Tag: land of the free

Florida GOP Lawmaker Files Bill To Ban Public Marijuana Smoking As Campaign Works To Put Legalization On 2026 Ballot

A pro-legalization Florida lawmaker has filed a bill to amend state law to codify that the public use of marijuana is prohibited.

Rep. Alex Andrade (R)—who has voiced support for removing cannabis from the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and earned an “A” grade from NORML—introduced the public smoking and vaping legislation on Thursday.

Under the proposal, state statute on the use of tobacco in public would be revised to incorporate cannabis, making it unlawful to smoke or vape in any public space.

A public space would be defined as place “to which the public has access, including, but not limited to, streets; sidewalks; highways; public parks; public beaches; and the common areas, both inside and outside, of schools, hospitals, government buildings, apartment buildings, office buildings, lodging establishments, restaurants, transportation facilities, and retail shops.”

The legislation specifies that the prohibition on public smoking “does not apply to the smoking of unfiltered cigars.”

Keep reading

RFK Jr. Takes A Page From The Prohibitionist Playbook By Endorsing Criminalization Of Kratom Compound 7-OH

At a recent press conference, secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Robert F. Kennedy Jr. endorsed the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) recommendation to classify 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH) as a federally controlled substance. Despite political promises to forge a different path, the same tired Drug War tactics were on full display.

What Is 7-Hydroxymitragynine?

7-OH is one of many naturally occurring alkaloids found in the leaves of kratom trees. These leaves have been used for centuries as an herbal remedy. They contain a complex blend of alkaloids that interact with opioid, serotonin and alpha-adrenergic receptors. Around the world, people use kratom to help manage discomfort, enhance focus or relax.

In raw, dried kratom leaf, 7-OH exists only in trace amounts (typically less than 0.1 mg per gram of leaf). It’s formed when a more abundant alkaloid, mitragynine, degrades in the leaves.

But in recent years, manufacturers have begun converting large amounts of mitragynine into 7-OH to create extremely potent products. Some capsules and tablets contain 15–50 mg of 7-OH, hundreds of times more than what you’d find in a standard 2–5 gram serving of kratom leaves. 7-OH products produce stronger pain-killing effects than leaf kratom or kratom extract.

Yet potency, on its own, isn’t a problem. The problem is how these products are being manufactured, marketed and sold—with little to no safety testing, evidence for medical claims or manufacturing oversight.

7-OH manufacturing practices are often substandard, resulting in tablets that contain a range of unknown byproducts and impurities with substantial differences between batches. Oftentimes, manufacturers label them with kratom leaf imagery and terminology (such as “advanced kratom alkaloids,” “superior kratom alkaloids,” “premium kratom alkaloids” or “organic kratom extract full-spectrum 7-hydroxymitragynine”) with the clear intention to mislead consumers into thinking isolated 7-OH is similar to kratom.

Few come with clear dosage instructions, warnings about potential interactions or disclosures about dependency risks. And most are sold at gas stations and smoke shops, where employees typically have no education on the products or their potential risks.

What the Media and Government Get Wrong About 7OH

With growing popularity has come growing scrutiny. But government agencies and major media outlets aren’t focusing on the issues laid out above. Instead, the FDA, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and HHS are leaning on a familiar narrative predicated on fear: opioid = bad, synthetic = dangerous and availability = addiction.

None of these equations hold up under scrutiny. First, opioids have saved far more lives than they’ve taken—through pain management, trauma care and palliative medicine. The vast majority of opioid-related deaths involve combinations with other sedatives, not opioids alone.

Second, the natural vs. synthetic distinction tells us nothing meaningful about a drug’s safety. Consider nicotine (natural, widely available, highly addictive) versus naloxone (synthetic, life-saving, non-addictive).

And finally, while availability may shape patterns of use, it’s not what drives addiction. We don’t attribute alcoholism to the mere existence of alcohol—especially when younger generations are drinking less despite liquor stores on every corner. Nor do we assume that junk food availability is the sole cause of disordered eating. Addiction is about context, not presence.

So far, there is little evidence to support the HHS’s narrative that 7-OH is ruining lives. Many people do report issues with dependency and withdrawal, as well as financial issues from spending a lot of money on 7-OH products. But reports of severe 7-OH-related harms (like overdoses) are sparse. There’s currently no public record of a single verified death caused solely by 7-OH. At the same time, many individuals report success using 7-OH to manage conditions that they haven’t found any other viable treatment for.

Despite the lack of research into 7-OH and evidence of significant harm (and the nascent state of medical research), the FDA has formally recommended that 7-OH be added to Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. If approved, possession or production of 7-OH above a certain concentration would be a felony offense.

But placing a compound in Schedule I has historically done nothing to eliminate risk. In fact, we’ve often seen this categorization increase harm by pushing substances into the shadows, where they become harder to monitor, regulate, or use safely.

Keep reading

Is OneTaste the case that finally brings down the EDNY?

It’s been 50 days since the US government locked up Nicole Daedone and Rachel Cherwitz, two women convicted during a sham trial of a little-known charge called “forced labor conspiracy.” Most Americans have never even heard of it, and for good reason. This vague, elastic statute was never meant for cases like this. These women weren’t accused of abuse, trafficking, or violence of any kind. They were targeted for running a spiritual wellness company built around adult, consensual meditation practices.

On June 8, 2025, a Brooklyn jury returned a verdict that should send a chill through every educator, spiritual leader, and entrepreneur in America. With zero evidence of any sort of confinement, threats, or violence, Daedone and Cherwitz were found guilty of “forced labor conspiracy.” This is a charge usually reserved for sweatshops, not spiritual schools and meditation groups. But that didn’t matter, because this case wasn’t about justice. It was ideological “MeToo-era” lawfare dressed up as prosecution and rubber-stamped by the Eastern District of New York.

National Law Review:

The June 8, 2025, conviction in the Brooklyn federal courthouse of Nicole Daedone and Rachel Cherwitz, co-founder and former sales executive, respectively, of the sexual wellness company OneTaste, marks a significant development in a controversial case that has drawn national attention.

The verdict, which found the wellness educators guilty of a single count of forced labor conspiracy, a crime typically associated with sweatshop operators and sex traffickers, relied on novel legal theories that could have far-reaching implications for educators, religious leaders, and community organizers who engage in intensive one-on-one interactions with dedicated students or followers. OneTaste, founded in San Francisco in 2004, gained prominence for its unconventional wellness practices centered around “orgasmic meditation,” which the company claimed could lead to personal growth, empowerment, and heightened intimacy.

However, in April 2023, following a series of critical media reports and a salacious Netflix documentary, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York indicted Daedone and Cherwitz on a single count of conspiracy to obtain forced labor. Notably, prosecutors did not charge any substantive counts of forced labor or sex trafficking, instead relying on a novel application of the conspiracy statute. The case against Daedone and Cherwitz raised eyebrows from the start.

Prosecutors alleged that the defendants had used psychological coercion and manipulation to compel participants’ labor and commitment, despite no evidence of physical confinement, violence, or overt threats. Over the course of the five-week trial, which began on May 5, 2025, the government presented testimony from nine former OneTaste staff and students who claimed to have felt pressured to devote increasing time and resources to the organization. A Verdict Built on Contradictions The trial’s outcome crystallized a fundamental paradox:

How can voluntary participation in educational programs constitute forced labor? All nine of the government’s complaining witnesses testified they received valuable benefits from OneTaste’s teachings on meditation and sexuality. No evidence showed physical restraint, prevented departure, or traditional markers of coercion. Indeed, prosecutor Nina Gupta conceded in closing: “There may not have been physical chains holding the victims in place. There may not have been locks on the door.” Instead, the government argued that losing “your job or your friends or your family or your belief system” constituted serious harm under the forced labor statute – establishing a precedent that could criminalize any religious community, athletic program, or dedicated community where participants develop deep commitments.

Yet after two days of deliberation, the jury returned a guilty verdict for each defendant. The immediate remand by the court of both defendants – after two years of full bail compliance – added theatrical punctuation to what attorneys following the case characterized as a “show trial.” Judge Diane Gujarati cited media coverage as justification for detention, though that same media attention had existed throughout their pretrial release.

Keep reading

‘No rational reason’: Court strikes government restriction on customers who want to visit home-based businesses

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee, located in Nashville, has struck down a municipal ordinance that limited the number of customers who could visit a home-based business.

It is invalid because it discriminated based on the type business it was.

According to a report from the Institute for Justice, which fought on behalf of record producer Lij Shaw and hairstylist Pat Raynor, Nashville’s rule allowed the two only six client visits a day at their businesses.

And then the city came up with “invasive and burdensome requirements.”

However, other businesses based in homes, such as short-term rentals, home daycares, historic homes and more, were allowed to have 12 or more clients daily, “free from additional requirements.”

“This kind of arbitrary favoritism has no place under the Tennessee Constitution,” explained Paul Avelar, a lawyer for the IJ. “Lij and Pat have a constitutional right to use their homes to earn an honest living. But Nashville treats their home-based businesses worse than other, privileged, home-based businesses for no real reason.”

The lawsuit stems from the city’s 2017 attacks on the two businesses, in which it shut them down.

Then came COVD, and the city allowed them to have six client visits daily.

Now a unanimous ruling from Judges Frank Clement, Andy Bennett, and Jeffrey Usman agreed with the claims that the city had not offered good reasons for favoring some home business over others.

The ruling said, “Metro has offered no rational reason for the difference in treatment that is relevant to the purpose of the law.”

The case already has been to the state Supreme Court, which rejected a lower court’s dismissal and reinstated it for further opinions at the lower court level.

At first, the lower court claimed the limits were “constitutional because they were rationally related to the city’s interests in preserving the residential nature of neighborhoods.”

The appeals ruling noted that the city changed its code during the time period that the lawsuit was pending. But throughout the proceedings the city exempted short-term rentals, home-based daycares, historic buildings and such.

The case ended up addressing the city’s irrational decision to distinguish between different types of home-related businesses.

“Plaintiffs argued that there was no rational reason that was relevant to the purpose of the law for distinguishing between their businesses and the Exempt Businesses. In support, Plaintiffs produced evidence that their businesses had no more of an impact on the residential character of neighborhoods than the Exempt Businesses,” the ruling said.

The opinion noted the city didn’t even try to dispute that.

Keep reading

Village tries to fine Long Island woman who replaced lawn with native plants

“That front yard look hideous”

Xilin Zhang overhauled her front lawn with native plants in New Hyde Park.

“It’s a very natural look,” she said. “There’s tons of butterflies and bees and birds coming … It’s not just some grass doing nothing.” 

It’s the outgrowth of a Town of North Hempstead grant to encourage native plant gardens. But Zhang was told her yard clashes with the village code, and she received a summons with a fine up of $2,000. 

The village mayor, bluntly, said Zhang’s yard was “hideous.”

“When ugly is that overwhelming, you have to call it what it is. That front yard looks hideous,” Mayor Christopher Devane said. 

After four rounds in court, the village and Zhang reached a compromise. The summons was dismissed, but the garden must stay below 4 feet. 

“We need to move away from big green lawns”

Native plant advocates in Port Washington launched a movement to get suburbanites to ditch their lawns. Gardens, like Zhang’s, have more attractive benefits, they say. 

“Sustainable gardens are not just beautiful for the eye. They protect our drinking water,” Mindy Germain, Port Washington’s water commissioner, said. “We’re trying to move away from these big green lawns that are sucking up too much water from our aquifer.” 

“There are lots of towns on Long Island which are encouraging people to put in wild flowers because they don’t want all that pollution going into the bay,” Raju Rajan, president of Rewild Long Island, said. 

Keep reading

She Got a Permit for Her Chickens. Now the City Is Fining Her $80,000.

The city of Douglas, Michigan, is determined to take the “free” out of “free range.” In 2023, Kathryn Sarkisian, a resident of the Lake Michigan tourist town, wanted to do something that seemed simple enough: raise chickens in her backyard. She then sought—and received—a permit directly from the city, authorizing her to do so. Barely a month later, the city pulled an about-face, telling Sarkisian that she would have to get rid of her chickens on account of a neighbor’s complaint.

Douglas originally passed its chicken ordinance in 2020, which gives neighbors a 21-day period within which to object to nearby chicken permit requests. This process wasn’t followed, though, since the neighbor’s complaint came after the city had already issued Sarkisian’s permit. The city claimed that it had forgotten to notify the neighbors of their right to object during the review process and had therefore done so retroactively. Since one neighbor ended up objecting, Sarkisian was told she’d have to get rid of her chickens.

In the meantime, Sarkisian had spent $23,000 building a chicken coop and a privacy fence to shield the chickens from view. When Sarkisian refused to budge, the city began assessing a $300-per-day fine in November 2024. This means she is currently facing nearly $80,000 in fines for her refusal to comply with the city’s demands. Worse yet, the city hasn’t even clarified when the tolling period for the fines started—if it started from the time she began raising the chickens, the fines would now total over $200,000.

Despite the immense financial penalties at play, Sarkisian’s six plucky chickens still stride outside her back door. “I was raised in a family that loves this country, that believes in our freedom, that’s grateful for people who fought and who still fight for our freedoms,” Sarkisian told MLive in a recent interview. “And those freedoms and rights are very near and dear to me.”

Keep reading

Mayor Bass Abruptly Orders Curfew for Downtown Los Angeles

After four days of coddling rioters and attacking President Donald Trump for federalizing California National Guard troops, Democrat Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass suddenly turned law and order on the fifth day, announcing a curfew in downtown L.A. starting at 8 p.m. PDT Tuesday, giving about two hours notice. The curfew will end at 6 a.m. Wednesday. Residents, homeless, credentialed media and workers in the curfew zone are exempt according to statements by Bass and Police Chief Jim McDonnell.

The Trump administration’s efforts to enforce immigration laws in the sanctuary city and state of Los Angeles, California has been met with resistance by violent protesters and mockery by Gov. Gavin Newsom, Mayor Bass and many other Democrat elected officials.

Bass made the announcement at a press conference and followed with a post online where she still blamed President Trump, “I issued a curfew starting tonight at 8pm for Downtown Los Angeles to stop bad actors who are taking advantage of the President’s chaotic escalation. If you do not live or work in Downtown L.A., avoid the area. Law enforcement will arrest individuals who break the curfew, and you will be prosecuted.”

Keep reading

The Founders on What Really Makes a “Land of the Free”

“All might be free if they valued freedom, and defended it as they ought.”

Samuel Adams penned these words with the kind of clarity that makes modern political discourse look like finger painting.

Here’s the rub: Do we actually value freedom enough to defend it? Or have we become so comfortable with our chains that we’ve forgotten what it means to be truly free?

Let me be blunt. Freedom isn’t about having benevolent masters. It’s not about government officials who promise to be nice – or even those who actually do.

It’s about power itself – who has it, who controls it, and most importantly, whether it can be stopped the instant it exceeds its limits.

THE ACID TEST OF LIBERTY

During the height of the Revolution, John Dickinson posed the fundamental question that should haunt every American today. What does it actually mean to live in a “land of the free?”

“For WHO ARE A FREE PEOPLE? Not those, over whom government is reasonable and equitably exercised, but those, who live under a government so constitutionally checked and controlled, that proper provision is made against its being otherwise exercised.”

Let that sink in. The “Penman of the American Revolution” wasn’t talking about good government. He was talking about limited government – one that literally cannot exceed its bounds without being immediately slapped back into its constitutional box.

In short, if government has vast power but simply chooses not to use it today, congratulations: you’re not free. You’re just lucky.

THE ARCHITECTURE OF FREEDOM

Decades earlier, John Trenchard understood this distinction with painful clarity. Writing in Cato’s Letters, he declared that checks on government are the sole difference between free nations and unfree ones.

“Only the checks put upon magistrates make nations free; and only the want of such checks makes them slaves.”

Trenchard took it further and explained that freedom depends on one simple question: Do the people control the government, or does the government control itself?

“They are free, where their magistrates are confined within certain bounds set them by the people, and act by rules prescribed them by the people: And they are slaves, where their magistrates choose their own rules, and follow their lust and humours.”

Sound familiar? When government writes its own rules, interprets its own powers, and judges its own actions, you’re living in a soft tyranny – even if it respects the constitution and your liberty. The velvet glove doesn’t change the iron fist underneath.

Sound familiar? When government writes its own rules, interprets its own powers, and judges its own actions, you’re living in a soft tyranny. The velvet glove doesn’t change the iron fist underneath.

As Montesquieu put it, the solution is to use power to check power.

“To prevent this abuse, it is necessary, from the very nature of things, power should be a check to power.”

Making that work requires something most people don’t grasp – you need so many restraints on government that it’s practically in a straitjacket. Why? Because, as Thomas Gordon explained, humans are predictably terrible with power.

“Considering what sort of a creature man is, it is scarce possible to put him under too many restraints, when he is possessed of great power: He may possibly use it well; but they act most prudently, who, supposing that he would use it ill, inclose him within certain bounds, and make it terrible to him to exceed them.”

The founders took this seriously. They didn’t design a system betting on good people doing the right thing. They designed it knowing that any power that can be abused will be abused.

Keep reading

City in Colorado Will Seize Residents’ Pets If They Violate Strict Animal Ownership Limits

A Colorado municipality will soon authorize the seizure of cats and dogs from residents who exceed a new cap on animal ownership.

Denver7 reports that starting in August, the city of Northglenn, located roughly 40 minutes from Denver, will impose a strict rule prohibiting residents from keeping more than four animals in total.

This includes cats, dogs, or any combination thereof, with the total “not exceeding four.”

According to the city, the ordinance was passed by the council “at the request of residents and after extensive research and discussion.”

Officials say the decision follows complaints from community members about “excessive noise and waste caused by a high number of pets in some neighborhoods.”

Those who currently own more than the permitted number of animals have the option to apply for a “previously owned pet exception” prior to the law’s enforcement date.

If submitted in time, the exemption allows Northglenn residents to keep their “existing pets” and avoid having them confiscated by authorities.

The application requires pet owners to provide details, including the animal’s name, breed, sex, age, and the date it entered the household.

Failure to comply with the rule, including failure to report animals exceeding the new threshold, could result in “enforcement action,” which may involve “a potential court order requiring pet removal.”

“Our goal is to work with residents to ensure compliance through education and outreach before any enforcement action is taken,” the city stated.

‘Pets bring joy and companionship to our lives, but they also come with responsibilities.”

”By establishing reasonable pet limits, we aim to ensure that everyone living in Northglenn, both pet owners and non-pet owners, can enjoy their homes and neighborhoods.”

Granting the government the authority to seize pets raises serious concerns about property rights, due process, and overreach into private life.

While both New York and Los Angeles have limits on pet ownership, violators are typically punished through citations and eviction from rental properties.

The other place where animal confiscation is normalized is in communist China, where a controverisal one-dog policy once allowed authorities to confiscate dogs exceeding the size or number limits.

Keep reading

Lawn Gone Liberty: The Update

It’s finally spring.

Better mow your lawn.

If you don’t, your town government may fine you thousands of dollars a day. 

Worse, if you can’t pay the fine, they may confiscate your home.

Six years ago, in Dunedin, Florida, Jim Ficken let his grass grow. 

His mom had died, and he’d left town to take care of her estate. He asked a friend to cut his grass, but that friend died, too!

In the two months Ficken was away, his grass grew taller than 10 inches.

City bureaucrats started fining him.

But they didn’t tell Ficken that. When he finally got back, there was no notice of the $500-a-day fine. Only when he ran into a “code enforcement officer” did he learn he’d be getting “a big bill.”

When the bill came, it was for $24,454.

Ficken quickly mowed his lawn. Then the city tacked on another $5,000 for “non-compliance.”

Ficken didn’t have that much money, so city officials told him they would take his home.

Fortunately, Ficken discovered the libertarian law firm, the Institute for Justice, which fights government abuse.

IJ lawyer Ari Bargil took on Ficken’s case, arguing that the $30,000 fine violates the Constitution’s limits on “excessive bail, fines, and cruel punishments.”

But a judge ruled that the fine was “not excessive.” 

Of course, judges are just lawyers with robes. Often they are lawyer/bureaucrats who’ve become very comfortable with big government.

I call a $30K penalty for not cutting your lawn absurdly excessive, 

IJ attorney Bargil told local news stations, “If $30,000 for tall grass in Florida is not excessive, it is hard to imagine what is.”

Dunedin’s politicians often impose heavy fines for minor transgressions.

One resident told us, “They fined me $32,000 for a hole the size of a quarter in my stucco … For a lawn mower in my yard … They fine people they can pick on … and they keep picking on them.” 

It happens elsewhere, too.

Charlotte, North Carolina, fined a church for “excessive pruning.”

Danbury, Connecticut, charged a resident $200,000 for leaving his yard messy.

Bargil notes, “It’s pretty apparent that code enforcement is a major cash cow.”

In just five-and-a-half years, Dunedin collected $3.6 million in fines. 

But by then, I and others had noticed. We were reporting on Dunedin’s heavy fines. 

So did the politicians sheepishly acknowledge that they had milked citizens with excessive fines and give the money back?

Of course not. They hired a PR firm. That cost taxpayers another $25,000 a month.

Keep reading