Tag: land of the free

New Buffalo Township tries to rein in cannabis boom it helped create

A booming cannabis market that turned New Buffalo Township into one of Michigan’s busiest marijuana destinations is now prompting local leaders to ask a difficult question:

How much is too much?

Recent reporting by Crain’s Chicago Business and Crain’s Grand Rapids Business highlights a community trying to regain control of an industry it once aggressively welcomed — even as it continues to benefit from the revenue those businesses generate.

From opportunity to overload

In just a few years, New Buffalo Township has gone from cannabis newcomer to one of the most concentrated retail markets in the state.

Today, nearly 30 dispensaries operate within the township — a remarkable number for a community of roughly 2,500 residents. Several more have been proposed or approved, creating a level of density that has drawn attention well beyond Southwest Michigan.

The location tells much of the story. Positioned along the I-94 corridor near the Indiana line, the township has become a convenient stop for out-of-state customers, particularly from Illinois, where prices and taxes are typically higher, and Indiana, where cannabis is still illegal.

That steady stream of traffic helped fuel rapid growth — and a steady flow of revenue.

A shift in tone at the Township Hall

Now, township officials are signaling that the rapid expansion may have gone too far.

According to Crain’s reporting, local leaders have begun taking steps aimed at reducing the number of dispensaries, not by banning cannabis outright, but by tightening oversight and enforcement.

Those efforts include:

  • Reviewing and, in some cases, seeking to revoke special land use permits
  • Holding public hearings tied to compliance concerns
  • Working more closely with the state on enforcement actions involving individual operators

The approach reflects a notable shift — from encouraging development to managing its consequences.

The revenue reality

Complicating the picture is the financial upside.

Cannabis sales have generated significant tax revenue for Michigan communities, and New Buffalo Township has been among the biggest beneficiaries due to its unusually high concentration of stores.

That revenue supports local services and budgets, making it difficult to simply shut the door on the industry.

At the same time, more dispensaries mean the pie is divided into smaller slices. As additional licenses come online, the amount of state-distributed revenue tied to each location can decline — raising questions about whether continued growth actually benefits the township in the long run.

Keep reading

DYSTOPIAN Truck Tech: AI Scans Faces, Reads Lips & Checks Police Database BEFORE You Can Drive

A video exposing Ford’s dystopian patents for new vehicles has gone viral on X, fueling outrage over the accelerating war on personal vehicle ownership and freedom of movement. 

The clip details in-cabin cameras, biometric scanners, lip-reading AI, emotion detection, and real-time criminal database queries – all deciding whether your truck will let you drive.

In the video, the narrator states “imagine there was an emergency outside the truck… An accident…I jump in this truck. But it won’t shift into drive. Why? Because cameras and sensors inside of my cab won’t let me shift.”

“It detects that my eyes are big. There’s some emotion. Some panic. And doesn’t feel like I’m fit to drive. That isn’t science fiction. This is happening. Ford just filed patents,” he explains.

He continues: “Ford actually has a series of patents down at the U.S. Patent and Trade Office that deal with sensors and cameras inside their cab. And if that sensor determines you’re not fit to drive, the truck won’t shift from park to drive.”

The patents extend deep into control. Biometric systems scan face, iris, and fingerprint, cross-referencing law enforcement databases before allowing movement. 

“You wake up one morning, walk out to the driveway, climb into a vehicle with your name on the title… Before you go anywhere, before you’ve done a single thing wrong, your truck has already run your face through a law enforcement database. Ford’s own patent language describes this as ‘potentially useful for police,’” the narrator further outlines.

Lip-reading tech uses interior cameras and machine learning on vast mouth-movement datasets, plus inaudible sound waves. This enables not just voice commands in noisy conditions but also monitoring for targeted ads based on conversations. 

Ford Pro Telematics also already feeds live driver video to fleet managers.

This corporate push dovetails perfectly with government efforts to restrict mobility. Just weeks ago, Massachusetts Democrats advanced Senate Bill S.2246, directing MassDOT to set binding goals for slashing statewide vehicle miles traveled (VMT) under “climate” pretexts. 

The bill creates a new council to shove residents onto public transit, hitting rural drivers hardest who rely on cars for work, family, and essentials.

Keep reading

America: Land of the (Not Really) Free

Last week, President Donald Trump commemorated income tax payments being due by having DoorDash deliver food from McDonald’s to the White House. The delivery was intended to highlight the first year of tax-free tips. Removing tax on tips was part of the 2025 Big Beautiful Bill (BBB).

As the sponsor of the first No Tax on Tips legislation introduced in Congress, I was obviously pleased to see this change in tax laws included in the BBB. The bill also included other good tax changes such as removing tax on overtime and extending the 2017 tax cuts. Unfortunately, the bill also increased federal spending and debt.

Supporters of the income tax implicitly endorse the idea that our rights are gifts from government and, thus, can be revoked by government at the will of our rulers. Adoption of the income tax signified the abandonment of the belief that individuals have inalienable rights granted them by the Creator.

Therefore, those who believe in natural rights must reject income taxation. It is also a violation of the people’s rights when the central bank reduces the value of the dollar, and thus the people’s purchasing power, via the hidden inflation tax.

The income tax system’s rejection of natural rights is exemplified by withholding that gives government first claim on an individual’s earnings. The government then may return, via what it calls a refund, some of what was taken. However, a normal refund is when a business returns a customer’s payment because the customer is dissatisfied with the good or service he received, not when a thief returns some of what the thief stole.

Withholding was implemented during World War Two as a “temporary” wartime measure. Yet, it is still with us decades later.

Milton Friedman, as a young economist, played a role in the US government’s development of withholding. Of course, Friedman went on to become a leading advocate for free markets. He also redeemed himself for his work on withholding by becoming a prominent advocate for ending the military draft.

The draft is the worst example of how the government has rejected the principles of the Declaration of Independence. The draft gives government power to force young men (and possibly young women) to join the military and kill or be killed in a war. Contrary to the beliefs of some progressives, support for the draft is not justified by allowing individuals to choose between serving in the military or performing some other form of mandated “service.”

While the US does not have a military draft, the infrastructure for the draft remains in place via Selective Service registration. A provision in this year ‘s National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) allows Selective Service to automatically register all men between the ages of 18 and 25. This makes it easier than ever for government to reinstate a draft.

Income taxes, along with the military draft and other types of mandated “service,” are incompatible with a free society and should be opposed by all who value liberty and peace. As Ronald Reagan said in a statement that could be modified to apply to income taxes, the draft “rests on the assumption that your kids belong to the state…. That assumption isn’t a new one. The Nazis thought it was a great idea.”

Keep reading

Massachusetts Dems Advance Bill To Limit How Far You Can Drive In Your Own Car

Massachusetts lawmakers are barreling ahead with a bill that would force the state to slash the total miles residents drive, all under the banner of cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

The proposal, Senate Bill S.2246, doesn’t slap a hard cap on your daily commute… yet – but it orders the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) to set binding goals for reducing statewide vehicle miles traveled (VMT). It also creates a new government council tasked with pushing people onto public transit whether they like it or not.

A local Boston report highlights the move:

“The bill proposed in Massachusetts would limit how far you can drive in your own car. So lawmakers say it would help reduce the state’s greenhouse gas emissions. Now, while no specific mileage limit was listed, the bill would require MassDOT to set goals to reduce the number of statewide driving miles. It would also establish a new council to find ways to make public transportation more accessible for residents. Now, critics say A cap on personal vehicle miles would directly impact those in rural parts of the state.”

The committee gave it a favorable 4-1 vote and shipped it to the Senate Ways and Means Committee, keeping the radical plan alive on Beacon Hill.

This isn’t some fringe idea cooked up in isolation. It’s part of a broader push to ration mobility under the twin excuses of “climate” and “equity.” Similar thinking powers the 15-minute city concept – the urban planning fad sold as “convenience” but designed to make driving anywhere outside your little neighborhood a bureaucratic nightmare.

Need to visit family across town or haul supplies for a business? Too bad. The goal is fewer cars, fewer miles, and more dependence on government-run transit that’s already unreliable and crime-ridden in blue cities.

Keep reading

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