Tag: the war on (some) drugs

Feds provide anti-cannabis group a platform to bash legalization

A federal health agency on Monday hosted a leading marijuana prohibitionist group for an event focused on cannabis use trends and youth prevention, giving the organization a prominent platform for a discussion that largely promoted an anti-reform agenda.

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration (SAMHSA) invited Kevin Sabet, president of Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM), to speak at a webinar on cannabis-related emergency incidents, the “potential negative impacts of state legalization” and methods of deterring youth usage.

The conversation skewed heavily toward the prohibition side of the cannabis reform debate, with Rear Admiral Christopher Jones, the director of SAMHSA’s Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, opening by overviewing data on “an upward trajectory of marijuana use” and its potential harms.

“What we hope to do today is sort of unpack some of the data that are underneath these trends,” he said. “But certainly the recent uptick is concerning as we look at past-month marijuana use.”

While Jones acknowledged that youth cannabis usage in recent years as more states have legalized cannabis have been “a little bit flatter” compared to rising use rates for adults, there was no discussion about how that might be related to the enactment of regulated markets for adults, which require IDs to ensure that underage people are not accessing the products. A question about the issue submitted by Marijuana Moment during the event was not addressed.

Sabet, for his part, accused pro-legalization advocates and industry stakeholders of selectively promoting data around youth consumption trends to demonstrate that legalization is not associated with an increase among that cohort.

“What you will find the industry often do is cherry pick some of those studies and find one or two states in the timeframe that suits them to show that there was a decrease—you know, remarkably worse there—or there was no increase, they often say, because it’s even hard for them to say there’s a decrease,” Sabet said. “That’s almost impossible. But they can finagle the numbers to say that there was no increase.”

SAMHSA’s just this summer put out data showing that youth cannabis consumption has remained stable amid the state legalization movement.

Keep reading

Coast Gard Personnel From USS Jason Dunham Intercept Venezuelan Boat, as Maritime Siege Is Now Reinforced by Stealth F-35 Fighter Jets

Maduro talks, the US acts.

Under the extreme pressure of the US authorities and military, Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro makes bombastic speeches every day, is trying to unite his broken ‘Bolivarian’ Republic and mobilize his military against what he expects is an imminent attack/invasion of the US forces besieging him.

On the US side, very little is being said, but a lot of activity can be seen.

After an alleged Venezuelan drug boat was pulverized by an airstrike on September 1st, marines from the destroyer USS Jason Dunham boarded and seized a Venezuelan boat on Friday (12).

Described as fishing vessel, it was the object of an inspection related to suspected drug trafficking. No drugs were reportedly found, and the action has been condemned by Venezuela as an act of ‘piracy’ and a violation of sovereignty.

Keep reading

Venezuela says US intercepted and boarded a tuna vessel in hostile manner

The Venezuelan government announced on Sept 13 that a US destroyer intercepted, boarded and occupied a Venezuelan tuna fishing vessel for eight hours in the waters of the South American country’s special economic zone on Sept 12.

In a statement read by Venezuelan Foreign Minister Yvan Gil, the government said tuna vessel Carmen Rosawas boarded in an illegal and hostile manner, and that it was crewed by nine “humble” fishermen and was “harmless”.

Tensions have been mounting between Washington and Caracas. On Sept 2, a US military strike in the Caribbean 

killed 11 people and sank a boat from Venezuela that US President Donald Trump’s administration claimed was transporting illegal narcotics.

The Trump administration has provided scant information about the attack on Sept 2, despite demands from US Congress members for the government to justify its actions. The Venezuelan government has said that 

none of those killed belonged to the gang Tren de Aragua, as the US has alleged.

US officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the alleged incident on Sept 12.

The Venezuelan government identified the US vessel as the USS Jason Dunham, “equipped with powerful cruise missiles and manned by highly specialised marines”.

It demanded that the US immediately cease targeting vessels, which it said puts “the security and peace of the Caribbean at risk”. 

Keep reading

14 Montana animal shelter workers hospitalized after FBI meth burn goes wrong

Fourteen workers at a Montana animal shelter were rushed to the hospital after breathing in meth-laced smoke from a botched FBI drug incineration in the same building, officials said. 

Staffers at the Yellowstone Valley Animal Shelter in Billings fell ill Wednesday when fumes from an FBI meth burn seeped through a shared ventilation system, according to city officials. 

The employees were treated in hyperbaric oxygen chambers at Billings Clinic after reporting dizziness, headaches and coughing, authorities told KRTV-TV. 

Shelter director Triniti Halverson said the smoke poured in within minutes of the crematorium fire, forcing workers to evacuate dozens of animals. 

“Then the little bit longer that I could smell it, I knew that it was something burning in the crematorium, like the incinerary,” Halverson told the outlet.

“Several of my staff were coughing, sweating, just dizzy, physically feeling ill.”

Izzy Zalenski, the community engagement coordinator, said the shelter’s HVAC system was not designed to handle chemical burns and quickly pulled contaminated air inside. 

“It’s never smelled like that before,” said Zalenski. “The HVAC system is the exact same as a typical office. It’s not made for an animal shelter.”

Keep reading

US Official Warns Of New Deadly Synthetic Opioid From China

U.S. authorities are warning of a new synthetic opioid from China that can be up to 50 times more potent than fentanyl.

Nitazenes pose an emerging threat as they are more resistant to naloxone, a medication that can reverse opioid overdoses. They are often mixed with other drugs and delivered in the form of counterfeit pills mimicking drugs such as Xanax or Percocet, according to authorities.

Frank Tarentino, who heads the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) New York Division, said that the presence of nitazenes coming from China has been increasingly prevalent on the illicit drug scene.

“Here in the United States, we have found it in heroin, methamphetamine, in some cases fentanyl, and more alarmingly, we have now seen it pressed into pills,” he said in a Sept. 10 interview with NTD, The Epoch Times’ sister media outlet.

“What we have seen is that these cartels, these transnational criminal organizations that are operating on a global scale, are intentionally lacing their drugs with fentanyl and now nitazenes to increase the high, to increase the addiction, to make more money.”

Tarantino said that traffickers are selling counterfeit prescription drugs such as oxycodone on the streets, online, or on social media. He warned that the only safe place to buy prescription drugs is through a legitimate pharmacy.

Keep reading

Massachusetts Lawmakers Approve Bill To Create Psychedelic Therapy Pilot Program

Massachusetts lawmakers have approved a bill to establish a pilot program for the regulated therapeutic use of psychedelics.

The pilot program proposal from Sen. Cindy Friedman (D) advanced through the legislature’s Joint Committee on Health Care Financing on Thursday. It’s now been referred to the Joint Committee on Health Care Financing for further consideration.

The measure is one of two pieces of legislation on the issue that are set to be taken up at a hearing before a different committee in November.

The bill, S.1400, is light on specifics, leaving many details of the pilot program up to regulators with the Department of Public Health (DPH). But in general, it calls for a “pilot program to allow for the monitored mental health care of clinically appropriate patients using psychedelic materials.”

It would involve the “on-site administration by a multi-disciplinary care team in a supervised licensed mental health clinic setting.”

DPH could only issue licenses for up to three health facilities to administer and study the psychedelics in the state. They would be tasked with “establishing the best and safest clinical practices for psychedelic mental health treatment programs in the commonwealth and for the purposes of collecting patient outcomes data regarding the benefits of psychedelic pharmacotherapy.”

“Eligible pilot program organizations must exclusively focus operations and treatment on mental health and cannot be subsidiaries, affiliates or members of cannabis industry organizations, psychedelic molecule development companies or pharmaceutical companies,” the bill text states.

The department would be required to develop rules for the program, including setting standards for people to apply to participate, patient assessments and ongoing monitoring, clinical staffing and the administration of psychedelic medicines.

“All pilot program participant organizations must track patient care outcomes data related to the identification, diagnosis and psychedelic treatment of depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder and substance use disorder,” it says. “These data sets must be shared with the department to assist in the refinement of best clinical protocols and final regulatory frameworks for the safe use of psychedelic material in Massachusetts.”

The bill, as well as a separate measure to provide a more limited pilot program for psilocybin therapy alone, will also be the focus of a hearing on November 10 before the Joint Committee on Mental Health, Substance Use and Recovery.

Keep reading

The Roots Of Trump’s Continued Wars On Terror Trace Back To 9/11

The U.S. military recently launched a plainly illegal strike on a small civilian Venezuelan boat that President Trump claims was a successful hit on “narcoterrorists.” Vice President JD Vance responded to allegations that the strike was a war crime by saying, “I don’t give a shit what you call it,” insisting this was the “highest and best use of the military.”

This is only the latest troubling development in the Trump administration’s attempt to repurpose “War on Terror” mechanisms to use the military against cartels and to expedite his much vaunted mass deportation campaign, which he says is necessary because of an “invasion” at the border.

Unfortunately, more than two decades of widely-accepted, bipartisan laws and norms first laid the groundwork for this to occur.

After 9/11, the Bush administration created the Specially Designated Global Terrorists list, and Congress expanded the pre-existing Foreign Terrorist Organization list. These lists allow the executive branch, at its sole discretion, to add and remove individuals and groups to standing lists of “terrorists,” a term that is defined broadly.

The Trump administration has exercised this authority to formally designate transnational cartels as “terrorists” due in part to their role in the flow of people and drugs across the southern border into the United States. They have leveraged this designation to justify a range of actions, including deploying troops to Los Angeles and deporting immigrants to a brutal Salvadorean prison without due process.

Another post-9/11 legal invention that paved the way to what the Trump administration is doing today was the USA PATRIOT Act’s updates to immigration law that allowed deportation of not just those involved in actual violent acts of terrorism, but also those loosely associated with designated “terrorist groups,” even if those associations were peaceful and law-abiding or involuntary and a result of duress. People who have previously been excluded from the United States by these provisions include Iraqi interpreters for U.S. troops, victims of forced labor by violent armed groups in El Salvador, and even Nelson Mandela. These provisions mean that not just alleged members of cartels, but also cartel victims could be denied entry into the United States or deported if already here.

These same post-9/11 immigration law amendments also allow for revoking or denying immigration benefits to foreign nationals who “endorse or espouse” “terrorist activity,” defined broadly. The Trump administration has already revoked the visas of several immigrant students and scholars solely for their nonviolent activities criticizing the U.S.-Israel genocide in Gaza, as part of what they call a “zero-tolerance” policy for terrorism. The administration has primarily leaned on an older and more obscure provision of immigration law to carry out these attacks on immigrants’ free speech rights. But if current efforts are blocked by courts, or they wish to go further, post-9/11 immigration law may give them the tools to justify doing so.

The original decision to treat the 9/11 attacks not as crime but as warfare, and to launch a literal “war on terror” in response, remains the primary post-9/11 legal innovation on which so many abuses are made possible. Under this global war paradigm, the Obama administration carried out ruthless drone killings, including one that targeted a U.S. citizen, and justified the strikes with a mish-mash of legal standards that applied rules of war outside of actual war zones, and expansively interpreted what constitutes an “imminent threat” and resulting “self-defense” powers.

Every post-9/11 president has claimed wide authority to use military force so long as it serves a vague “national interest.” We can see echoes of this in the Trump administration’s insistence that the small Venezuelan boat blown up by the U.S. military posed an “immediate threat to the United States,” that the strike complied with the laws of war, and was “in defense of vital U.S. national interests.”

Commentators are entirely correct to denounce these assertions of legal authority. But policymakers have spent more than two decades accepting a war paradigm against whomever presidents determine to be “terrorist,” making it politically and legally all the more difficult to push back against what the Trump administration is doing now.

Keep reading

Taking the Constitution Seriously

Last week, the President of the United States did not take the Constitution seriously. He ordered the murders of 11 people who were riding in a speedboat in the Caribbean Sea around 1,300 miles from the U.S.

Afterward he said he did so because he believed that they were members of a “narco-terrorist gang” and were delivering illegal drugs to America. He also did so, he said, as a “message” to other drug dealers who should fear a similar fate.

The boat had no ability to reach the U.S. According to the former head of drug interdiction for the Department of Justice, this so-called boat gang is not known for trafficking in illegal drugs. The crimes that the president said these folks committed did not occur in the U.S., and if they had, do not permit the imposition of the death penalty.

He offered no evidence to support his claims and didn’t even suggest that the riders in the boat posed a threat to the American military personnel who killed them. He couldn’t say if anyone in the boat was an American.

When he was asked for the legal authority for these killings, President Donald Trump replied that these folks were waging war on the U.S., and, because he is the president of the United States, he can do as he wishes to them.

These are constitutionally ignorant, morally repugnant, profoundly erroneous responses from a person who has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution.

Here is the backstory.

When British monarchs wanted to dispose of inconvenient adversaries, they often accused them of vague crimes because they were able to define the crime however they saw fit. St. Thomas More, Henry VIII’s former Lord Chancellor, was executed for his silence. The monarch’s target was given a quick trial and then often a slow and excruciating public death – to send a message.

Mindful of the tyrannical impulses of monarchs and familiar with British history, even personally aware of folks in the colonies charged with crimes in London — where they had never been — and transported there for prosecution, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the Founding Fathers most responsible for crystallizing the American ethos of natural rights and due process, crafted founding documents that articulated condemnations and prohibitions of tyranny and tyrannical behavior here.

Thus, Jefferson’s words in the Declaration of Independence characterize human rights as the gift of the Creator, which cannot be taken away by executive decree or legislative enactment – ut only by a jury verdict.

And Madison’s words in the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment declare that “no person shall be… deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” The use of the word “person” makes it obvious that due process applies to all human beings.

Due process requires a fair jury trial, with counsel and the opportunity for confrontation of witnesses and evidence produced by the government. It also requires proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty to a neutral jury, not to the accuser. And it requires conviction prior to the imposition of a legislatively prescribed penalty.

This was novel and radical in 1791, when the Bill of Rights was ratified, but it is neither novel nor radical today. Today, due process is the foundation of American law. It is what lawyers call black-letter law: Those in government are expected to know it and understand it and abide by it.

Until now.

Keep reading

Huge legal cannabis farm told to cut smell or risk closure

A massive legal cannabis farm in the Netherlands has been told to reduce the odor coming from its facility or risk closure after more than 2,000 complaints from hundreds of residents, according to a regional Dutch environmental agency.

If the farm fails to sufficiently limit the smell, CanAdelaar – the company that operates the farm – could face fines of up to €3.5 million ($4.1 million) or risk being shut down, local authorities said after a court ruling earlier this week.

The farm is located west of the Netherlands’ second largest city Rotterdam. It opened in 2023 as part of a government scheme permitting several companies to grow cannabis under strict conditions, said DCMR Environmental Protection Agency, which monitors the business on behalf of the municipality of Voorne aan Zee, where the farm is located.

Reports of “odor nuisance” were received immediately after the farm’s opening, DCMR said in a statement first published in December but amended Wednesday.

“By August 2025, DCMR had received approximately 2,000 reports from nearly 300 different residents,” the agency said. Rotterdam’s judiciary court said in a statement Wednesday that more than 2,000 complaints had been filed.

The company has previously promised to implement “odor mitigation measures” to tackle the issue, according to DCMR.

According to DCMR, inspectors observed “odor nuisance” during multiple inspections and concluded that the company was “not always” complying with the appropriate regulations. As a result, Voorne aan Zee municipality imposed customized regulations on the farm to reduce odor, DCMR said.

Keep reading

Trump Calls His Drone Strike on an Alleged Drug Boat ‘Self-Defense.’ It Looks More Like Murder.

Last week, President Donald Trump ordered a drone strike that sank a speedboat in the Caribbean Sea, killing all 11 people on board. Trump described the targets as members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua who were “at sea in International waters transporting illegal narcotics, heading to the United States.” Although the men could have been intercepted and arrested, Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters, the president decided their summary execution was appropriate as a deterrent to drug trafficking.

On Wednesday, The New York Times, citing unnamed “American officials familiar with the matter,” reported that the boat “appeared to have turned around before the attack started because the people onboard had apparently spotted a military aircraft stalking it.” That detail further complicates the already dubious legal and moral rationales for this unprecedented use of the U.S. military to kill criminal suspects.

The attack “crossed a fundamental line the Department of Defense has been resolutely committed to upholding for many decades—namely, that (except in rare and extreme circumstances not present here) the military must not use lethal force against civilians, even if they are alleged, or even known, to be violating the law,” Georgetown law professor Marty Lederman notes in a Just Security essay. Lederman adds that the September 2 drone strike “appears to have violated” the executive order prohibiting assassination and arguably qualifies as murder under federal law and the Uniform Code of Criminal Justice.

New York University law professor Ryan Goodman, a former Defense Department lawyer, agrees. “It’s difficult to imagine how any lawyers inside the Pentagon could have arrived at a conclusion that this was legal,” he told the Times last week, “rather than the very definition of murder under international law rules that the Defense Department has long accepted.”

As Trump told it, the attack was justified because Tren de Aragua is “a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization, operating under the control of [Venezuelan President] Nicolas Maduro, responsible for mass murder, drug trafficking, sex trafficking, and acts of violence and terror across the United States and Western Hemisphere.” He said the strike was meant to “serve as notice to anybody even thinking about bringing drugs into the United States of America.”

Drug cartels have “wrought devastating consequences on American communities for decades, causing the deaths of tens of thousands of United States citizens each year and threatening our national security and foreign policy interests both at home and abroad,” Trump said in a September 4 letter to Congress. “We have now reached a critical point where we must meet this threat to our citizens and our most vital national interests with United States military force in self-defense.”

U.S. forces therefore “struck a vessel” that “was assessed to be affiliated with a designated terrorist organization and to be engaged in illicit drug trafficking activities,” Trump explained. “I directed these actions consistent with my responsibility to protect Americans and United States interests abroad and in furtherance of United States national security and foreign policy interests, pursuant to my constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive to conduct United States foreign relations.”

Trump says the men whose deaths he ordered were “assessed” to be affiliated with Tren de Aragua. They also were “assessed” to be engaged in drug trafficking. Without knowing the basis for those assessments, we cannot say how accurate they were. Last week, Trump joked about the potential for deadly errors: “I think anybody that saw that is going to say, ‘I’ll take a pass.’ I don’t even know about fishermen. They may say, ‘I’m not getting on the boat. I’m not going to take a chance.'” Conveniently for Trump, summary execution avoids any need to present evidence, let alone meet the requirements of due process.

“Killing cartel members who poison our fellow citizens is the highest and best use of our military,” Vice President J.D. Vance declared in an X post on Saturday. When a commenter observed that “killing the citizens of another nation who are civilians without any due process is called a war crime,” Vance replied, “I don’t give a shit what you call it.”

That was too much for Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.). “Did he ever read To Kill a Mockingbird?” Paul wondered. “Did he ever wonder what might happen if the accused were immediately executed without trial or representation? What a despicable and thoughtless sentiment it is to glorify killing someone without a trial.”

Keep reading