DC Focused on Rx Opioids While Fentanyl Deaths Soared 1,040%

February 13, 2021

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

A new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention documents an alarming increase in overdose deaths and how the agency’s 2016 prescription opioid guideline failed to stop the drug crisis from growing worse.

The study looked at fatal overdoses from 2013 to 2019, a period when U.S. drug deaths rose by over 56 percent, culminating with 70,630 Americans dying from overdoses in 2019.  

Deaths involving prescription opioids remained relatively flat during that period, while overdoses involving other substances rose, led by an astounding 1,040% increase in deaths linked to illicit fentanyl and other synthetic, mostly black market opioids. Overdoses involving heroin, cocaine and stimulants such as methamphetamine also rose.

DRUGS INVOLVED IN U.S. OVERDOSE DEATHS (2013-2019)

“Sharp increases in synthetic opioid- and psychostimulant-involved overdose deaths in 2019 are consistent with recent trends indicating a worsening and expanding drug overdose epidemic. Synthetic opioids, particularly illicitly manufactured fentanyl and fentanyl analogs, are highly potent, increasingly available across the United States, and found in the supplies of other drugs,” researchers reported in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

“Similarly, psychostimulant-involved deaths are likely rising because of increases in potency, availability, and reduced cost of methamphetamine in recent years. The increase in synthetic-opioid involved deaths in the West and in psychostimulant-involved deaths in the Northeast signal broadened geographic use of these substances.”

The new CDC study adds to a growing body of evidence suggesting that the agency’s controversial opioid guideline has been ineffective and misdirected. While the guideline helped reduce the already shrinking supply of opioid medication – prescription opioid use is now at 20-year lows – drug deaths linked to illicit fentanyl and other substances kept rising. Overdoses hit a record high last spring.

"This represents a worsening of the drug overdose epidemic in the United States and is the largest number of drug overdoses for a 12-month period ever recorded," the CDC said in a recent health advisory.

‘I Don’t Really Want to Die’

Many pain patients – including those who have used opioids safely and responsibly for years – now have difficulty obtaining opioid analgesics and live with untreated or poorly treated pain. A recent study found that nearly half of primary care clinics in the U.S. are unwilling to accept new patients on opioids, because they had either stopped prescribing them or feared scrutiny by law enforcement and regulators if they did.

“Why am I treated like a criminal for needing opioids? For 26 years opioids are the only treatment that allows me to have a life,” a pain patient recently told PNN. 

“My doctor stopped prescribing my pain medication without my consent, leading to rapid tapering and abrupt discontinuation. No medication and haven't heard from her since. She won't return my calls,” another patient said.  

“I'm at a very desperate point in my life,” said a patient with Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS). “The meds don't address my needs and I'm at my end. If something doesn't give right away, I will be gone! I don't really want to die but I feel that it is the only option left.” 

Some anti-opioid activists have turned a blind eye to pleas from patients and want opioid prescriptions reduced even further.

“Opioid scrips have been trending in a more cautious direction, (though we still have a very long way to go) while opioid OD deaths have soared. Some see this as a policy failure. They may not realize the main goal of more cautious Rx opioid use is to reduce incidence of OUD,” Dr. Andrew Kolodny, Executive Director of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP) wrote in a recent Tweet.

But when asked by another poster if there have been declines in OUD — opioid use disorder — because fewer opioids are being prescribed, Kolodny said he didn’t know.

“OUD incidence isn't tracked. We're 25 years into an epidemic of OUD but still have lousy surveillance. So no hard data but if fewer people are exposed to a highly addictive drug, it's a safe bet that fewer people will become addicted,” Kolodny replied.

The CDC is currently working on an update and possible expansion of its opioid guideline – with the goal of releasing a revised guideline late this year. The agency’s Board of Scientific Counselors is holding a public hearing this Tuesday, February 16th to get an update from an “Opioid Workgroup” that is considering changes to the guideline. People interested in listening to the meeting online can register clicking here.

 

Science fiction books build mental resilience in young readers

By The Conversation - 14 May 2020

Young people who are “hooked” on watching fantasy or reading science fiction may be on to something. Contrary to a common misperception that reading this genre is an unworthy practice, reading science fiction and fantasy may help young people cope, especially with the stress and anxiety of living through the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

I am a professor with research interests in the social, ethical, and political messages in science fiction. In my book “Medicine and Ethics in Black Women’s Speculative Fiction,” I explore the ways science fiction promotes understanding of human differences and ethical thinking.

While many people may not consider science fiction, fantasy or speculative fiction to be “literary,” research shows that all fiction can generate critical thinking skills and emotional intelligence for young readers. Science fiction may have a power all its own.

Literature as a moral mirror

Historically, parents have considered literature “good” for young people if it provides moral guidance that reflects their values. This belief has been the catalyst for many movements to censor particular books for nearly as long as books have been published.

“The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn,” published in 1885, was the first book to be banned in the U.S. It was thought to corrupt youth by teaching boys to swear, smoke and run away from home.

In the latter part of the 20th century, the book has come under fire for the Mark Twain’s prolific use of the N-word. Many people are concerned that the original version of the book normalizes an unacceptable racial slur. Who can say the N-word and in what context is an ongoing social and political debate, reflecting wounds in American society that have yet to heal.

The question is, how does literature of any genre – whether popularly perceived as “serious literature” or “escapist nonsense” – perform its educational function. This is central to the conflict between parents and educators about what kids should read, especially as it pertains to “escapist” fiction.

Why science fiction gets a bad reputation

Historically, those who read science fiction have been stigmatized as geeks who can’t cope with reality. This perception persists, particularly for those who are unaware of the changes to this genre in the past several decades. A 2016 article in Social and Personality Psychology Compass, a scholarly journal, argues that “connecting to story worlds involves a process of ‘dual empathy,‘ simultaneously engaging in intense personal processing of challenging issues, while ‘feeling through’ characters, both of which produce benefits.”

While science fiction has become more mainstream, one study claimed that science fiction makes readers stupid. A subsequent study by the same authors later refuted this claim when the quality of writing was taken into account.

This ongoing ambivalence towards the genre contributes to the stereotype that such works are of little value because they presumably don’t engage real human dilemmas. In actuality, they do. Such stereotypes assume that young people can only learn to cope with human dilemmas by engaging in mirror-image reflections of reality including what they read or watch.

The mental health of reading

Reading science fiction and fantasy can help readers make sense of the world. Rather than limiting readers’ capacity to deal with reality, exposure to outside-the-box creative stories may expand their ability to engage reality based on science.

A 2015 survey of science fiction and fantasy readers found that these readers were also major consumers of a wide range of other types of books and media. In fact, the study noted a connection between respondents’ consumption of varied literary forms and an ability to understand science.

With increasing rates of anxiety, depression and mental health issues for youth in the past two decades, it may be the case that young people, no different from American society generally, are suffering from reality overload. Young people today have unprecedented access to information about which they may have little power to influence or change.

The powerful world of science fiction

Science fiction and fantasy do not need to provide a mirror image of reality in order to offer compelling stories about serious social and political issues. The fact that the setting or characters are extraordinary may be precisely why they are powerful and where their value lies.

My contribution in the forthcoming essay collection “Raced Bodies, Erased Lives: Race in Young Adult Speculative Fiction” discusses how race, gender and mental health for black girls is portrayed in speculative fiction and fantasy. My essay describes how contemporary writers take an aspect of what is familiar and make it “odd” or “strange” enough to give the reader psychic and emotional distance to understand mental health issues with fresh eyes.

From the “Harry Potter” and “Hunger Games” series to novels like Octavia Butler’s “Parable of the Sower” and “Parable of the Talents” and Nancy Kress’ “Beggars in Spain,” youths see examples of young people grappling with serious social, economic, and political issues that are timely and relevant, but in settings or times that offer critical distance.

This distance gives readers an avenue to grapple with complexity and use their imagination to consider different ways of managing social challenges. What better way to deal with the uncertainty of this time than with forms of fiction that make us comfortable with being uncomfortable, that explore uncertainty and ambiguity, and depict young people as active agents, survivors and shapers of their own destinies?

---

The Tefo Mohapi Show: Nothando Migogo on culture, colonization, music, and law 

---

Let them read science fiction. In it, young people can see themselves – coping, surviving and learning lessons – that may enable them to create their own strategies for resilience. In this time of COVID-19 and physical distancing, we may be reluctant for kids to embrace creative forms that seem to separate them psychologically from reality.

But the critical thinking and agile habits of mind prompted by this type of literature may actually produce resilience and creativity that everyday life and reality typically do not.

Imported used cars are fueling pollution across Africa
By Stephanie Achieng - 26 November 2020

Used light-duty vehicles imported from wealthy countries are adding to Africa’s air pollution woes, a global overview of the small vehicle export market has found. Of the ‘light-duty’ used vehicles exported globally between 2015 and 2018, the majority went to Africa.

Light-duty vehicles, in general, weigh less than 3,5 tonnes and include saloon cars, sport utility vehicles, and minibusses.

The report, published by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) last month, says that of the 14 million used vehicles exported worldwide from Europe, the United States, and Japan, low- and middle-income countries received 70%, with Africa taking 40%.

"46% of African countries do not have any vehicle emission standards.” - Jane Akumu, UNEP

Most of these vehicles, the report adds, are worsening air quality in Africa and hampering efforts to mitigate the effects of climate change. Vehicular emissions are a significant source of fine, inhalable particles with diameters of 2.5 micrometers or less — known as PM2.5. Long-term exposure to such particles is associated with lung- and heart-related diseases, according to the World Health Organization.

“Africa largely depends on used light-duty vehicles for transportation and the number is increasing,” says Rob de Jong, head, sustainable mobility unit at UNEP. “[Over] 80% are not meeting the minimum required standards set in exporting countries such as installing filters that reduce pollution.”

Researchers analyzed vehicle sale data in 146 countries from sources such as the International Auto Trade Association and the European Commission’s Eurostat Comext database.

“The major destinations for used vehicles from the EU are West and North Africa; Japan exports mainly to Asia and East and Southern Africa and the United States mainly to the Middle East and Central America,” the report says.

Of the regions that were studied, Latin America imported the smallest proportion of used vehicles.

“Cleaning up the global vehicle fleet is a priority to meet global and local air quality and climate targets,” said Inger Andersen, Executive Director of UNEP. “Over the years, developed countries have increasingly exported their used vehicles to developing countries; because this largely happens unregulated, this has become the export of polluting vehicles.”

Most African countries, de Jong says, do not have EURO4 European vehicles emission standard equivalent that limits and controls the amount of harmful chemical emissions that spread in the air, such as carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides.

Jane Akumu, program officer, air quality and mobility unit at UNEP, says that policies on imported used vehicles are poor or of low standards in most African countries.

“Fourty-six percent of African countries do not have any vehicle emissions standards while 30% do not have any minimum age limit for imported used light-duty vehicles, with Uganda being a good case in point of African countries where the age of imported used vehicles is not taken into consideration,” Akumu explains, adding that only Morocco and Rwanda have EURO4 equivalent standards in Africa.

Michael James Gatari, environmental scientist and an associate professor at the University of Nairobi, Kenya, says that the impact of vehicular emissions on air pollution is from both new and old vehicles in Sub-Saharan Africa.

“The problem is maintenance culture and competency. Emissions from poorly maintained five-year-old vehicles are worse than well maintained ten-year-old vehicles,” he said.

Most people, he explains, cannot afford a new vehicle and they have to go to work in places where public transport is inefficient and insecure.

“Policymakers should first focus on providing environmentally friendly and efficient transport systems,” he explains, adding that people are likely to buy new vehicles if their prices are comparable to the imported used cars.

Jack Dorsey and Jay Z have teamed up to fund Bitcoin development in Africa and India

By Oladunni Adetula - 12 February 2021

Jay Z, the world-renowned rapper and owner of music streaming service, TIDAL, has teamed up with Jack Dorsey, co-founder, and CEO of Twitter, to open and fund a Bitcoin development endowment. Known as ₿trust, it will be initially focused on teams working on Bitcoin in Africa and India.

One of the big aims of this initiative is to try and make Bitcoin the currency of the internet. Dorsey has indicated that they will be giving ₿trust 500 Bitcoins to kickstart its work.

The announcement by Dorsey and Jay Z comes at a time when Bitcoin has been regularly in the news both in Africa and globally.

Just last week the Central Bank of Nigeria issued a statement effectively stating that cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin are illegal in the country. This led to a social media frenzy as well as banks closing accounts of people who had traded or used cryptocurrencies.

In more positive cryptocurrencies news, Bitcoin crossed both the $40,000 and $44,000 marks on the back of news that Elon Musk's Tesla bought $1,5 billion worth of Bitcoin. This signaled for many people that big corporates are looking to add Bitcoin to their balance sheets instead of the US dollar.

Added to that, Mastercard also announced that they will be accepting cryptocurrencies on their network later in 2020. Although the company didn't yet specify which crypto it will be allowing for direct payments using the Mastercard network.

It's not clear how ₿trust will work or the type of projects it will be funding. What we do know at the moment is that Jack Dorsey and Jay Z are looking for three people to be part of the Board (apply here). Dorsey has also added that "It‘ll be set up as a blind irrevocable trust, taking zero direction from us."

Canada Now Has a Bitcoin ETF. Is the US Next?
US crypto investment firms are hoping for some "trickle-down" economics from their northern neighbors.

By Jeff Benson
3 min read
Feb 12, 2021




CANADA APPROVED ITS FIRST BITCOIN ETF. IMAGE: SHUTTERSTOCK

In brief

Canada has approved its first Bitcoin ETF.

The Securities and Exchange Commission has consistently denied Bitcoin ETF applications in the US.

Investors looking for BTC exposure without ownership can use the Grayscale Bitcoin Trust.

Yesterday, securities regulators in Ontario, Canada, approved the first Bitcoin exchange-traded fund (ETF) in North America. The Purpose Bitcoin ETF will run on the Toronto Stock Exchange and allow everyday investors to incorporate “stock” in Bitcoin into their portfolios.

US firms such as crypto custodian Gemini and investment management firm VanEck, meanwhile, have been trying to get a Bitcoin ETF to be approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for years, to no avail.

But the Canada ETF approval could help US regulators become more comfortable with allowing such a product in the United States.

An ETF is an investment vehicle that tracks the price of an asset or group of assets. It’s listed on stock exchanges and traded throughout the day just like a stock. A Bitcoin ETF, therefore, allows people to “buy” Bitcoin without actually buying Bitcoin; they reap the benefits of having BTC in their portfolio, but someone else takes the trouble of holding it (and charges investors a fee).

On the surface, that sounds a bit like the Grayscale Bitcoin Trust, which also provides a way for traditional investors to get exposure to Bitcoin without going through a cryptocurrency exchange. You can trade GBTC through a brokerage firm and even incorporate it into tax-advantaged retirement accounts, such as IRAs.

There’s a downside, however: the Grayscale Bitcoin Trust comes with a premium. It can be more expensive to buy GBTC shares than to just buy Bitcoin—and that’s on top of the 2% management fees.

Drew Voros, writing for ETF.com in December 2020, explained why a Bitcoin ETF is so desirable, given the presence of the Grayscale Bitcoin Trust: “GBTC, which allows accredited investors to buy into the fund through periodic private placements, is plagued by a 20% premium that reflects the demand for a secure investment vehicle for bitcoin. There’s no other way to get bitcoin exposure in a traded fund.” The premium, which fluctuates given market forces, is now closer to 5%.

Patrick Rooney, a product marketing manager at electronic trading infrastructure firm Trading Technologies, told Decrypt, “There’s absolutely a hunger for ETFs and plenty of them.” According to Rooney, they make for “great trading/spreading products.” So, they can be used for options contracts.

But will the US get one?

Biden moving to withdraw Trump-approved Medicaid work rules

Democrats long complained the rules were illegal and aimed at shrinking health coverage for poor adults.


Former President Donald Trump listens as former Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Seema Verma speaks during a news conference Friday, Nov. 20, 2020. | Susan Walsh/AP


By ADAM CANCRYN

02/11/2021 

The Biden administration on Friday will notify states it plans to revoke Medicaid work requirements, starting the process of dismantling one of the Trump administration's signature health policies.

The move is one of several steps that Biden’s health department is expected to take this week to unravel the contentious work rules long criticized by Democrats, according to internal documents obtained by POLITICO.

The documents — which were labeled “close hold” — do not make clear how quickly Biden will cut off work rules the previous administration approved in a number of states, which for the first time were allowed to mandate that some people work or volunteer as a condition of enrollment in the low-income health care program.

Health officials are also preparing to withdraw the Trump administration’s 2018 letter that first announced the work requirements policy, and rescind a separate letter from earlier this year aimed at making it more difficult for the incoming Biden administration to quickly overturn the policy.

“CMS has serious concerns that now is not the appropriate time to test policies that risk a substantial loss of health care coverage or benefits in the near term,” according to a health department draft rollout plan entitled “Medicaid Work Requirement Rescission.”

President Joe Biden, who has targeted other Trump health policies as he looks to build on Obamacare, has long signaled plans to unravel the Medicaid work requirements. Democrats have criticized the rules as unlawful and aimed at kicking people off the program’s rolls.

Trump Medicaid chief Seema Verma, who was critical of Obamacare's expansion of Medicaid to poor adults and crafted the requirements, argued they would encourage healthy people to work and help keep state Medicaid programs financially sustainable.

Biden last month issued an executive order directing his health department to identify policies that fail to “protect and strengthen Medicaid.” But the draft rollout plan obtained by POLITICO points to the coronavirus pandemic as the central reason for rolling back the work rules, arguing that the crisis has “greatly increased the risk” that the policy will lead to “unintended coverage loss.”

“In addition, the uncertainty regarding the lingering health consequences of COVID infections further exacerbates the harms of coverage loss or lack of access to coverage for the Medicaid beneficiaries,” the plan said.

The move also comes as the Supreme Court is slated to consider the validity of the work rules on March 29. Lower courts have so far blocked attempts to institute the work rules, which led most states with the requirements to halt their enforcement. Biden's plan to withdraw the work rules could render the Supreme Court case moot.

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Ten GOP-led states that applied for the Trump administration's permission for work rules were approved or “considered approved,” according to the draft rollout plan. Several more states had sought permission for work rules but had not been approved before Trump left office.

The work rules were approved through Medicaid waivers, which allow states to test ideas for health coverage. A new administration typically can unwind waivers that it believes does not support Medicaid goals, though states may protest the decision.

In the final weeks of the Trump administration, Verma asked states to sign contracts that would establish a lengthy process for unwinding work requirements and other conservative changes to their Medicaid programs. Medicaid experts have questioned whether those contracts are legally enforceable.

The health department on Friday is also planning to scrub some references to the work requirements program and related documents from the government's Medicaid website.

Instead, it will post a link to an HHS document entitled “Medicaid Demonstrations and Impacts on Health Coverage: A Review of the Evidence.” The document, among other topics, will address the “impact of work requirements on Medicaid’s commitment to Americans in need,” the draft rollout plan said.

Only one state, Arkansas, ever fully implemented the Medicaid work rules. About 18,000 people lost Medicaid coverage in 2018 during the few months the requirements were in effect, before a judge blocked them.

Biden under pressure to go nuclear to get minimum wage hike

The president said he doesn’t think a $15-an-hour wage increase will make it into the final Covid relief bill. And it’s unlikely his VP will push the rules to make it happen.

Fight for $15 leaders are pressuring the White House and Congress to keep the wage increase provision in the coronavirus relief bill. | Lynne Sladky/AP Photo

By LAURA BARRÓN-LÓPEZ and NATASHA KORECKI

02/11/2021 04:30 AM EST

Updated: 02/11/2021 12:18 PM EST

Progressives, union leaders and activists are demanding that the Biden administration use every tool available to make sure its massive coronavirus relief package includes an increase in the minimum wage.the relief package. She could do so if the Senate parliamentarian determines that hiking the minimum wage to $15 an hour does not jibe with budgetary rules that allow a bill to pass with just 51 votes in the Senate. Harris, at that point, could be the tiebreaking vote to bypass the parliamentarian.

But, already, there’s one place the White House has hinted it won’t go.

Biden’s team is leaning heavily against the idea of having Vice President Kamala Harris use her powers as president of the Senate to keep the minimum wage provision inside 

The White House’s reluctance to consider that step has set up the possibility of an early confrontation between the president and a progressive base that has — to this point — been pleased with his work in office.

“It's a test for how we use the power of having all three, the House, the Senate and the White House,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.). “Let's not hand-wring over this ... We should use every tool in our toolbox.”

Early in his presidency, Biden has taken a historic amount of executive actions. But the president still views himself as an institutionalist, and advisers and allies say he is wary of using the Harris nuclear option. A vice president hasn’t overruled a parliamentarian in more than 40 years. And while the White House is not ruling out the idea, officials are skeptical that enough Democrats would vote to keep the wage provision in the relief package even if they deployed the option, a person familiar with the White House’s thinking said.

Biden has already said that increasing the minimum wage might turn into a “separate negotiation” from the relief package. But the administration has not been clear on how and when that separate negotiation might take place, save to affirm their commitment to it

“The president is firmly committed to raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour — that’s why he championed it on the campaign trail and it’s why he put it in his first legislative proposal,” White House spokesperson Mike Gwin said. “That commitment will remain unshaken, regardless of what is determined to be feasible through the reconciliation process.”

While the White House may not lack determination, it does lack a clear legislative path. If Democrats cannot pass a minimum wage hike in a package that requires only a simple majority vote, then they will need at least 10 Republicans in the Senate in addition to their entire caucus to make it law.

Progressive groups and activists aren’t entertaining a separate pathway for the wage increase just yet. Instead, national union heads, alongside local "Fight for $15" leaders, are pressuring the White House and Congress to keep the provision in the relief bill. Rev. William Barber, co-chair of the Poor People’s campaign, will visit West Virginia to press Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.), a skeptic of a $15-an-hour minimum wage. Services Employee International Union members will also phone bank and potentially hold events in key states to pressure lawmakers.

“We’re going to be a gathering storm in the next three weeks because this is a tipping point,” said Mary Kay Henry, president of the SEIU. “It absolutely needs to be in this package.”

SEIU and other unions have had conversations with, or are reaching out to, other Democrats like Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire. SEIU along with a number of other major labor organizations are also planning to send a letter to the White House and Congress on Friday, making the case for why a $15-an-hour wage is a critical piece of the Covid relief packag

“By deferring the hyper minimum wage hike to another day we’re probably signing the death sentences for more Americans who are going to die because of poverty,” said Joe Sanberg, a progressive activist and entrepreneur who briefed Biden’s team on the issue during the transition.

But not everyone inside the Democratic tent shares the belief that the minimum wage hike has to be in the final relief package, even though they say Democrats should push as hard as possible to make it happen.

“My singular objective is to deliver Covid relief, and if we could get the minimum wage in there, that would be monumental and historic,” said Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii). “But I also think if minimum wage tanks Covid relief that would also be monumental and historic, but not in a good way.”

And others argued that Biden was right to say that he could get a wage hike done in future legislation.

“Raising the minimum wage is important but it’s not an emergency,” said Matt Bennett, a top official at the centrist-Democratic think tank Third Way. Bennett, who has been talking to both the White House and the Senate about the Covid package, said unemployment insurance running out in March “is an emergency.”

“I believe the minimum wage will be raised within the first two years of the Biden term,” Bennett added. “I don’t think it’ll get necessarily done by the next four weeks.”

Behind the scenes, the White House is asking for patience. A minimum wage hike is a priority to Biden, advisers and allies say, and they’re working to build support that would aid a future negotiation, if one is needed. They note that Biden advocated for a minimum wage increase in an Oval Office meeting with business leaders on Tuesday.

The White House is insistent it has maintained open communication with progressives, including lawmakers and activist groups, on both the $15-an-hour minimum wage provision and, more broadly, the Covid relief plan. A White House official specifically cited a briefing last week with 17 progressive groups. And Jayapal said she’s been in multiple conversations with the administration in the days after Biden said he didn’t believe a minimum wage hike would end up in the reconciliation bill.

Jayapal and other progressive lawmakers, including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), are optimistic the parliamentarian will rule the minimum wage hike is germane to the budget process. And they are also beginning to lay the predicate for the parliamentarian to be overruled if that determination isn’t made.

“The parliamentarian is not an elected representative of the people,” said Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.). “I've never heard us put everything on the balance of what the Senate parliamentarian says when it impacts, especially, a once-in-a-century pandemic relief bill.”


The recent Congressional Budget Office finding that a $15 minimum wage would substantially impact the federal budget was seen as a boon to progressives’ argument for its inclusion, even as the agency found that a hike could lead to 1.4 million jobs lost over 10 years. The CBO analysis also found that the wage increase would lift 900,000 Americans out of poverty.

Lawmakers are wary, however, that if Democrats don’t find a way to pass the wage increase in the first relief package, it may never be passed. Jayapal bluntly said she sees no chance of attracting Republican support for the measure, making it imperative to pass it through reconciliation.

Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.), a Biden ally, agreed. “If it cannot be in reconciliation, if that's the determination that’s made and that stands,” he said, “it's really difficult to see it passing and getting 60 votes.”

Biden administration aims to close Guantanamo detention facility

Psaki said the NSC will be examining steps for shutting down Guantanamo.

By MATTHEW CHOI

02/12/2021 

The Biden administration aims to close the controversial detention facility at Guantanamo Bay by the end of its term, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Friday.

Speaking at her daily news briefing, Psaki said the administration had launched a process with the National Security Council to examine steps for shutting down the facility. She said it is "certainly our goal and our intention" to close the controversial prison, which was a priority for former President Barack Obama that he failed to fulfill.

Psaki said several sub-cabinet policy roles still need to be filled as the administration moves forward with the effort. The push to close the facility would be a "robust, inter-agency process," Psaki said.

Reuters first reported the Biden administration's probe into closing the detention center.

The facility was opened in the wake of 9/11 and has been criticized by human rights advocates amid reports of extrajudicial detentions and inhumane treatment of prisoners.

Medical marijuana’s last wildernesses

Only a handful of U.S. states remain holdouts. Will 2021 change that?


Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly speaks during a news conference

 at the Statehouse in Topeka. | John Hanna/AP Photo


By MONA ZHANG and XIMENA BUSTILLO

02/12/2021 POLITICO

Marijuana legalization advocates have their eyes on the final frontiers of full prohibition.

Only two states — Nebraska and Idaho — have never passed any sort of medical marijuana law. There are now movements afoot in both states — as well as several others with very restrictive programs — to change that as soon as this year.

If the medical marijuana campaigns prevail in those last remaining holdouts, the U.S. could reach a dubious distinction: Cannabis policies in every single state would be in violation of federal law. That’s certain to further ratchet up pressure on Congress and the White House to loosen federal marijuana restrictions, and it could fuel the push to make recreational cannabis legal everywhere.

"There are very few things that many Americans agree on," said Karen O'Keefe, director of state policies for legalization advocacy group Marijuana Policy Project.

Medical cannabis is one of them. A pair of polls in 2019 showed support for medical marijuana surpassing 90 percent.

That's "more than people that believe humans landed on the moon," O’Keefe said, referencing a 2019 survey that showed one in 10 Americans believe the moon landing was fake.

Consensus is so broad that pollsters seem to have stopped asking the question altogether in national polls.

Cannabis advocates in Nebraska and Idaho are buoyed by the successful votes for legalization in other deep-red states last November. If lawmakers fail to act this year, advocates are vowing to take the issue directly to the ballot box, where voters are all but certain to approve them

“We now have strong, vocal support from people across the state,” said Nebraska Democratic Sen. Anna Wishart, who has been trying to pass medical marijuana legislation for years. “At this point, everybody knows somebody that has benefited from having access [to medical cannabis].“

Several other conservative states, including Kansas, Alabama and Wyoming, have limited medical cannabis laws that focus on CBD products. Legislative efforts are also underway in those states to adopt more comprehensive medical marijuana programs.

Legalization advocates point out that medical marijuana legalization questions consistently get more votes than any elected official. A referendum in South Dakota passed with 70 percent of the vote, and a ballot question in Mississippi got nearly 74 percent of the vote.

"Disregarding what voters want can be perilous," O'Keefe said.

Nebraska

Medical marijuana advocates in Nebraska were aiming to put a legalization initiative on the ballot in 2020. They successfully collected the necessary signatures and got the initiative certified by the secretary of state, before Lancaster County Sheriff Terry Wagner sued and successfully got it tossed.

Now they’re focused on getting it done through the Legislature.

“I feel a lot more confident going into this year with my legislation than I have in the past,” Wishart said. She reintroduced her medical cannabis bill in January, which is slated for its first hearing in March.

But opponents also express confidence about thwarting the effort.

"There is nothing 'medical' about marijuana legalization,” said John Kuehn, co-chair of anti-legalization group Smart Approaches to Marijuana's Nebraska chapter, in an email. "It is not regulated for safety or efficacy through the FDA."

Wishart acknowledged that getting legislation across the finish line will be an “uphill battle” thanks to Republican Gov. Pete Ricketts’ vehement opposition to the policy.

But she’s hopeful that successful legalization initiatives in other red states last November will pressure some of her colleagues to stand up to the governor.

If the legislative push fails, legalization advocates have a backup plan: They’re already working on efforts to put a medical marijuana referendum on the 2022 ballot.

Kansas

Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly is pushing a novel argument for legalizing medical marijuana: The tax revenues can pay for Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion and provide 165,000 people with health care.

Whether a Republican-dominated legislature will prove receptive to that argument — Obamacare is still a dirty word to many GOP lawmakers — remains to be seen. Previous legislative attempts to legalize medical marijuana have failed, and lawmakers have balked at the cost of Medicaid expansion.

But Kelly is hoping that public opinion will help alter the political dynamics.

“When we do polling on these two issues, the results are often over 70 percent of Kansans want both Medicaid expansion and medical marijuana,” Kelly said during a press conference earlier this month, touting her plan as one that would pay for itself and still have money left over.

While linking medical marijuana legalization with Medicaid expansion is encountering resistance in the Legislature, cannabis reform does have some support from Republican lawmakers. Rep. John Barker and Sen. John Doll are both pushing alternative medical marijuana proposals, reports the Kansas City Star.

And House Majority Leader Dan Hawkins didn’t dismiss the chances of passing medical marijuana legislation this year in a statement to POLITICO.

“While there seems to be increasing support for some version of medical marijuana, it’s still too early to predict how the debate will continue to play out or what will happen in the end,” Hawkins said.
Idaho

A campaign to put medical marijuana legalization on the ballot in 2020 was derailed due to the pandemic, forcing signature-gathering efforts to halt. The Idaho Citizens Coalition for Cannabis is turning its attention to the 2022 election, gathering signatures for the legalization of both medical and adult-use marijuana.

But before that can happen, there will be a big marijuana debate in Boise.

Republican Sen. C. Scott Grow introduced a bill to create a constitutional amendment banning the legalization of marijuana and other psychoactive drugs. That could end up on the 2022 ballot alongside the legalization referendums.

But that’s also spurred a push to legalize medical marijuana. Democratic Rep. Ilana Rubel and Republican Rep. Mike Kingsley introduced legislation on Monday. The bill is modeled after Utah’s medical cannabis rules but is stricter in terms of reducing the amount a patient can get at one time and enhancing penalties if the medical card is abused.

"If we don't get medical marijuana on the books now, it may not ever happen,” Kingsley told POLITICO.

With growing public support for both medical and recreational use within the state, the lawmakers said legalization is likely inevitable.

A poll conducted in 2019 showed 73 percent of Idahoans supported legalizing marijuana for medicinal purposes, and Rubel and Kingsley predict that number is even higher now.

“I think if [lawmakers] don’t get ahead of this issue like we are proposing then the dam is going to break and they are going to end up with [a proposal] they don't like as much as ours,” Rubel said.

The medical cannabis bill has been introduced in the House, but hasn’t received any hearings. The constitutional amendment has passed the Senate and is waiting for a House vote.

Other states

In other conservative states with highly restrictive medical marijuana laws, advocates are hopeful that they can expand those programs. Alabama, Kentucky and South Carolina “all have well over a 50-50 chance,” said O’Keefe.

In both Alabama and Kentucky, medical marijuana legalization bills passed in one chamber last year before the coronavirus crisis derailed their legislative sessions. Those bills are expected to pass this time around. And in South Carolina, a medical marijuana bill was in committee before the Legislature adjourned due to the pandemic.

Lawmakers that are otherwise resistant to cannabis reform are facing different types of pressure: coronavirus-decimated budgets, legalization in neighboring states and overwhelming public support for the policy.

“Being that South Dakota is right on the border, and Montana is on our border … that's going to put a lot of pressure on [lawmakers],” said Bennett Sondeno, executive director of the Wyoming chapter of pro-legalization group National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.

Pressure from law enforcement groups opposed to legalization has swayed lawmakers in the past, and Sondeno estimates that two-thirds of the Legislature “still thinks medical cannabis is just a boondoggle for all of us wanting to get high.”

Still, Republican lawmakers in Wyoming are readying both medical marijuana and decriminalization bills ahead of the legislative session in March. A December poll from the University of Wyoming found 85 percent of residents supportive of medical marijuana legalization.

Sondeno says that he hopes that lawmakers will work with advocates on the issue. Otherwise, they will turn to the ballot.

Climate finance: what about international solidarity?

 

For sub-Saharan populations (here, a woman in Somaliland), prolonged droughts are among the most dramatic consequences of global warming. Keystone / Mark Naftalin / United Nations D

The industrialised countries are the main producers of CO2 emissions. However, they are not doing enough to help poorer nations – worst hit by the effects of global warming – to cope with the climate crisis. A new report criticises the laxity of European countries, Switzerland among them.

This content was published on February 12, 2021 - 

 Luigi Jorio Pauline Turuban

For Benjamin Vargas it is a question of “life or death”. When we met him in 2018 on his land in Tiquipaya, Bolivia, the farmer explained in clear terms why sustainable management of water is so important, as climate change makes this precious resource becomes increasingly scarce. Thanks to an artificial lake dug out on the mountainside, Vargas and other farmers in the area can collect rainwater and irrigate their fields during the dry season.

The project was funded by Swiss development aid and is an example of the support provided by the Alpine nation to communities most vulnerable to climate change. But despite the obvious benefit of the reservoir for Bolivian farmers, the climate action undertaken by Switzerland and other industrialised countries to help the poorest regions of the planet is still far from the commitment External link made more than ten years ago.

The polluter pays

During the UN climate conference in Copenhagen in 2009, the industrialised nations agreed to allocate $100 billion (CHF90 billion) a yearExternal link by 2020 to help developing countries limit greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate change.

It was a signal of solidarity, but above all of responsibility – a principle also enshrined in the Paris Climate Agreement. The richest nations, responsible for most emissions, have a duty to support those states that are the least to blame for global warming, but which are suffering the greatest impact.

According to the latest surveyExternal link by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), in 2018 developing countries received $78.9 billion in climate finance, of which $62.2 billion came from public funds and $14.6 billion from the private sector (the remainder were export credits). This represented an 11% increase over 2017.


Half a billion dollars from Switzerland

Switzerland, for its part, contributed $554 million in 2018. The Federal Office for the Environment explained that, in calculating the country’s share, the government took account of its economic capacity and consequent emissions.

Of this total, $340 million came from public funds, drawn mainly from the international development budget. Private investments ($214 million) were made mainly through multilateral development banks. By way of comparison, Switzerland’s international climate funding corresponds to about one-tenth of its public spending on national security.
External Content

Where does the climate money go?

Asia was the main beneficiary of climate funding in 2018 (43%), followed by Africa (25%) and the Americas (17%). The countries that received the most aid from Switzerland were Bolivia, Peru and Indonesia.

Some 70% of the climate funding distributed in 2018 was dedicated to mitigating climate change – for example, building renewable energy production plants. Meanwhile, projects to help countries adapt to climate change received only 20% of the funding (the remaining 10% went to cross-cutting projects).

Various NGOs have denounced this imbalance, arguing that financial flows should be redirected towards helping the most vulnerable countries adjust to the consequences of global warming. One need only think of the small island States, where urgent measures are necessary to protect against rising sea levels.

However, this is not the only criticism levelled at the climate funding mechanism.

 

Rising sea levels threaten the existence of the Pacific island of Tuvalu. Usage Worldwide

‘Fair share’ from Switzerland and Europe

In 2019, climate funds from the EU and its member countries totaled $27 billion, according to a reportExternal link issued in mid-January by ACT Alliance EU, a network of humanitarian agencies linked to the Christian Church. However, Europe’s “fair share” should amount to $33-36 billion, the group said.

Considering its climate footprint abroad, Switzerland should also increase its contribution to $1 billion, according to Jürg Staudenmann of Alliance Sud, a coalition of six large Swiss international development organisations. However, doing so at the expense of the fight against poverty, by drawing funds from the development cooperation budget, is “cynical” and harmful, Staudenmann said in a statement.

No link with climate action

Many NGOs, including Britain’s Oxfam, also argue that the real value of climate finance is overestimated, and that it is actually only one thirdExternal link of that reported by the industrialised countries. There are basically two reasons for this discrepancy.

Firstly, there are inaccuracies (exaggerations) in the way the climate component of a given project is calculated. For instance, when a building with photovoltaic panels is put up, the cost of the entire construction is reported and not just that of the solar installation.

A recent report External link by Care International identifies Japan as one of the main ‘offenders’, as it counted projects – worth over $1.3 billion – that had nothing to do with the climate. These included the building of a bridge and a motorway in Vietnam. Three Swiss-funded projects, too, had no identifiable link with climate change, Alliance Sud noted on the basis of a German study.

Secondly, only 20% of the funding is provided in the form of direct aid. Industrialised countries are increasingly resorting to loans – which must be repaid sooner or later, sometimes with interest rates comparable to commercial ones – and other financial instruments, in a practice denounced by OxfamExternal link. Switzerland is one of the few donors – together with the EU, Australia, the Netherlands and Sweden – that allocates funds almost exclusively in the form of grants.

Which country is the most generous?

If we take into account direct aid only – that is, excluding loans – and national wealth, we can draw what ACT Alliance EU considers to be a true picture of European countries’ commitment to helping the poorest nations cope with climate change.

By this calculation, Sweden is the most generous State, and one of the only ones – along with Germany and Norway – to allocate more than 0.1% of gross national income to climate finance. Switzerland is in ninth position with 0.048%.