Trump slams Fauci over testimony on COVID-19 surge


Tensions between president and expert have been simmering for months.

By EVAN SEMONES

8/2/20

U.S. President Donald Trump publicly rebuked Dr. Anthony Fauci on Saturday, forcefully rejecting the nation’s top infectious disease expert's testimony on why the U.S. has experienced a renewed surge in coronavirus cases.

“Wrong!” Trump wrote in a retweet of a video where Fauci explained to a House subcommittee that the U.S. has seen more cases than European countries because it only shut down a fraction of its economy amid the pandemic. “We have more cases because we have tested far more than any other country, 60,000,000. If we tested less, there would be less cases,” the president added.


Fauci made the remarks during his Friday testimony on the Trump administration’s response to the coronavirus outbreak.

The director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, appearing with CDC Director Robert Redfield and Assistant Secretary for Health Adm. Brett Giroir, contended that the White House’s decision to leave shutdown decisions to states allowed the virus to run rampant.

“If you look at what happened in Europe when they shut down … they really did it to the tune of about 95-plus percent,” Fauci said in his testimony after panel chair Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) presented a chart contrasting Covid-19 cases in the U.S. and Europe.

“When you actually look at what [the U.S.] did — even though we shut down, even though it created a great deal of difficulty — we really functionally shut down only about 50 percent of the totality of the country.”

Tensions between Trump and Fauci have been simmering for months. The president has previously retweeted posts calling for Fauci’s firing and allies of Trump’s, including top trade adviser Peter Navarro, have publicly attacked him in a smear campaign. Both Trump and Fauci maintain relations between them are good.

Trump has repeatedly claimed that the U.S. has a higher amount of cases because it tests more than any country, contradicting officials in his own administration and confounding public health experts. The president also said at a rally he had as such requested a slowdown in national testing — a claim White House officials later said was a joke.

In his Friday testimony, Fauci said he stood by previous comments that the surge was "due to a number of factors, one of which was that in the attempt to reopen, that in some situations, states did not abide strictly by the guidelines that the task force and the White House had put out and others that even did abide by it, the people in the state actually were congregating in crowds and not wearing masks."

US/UK Study: COVID-19 risk 3 times higher for front-line health workers
Healthcare workers in the United States and Britain faced significant challenges during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, a new study has found. Photo by John Angelillo/UPI | License Photo

July 31 (UPI) -- Front-line healthcare workers in the United States and Britain were more than three times as likely to report a positive COVID-19 test during the first few weeks of the pandemic, an analysis published Friday by The Lancet Public Health found.

The findings are based on self-reported data from nearly 100,000 American and British clinicians using the COVID Symptom Study smartphone app, recorded between March 24 and April 23, according to the researchers.

Preliminary results also suggest that healthcare workers' ethnic background and clinical setting, as well as the availability of personal protective equipment, or PPE, were important factors in their likelihood of testing positive for COVID-19, the researchers said.

"Previous reports from public health authorities suggest that around 10% to 20% of COVID-19 infections occur among health workers," co-author Dr. Andrew Chan said in a statement. "Many countries, including the U.S., continue to face vexing shortages of PPE."

"Our results underscore the importance of providing adequate access to PPE and also suggest that systemic racism associated with inequalities to access to PPE likely contribute to the disproportionate risk of infection among minority front-line healthcare workers," said Chan, director of cancer epidemiology at Massachusetts General Hospital.

The prevalence of COVID-19 was 2,747 per 100,000 app users among front-line care workers, compared with 242 per 100,000 app users from the general public, according to the researchers.

Gloves, gowns and face masks are recommended for those caring for COVID-19 patients, but surging demand and supply chain disruptions resulted in global shortages, the researchers said.

SCIENCE SAYS 

Face coverings, social distancing can reduce COVID-19 spread by up to 65%

Some areas have attempted to conserve PPE by reusing items or using them longer, but data on the safety of such practices is scarce, they said.

For their research, Chan and his colleagues asked COVID Symptom Study smartphone app users to provide background information about themselves, whether they work in healthcare, if they have direct contact with patients and if enough PPE was available when needed.

More than 2.6 million people participated in the COVID Symptom Study, including just under 200,000 in the United States, the researchers said.

Of these, just under 100,000 identified themselves as front-line healthcare workers and just over 5,500 reported testing positive for COVID-19, the analysis found.

Front-line healthcare workers who reported having inadequate PPE were 1.3 times more likely to have COVID-19 than those with adequate PPE, the researchers found.

Healthcare workers who reused PPE were almost 1.5 times more likely to have COVID-19, and healthcare workers caring for patients with COVID-19 without adequate PPE were almost six times more likely to test positive, the researchers said.

Even with adequate PPE, the risk of getting COVID-19 was almost 2.4 times greater for those caring for suspected COVID-19 patients -- and around five times greater for those caring for people with confirmed COVID-19 -- compared with those who were not exposed to COVID-19 patients, the researchers said.

After accounting for pre-existing medical conditions, healthcare workers from Black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds were almost five times more likely to report a positive COVID-19 result than somebody from the public, the researchers said.

White healthcare workers were around 3.5 times more likely to have COVID-19 than the public, they said.

The prevalence of COVID-19 among U.S. healthcare workers -- 461 per 100,000 app users -- was almost twice that of their British counterparts, at 227 per 100,000 app users, the researchers said.

"Our findings highlight structural inequities in COVID risk," study co-author Erica Warner said in a statement.

"Ensuring access to, and appropriate use of, high-quality PPE across care settings would help mitigate these disparities," said Warner, an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.


upi.com/7025867

#FNORD 
Glitch blamed for Mickey Mouse signing tax refund checks

State officials in Rhode Island said a technical error was responsible for 176 tax refund checks being mailed out bearing the signatures of Mickey Mouse and Walt Disney instead of the state's general treasurer and controller. File Photo by Jim Ruymen/UPI | License Photo

July 31 (UPI) -- Rhode Island state officials said a technical glitch was to blame for 176 tax refund checks being mailed out bearing the signatures of Mickey Mouse and Walt Disney.

Jade Borgeson, chief of staff for the Rhode Island Department of Revenue, confirmed the checks were mailed out this week with the signatures of Walt Disney and his most famous cartoon creation instead of Rhode Island General Treasurer Seth Magaziner and State Controller Peter Keenan.

"As a result of a technical error in the Division of Taxation's automated refund check printing system, approximately 176 checks with invalid signature lines were printed and mailed to taxpayers on Monday," Borgeson in a statement to WJAR-TV.

"The invalid signature lines were incorrectly sourced from the Division's test print files," she said.

Borgeson said most of the erroneous checks were corporate tax refunds.

"Corrected checks will be reissued to impacted taxpayers within one week," she told WPRI-TV.

Watchdog alleges Stephen Miller violated Hatch Act, requests probe

POST POTUS ELECTION THERE SHOULD BE A LOT OF TRUMP FOLKS GOING TO THE HOOSEGOW 

A government ethics watchdog called for a probe Friday into President Donald Trump's senior policy adviser Stephen Miller's alleged violations of the Hatch Act on Fox News. File Photo by Yuri Gripas/UPI | License Photo

Aug. 1 (UPI) -- A watchdog has accused President Donald Trump's senior policy advisor, Stephen Miller, of violating the Hatch Act and requested an investigation into his comments on Fox News.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed a complaint Friday to the Office of Special Counsel alleging that Miller violated the Hatch Act when he told Fox News on the same day that presumptive Democratic nominee and former Vice President Joe Biden was "stuck in a basement" in an interview from the White House grounds.

"Well, as you know, Joe Biden is stuck in a basement somewhere, and he just emerges every now and again and somebody hands him a note card, and he says whatever his 23-year-old staffer tells him to say and then he dutifully disappears to be seen a week later," Miller said in the Fox News interview. "As for former President Obama the reality is for eight years he delivered nothing but failure and betrayal to the people of this country."

The comment came after Fox host Brian Kilmeade asked Miller if he felt Trump was running against Obama or Biden. It also came in response to questions about Obama's comments on voter suppression during a eulogy he gave for the late Rep. John Lewis, which Miller called "shockingly political

RELATED Lawyers' group files professional ethics complaint against A.G. Barr

The Hatch Act is an ethics law that "prohibits federal employees from engaging in political activities while on duty," according to the U.S. Department of Interior's ethics office.

CREW accuses Miller of violating the Hatch Act since he "mixed official government business with political views" when he gave the Fox News interview.

The government ethics watchdog organization added that the Office of Special Counsel should immediately investigate its allegations.

RELATED Ambassador 'Woody' Johnson denies allegations of racist, sexist remarks

"This administration continues to use its official powers improperly to assist the president's re-election and to chip away at the checks and balances that preserve our democracy," the watchdog's executive director, Noah Bookbinder, said in a statement. "It is well past time for those like Stephen Miller, who show an open disdain for ethics laws like the Hatch Act and who illegally use official resources to promote the president's re-election bid, to be held accountable for their actions."

Last year, the Office of Special Counsel found that White House counselor Kellyanne Conway repeatedly violated the Hatch Act by criticizing Democratic presidential candidates while speaking in her official capacity and recommended removal from federal service, but Conway remains in her position.

Washington state identifies first trapped Asian giant hornet
This Asian giant hornet was trapped near Birch Bay in Whatcom County, Wash. Photo courtesy of Washington State Department of Agriculture

Aug. 1 (UPI) -- The Washington State Department of Agriculture has trapped its first Asian giant hornet.

The giant hornet was found in a department trap near Birch Bay in Whatcom County, a statement said. Officials identified the hornet at a lab on Wednesday after it had been trapped and sent for processing in mid-July.

It was the first Asian giant hornet to be detected in a trap in the state. Washington state previously confirmed five other hornets were found in the environment.

"This is encouraging because it means we know that the traps work," Sven Spichiger, the department's managing entomologist, said in the statement. "But it also means we have work to do."

The department's next steps include using infrared cameras and additional traps to catch live hornet specimens and attempts to track them back to their colony in order to eradicate the colony, according to the statement.

The Washington State Department of Agriculture said in the statement that their goal is to destroy the entire nest by mid-September when the colony would begin to create new queens and drones, which hinder the capacity to control the spread.

Asian giant hornets are estimated to be up to 2.5 inches long. Chris Looney, a entomologist in charge of exotic pests at the Washington State Department of Agriculture, spoke to CBS Sunday Morning about the previous five hornets detected and their predatory impact on honeybees.

The nickname "murder hornets'" might have come from a possible error in translation from Japanese that went viral after it was used in a New York Times article, the Sunday morning show reported.

In Japan, the Asian giant hornet has killed dozens of people in recent years.

Looney told CBS Sunday Morning that the nickname exaggerates the risk.

"'Murder hornet' doesn't work, for a couple of reasons," Looney told CBS. "One of them, it exaggerates the human health risk. These are human health risks, but like I said, we don't want to be stung by one. If you're allergic to one, obviously, that can be really dangerous. And even if you're not allergic, multiple stings certainly can lead to being hospitalized and sometimes rarely even death. But it turns out it's not that many people that die from this any given year in the places where it's native."

upi.com/7026018

IT'S THE #TRUMPVIRUS NOT THE CHINA VIRUS
Study: 65% of early COVID-19 cases globally linked to Italy, China, Iran travel

Two-thirds of early COVID-19 cases globally were linked to travel to Italy, China or Iran, a new study has found. Photo by Jim Ruymen/UPI | License Photo
July 29 (UPI) -- Almost two-thirds of confirmed COVID-19 cases outside China during early stages of the pandemic occurred among people who had traveled to Italy, China or Iran or to their close contacts, an analysis published Wednesday by The Lancet Infectious Diseases found.

Seventy-five percent of countries outside China that reported their first coronavirus infections during the first 11 weeks of the pandemic -- between Dec. 31, 2019, and March 10 of this year -- could trace the cases to travel to an already affected country, the researchers said.

Of these, 27% were linked with travel to Italy, 22% traced to China and 11% tracked to Iran, they said.

"Our findings suggest that travel from just a few countries with substantial [COVID-19] transmission may have seeded additional outbreaks around the world before the characterization of COVID-19 as a pandemic on March 11," Dr. Fatimah Dawood, a medical epidemiologist at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said in a statement.

RELATED U.S. extends border closures; EU tightens travel restrictions


COVID-19 was first identified in Wuhan, China, in December. Italy and Iran were among the first countries outside China to report large-scale outbreaks, according to the World Health Organization.

For this study, Dawood and her colleagues examined publicly available online reports from national ministries of health and other government agency websites, social media feeds and press releases to identify newly confirmed cases of COVID-19.

Countries with at least one case were classified as affected, and "early" cases were defined as the first 100 cases reported in each country, with those after the first 100 referred to as "later" cases, the researchers said.

RELATED CDC: Most COVID-19 cases in New York City in March traced to Europe

During the first 11 weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic, 32,459 confirmed cases were reported in 99 countries outside mainland China, they said.

Of 1,200 cases from 68 countries with available patient age or sex data -- 4% of the global number of cases on March 10 -- 874, or 73%, were "early" cases in their respective regions, the researchers said.

Travel to Italy was linked with three of the first six reported cases in Africa, and 16 of the first 45 reported cases in Europe. It also accounted for five of the first 13 cases in the Americas, the researchers said.

Meanwhile, travel to mainland China accounted for 10 of the first 12 reported cases in the Western Pacific region and four of the first seven in Southeast Asia, they said.

Seven of the first 16 reported cases in the Eastern Mediterranean region had a history of travel to Iran, the researchers said.

The average age of people infected in these early cases was 51 years, and only 3% were children younger than 18. Two percent of these early cases were healthcare workers, they said.

upi.com/7025286

AMERIKA;IS A POLICE STATE

DHS removes acting chief of intelligence and analysis after protest response

lack Lives Matter protesters against racism and police brutality storm the Justice Center and clash with local police and federal agents in downtown Portland, Ore., Monday. On Saturday reports surfaced that Brian Murphy, acting chief of intelligence and analysis for the Department of Homeland Security, following criticism of his department's handling of the protests. EPA-EFE/DAVID SWANSON

Aug. 1 (UPI) -- The Department of Homeland Security is removing its acting chief of intelligence and analysis amid criticism of his office's role in responding to civil unrest in Portland, Ore.

As of Saturday, Brian Murphy was still listed as Acting Under Secretary for the Office of Intelligence and Analysis Brian Murphy on the DHS website.

But the Washington Post has reported that DHS Secretary Chad Wolf has removed Brian Murphy from his role following a series of reports about how his office responded to nightly protests in the city.

Most recently, the reports surfaced reported that DHS had compiled "intelligence reports" on journalists who published leaked documents, and that the agency had monitored protesters' electronic communications.

RELATED Obama: 'We have to be more like John Lewis if we want true democracy'

On Saturday House Intelligence Committee chair Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said the committee had been conducting an investigation into Murphy and his department for more than two weeks.

"In light of recent public reports, we are concerned that Murphy may have provided incomplete and potentially misleading information to Committee staff during our recent oversight engagement, and that the Department of Homeland Security and I&A are now delaying or withholding underlying intelligence products, legal memoranda, and other records requested by the Committee that could shed light on these actions," Schiff said in the statement.The demonstrations have been part of a nationwide protest against police brutality and racism following the May 25 death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police.

RELATED Federal officers to begin phased withdrawal from Portland, Ore.

Tensions between demonstrators and police -- who had used tear gas and other means of crowd dispersal repeatedly in late May and throughout June -- were high before the arrival of federal officers in early July.

After DHS agents arrived in the city, viral videos showed officers -- who have dressed in military gear have not worn badges revealing their names or agencies -- appearing to arrest protesters without probable cause, drawing criticism from city officials and the public.

Video also shows federal agents shooting a protester, who was holding a boom box over his head during the incident, in the head with a rubber bullet and sending the man to the hospital.

RELATED Justice Dept.: Federal officers will go to Cleveland, Detroit, Milwaukee

On July 23 U.S. District Judge Michael Simon blocked federal agents from arresting and using force against clearly identified journalists in Portland for 14 days.

A group of journalists and legal observers has filed a motion accusing federal agents of defying that order.

On Wednesday Oregon Gov. Kate Brown announced federal officers would begin a phased withdrawal from the city beginning Thursday.

Wolf said later that day that DHS would remain in the city "until the violent activity toward our federal facilities end."

On Friday DHS published a press release saying federal officers had been present to protect the federal courthouse as part of a collaboration agreement with Oregon State Police and the Portland Police Bureau, but described the protests as peaceful and not resulting in any arrests.

AMERIKA IS A SICK COUNTRY

The Trump Administration Won A Legal Fight To Slash Federal Payments To Hospitals During The Coronavirus Pandemic


The DC Circuit ruled the administration could cut a Medicare reimbursement rate by nearly 30% for hospitals that serve patients with low incomes.

Zoe Tillman BuzzFeed News Reporte
Reporting From Washington, DC
Posted on July 31, 2020

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court ruled on Friday that the Trump administration didn't violate federal law when it scaled back a billion-dollar drug reimbursement program that benefitted public and not-for-profit hospitals serving patients with low incomes.

The legal fight predated the coronavirus pandemic, but the stakes of the case became higher this year as hospitals have lost tens of billions of dollars as nonessential services and elective surgeries were put on hold.

Starting in 2018, the Department of Health and Human Services slashed the reimbursement rate paid to certain hospitals for outpatient drugs prescribed to elderly and disabled patients covered by the Medicare program. Under what's known as the 340B program, these hospitals buy drugs at a discounted rate, and then file claims with the federal government for reimbursement.

Hospitals participating in the program collectively have earned billions of dollars annually through the program because of the difference between what they paid and the higher reimbursement rate paid out by the government.

The Trump administration argued hospitals shouldn't be earning a windfall from the discounted drug rates and approved a plan to cut the reimbursement rate by approximately 30%. The hospitals argued that Congress intended to give hospitals a way to put the money they saved by paying a discounted rate for drugs back into services for poor and underserved communities.

A federal district judge in Washington, DC, sided with the hospitals, writing in a December 2018 opinion that the rate cut's “magnitude and its wide applicability inexorably lead to the conclusion” that the agency “fundamentally altered” what Congress intended. The lower rate has been in effect notwithstanding the judge's decision, though — he declined to block it while the litigation was pending, writing that forcing the government to pay back hospitals in the meantime was "likely to be highly disruptive."

HHS estimated that the rate change would save the Medicare program $1.6 billion in 2018 alone, and that money would be distributed back to hospitals through increases in other Medicare-related reimbursements.

Hospitals that participated in the 340B program argued they would still lose money even if the agency redistributed the money. Some hospitals filed affidavits in court saying they would lose millions of dollars each year.

In a 2–1 decision written by Judge Sri Srinivasan, the DC Circuit on Friday reversed the district judge's decision, finding that the Trump administration's decision to reduce the rate "rests on a reasonable interpretation of the Medicare statute."

Congress gave HHS two options for how to set the rate, using either an average of what hospitals were actually paying for drugs, or what the drugs cost in the marketplace. HHS had been using the average drug cost information because it didn't have survey data on what hospitals were paying, and the hospitals argued the law didn't allow HHS to use that data to make such a substantial cut. The hospitals also argued that a 30% cut was too big to qualify as an "adjustment" under the law.

Srinivasan wrote that Congress hadn't "unambiguously" prohibited HHS from using average drug costs to come up with a reimbursement rate to match what hospitals were paying for the drugs, even if they didn't have the actual purchase data. The hospitals' position would make Congress's decision to give the department an alternative way to calculate the reimbursement rate "superfluous," the judge wrote.

Srinivasan was joined by Judge Patricia Millett. Judge Nina Pillard dissented, writing that she agreed with hospitals that the Medicare law could only adopt "large reductions" if it had the specific survey data of what hospitals were paying for the drugs. She also wrote that the record showed Congress anticipated hospitals would earn revenue through the program.

"The net effect of HHS’s 2018 and 2019 OPPS rules is to redistribute funds from financially strapped, public and nonprofit safety-net hospitals serving vulnerable populations — including patients without any insurance at all — to facilities and individuals who are relatively better off. If that is a result that Congress intended to authorize, it remains free to say so. But because the statute as it is written does not permit the challenged rate reductions, I respectfully dissent," Pillard wrote.

Representatives of HHS and the Justice Department, as well as the American Hospital Association, one of the hospital groups that led the challenge, did not immediately return a request for comment.


MORE ON THIS
The Trump Administration Wants To Cut Back A Billion-Dollar Healthcare Program. Hospitals Say Now Is A Really Bad Time.

Zoe Tillman · May 27, 2020

Hospitals Expect To Lose More Than $200 Billion Because Of The Coronavirus

Venessa Wong · May 6, 2020

Zoe Tillman is a senior legal reporter with BuzzFeed News and is based in Washington, DC.

HEY AMERIKA
We Know Too Much About Marijuana for It To Be Illegal
By Richard Cowan
07/14/20 

We Know Too Much About Marijuana for It To Be Illegal Photo: CBDCoupons.com

I won’t try to be subtle about this. When I say that we know too much about marijuana for it to be illegal, I am trying to make two points.

First and foremost, I am astonished that people in democratic countries that proclaim their commitment to individual rights at every possible occasion, have — for decades — accepted the legal argument that citizens should be arrested for using a plant because it might not be “harmless.”

Prohibitionist propaganda is often introduced with the statement that “marijuana isn’t harmless… like we all thought back in the Sixties.¨ Of course, if we all thought it was harmless then, why was it illegal?

Well, very simply, nothing is harmless for everyone, under all circumstances and at all doses, and, for many reasons, harmlessness is not a criterion for legalizing anything. Obviously, many things that everyone recognizes as potentially deadly… alcohol, tobacco, motorcycles, rock climbing, etc., are legal. Some people even say that guns are not harmless.


Ironically, cannabis is one of the few substances which does not have a possible lethal dose. Too much aspirin can cause fatal internal bleeding and even too much water can be deadly by upsetting the body’s electrolyte balance.

And of course, think of the children! But think of all the things that are legal for adults, but not for children. Are we to treat adults like children? And shall we start with guns?

On the other hand, would anyone argue that being arrested was harmless? But we have arrested over twenty million Americans in the last fifty years for marijuana possession. I also hope that we have discovered that “no-knock warrants” are not harmless.

In addition, the suppression of research on the medical uses of cannabis has certainly not been harmless, and that continues to be US policy. When we consider how much we have learned despite the government blocking research, I think that marijuana prohibition has killed a huge number of people, under medical supervision, of course.

See: People are lining up to grow marijuana for research. Trump’s Justice Department won’t let them.

My second point is that despite the government's blocking research — while claiming we need more research — we actually know far too much for marijuana to be illegal .


What do we know?
We know there is no lethal dose, while many legal drugs have killed millions of people. Why would there need to be more controls on cannabis than on alcohol, tobacco or over-the-counter pharmaceuticals ?
We know that most of the cannabis consumed even today continues to be contraband with unknown potency and purity.
We know that even black market marijuana used by people with seriously damaged immune systems does not seem to have caused significant problems, but it would be ethically impossible to do research to test that.
We know that despite decades of prohibition, marijuana is easily available for “children”, but it would be ethically impossible to do research on any deleterious effects of cannabis on children. Do they have problems because they used cannabis, or did they use cannabis because they have problems?
We know that in The Netherlands that the legal age to buy cannabis is eighteen, and that the Dutch argue that one of the advantages of allowing retail marijuana sales is called “separation of the markets” for hard and soft drugs. When someone goes into a Dutch “Coffeeshop” they will never be offered hard drugs. Consequently, the Dutch also have a much lower hard drug use and overdose rate than the US. Again, so much for the so-called “Gateway Theory”. Marijuana prohibition is the “Gateway” to hard drugs.
We know that although cannabis has been available over the counter in The Netherlands for over forty years, it ranks fourth in cannabis use in Europe, after France, Spain and Italy. It has always been behind the US and Canada.
We know that Dutch Coffeeshops and American marijuana dispensaries do not cause the problems that are associated with alcohol venues.
We know that legalizing marijuana does not cause the social or medical problems cited by prohibitionists, nor does prohibition prevent the problems it is supposed to suppress. In fact, there is remarkably little correlation between marijuana use and the laws against it.

SEE: Use See Prevalence of cannabis use in the last year in Europe as of 2018*, by country and Netherlands vs US

The Dutch model’s imperfections can also offer lessons for us, because it is a relic of the 1970s. The supply is still in the black market, so it has no quality controls. Weed and hash are sold out of open bins under less than perfect sanitary conditions, although there have not been any reported health problems.

For reasons of public safety and economic recovery we need to end marijuana prohibition now.
No “Special Commissions” or regulatory schemes are needed. Just get out of the way.
And stop pretending that we need the government to help us be free.
There is no justification for special taxes, because marijuana does not increase social or medical costs compared to alcohol or tobacco.
Disadvantaged neighborhoods don’t need “social justice” permits to allow a few lucky winners to charge higher prices and taxes on marijuana users because everyone was victimized by the Drug War. They need small eateries and other places to offer legal employment.
Social clubs for younger marijuana users should be organized by activists so the patrons are not preyed upon by “gangstas” who might draw them into the hard drugs scene or other criminal activity.
We need cannabis venues in “neutral” territories where different ethnic groups can meet peacefully.

The Drug War has become a war of all against all, and it has corrupted the police, politicians, the media and even (especially?) the medical profession.

So, let us be free. Let us live in peace. Is that asking too much? (Well, apparently.)
Richard Cowan is a former NORML National Director and co-founder of CBDCoupons.com.

Richard Cowan

I won’t try to be subtle about this. When I say that we know too much about marijuana for it to be illegal, I am trying to make two points.

First and foremost, I am astonished that people in democratic countries that proclaim their commitment to individual rights at every possible occasion, have — for decades — accepted the legal argument that citizens should be arrested for using a plant because it might not be “harmless.”

Prohibitionist propaganda is often introduced with the statement that “marijuana isn’t harmless… like we all thought back in the Sixties.¨ Of course, if we all thought it was harmless then, why was it illegal?

Well, very simply, nothing is harmless for everyone, under all circumstances and at all doses, and, for many reasons, harmlessness is not a criterion for legalizing anything. Obviously, many things that everyone recognizes as potentially deadly… alcohol, tobacco, motorcycles, rock climbing, etc., are legal. Some people even say that guns are not harmless.

Ironically, cannabis is one of the few substances which does not have a possible lethal dose. Too much aspirin can cause fatal internal bleeding and even too much water can be deadly by upsetting the body’s electrolyte balance.

And of course, think of the children! But think of all the things that are legal for adults, but not for children. Are we to treat adults like children? And shall we start with guns?

On the other hand, would anyone argue that being arrested was harmless? But we have arrested over twenty million Americans in the last fifty years for marijuana possession. I also hope that we have discovered that “no-knock warrants” are not harmless.

In addition, the suppression of research on the medical uses of cannabis has certainly not been harmless, and that continues to be US policy. When we consider how much we have learned despite the government blocking research, I think that marijuana prohibition has killed a huge number of people, under medical supervision, of course.

See: People are lining up to grow marijuana for research. Trump’s Justice Department won’t let them.

My second point is that despite the government's blocking research — while claiming we need more research — we actually know far too much for marijuana to be illegal .

What do we know?
We know there is no lethal dose, while many legal drugs have killed millions of people. Why would there need to be more controls on cannabis than on alcohol, tobacco or over-the-counter pharmaceuticals ?
We know that most of the cannabis consumed even today continues to be contraband with unknown potency and purity.
We know that even black market marijuana used by people with seriously damaged immune systems does not seem to have caused significant problems, but it would be ethically impossible to do research to test that.
We know that despite decades of prohibition, marijuana is easily available for “children”, but it would be ethically impossible to do research on any deleterious effects of cannabis on children. Do they have problems because they used cannabis, or did they use cannabis because they have problems?
We know that in The Netherlands that the legal age to buy cannabis is eighteen, and that the Dutch argue that one of the advantages of allowing retail marijuana sales is called “separation of the markets” for hard and soft drugs. When someone goes into a Dutch “Coffeeshop” they will never be offered hard drugs. Consequently, the Dutch also have a much lower hard drug use and overdose rate than the US. Again, so much for the so-called “Gateway Theory”. Marijuana prohibition is the “Gateway” to hard drugs.
We know that although cannabis has been available over the counter in The Netherlands for over forty years, it ranks fourth in cannabis use in Europe, after France, Spain and Italy. It has always been behind the US and Canada.
We know that Dutch Coffeeshops and American marijuana dispensaries do not cause the problems that are associated with alcohol venues.
We know that legalizing marijuana does not cause the social or medical problems cited by prohibitionists, nor does prohibition prevent the problems it is supposed to suppress. In fact, there is remarkably little correlation between marijuana use and the laws against it.

SEE: Use See Prevalence of cannabis use in the last year in Europe as of 2018*, by country and Netherlands vs US

The Dutch model’s imperfections can also offer lessons for us, because it is a relic of the 1970s. The supply is still in the black market, so it has no quality controls. Weed and hash are sold out of open bins under less than perfect sanitary conditions, although there have not been any reported health problems.

For reasons of public safety and economic recovery we need to end marijuana prohibition now.
No “Special Commissions” or regulatory schemes are needed. Just get out of the way.
And stop pretending that we need the government to help us be free.
There is no justification for special taxes, because marijuana does not increase social or medical costs compared to alcohol or tobacco.
Disadvantaged neighborhoods don’t need “social justice” permits to allow a few lucky winners to charge higher prices and taxes on marijuana users because everyone was victimized by the Drug War. They need small eateries and other places to offer legal employment.
Social clubs for younger marijuana users should be organized by activists so the patrons are not preyed upon by “gangstas” who might draw them into the hard drugs scene or other criminal activity.
We need cannabis venues in “neutral” territories where different ethnic groups can meet peacefully.

The Drug War has become a war of all against all, and it has corrupted the police, politicians, the media and even (especially?) the medical profession.

So, let us be free. Let us live in peace. Is that asking too much? (Well, apparently.)
Richard Cowan is a former NORML National Director and co-founder of CBDCoupons.com.

How To Improve Public Trust And Its Impact On US Healthcare System

By Richard J. Gannotta
07/14/20 

This pandemic has revealed serious gaps in the nation's healthcare delivery system. The need to thoroughly assess those gaps with a subsequent plan of corrective action should be part of our collective response.

The idea of the public trust is rooted in our democracy and constitutional framework. It can be described as the empowerment given to elected officials and leaders by the citizenry to maintain and advance the requisite components of a civil society.

These institutional structures may vary, but the trust that we have in them to fulfill their charter and the confidence given to their leadership is rarely questioned or reviewed by those that depend on it most.

Fact to power

In the case of the public’s health, there are a number of agencies, federal and state, that are charged with the health and welfare of society, from the NIH to public hospital systems.

Chief among the agencies tasked and trusted with leading the response to the COVID-19 pandemic is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). If ever there was a moment in time for an agency to demonstrate its value, this pandemic was it for the CDC.

Instead, a flurry of inconsistent sound bites which echoed party lines left “fact”— the domain and purview of science in what many would consider a “post-fact” world — to be filled in large part by state leaders, specifically governors, of the hardest-hit regions in the country.

Both responses strengthened partisan divides and further diminished trust in the government's ability to effectively respond to the pandemic.

Behind the COVID-19 curtain

As it emerged, the velocity of the virus, its virility, and clinical presentation quickly overcame the clinical capabilities, surge capacities, and infrastructure of the most advanced health systems.

RELATED STORIES
WHO Team Begins Investigation Into Coronavirus Origins

This is an image showing the logo for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, Georgia, Oct. 5, 2014. Photo: Kevin C. Cox/Getty Images

Clinician efforts and hospital responses, though heroic, were hampered by longstanding gaps in our healthcare delivery system, gaps that desperately needed to be filled to meet the challenge of the pandemic. The lack of coordination between hospitals, the under-resourcing of the safety-net hospitals, and the shortage of essential medical supplies and clinical technologies such as ventilators and personal protective equipment all revealed how tenuous the system is.

We know that COVID-19 mortality and morbidity is disproportionately high in elderly individuals with underlying health conditions and individuals of color who have historically faced inequities in receiving healthcare services and who are now at even greater risk. Early data suggests that in many states although individuals of color are in the minority, they account for a majority of the COVID-19 cases.

Furthermore, the need for social distancing has eliminated formal and informal support systems and access to community resources, all fundamental elements necessary for a healthy population and thriving community.

Healthcare delivery

Although the pandemic has revealed serious gaps in our current healthcare systems’ ability to respond, the inequities, failures, and shortcomings experienced by those most vulnerable to it were not created by the virus. They are the culmination of a failure of the compact, that public trust so necessary for the advancement of a civil society for all.

In addition, those who operate within the health sector, high performing delivery systems, and private sector innovators swim upstream against a current of regulation and misaligned incentives. These incentives rarely put our patients and communities in the center and fail to recognize the reality that our health system is a vital component of the public trust, not unlike public safety and education.

The need to objectively and thoroughly assess the response to both the pandemic and the inequities in policy and care delivery with a subsequent plan of action should be part of our nation’s response. Such an analysis can inform the development of new policies and procedures so that the impact of future events is mitigated.

Consider a Marshall Plan for healthcare

Much like the Marshall Plan sought to aid Western Europe’s economic recovery after World War II, we should establish a comparable initiative to address the inequities revealed by the COVID-19 pandemic and to accelerate the implementation of any remedies. Where the Marshall Plan intervened in Europe’s blighted economy due to bombed out factories, we can address job loss with new models for business growth in communities hit hardest. And where that historical plan attempted to rectify gaps in world trade, we can address gaps in new ways to educate, learn, and share knowledge.

The Marshall Plan is thought by many to be the most effective foreign aid program the United States has ever deployed. Perhaps, we have something to learn from history.

(Richard J. Gannotta is a senior lecturer of Health Administration at NYU’s Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service)