2009 this sort of thing would not be a priority. Then WHY are they doing it?

According to author Rob Kampia (‘Legalize It!’, Playboy, November, p. 56):

“The federal attacks on medical marijuana aren’t driven by calculated politics ….Rather the attacks are the result of Obama being a bad manager. ….

In 2009 and 2010 the Department of Justice followed the president’s lead – just as any staff with a new boss would – and let medical marijuana flourish across the country. Unfortunately, over time the staff noticed that Obama, his Chief of Staff and other White House bosses weren’t holding the DOJ accountable. DOJ staffers started doing what most other unsupervised employees would do: They followed their own agendas.”

Obama, now that two states (WA, CO) have legalized pot for recreational use, needs to respect citizen voter rights for those amendments to constitutions in those states and tell the DEA hotshots to back off. Order them to follow his lead, not engage in their own freelancing. If not, and the feds continue intervening and impeding, this could cost the Dems the MJ states in future elections – and this may be critical in tight future elections (See also my takeaway #8)


C) Pull out of Afghanistan SOONER, instead of waiting until 2014. You will be able to save at least $550 b more in squandered treasure, not to mention dozens more American lives, and you don’t need to put on the bravado military posture any more to show voters how tough you are. In other words, you will now finally earn your Nobel Peace Prize in the eyes of many!

D) Don’t appease the Reepos or believe they will make nicey now with you. These are the same jackwads that obstructed everything in your first term. Make them come to you…..don’t offer any peace pipes to them! This is the least your voters expect after waiting in line for hours – for many of them – in key battleground states.

There! 'Nuff Said!

As for the asshole blogger that thinks Obama is an “Evil King” – take a look at your own side for once, friend, and maybe pull yourself away from the computer and help out the less fortunate instead of pissing on them all the time.