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Sessions' recent aggressive and outdated remarks meanwhile harken back to an era where virtually nothing was understood about marijuana and hence, it  served as a vehicle for government propaganda and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 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?

CO Springs City Council Punks Out of MJ Retail Shops

Despite all their bloviations, and professing "respecting the will of Colorado voters", five sellout political whores on the Colorado Springs City Council punked out yesterday and canceled out of any plans to set up marijuana retail shops.  Note these were basically the same lot that some months earlier approved fracking operations - thereby setting the stage for likely contamination of the COS water supply, while wasting tens of millions of gallons in a severe drought region. WTF is wrong with these assholes? Especially as Pueblo, to the south, approved the MJ retail shops and will now reap the mammoth tax largesse to help its community that the conserve morons to the north have foregone.

Residents of the Springs (and note the Amendment 64 vote passed in El Paso County that harbors the Springs back in November) will now travel to Pueblo to get their MJ, and btw, that will include the military that the local anti-MJ yokels are trying to protect. (The meme pumped by the cave-ins was that the local Military had insisted the retail shops be voted down. Look for their denizens to get stoked on more alcohol now, with more fistfights, brawls and fired rounds outside the night clubs near Tejon St. downtown!)


Protestors scream in protest in front of City Hall yesterday - the Council ignored them.

"Stunned" is the only word to describe local citizens - who saw again how the local Military complex spat on their votes - after the 5-4 vote to ban retail marijuana sales in Colorado Springs was read into the record.  Meanwhile, "strong" Tool, errrr.......Mayor Steven Bach, bellowed that this just had to be done or the city would "lose jobs". In fact, the city hasn't gained any jobs to speak of in years since its tech enclave collapsed ca. 2003 and hundreds had to find alternative work at Safeway or Walmart. With less money earned, the tax base shriveled up.

The only jobs the city has actually added have been military, which we need like a hole in the head.  These guys spend all right- mainly at the Px. At least 15,000 new military have been added since 2009 (mainly transfers from Ft. Hood, TX) and all they've done is drain city resources resulting in budget deficits, closed - shuttered schools, doused street lamps, weed-overgrown medians, and clogged roads - also worn down more often by the heavier traffic. The MJ retail shops offered a way to add badly needed revenues outside the military orbit, but the five assholes on City Council who voted against it decided to spit on the voters of the state.

 Subsequently, fifty proponents of MJ retail sales stormed out, with some angrily yelling, "I hope you're happy." The implication clearly being that we will see even more local deficits now, more streets unpaved, more street lights turned off and more schools closed. How stupid can local repukes be? Pretty fucking stupid! Especially as a number of them trotted out the canard that if approved, "a seedy element" would be attracted to the Springs. I have news for these dopes, without the affirming vote a black market and TRUE seedy element will take over, likely with MJ bought in Pueblo being resold here at higher prices on the sly.  Oh, and more Mexican cartel presence competing!

The decision came down to council member Val Snider, who was the swing vote to ban retail marijuana sales in the city - a surprise to proponents of Amendment 64. Snider had kept his views on the issue close to the vest over the past months and during recent public hearings. Snider, an at-large city council member, said he could not reconcile the conflict of allowing retail pot sales with federal law, which lists marijuana as a Schedule 1 controlled substance.   This is a true copout since Obama has already gone on record saying that Justice Dept. would not interfere in state's amendments, laws passed by voters. It would be stupid to do so anyway, creating  a major liability for the political party associated with it.

Snider also claimed that allowing pot to be sold over the counter would send the wrong message to youth. This also is bollocks, since youth are already using tons of stuff - including alcohol, parents' meds and hair spray -all of which  they prefer over MJ, because of lower cost.  The only message Snider is sending to kids is that he believes they are as stupid as he is.


"Bottom line, I'm not convinced we need to make it more accessible," he said.

Bottom line, I think your time as a Council member is soon gonna end!

Colorado voters in November approved Amendment 64, which allows adults over 21 to possess one ounce of marijuana for recreational use. The law also allows stores to sell marijuana and other products made with marijuana, with a city's approval. Already more than 20 Colorado cities and towns - including Woodland Park, Green Mountain Falls and Castle Rock - have opted not to allow such sales.  All these have chosen to spit on the will of voters, and make no mistake, there will be a reckoning at the next election!


Council members Jan Martin and Jill Gaebler disagreed with Bach's take that approval would be a "job killer" , saying retail marijuana stores would create jobs.

"We want to bring economic development to this city - we can do that by having a vibrant downtown," Gaebler said.

"The younger generation has a vision of what the city should look like. We can do something different and special."

She meant different from the expansive military presence that dominates the city, from Fort Carson in the east to Peterson AFB and the Air Force Academy.  The city, indeed, embodies the meaning of the "military industrial complex" since it has tossed its hat in the ring with ever expanded military funds for useless wars. Now with the sequester, that spigot is drying up, and at least MJ offered an alternative.  Martin said she could not imagine making a decision that went against the voters of Colorado and Colorado Springs. She said Colorado Springs had an opportunity to be a leader.

"We did it with medical marijuana - cities all over the state look to us and our regulations," she said.

Outside the  council chambers, proponents of Amendment 64 stood disappointed. They had rallied outside City Hall with signs and chants and they gave passionate testimony, often quoting historic figures on the Constitution and citizen rights. But it wasn't enough to sway five council members.

"To see two at-large council members throw the vote of the community under the bus, I'm disappointed and angry," said Mark Slaugh, owner of iComply, a business that helps medical marijuana dispensaries follow state regulations.

Slaugh said the ban meant lost jobs and lost taxes for the city.

"It means we maintain the status quo, which hasn't been the greatest image from the outside looking in," he said.


Shaking off the sting of the vote, some proponents of Amendment 64 said they won't let the issue die. They could force it to a ballot in November 2014, which is allowed under the state law, said Jason Warf, legislative director for Colorado Springs Medical Cannabis Council.

"The city has woken a sleeping giant," he said. "I think we will see a lot of citizens up in arms. Going against the will of the voters, no matter what the subject, is never a big hit."

As I said, these dopes who voted in the negative will pay at the polls. Also, all the tools around the state that helped circumscribe the will of voters will see their terms soon ending.

You can make book on it!

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.

Will The Will of the Voters Be Respected? Or Will the Feds Snuff It Out?

One of the frequent adverts appearing in Colorado weekly Independent papers for medical MJ. Now that Amendment 64 has passed, for the use of recreational pot by 2014, will the Feds respect the voters' will or spit on local democracy? (Note: this applies also in Washington state, which passed a similar amendment.)

As Amy Chua once observed in her strirring book ('World on Fire') about the West's fetish and yen to spread democracy to the world at large (especially to Muslim nations), you have to be prepared to live with whatever the result of the democratic outcome - irrespective of how much you may despise it. If you don't, then you're a hypocrite, who preaches democracy when it's convenient but rejects it whenever the result doesn't suit your fancy. Hence, when free and fair  elections were actually held in Lebanon some years ago, and Hezbollah prevailed, the West needed to shut the hell up, and not carp about a result that it had to know was at least a finite probability.  Again, if you are pro -Democracy, you are obliged to be consistent, not favor it only when your outcome is likely!

Now, fast forward to the recent U.S. election, and despite the skylarking of late night comedians about "Rocky Mountain Highs", an Amendment (64) has been voted on and passed in Colorado which allows citizens the recreational use of marijuana. This applies to all adults 21 and older, and is due to take effect in 2014, with recreational shops opening in addition to the already existing medical marijuana dispensaries.  Aleady the Feds appear to be getting nervous, though they shouldn't be - the PEOPLE have spoken after all.

As I noted in an earlier blog on this subject: http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/09/feds-need-to-back-off-on-colorados.html  the Federal government needs to back off and get a grip. The Ninth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, after all, ensures unenumerated rights exercised by citizens. These are rights not specifically laid out or mentioned in the formal Constitution. In the case of Colorado Amendment 64, the state's citizens - by a 55% -45% determination, approved of a state constitutional amendment allowing for the recreational use of MJ. As I noted in the previous blog, this is not done via "States'  rights" since technically states have no rights, but rather exercised prerogatives. (see e.g. A Necessary Evil-A History Of American Distrust Of Government, Simon & Schuster, 1999, by Prof. Garry Wills ) Hence,  it's been done via the state prerogative of a citizen ballot issue, exercised from the natural rights of the state's citizens.

If then the Federal government were to barge in and stop it, under whatever ruse (say arguing that the law's retail sales section violates the U.S. Constitution because it "frustrates federal drug laws") then the federal government  (which like the states possesses no natural rights) is effectively abrogating the rights of Colorado's citizens. More to the point, it's asserting that its federal prerogative trumps the citizen's natural rights! But as Prof. Wills has noted, under no true constitutional premise can a prerogative - of either state or federal gov't - trump citizens' natural rights. If it does, one no longer has a true democracy or arguably even a republic!

Now, for the record, let me make clear as I have before, that I have no "dog" in this issue or fight. I have never used MJ even to simply pre-puff minus inhaling. My concern is not one out of any objective to get hold of or use pot (which I could've done to abate my cancer treatment symptoms - but never did) but rather the state's adherence to ballot measures, properly administered and voted upon. This is irrespective of whatever federal laws there are, which as I've also noted, are mostly there to protect Big PhRmA and the alcohol industry.  If corporate handouts, lobbyist interests were made more clear and transparent, it'd be seen this isn't an issue of kids getting "hooked" or any morality or legality but rather protecting the nascent corporatocracy.

Thus, pardon me while I howl with laughter on reading (actually in today's issue of The Barbados Advocate, p. 8) that former NIXON Drug Czar Robert Dupont "welcomes a confrontation". He basically says: 'Bring it on!' Are you kidding me?  Like all the other Nixonians (think Haldeman, Ehrlichmann, Chuck Colson et al and recall Nixon was impeached) he favors "confrontation" and opposes any legalization. He also says (ibid.): "I think it's time to resolve it".

Indeed. But HOW? In whose favor? If in favor of the federal gov't then essentially citizens wasted their time and effort in casting ballots for the measure, and democracy is spat upon. The gov't dislikes yet another outcome of democratic choice, boo hoo. And moreover, it does this to a state that desperately needs tax revenues (e.g. for educational funding) and so would plausibly terminate a business that could raise $100 m in annual revenues by 2017, this in addition to the $171 m in revenues already raised yearly by medical MJ dispensaries. So let me get this straight, if Dupont's spiel is to be believed (and btw, why is he even being quoted? He can't be part of Obama's DOJ!) the federal government floating in a sea of red ink is prepared to oust the means for a blue state to dig out of its own red ink - because it doesn't like the means of doing so? Gimme a break already

But the question of implementation remains with the need to assure the citizens' will is respected (as Gov. John Hickenlooper originally declared - after he initially beseeched voters not to 'overload on Cheetos') whle the feds' most ardent drug enforcers (likely still retained Bushies from 43's admin.) don't get their pants in too much of a twist over it.  According to today's Denver Post ('State Must Set Regulations' , p. 4A) Mr. Rob Kampia, the executive Director of the Marijuana Policy Project,  "will try to negotiate with the federal government on implementing the measure" and the emphasis will be on finding a method "least offensive in order to avoid a federal crackdown".

Meanwhile, a savvy reader in today's Post (a Dan Danbom, p. 30A) writes:

"I think we should follow the lead of the states that decided to 'opt out' of the federal health care law...and simply opt out of the federal drug laws that criminalize marijuana."

Maybe, but it would do to remind Mr. Danbom that the feds would likely then try the gambit invoking the Commerce clause, i.e. the law's retail sales section violates the U.S. Constitution because it "frustrates federal drug laws".  What I see then, is maybe the U.S. drug laws are the problem and need to be changed. All they're doing now is massively adding to our national debt by forcing the incarceration of tens of millions for petty drug "crimes" and thereby wasting resources that could be going for education, infrastructural repair or other more pressing needs. Again, it's a matter of national priorities! In the same way, our nation can't be sustainable if it keeps pissing money into the military-industrial complex, it can't be sustainable if it keeps pissing billions into the drug enforcement- prison industrial complex. This isn't exactly rocket science.

In the end, the most pragmatic and insightful take may be that of Denver Post columnist Vincent Carroll ( 'Come On, Governor, Defend 64'  , Nov. 8, p. 21A) with whom I normally disagree - except in this case when his (libertarian) and my (liberal) instincts coincide:

"Speaking of retail and cultivation faciities, there are already more than 1,000 in Colorado - handling the same product that would be sold under 64. If the feds can tolerate those operations, they can tolerate what voters approved on Tuesday as well."

Finally, it bears repeating that Obama won a close race in Colorado thanks to a preponderance of youthful voters who also came out to support Amendment 64 (by 60% to 38%). By betraying the exercise of their voting rights, Obama and his DOJ could well lose Colorado in future national elections for the Dems, turning it back into a Red state as the youth stay home. ("Why vote for those bums if I just get betrayed?")   In any future close electoral vote, such a loss would be critical. (For example, had Obama lost OH, VA and FL, then simply picking up Iowa, Wisconsin and COLORADO would still have given him 272 electoral votes.)

Yes, as The Advocate noted, Obama also has to contend with the "law and order" types who want to maintain MJ crackdowns. But a peek at the voter profiles-demographics in CO will show him that those types, who were beaten in the 64 choice, are mainly old white men, walking-talking bleached out fossils. The same demographic that basically lost Tuesday's election! Why then back a loser, or losers?