Tag: police state

A New Study Adds to the Evidence That Drug Busts Result in More Overdose Deaths

Prohibition makes drug use more dangerous by creating a black market in which quality and potency are highly variable and unpredictable. Ramped-up enforcement of prohibition magnifies that problem, as dramatically demonstrated by the deadly impact of restricting access to pain medication at the same time that illicit fentanyl was proliferating as a heroin booster and substitute. That sort of perverse effect pervades drug law enforcement, as illustrated by a new study that found drug seizures in San Francisco were associated with a substantial increase in overdose risk.

The study included 2,653 drug seizures and 1,833 opioid-related deaths from 2020 to 2023. “Within the surrounding 100, 250, and 500 meters,” RTI International researcher Alex H. Kral and his two co-authors reported in JAMA Network Open on Wednesday, “drug seizures were associated with a statistically significant increase in the relative risk for fatal opioid overdoses.”

That is not the result that local authorities expected. “Since fentanyl entered the unregulated drug supply in San Francisco, California, around 2019, overdose mortality rates have reached record highs,” Kral et al. note. “This has sparked increased enforcement of drug laws.”

In December 2021, then-Mayor London Breed “declared a state of emergency in the Tenderloin neighborhood of San Francisco to enable ‘more coordinated enforcement and disruption of illegal activities.'” District Attorney Brooke Jenkins, who took office in July 2022, “made combatting open-air drug markets and holding drug dealers accountable a top priority of her administration,” her office brags. In May 2023, Kral et al. note, Gov. Gavin Newsom “authorized the assignment of California Highway Patrol and California National Guard personnel to a new multiagency operation with the San Francisco Police Department aimed at ‘targeting fentanyl trafficking, disrupting the supply of the deadly drug in the city, and holding the operators of drug trafficking rings accountable.'”

How did all of that work out? The day after cops busted drug dealers, Kral et al. found, the risk of fatal overdoses rose by 74 percent, on average, within 100 meters. The increase in risk persisted for as long as a week, falling to 55 percent after two days, 45 percent after three days, and 27 percent after seven days. That pattern reinforces the conclusion that these police interventions, which aimed to reduce drug-related deaths, had the opposite effect.

Keep reading

Gangsters, Terrorists, And Deep State Judicial Tyranny

The primary purpose of the federal judiciary is to make sure that anything the federal government does is almost never, ever, ruled to be unconstitutional. This is Hamilton’s constitutional regime. A believer in unlimited government, Alexander Hamilton’s constitutional belief was that the constitution can and should be used as a rubber stamp on unlimited government — as long as the government is run by “well behaved” politicians like himself, he insisted. His political nemesis, Thomas Jefferson, took the opposite view that the government needed to be “bound by the chains of the Constitution.”

Andrew Napolitano pointed out in his book, The Constitution in Exile, that the federal government’s “supreme” court did not rule a single federal law to be unconstitutional from 1935 to 1997. The eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Jeffersonians warned that if the day ever arrived that the federal government, through its judiciary, would be the sole arbiter of constitutionality Americans would then live under a tyranny. That judicial tyranny was cemented into place in April of 1865 with the destruction of the rights of nullification and secession and the evisceration of the Tenth Amendment – the real purposes of the “Civil War.” 

The latest example of our bullying and tyrannical federal judiciary is Chief Justice John Roberts’ nasty rebuke of President Trump’s recommendation of impeaching a federal judge who issued one of those Stalinist-sounding federal judicial “decrees” saying that the president has no authority to deport illegal aliens who have committed such felonies as rape and murder, as he did with over 200 members of a notorious El Salvadoran criminal gang. 

Americans – and American presidents – were not always bullied by black-robed totalitarians. They once understood that there are three branches of the federal government, not just the judicial branch, and that federal judges are not black-robed deities. President Andrew Jackson, who President Trump apparently reveres, is a good example of such a president. After Chief Justice John Marshall “ruled” in 1819 (McCulloch v. Maryland) that the Second Bank of the United States (BUS), a precursor of the Fed, was constitutional despite not being one of the delegate powers in Article 1, Section 8, and despite its being voted down during the constitutional convention, Jackson voiced his disagreement by vetoing the recharter of the BUS in 1832. 

Keep reading

Finland’s Big Bet on Biometrics: Crime-Fighting Tool or Privacy Nightmare?

Finland has come out with a plan to expand the use of biometric data, with a new a new proposal from the country’s Interior Ministry.

Even as the push to introduce various forms of advanced biometric surveillance, including that incorporating facial recognition, is gaining momentum in countries around the world – so is the pushback from civil rights and privacy campaigners, which ensures that such initiatives these days rarely fly under the radar.

Finland’s Interior Ministry announced on its website that the proposal aims to amend existing rules on biometric data stored by the police and the immigration service – stored, that is, in Finnish citizens’ ID cards, and registers containing biometric data of foreigners.

The government says the intent is not only to strengthen crime prevention – but also to “improve the conditions for using biometrics in law enforcement.”

In addition to the collection of data captured by facial recognition devices, the proposal includes DNA samples and fingerprints taken from suspects. The process is then to attempt to match this biometric data with other types already contained in the law enforcement’s databases – for “crime prevention and investigative purposes.”

The groups keeping a close eye on this development are warning about some of the issues that crop up time and again around similar legislative efforts: the wording that allows for future “mission creep”- as well as unsatisfactory level of provisions that would guarantee against any abuse of such highly sensitive personal information.

Currently, the Finish proposal is yet to be presented to the lawmakers – the Interior Ministry is seeking comments before this can happen. And while the announcement of the proposal goes into the intent driving it, it is short on detail regarding the elephant in the room – privacy safeguards.

Keep reading

Town Secretly Seizes Developers’ Property Then Threatens Them With Trespassing Citation

As readers might recall, in the Providence suburb of Johnston, the town government and its very outspoken mayor have been attempting to seize a family of developers’ land to prevent their construction of an unsubsidized affordable housing project.

Last week the developers sued to stop the seizure in federal court, alleging that the “municipal campus” Johnston was seizing the land for was merely a pretext to stop new affordable housing.

Already, Rhode Island law establishes a fairly elaborate process that local governments have to follow when using eminent domain to take land for public buildings.

The developers’ constitutional challenge to the town’s seizure would typically delay things even more.

But in a surprise turn of events late last week, the town is claiming to have already seized the developers’ plot without providing any advance notice to the owners and without following the processes laid down in Rhode Island law.

The owners first learned of the seizure via Johnston’s mayor’s X post. With the town now alleging that the seizure is complete, it’s telling the former owners of the land they have until Friday to get off it or else they’ll be cited for trespassing.

In response, the developers are now filing for a temporary restraining order to stop what they describe as the town’s unprecedented lawlessness in taking the land.

“In 40 years, I’ve seen some pretty outrageous exercises of eminent domain powers. Never anything like this,” says Robert Thomas, an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), a public interest law firm, who is representing the developers.

Keep reading

Europe Goes Full Totalitarian And Puts The Entire Western World At Risk

It’s happening again. Europe is once again going totalitarian and this time there’s a decidedly familiar communist stench. The outcome was predictable for many of us in the alternative media and the situation is only going to get worse in the next few years, but what does this mean for the rest of the world? With the European elites casting off their humanist masks and going outright Orwellian, what kind of chaos can we expect to unfold?

First and foremost I want to point out a key piece of irony here – For decades in the US we heard the tiresome argument that our 2nd Amendment gun rights are meaningless because they are “unnecessary in maintaining our freedoms”. Anti-gun rights activists and politicians commonly used Europe as their sterling example:

“If gun rights are so important for freedom, then what about the Europeans? They have strict gun laws and they’re not losing their rights…”

As Americans who understand what it means to fight a rebellion against tyranny and win, our response to this claim has always been the same: “Just give it time…”

Of course, we were right and they were wrong. I’m sure a large number of people among the 95% of EU and UK citizens that are disarmed are probably wishing desperately for firearms right about now. The reasons why are numerous and horrifying.

The Downward Spiral Into 1984

In the EU and UK there has been a slow burn on censorship the past ten years which has recently exploded into a California Palisades level inferno of speech restrictions. Door to door enforcement has increased as the public speaks out against multicultural polities. The excuse is always the same – Native Europeans are not allowed to criticize third world integration because it “might hurt people’s feelings”.  Any opposition to mass immigration is labeled “hate speech”.

Movements for national identity and border security are regularly attacked in the media. In France and Germany globalist officials are attempting to make it impossible for conservative leaning political parties to participate in elections.

In Romania they have succeeded in disrupting the normal voting process, arresting populist candidate Calin Georgescu after he won the first round of presidential elections. EU controlled authorities have ruled that he will not be allowed to run again.  And for those that think he was blocked due to Russian interference, well, they just blocked the candidacy of another conservative candidate simply because she criticized the EU.  Romania is also tightening rules for online speech in an effort to silence public dissent.

In true dystopian fashion, the powers-that-be call this “protecting democracy”.

Keep reading

Texas Senate Passes Bill To Ban Hemp-Derived THC Products As New Poll Shows Voters Support Keeping Market Legal

The Texas Senate has approved a bill that cannabis advocates and stakeholders say would effectively eradicate the state’s hemp industry, prohibiting consumable products derived from the plant that contain any amount of THC.

This comes as a new poll shows overwhelming public support for keeping consumable hemp products legal, while strictly regulated.

With the backing of Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R)—who held a press conference criticizing the hemp market on Wednesday after visiting stores that sell cannabinoid products—the hemp ban legislation from Sen. Charles Perry (R) passed the full chamber in a 24-7 vote.

Under the bill, only non-intoxicating CBD and CBG items could be sold, even though hemp with up to 0.3 percent THC by dry weight was legalized at the federal level in 2018. Supporters argue that re-criminalizing cannabis with any traces of THC is necessary to close a loophole in the state’s own hemp law that’s allowed for the proliferation of businesses selling intoxicating products.

“For those that argue that this should just be more regulation and tax, there’s not enough tax that we can collect that will deal with the behavioral health issues and the addictions that we currently face,” Perry said on the Senate floor. “It would be in the billions. It’s unenforceable because every day a new product hits the shelf that was at the whim of a chemist.”

“What they have created and what they’re doing is akin to K2 and Spice and bath salts of the past that we as a legislature voted out of existence as soon as possible,” he said. “The effect of what this drug is doing to the people that are involved in it—contrary to what you hear—is devastating lives. It’s generational. It is creating psychosis. It’s creating paranoia.”

Senators approved a series of amendments from the sponsor on the floor on Monday, including one that would require all consumable hemp products to be tested and federal Drug Enforcement Administration- (DEA) certified labs based in Texas.

Another Perry amendment that was adopted mandates that consumable hemp products be registered with the state Department of State Health Services (DSHS). Each product registration would carry a $500 fee, and they could not could not contain any non-cannabinoid mood-altering ingredients or additives. It would be a Class B misdemeanor to sell an unregistered product.

The body also passed an amendment to make it a felony offense for to operate a hemp manufacturing or retail business without a license or permit.

Keep reading

Majority Of Utah Voters Support Legalizing Marijuana, Poll Finds As GOP Leader Downplays Reform Prospects

A majority of Utah voters support legalizing adult-use marijuana in the state, according to a new poll.

The survey from Noble Predictive Insights, which was commissioned by the nonprofit Keep Utah Medical, found that 52 percent of registered Utah voters would support a ballot initiative to end cannabis prohibition, while 38 percent would oppose it.

Support for legalization was highest among Democrats (76 percent), followed by independents (61 percent) and Republicans (41 percent).

“YES wins the left and the middle and divides the right. In a red state like Utah, that’s enough to get to a solid—though not overwhelming—margin of victory,” the polling firm said in a memo.

“Over the last decade, major political victories came from a populist-traditionalist coalition: The GOP’s wings would coalesce, form a majority together, and govern. If legalization were to win, the coalition would be built from left to right—a progressive minority joining with the center and Republican moderates. This is possible—but it requires careful execution.”

Alex Iorg, co-founder of Keep Utah Medical, told ABC4 that while the results of the poll indicate that an adult-use measure could also narrowly pass, the organization is not currently planning to lead such a proposal.

“I believe the majority now support recreational use because they see it as an easier option [than] Utah’s current medical program,” he said.

“We need to make the medical program easier to navigate. Rural, disabled, and other patients need telemedicine just like [they] can do for other medications,” he said. “Out-of-state recreational dispensaries have more advertising rights than Utah in-state medical pharmacies. We have to level the playfield.”

Here’s the text of the survey question posed to voters: 

“Currently, medical marijuana is legal in Utah, but some Utahns still obtain marijuana illegally for medical and recreational purposes. Would you support or oppose a ballot initiative that legalized marijuana for all purposes—including recreational use?”

The survey involved interviews with 609 registered Utah voters from March 11-13, with a +/- 3.97 percentage point margin of error.

Asked about the prospect of advancing adult-use legalization in Utah, House Speaker Mike Schultz (R) said he has a “huge problem with turning Utah into a recreational state.”

“It’s not going to happen,” he said.

Keep reading

Blue Privilege: Courts Give Police The Right To Lie And Slander

To serve and protect, police are allowed to slander and destroy. Cops in many states and localities have acquired the right to lie about their shootings, searches, and practically anything else. Police have routinely planted drugs, guns, and other evidence to incriminate innocent people, while police labs have engaged in wholesale fraud blighting tens of thousands of lives.

From a trickle to a torrent

Supreme Court rulings turned a trickle of police perjury into a torrent. In 1967, the Supreme Court, in the case of McCray v. Illinois, gave policemen the right to keep secret the name of their “reliable informant” they used to get search warrants or target people for arrest. Law professor Irving Younger observed at the time: “The McCray case almost guarantees wholesale police perjury. When his conduct is challenged as constituting an unreasonable search and seizure … every policeman will have a genie-like informer to legalize his master’s arrests.” The Supreme Court created a judicial playing field on which police were the only witnesses who can safely lie.

In 1983, the Supreme Court ruled that government officials are immune from lawsuits even when their brazen lies in court testimony resulted in the conviction of innocent people. The court fretted that “the alternative of limiting the official’s immunity would disserve the broader public interest.” Honest government was not one of the “broader public interests” the court recognized that day.

In 1992, Myron Orfield, a Minnesota state representative and University of Minnesota law professor, conducted a confidential survey of Chicago judges, prosecutors, narcotics agents, and public defenders on Fourth Amendment issues. One Chicago prosecuting attorney observed that “in fifty percent of small drug cases [police] don’t accurately state what happens.” Twenty-two percent of Chicago judges surveyed reported that they believed that police are lying in court more than half of the time they testify in relation to Fourth Amendment issues; 92 percent of the judges said they believed that police lie at least “some of the time.” Thirty-eight percent of the Chicago judges said they believed that police superiors encourage policemen to lie in court. One judge did not even know how perjury was defined under the Illinois Criminal Code. After Orfield read him the technical definition, the judge replied: “Then there is sure a hell of a lot of perjury going on in this courtroom.”

In 1994, the Mollen Commission reported that “the practice of [NYPD] police falsification in connection with such arrests is so common in certain precincts that it has spawned its own word: ‘testilying.’” Federal appeals court chief judge Alex Kozinski observed in 1995: “It is an open secret long shared by prosecutors, defense lawyers and judges that perjury is widespread among law enforcement officers.” Former San Jose, California, police chief Joseph McNamara observed that “hundreds of thousands of law-enforcement officers commit felony perjury every year testifying about drug arrests.”

Keep reading

Florida Lawmakers Approve Bills To Outlaw Psychedelic Mushroom Spores

Florida House and Senate panel have approved sweeping agriculture legislation that, among other changes, would explicitly outlaw the distribution of psychedelic mushroom spores and mycelium.

Members of the House Housing, Agriculture and Tourism Subcommittee voted at a hearing Tuesday to advance a bill, HB 651, from sponsor Rep. Kaylee Tuck (R). The nearly 150-page measure would make a variety of adjustments to Florida’s agricultural laws, including around agricultural lands, utilities and wildlife management.

With respect to psychedelics mushrooms, it would make it illegal “to transport, import, sell, offer for sale, furnish, or give away spores or mycelium capable of producing mushrooms or other material which will contain a controlled substance, including psilocybin or psilocyn, during its lifecycle.”

Violating the proposed law would be a first-degree misdemeanor, carrying a maximum of one year in jail and a $1,000 fine.

A companion bill, SB 700, which contains the same mushroom provisions, has been introduced in the Senate by Sen. Keith Truenow (R). It was amended and approved unanimously last week by the Senate Appropriations Committee on Agriculture, Environment and General Government.

Prior to reporting the bill favorably on Tuesday, the House panel adopted a striking amendment that made a number of changes to the underlying bill, though the amendment did not substantively affect the provision dealing with spores and mycelium.

Psilocybin and psilocin are the two leading psychoactive compounds in psychedelic mushrooms. Although spores typically do not contain psilocybin or psilocin themselves, they eventually produce fruiting bodies—mushrooms—that do contain the psychedelic compounds.

Because the spores don’t contain any controlled substances, the federal government deems them legal.

“If the mushroom spores (or any other material) do not contain psilocybin or psilocin (or any other controlled substance or listed chemical), the material is considered not controlled,” Terrence Boos, the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) Drug and Chemical Evaluation Section chief, said in a memo last year. (Using a similar rationale, Boos has said that marijuana seeds are considered federally legal hemp because they themselves don’t contain THC.)

In Florida, a legislative report for HB 651 similarly notes that “spores do not contain any psilocybin properties themselves and therefore could be considered legal under current law.”

To prevent that, the proposal would clarify as illegal any spores or mycelium that could produce psilocybin or psilocin at any time in their development.

Members of the House panel did not mention the broad agriculture legislation’s psilocybin provisions during Tuesday’s hearing.

Keep reading