The assassins struck as lunchtime traffic congealed.
Running up alongside the car, they blasted through the windows of the white Mazda. Trapped in traffic, trapped in their car, the passengers never had a chance.
Only after the shooting was over did the gunmen realize their intended targets were in another white sedan stuck in the same traffic jam.
Footage from a traffic camera shows them run forward and fire through the windows of the Honda. Darting away through the stationary cars, the hit men run to a waiting motorcycle and escape.
The gunmen were members of the infamous Absolut family -- a Cali-based vodka smuggling ring. The target was the head of a rival cartel -- a shadowy figure known only as the Grey Goose. This is part of a continuing escalation of violence as the two groups fight over control of the market....
Oh... wait... my bad. Turns out it wasn't alcohol smugglers after all, but drug cartels. Hmmm.... I wonder why there aren't any Absolut/Grey Goose shoot-outs? After all, they're both heavily competing for the same lucrative market for premium vodkas.
Oh, yeah. Because alcohol is legal.
So the competing vodkas still fight each other, but the weapons they use are glossy advertisements in magazines, and clever graphic design.
And, frankly, if you're stuck in traffic in a white sedan, odds are you have no need to worry about assassination by a glossy advert.
So, to recap the difference between prohibition and not-prohibition as a means of achieving market dominance:
Prohibition: Innocent bystanders getting shot to death in their car in a traffic jam
The U.S. drug czar, John Walters, went to Ottawa yesterday, trying his best to put a positive spin on one of the greatest disasters in U.S. foreign and domestic policy. Part of his agenda is to persuade Canada to follow in U.S. footsteps, which can only happen if Canadians ignore science, compassion, health and human rights.
On the money.
If you'd like to hear what Walters said in Ottawa, you can tune in to the ONDCP's Podcast (mp3)
Or if you'd rather, check out the YouTube videos of the Drug Policy Reform press conference in Ottawa that was arranged to coincide with Walters' visit
He has taken on a new project and tied it in to his documentary -- video commentary on the Drug Czar's YouTube advertisements. Since the Drug Czar doesn't allow comments or even ratings on their YouTube videos (no surprise there), John is taking the YouTube philosophy to heart and commenting in a much more interesting way.
Those who have been with me for a long time, may have fond memories of the Data Quality Act posts. The Data Quality Act is legislation that allowed individuals and groups to challenge federal agencies on the accuracy of their data, and the agency was required to respond within 60 days. Cool, huh?
So Americans for Safe Access challenged Health and Human Services for their statements on medical marijuana and demanded changes to what the government was claiming (since the government position was unsupportable). Of course, the government agencies had an out -- they could grant themselves an extension (or two, or three, or...) Naturally, HHS took advantage of every delaying tactic they could invent, and that 60 day response time started 870 days ago. But they've finally run out of hoops, and now ASA can sue them in court (part of the problem often is that courts won't accept a challenge unless you've gone through the agency appeals process, which is how the agencies are able to stall).
The timing actually is pretty good, with new studies practically every day, and the recent DEA judge ruling in favor of growing marijuana for medical research.
Congrats to ASA for their ability to stick with the mind-numbing process.
Background posts on the Data Quality Act are here, here, and here.
Look, everybody knows that Dobbs has a few screws loose, and I should probably ignore him when he spout a combination of lies and junk science and pretends that it's knowledge, but it's hard to resist. Here are a few tidbits from the transcript
DOBBS: And our special report, "The War Within," the detrimental effects, the dangerous effects of marijuana. Researchers now say marijuana may cause long-term brain damage and cancer. That special report and an interview upcoming. [...]
STEVEN STEINER, AMERICANS FOR DRUG FREE YOUTH: You've got to remember something. This whole legalization movement isn't just about marijuana. These people want to legalize heroin, meth, cocaine for recreational use. Make no mistake about it. [...]
STEPHEN DEWEY, BROOKHAVEN NAT'L. LABORATORY: Not only does it alter the structure, the brain's chemistry, but you run the risk that the alterations that you produce today will manifest themselves in ten years or 20 years. [...]
TUCKER: Impaired memory and feelings of anxiety are more than just jokes. They are reality. So, too, are frequent respiratory infections and there is concern that the cancer risk of marijuana users is higher, which is why the American Cancer Society does not endorse, smoke marijuana, nor its legalization. [...]
DOBBS: Well, marijuana, thought to be harmless by many, particularly baby boomers, who have been associated with drug for decades. It's now known to be a dangerously addictive drug and it's long-term effects are still being studied. [...]
DOBBS: The idea that this could cause cancer, is that a result of the qualities of marijuana, or of the inhalation of the smoke? Or can you tell?
DEWEY: You know, that's a good question. I believe it's more related to the inhalation of what's in the marijuana itself, as opposed to the THC, the psychoactive component. [...]
DOBBS: I mean, what do have -- my God, this is a substance that's been in broad use now for 30 or 40 years in this country. We should know what we're talking about.
DEWEY: I think there are actually two things here that speak directly to your question. One is it's very difficult to find people who just use marijuana. You know, you have to tease apart marijuana use with alcohol, cocaine, methamphetamine, LSD. You have situations where it's not straight forward looking at just a marijuana user because they're poly-drug-abusers.
Several thoughts:
One. Steve Steiner? The incredibly sick and twisted pervert that's getting paid off by the drug companies to use his dead son (who was killed by prescription drugs) to try to harm patients who are using medical marijuana? Right, Lou. [And Steve, I know you'll be reading this. I phrased it this way on purpose to make a point -- because somebody needs to remind you in plain English what it is that you're doing.]
Two. Notice Dewey's polydrug statement at the end. Sounds remarkably like the talking point that Souder was using on Tucker Carlson's show. Looks like somebody's getting the puppets to sing this tune. I can't believe they're actually trying it, given how transparent the lie is (as Tucker immediately pointed out).
Three. Notice the "cancer" dance? Talk about avoiding the facts!
I've sent a note to Dewey asking if he was speaking as an official government representative. I'll let you know if he responds
[Update] -- Dewey was nice enough to respond to my email. He says that he is not a government employee (despite the .gov email address). He also defends his marijuana and cancer non-answer by citing a number of earlier studies related to head and neck cancer and states:
I agree that the data are not clear and that some authors may have changed their original position on whether there is an increased risk of cancers associated with marijuana use but I also think it would be negligent given the uncertainty at this point to suggest that there is no increased risk of cancers from marijuana use.
Going out of town again today, so fill me in on what I'm missing.
Here's a fascinating recap of what appeared to be a pretty good discussion on legalization in Polk County, Florida, featuring Peter Christ of LEAP, along with Brad Copley from the office of the state attorney, 10th Judicial Circuit, and Marion Moorman, public defender.
Nevada parents who grow a single marijuana plant in their home where children live could be subject to a prison term of up to 15 years, according to a bill that was debated Monday at the Nevada Legislature.
Senate Bill 5, sponsored by state Sen. Joe Heck, R-Las Vegas, would subject parents who grow or sell marijuana in the presence of children to the same penalties as adults who operate methamphetamine labs in front of children.
It's not as creative as "Reefer Madness" though. Here's the segment from last night on Lou Dobbs (unless youtube yanks it).
[Thanks, Tim]
Really over-the-top scare-mongering. I loved the way they start out with the "It's Just a Plant" book to imply that the marijuana legalization movement is trying to get pot for kids. More to come tonight when they reveal who is getting all this "pro-pot" money!
My bright and promising 19-year-old nephew was a college Sophomore in 2005. In October of 2005, the local police arrested him for possession of psilocybin mushrooms.
When I first heard the news I thought, 'shrooms -- no big deal -- he'll pay a fine -- maybe do a few weeks in county jail -- he'll learn a life lesson -- it might even be good for him.
What I discovered over the next few months horrified me.
I'm so upset I missed Lou Dobbs' attack on marijuana legalizers. I'll just have to wait for the transcripts. We've had some updates in the comments on the open thread below. Add any more here.
The Quick Vote is up at Lou's site -- if you haven't voted yet, go ahead and add to it.
QUICKVOTE
Do you believe marijuana should be legalized in this country?
___ Yes ____ No
