Tag: moral panics

Top police chiefs say smell of cannabis is a ‘sign of crime’ that can make even them feel ‘unsafe’… and frontline officers should ‘do something about it’

Britain’s top police chiefs today urge their officers to crack down on cannabis.

The country’s longest-serving chief constable admits the smell of the drug is a ‘sign of crime and disorder’ which makes even him ‘feel unsafe’.

Sir Andy Marsh, who leads the College of Policing, said frontline officers should ‘do something about it’.

He is backed by Greater Manchester Police Chief Sir Stephen Watson and Merseyside Chief Constable Serena Kennedy.

In a joint intervention following recent calls for decriminalisation, they tell future police leaders they must listen to their communities and be prepared to take a tougher line.

Launching a new leadership programme for policing, they acknowledged forces were in a ‘foot race for public confidence’ and officers can no longer ignore what has traditionally been perceived as the ‘little stuff’. 

Sir Andy, who is the officer in charge of police standards, said: ‘In my community, my kids are too frightened to use the bus stop because it always stinks of cannabis.’

He told the Mail ‘policing is about creating an environment that people feel safe in’ and said: ‘I’m speaking from personal experience and people I talk to, if I walk through a town, city, or even village centre and I smell cannabis, it does actually have an impact on how safe I feel.

‘One definition of what police should be doing is – [if] something [is] happening which does not feel right, someone ought to do something about it.’

He added: ‘For me, the smell of cannabis around communities, it feels like a sign of crime and disorder.’

The call for action comes after figures on Sunday revealed that three in four people caught with the drug last year were let off with an informal warning or community resolution.

In the year to September 2024, 68,513 people were found in possession of cannabis, but only 17,000 were charged, according to data released under Freedom of Information laws.

Mayor of London Sir Sadiq Khan has called for the decriminalisation of possession when it involves small amounts of the drug. 

But recently judges have warned that cannabis is ‘not a benign drug’ after a series of horrific cases, including a samurai sword rampage in Hainault, east London, where a schoolboy was killed and four others seriously injured by a drug-crazed Brazilian who had a £100-a-day habit.

The head of Merseyside Police said of cannabis: ‘The public should absolutely expect us to take positive action around those things and hold us to account over it. 

‘We have to work with our communities, it’s no longer good enough to inflict priorities on them, we have to hear their voices and make them part of the problem-solving.’

Keep reading

COPPA 2.0: The Age Check Trap That Means Surveillance for Everyone

A new Senate bill designed to strengthen online privacy protections for minors could bring about major changes in how age is verified across the internet, prompting platforms to implement broader surveillance measures in an attempt to comply with ambiguous legal standards.

The Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act (S.836) (COPPA 2.0), now under review by the Senate Commerce Committee, proposes raising the protected age group from under 13 to under 17. It also introduces a new provision allowing teens aged 13 to 16 to consent to data collection on their own.

The bill has drawn praise from lawmakers across party lines and received backing from several major tech companies.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

Supporters frame the bill as a long-overdue update to existing digital privacy laws. But others argue that a subtle change in how platforms are expected to identify underage users may produce outcomes that are more intrusive and far-reaching than anticipated.

Under the current law, platforms must act when they have “actual knowledge” that a user is a child.

The proposed bill replaces that threshold with a broader and less defined expectation: “knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances.” This language introduces uncertainty about what constitutes sufficient awareness, making companies more vulnerable to legal challenges if they fail to identify underage users.

Instead of having to respond only when given explicit information about a user’s age, platforms would be required to interpret behavioral cues, usage patterns, or contextual data. This effectively introduces a negligence standard, compelling platforms to act preemptively to avoid accusations of noncompliance.

As a result, many websites may respond by implementing age verification systems for all users, regardless of whether they cater to minors. These systems would likely require more detailed personal information, including government-issued identification or biometric scans, to confirm users’ ages.

Keep reading

Federal Prosecutors Are Starting To Sound Like Campus Activists About Sex and Consent

The Department of Justice (DOJ) is now embracing ideas about coercion and consent that rose to prominence on college campuses during the Barack Obama administration.

That’s the implication of the OneTaste case, in which a jury has returned a guilty verdict against Rachel Cherwitz and Nicole Daedone, who stood accused of a conspiracy to commit forced labor during their time with the sexual and spiritual self-help organization.

I have written many words about this case already, and I’m going to try to refrain from rehashing all of the details in today’s newsletter. (If you’re new to the case and want to dive deep, here you go. If you want a couple of overviews of how the trial played out, see here and here.)

What I want to focus on right now is the larger implications of this case. They’re not pretty.

From College Campuses to #MeToo to the DOJ

If these ideas about coercion and consent didn’t start on the college campuses of the 2010s, that’s at least when they became fully institutionalized —adopted as not just the framework favored by activist students and women’s studies professors but by college administrators and the Title IX offices they were beholden to. There was affirmative consent, sure, but also a broader suspicion of consent as a worthwhile standard, or at least a willingness to dismiss it for more arcane ideas about sexual permissibility.

Suddenly it wasn’t enough to say no and it wasn’t even enough to say yes—one had to consider a complex set of power dynamics, alcohol consumption levels, subtle nonverbal cues, and so on, to determine if consent counted. It stopped just short of taking astrological signs into account.

We went from a reasonable corrective (acknowledging that sexual assault needn’t necessarily involve force or violence) to women getting support for claims of sexual coercion and violation even when they seemed to willingly go along with sexual activity at the time but later said that they weren’t enthusiastic enough about it and a partner should have known that and stopped. Basically, it was only consensual if a woman felt deep down in her heart, during and after, that everything had been OK.

We saw this idea migrate from campus newspapers and Title IX offices to the broader world during the #MeToo movement. It’s perhaps best exemplified by a story about the actor Aziz Ansari. A young woman went to dinner with him, then back to his house, and later excoriated him in Babe magazine for not reading her cues about not wanting to fool around and allegedly pressuring her to do so. The piece called it sexual misconduct and a violation. But when the woman explicitly told Ansari no, he stopped, per her account of things. And when she wanted to go, she left.

The Babe article provoked a huge debate about whether this sort of thing—which in another era we might have just called a bad date or caddish behavior—was a form of sexual assault and where responsibility lies here. Are sexual partners supposed to be mind readers? Do women have any responsibility for explicitly making their wishes known?

Keep reading

France considers requiring Musk’s X to verify users’ age

The French government is considering designating X as a porn platform — a move that will likely have the platform implementing strict age verification requirements.

Such a designation could effectively ban children from accessing the social media app unless it curtailed adult content. Paris has recently upped its efforts to protect kids online by requiring age verification by porn platforms.

“X has indicated since 2024 that it accepts the distribution of pornographic content. It must therefore be treated as such,” Digital Minister Clara Chappaz’s office told POLITICO.

Her team has been tasked with “examining the designation of X in the decree concerning pornographic sites that must verify the age of their users.”

The confirmation follows an appearance by Chappaz on French TV show “Quotidien” on Thursday evening, where she said X will soon receive “the same pretty papers as YouPorn” instructing X to ban adult content or implement age screening.

Porn platforms serving content in France are required to implement age verification measures with a final deadline of June 7, although some are protesting.

Failure to comply could see sites fined, delisted from search engines or blocked completely.

Keep reading

GOP-Led Congressional Panel Demands Investigation On Biden’s Marijuana Rescheduling Process, Citing ‘Deviations’ And ‘Mental Health Hazards’

A key GOP-led House committee is asking for a review of the cannabis rescheduling recommendation issued under the Biden administration, expressing concerns about “deviations” from a prior review process as well as the “mental health hazards of regular use of high-potency marijuana.”

In a report attached to a large-scale spending bill for the 2026 fiscal year, the House Appropriations Committee included several sections focused on marijuana and hemp—while also encouraging further research into the therapeutic potential of psychedelics. The panel is set to vote on the bill and report language on Wednesday.

For cannabis advocates and stakeholders, however, the report’s marijuana scheduling language is troubling, with members stating that they’re “concerned about deviations from established drug scheduling evaluation standards in the [Food and Drug Administration, or FDA] 2023 marijuana scheduling review.”

Under former President Joe Biden, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recommended to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) that cannabis be moved from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). That process has since stalled out amid legal challenges from witnesses in DEA administrative hearing proceedings.

“The Committee directs the HHS Inspector General to complete a report on the 2023 marijuana scheduling review including but not limited to: deviations from the established five-factor currently accepted medical use test, justification for a new, two-factor currently accepted medical use test and whether this will be the standard for all future reviews, use of a limited number of hand-selected comparator substances, and inclusion of research results that are not statistically significant or inconclusive,” the report section says.

The flagged issues largely echo concerns raised by prohibitionist organizations such as Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM). And the language is consistent with an earlier version of the agriculture spending legislation that advanced though committee but was not ultimately enacted last session.

“The Committee is concerned about reports of the mental health hazards of regular use of high-potency marijuana, particularly among adolescents,” it says. “The Committee encourages the FDA to support research on high-potency marijuana and its effects on the adolescent brain, specifically regarding addiction and mental illness such as schizophrenia or psychosis.”

“Marijuana Rescheduling.—The Committee is concerned about deviations from established drug scheduling evaluation standards in the FDA 2023 marijuana scheduling review. The Committee directs the HHS Inspector General to complete a report on the 2023 marijuana scheduling review including but not limited to: deviations from the established five-factor currently accepted medical use test, justification for a new, two-factor currently accepted medical use test and whether this will be the standard for all future reviews, use of a limited number of hand-selected comparator substances, and inclusion of research results that are not statistically significant or inconclusive. The Committee is concerned about reports of the mental health hazards of regular use of high-potency marijuana, particularly among adolescents. The Committee encourages the FDA to support research on high-potency marijuana and its effects on the adolescent brain, specifically regarding addiction and mental illness such as schizophrenia or psychosis.”

Elsewhere in the report, the panel also talked about their problem with “the proliferation of products marketed in violation of the [Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)], including products containing derivatives of the cannabis plant,” which is consistent with provisions of the underlying bill that would ban all hemp items containing “quantifiable” amounts of THC.

“The Committee is aware that non-FFDCA-compliant products pose potential health and safety risks to consumers through misleading, unsubstantiated, and false claims that cannabis and cannabis derivatives can treat serious and life-threatening diseases and conditions, including COVID–19 and cancer,” the report says. “Such products may also be contaminated with harmful substances.”

“The Committee recognizes FDA’s use of existing authorities to undertake cannabis-related efforts, including research, requests for data, consumer education, issuance of guidance and policy around cannabis-based drug product development, and enforcement against wrongdoers,” it continues. “The Committee expects FDA to continue and increase these efforts given the proliferation of non-FFDCA-compliant, cannabis-containing products and the risks they pose to public health.”

“Cannabidiol Oil Enforcement.—The Committee is concerned about the proliferation of products marketed in violation of the FFDCA, including products containing derivatives of the cannabis plant. The Committee is aware that non-FFDCA-compliant products pose potential health and safety risks to consumers through misleading, unsubstantiated, and false claims that cannabis and cannabis derivatives can treat serious and life-threatening diseases and conditions, including COVID–19 and cancer. Such products may also be contaminated with harmful substances. The Committee recognizes FDA’s use of existing authorities to undertake cannabis-related efforts, including research, requests for data, consumer education, issuance of guidance and policy around cannabis-based drug product development, and enforcement against wrongdoers. The Committee expects FDA to continue and increase these efforts given the proliferation of non-FFDCA-compliant, cannabis-containing products and the risks they pose to public health. The Committee also expects FDA to take enforcement action against the manufacturers of any cannabis products marketed with unlawful therapeutic claims to preserve the integrity of the drug development and approval processes, which ensures that products, including cannabis-containing products, marketed as drugs have undergone a rigorous scientific evaluation to ensure that they are safe, pure, potent, and effective for the diseases and conditions they claim to treat. It is also imperative that FDA continue to exercise its existing authorities to preserve incentives to invest in robust clinical study of cannabis so its therapeutic value can be better understood.”

The report further states that members expect FDA to “take enforcement action against the manufacturers of any cannabis products marketed with unlawful therapeutic claims to preserve the integrity of the drug development and approval processes, which ensures that products, including cannabis-containing products, marketed as drugs have undergone a rigorous scientific evaluation to ensure that they are safe, pure, potent, and effective for the diseases and conditions they claim to treat.”

“It is also imperative that FDA continue to exercise its existing authorities to preserve incentives to invest in robust clinical study of cannabis so its therapeutic value can be better understood,” the committee said.

The House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies advanced the underlying bill last week, stirring controversy over provisions to prohibit cannabis products containing any “quantifiable” amount of THC or “any other cannabinoids that have similar effects (or are marketed to have similar effects) on humans or animals” as THC.

Keep reading

Southern Baptists target porn, sports betting, same-sex marriage and ‘willful childlessness’

Southern Baptists meeting this week in Dallas will be asked to approve resolutions calling for a legal ban on pornography and a reversal of the U.S. Supreme Court’s approval of same-sex marriage.

The proposed resolutions call for laws on gender, marriage and family based on what they say is the biblically stated order of divine creation. They also call for legislators to curtail sports betting and to support policies that promote childbearing.

The Southern Baptist Convention, the nation’s largest Protestant denomination, is also expected to debate controversies within its own house during its annual meeting Tuesday and Wednesday — such as a proposed ban on churches with women pastors. There are also calls to defund the organization’s public policy arm, whose anti-abortion stance hasn’t extended to supporting criminal charges for women having abortions.

In a denomination where support for President Donald Trump is strong, there is little on the advance agenda referencing specific actions by Trump since taking office in January in areas such as tariffs, immigration or the pending budget bill containing cuts in taxes, food aid and Medicaid.

Remnants of the epic showdown in Dallas 40 years ago

Southern Baptists will be meeting on the 40th anniversary of another Dallas annual meeting. An epic showdown took place when a record-shattering 45,000 church representatives clashed in what became a decisive blow in the takeover of the convention — and its seminaries and other agencies — by a more conservative faction that was also aligned with the growing Christian conservative movement in presidential politics.

The 1985 showdown was “the hinge convention in terms of the old and the new in the SBC,” said Albert Mohler, who became a key agent in the denomination’s rightward shift as longtime president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.

Attendance this week will likely be a fraction of 1985’s, but that meeting’s influence will be evident. Any debates will be among solidly conservative members.

Many of the proposed resolutions — on gambling, pornography, sex, gender and marriage — reflect long-standing positions of the convention, though they are especially pointed in their demands on the wider political world. They are proposed by the official Committee on Resolutions, whose recommendations typically get strong support.

A proposed resolution says legislators have a duty to “pass laws that reflect the truth of creation and natural law — about marriage, sex, human life, and family” and to oppose laws contradicting “what God has made plain through nature and Scripture.”

To some outside observers, such language is theocratic.

Keep reading

Homeland Security hits back at claims ICE agent at Martha’s Vineyard has ‘white supremacist’ tattoo

The Department of Homeland Security has hit back at claims that an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent has a “white supremacist” tattoo after footage circulated online during an arrest operation in Martha’s Vineyard.

An ICE officer was spotted on the Massachusetts island last week with what appeared to be a Valknot tattoo, a Nordic symbol of the god Odin.

Charlie Giordano confronted the ICE agents and posted the footage on Instagram, the Martha’s Vineyard Times first reported.

“When reviewing the images I made of ‘ICE Agents’ on Martha’s Vineyard yesterday, I noticed several had the ‘Valknot’ tattooed on their arms,” Giordano posted on Instagram. “It’s a symbol often used by white supremacy groups.”

DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin characterized the claim as a “smear” in a post on X Tuesday and said the officer was “a combat veteran.”

“His tattoo is a tribute to fallen warriors —a pretty common tattoo in the military among combat veterans who embrace the Nordic Viking warrior culture,” McLaughlin said.

“Attempting to smear this ICE officer and pretend his tattoo is meant to be a tribute to White Supremacy is false, pathetic, and insulting to veterans.”

Keep reading

‘The View’ Co-Host Sunny Hostin Says Elon Musk’s DOGE Cuts Have Killed 300,000 People — ‘Mostly Children’

The View co-host Sunny Hostin has claimed that Elon Musk’s government cuts have killed over 300,000 people, most of whom are children.

In Wednesday’s episode of the political talk show, Hostin and her fellow panelists reflected on Musk’s legacy after he recently departed the role of leading the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

“But the damage that he did was just really incredible,” Hostin declared.

“He slashed 250,000 federal employees, more than 8500 contracts, more than 10,000 grants, and his cutbacks on medical research cost the lives of — the foreign aid — cost 300,000 lives, mostly children.”

“That’s the damage that Elon Musk did,” she continued. “So I don’t think anyone should be listening to him about anything.”

It is unclear where Hostin sourced this so-called statistic, although her fellow co-hosts did nothing to push back on it.

“Elon knows the 411 on everything,” fellow co-host Whoopi Goldberg chimed in.

“Yeah, he got all that information,” Hostin agreed.

“So Trump should be afraid of him,” added Joy Behar. “He has the receipts on the election, too.”

Keep reading

DEA Promotes Claim That Marijuana Could Be More Likely To Cause Psychosis Than Meth

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is giving weight to the idea that marijuana could be more likely to cause psychosis than methamphetamine is—promoting a recent article where a psychiatrist indicated that the jury is out on the question.

In an email blast on Wednesday, DEA’s Just Think Twice campaign shared a link to the story from The Lund Report, with a subject line that asks: “Meth or Cannabis…Which Raises Risk of Psychosis More?”

“Studies have linked early and heavy use of cannabis to schizophrenia and psychosis,” DEA said, while prominently featuring a quote from Oregon-based psychiatrist David Rettew, who said there’s “overwhelming evidence that cannabis use, particularly for young people, changes the brain, and this is particularly true for adolescents.”

“But when it comes to psychosis, there’s really strong evidence at this point that cannabis raises the risk of psychotic disorders more than other drugs, even methamphetamines, which is surprising,” Rettew said.

While that was the only reference to meth in the original article, DEA evidently felt the standalone quote warranted more attention, with a subject line that indicated it was a key component of the reporting in the agency’s view.

This comes amid lingering questions about how DEA will navigate a pending marijuana rescheduling proposal that was initiated under the Biden administration. And while the agency has long been known to promote sensational claims about the risks of cannabis use, it appears there’s been a stepped-up push to reinforce that message, particularly for youth.

For example, DEA recently teamed up with an anti-marijuana organization to mark “National Prevention Week,” promoting a campaign that encourages people to share memes with dubious claims about the effects of cannabis—including the theory that it is a “gateway drug” to using other substances.

The memes ran the gamut, citing certain reports and studies that have been contradicted by other research. One meme claimed that cannabis use is associated with a 50 percent decrease in sperm count, which the DEA-promoted meme suggested could contribute to infertility.

In March, DEA separately promoted an “Anti-420 Day” campaign with Johnny’s Ambassadors that recruited students to send short videos warning their peers about marijuana use.

The plan was to “flood” Instagram with the short-form videos that would feature students talking about “why young people should not use THC.”

DEA has developed a reputation for its awkward messaging and educational materials around youth drug use.

Keep reading

Texas Mandates Digital ID To Access App Store Apps

Texas has moved to the forefront of a national campaign to regulate children’s access to digital platforms by mandating that Apple and Google verify the ages of all users on their app stores.

Under a new law signed by Governor Greg Abbott, set to take effect January 1, 2026, those under 18 will be required to obtain parental consent before downloading apps or making in-app purchases. The measure has been pitched as a way to protect minors, but privacy advocates warn it could come at the expense of everyone’s digital freedom.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

The requirement places app store operators in the role of gatekeepers, forcing them to gather and store sensitive personal information to determine user ages.

Opponents argue that such age checks do not just affect young users, (explicit adult content apps are already banned from app stores) and they also undermine anonymity online by tying a person’s digital presence to a verified real-world identity. That level of surveillance risks chilling free expression and stifling dissent by making it harder for people to speak or access information without fear of being identified.

Efforts to regulate youth access to apps and online services are gaining traction elsewhere as well. Utah enacted a similar policy earlier this year, and Congress is weighing federal legislation. Texas lawmakers are also advancing a separate bill that would prohibit users under 18 from accessing social media altogether.

While the law does state that app developers should delete the personal data provided by the app store provider, the wider problem is that users will have to trust that an app developer will actually do so. App store providers such as Apple and Google will have to retain sensitive data on its users.

Supporters of the Texas law argue that app stores are uniquely positioned to serve as the central checkpoint for age validation. Meta, Snap, and X have praised the move.

Keep reading