Mediaboss Marketing

As this Congressional session comes to an end, many people have been disappointed by the lack of action on important legislation. One of those is cannabis. Going forward, pro-cannabis legislators ultimately have choices to make. If comprehensive cannabis legislation is dead in this Congressand it isis any alternative palatable? Is the status quo of prohibition preferable to holding out hope for broad-based legislation at a later date?

As Democrats took control of the House, Senate, and White House in 2021, hopes were up. Many legalization supporters believed the time had arrived to advance this issue to the finish line. However, one year into the new Congress, reality should have finally set in: the math is still not favorable in Congress to pass comprehensive cannabis legalization and an alternative is likely necessary.

The reality that is holding Congress back from passing federal cannabis legalization is a simple one that often undermines complex, multi-faceted policy changes that have deep divisions within the legislative branch: there is not a sufficient coalition of House members and a filibuster-proof majority of senators who agree on comprehensive legalization. That result is often frustrating or bewildering for supporters of reform for two reasons. First, they look at national polling and see not just a majority, but a supermajority of Americans who support full-scale cannabis reform. Second, there are majorities of House and Senate members who would say yes to the basic question: Should cannabis be legalized nationally?

The latter, however, is the wrong question to ask. Often, in a legislative body, the issue is not whether a law should be reformed, but how that law should be reformed. And theres the rub for federal legalization legislation. Liberals and progressives in the Democratic Party cannot agree with moderate and libertarian Republicans on what cannabis reform should look like, even if majorities agree that the law should be changed. And as pro-cannabis reform members from both sides dig their heels in on the importance of provisions that are close to their heart (and the heart of their base), it makes assembling that coalition impossible.

Here are the fault lines

Liberal Democrats and especially the partys most progressive members are unwilling to support legislation that does not incorporate significant social equity and racial justice provisions into it. Their argument is a straightforward and convincing one: the War on Drugs was waged on the backs of Black Americans, Latinos, and indigenous populations, and reform should not proceed without a significant effort to right the wrongs of the past.

Moderate Republicans and libertarian members of the party see the issue from a market perspective. They believe government should get out of the way and let cannabis be treated as an agricultural commodity in which the business community and the free marketrather than government prohibitionshould prevail. (It should be noted that most pro-cannabis Democrats and Republicans do agree on some restorative justice such as pardons and record expungement for non-violent cannabis offenders.)

However, as legislation is drafted, any bill that does not include extensive provisions to advance social equity and racial justice is a non-starter for some key Democrats as well as within those communities hit hardest by the drug war. This situation played out most recently in efforts to include the SAFE Banking Act in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). That effort to include an amendment to expand access to financial institutions for the cannabis industry ultimately failed in the Senate as senators like Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) preferred their own, comprehensive legislation. The stripping of SAFE Banking from the NDAA happened even as some in the cannabis advocacy community argued that SAFE Banking would help minority business owners in the industry.

When the SAFE Banking Act passed the House as a standalone bill in 2021, it garnered the votes of 106 Republicans, demonstrating that the GOP can deliver votes on cannabis legislation that makes it easier for markets and businesses to operate. However, months later, Sen. Booker announced his outright opposition to SAFE Banking if the comprehensive MORE Act or his (and Leader Schumers and Sen. Ron Wydens [D-Ore.]) Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act did not pass.

It is here that the division over cannabis reform is most obvious. While SAFE Banking garnered the votes of more than half of the House GOP Conference, the MORE Act (which passed the House in December 2020) received only five Republican votes. Since the legislation was reintroduced in the 117th Congress it has, to date, garnered only one Republican co-sponsor.

It is clear that as a legalization bill shifts away from a pro-business direction, the number of Republican supporters plummets. And while in a Democratic-controlled House, leadership can muster the votes to pass something like the MORE Act, the requirement to beat a filibuster in the Senate makes passage of more social equity and racial justice-oriented comprehensive legislation an impossibility. It is not clear if Democrats can even keep all 50 of their Democratic members in line for such a vote, and it is a certainty that they cannot attract the 10 or more Republicans necessary to clear the 60-vote hurdle. And more moderate legislation that could attract more Republicans will likely lose the more progressive members of the Senate Democratic Caucus.

Surely some progressives (perhaps rightly) worry that moderate legislation with the vague promise to do better for communities of color at a later date is likely an empty promisethose communities have lost that hand of poker on other issues in the past. At the same time, the status quo means there will be more cannabis arrests every year that disproportionately impact communities of color. Could something that offers a bit to both sides be possible? Perhaps combining federal decriminalization, seed funding for state level record expungement, a presidential promise to pardon past offenders at the bill signing, and SAFE Banking could be seen as a step in the right direction? Would piecemeal legislation under a Democratic Congress be better than rolling the dice in a (likely) Republican Congress in 2023, knowing the hostility of Republican leadership to legalization? The latter is the central question legalization advocates must ask themselves and answer.

Ultimately, cannabis reform supporters inside and outside of Congress need a reality check about the state of play of current cannabis reform proposals, and what additional complications the future may offer. Regardless of the chosen path forward, there will be naysayers, holdouts, resistance, and anger. There will be accusations of bloated government or not doing enough to reverse the effects of the drug war. That is standard for an interest group environment on a passionate issue in a deliberative body. However, in the end, Congress has a choice between doing nothing and letting prohibition win the day and allowing all of the consequences of that to remain. Or doing something short of perfect, that addresses some of the real harms that drug prohibition has created in this country.

Read more from the original source:
The numbers for drug reform in Congress dont add up - Brookings Institution

Libertarians believe that every person has the right to arm themselvesin self-defense.

The right to self defense is one of our most fundamental rights. Few people will argue against that. However, some believe that people should not be allowed to arm themselves. Libertarians strongly disagree.

Imagine a small person, walking home after a late shift at work. Imagine that person is attacked by someone twice theirsize. The victim fights back but is unable to defend themselves against the much larger attacker.

Now imagine if the victim was armed. With the help of a gun, the victim hasa chance at self defense against the much larger attacker.

Gun rights are important for everyone, but especially those that are physically weaker.

Banning guns would not curb violence or deathsit will just change the nature of violence and deaths. It would result in violent criminals having more power to perpetrate violence against innocent people. Violent criminals will be emboldened if they know that average Americans are unable to defend themselves.

And banning guns would mean people who should be free to go about their business, for example traveling home from work after dark, will live in greater fear. It will mean that people who live in more dangerous areas (and who are typically poorer) have fewer options to defend themselves and their families.

Libertarians support peoplesrights to defend themselves and to arm themselves. We see it as immoral for government to try to prevent someone from doing so.

Follow this link:
Gun Ownership | Libertarian Party

A rather innocuous tweet was reportedly censored by Twitter for "glorifying violence" by opining that Kyle Rittenhouse did nothing wrong.

The reprimand from Twitter was sent to the account for the Libertarian Party of Kentucky after they tweeted on Nov. 3. The tweet read, "Watching this trial, it's ever more obvious that Kyle Rittenhouse did nothing wrong."

The company said that the tweet had been in violation of their terms of service against glorifying violence and asked the account manager to delete the tweet before the account could be unlocked.

"We prohibit content that condones or celebrates acts of violence that could promote imitation of the act. We also prohibit the glorification of mass murders or genocides when protected categories have been the primary target or victims," their message read.

The Libertarian account later tweeted vaguely about their suspension.

"Hey we are back after our comments about a certain Illinois teenager and how that legal process is going," the account tweeted on Monday.

"Still BS,wonder if Twitter will apologize after said teenager is not convicted," they mused.

The account for the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire posted a screenshot of the demand from Twitter next to a tweet from a Democratic member of Congress calling Rittenhouse a "white supremacist domestic terrorist."

Twitter did not respond to a request for comment by the time of publication.

Big tech companies and social media platforms have been under fire over accusations that they selectively enforce their rules against those on the right while leaving similar offenses from the left untouched.

In one recent example Twitter suspended the account of a Republican congressman for referring to a transgender woman serving in the Biden administration as a man.

Kyle Rittenhouse breaks down in tears on witness standwww.youtube.com

See the original post here:
Twitter locked Libertarian party account over a tweet ...

Libertarian: Biden Deepens Supply-Chain Woes

President Biden seems to be doing his best to prolong our economic woes,grumbles Kristin Tate at The Hill. With the holidays around the corner, Americans are experiencing inflated prices, goods shortages and long shipping times. Yet Team Biden is poised to hike prices and cause more empty shelves by requiring jab proof to cross the US-Canada border, when 20 percent of Canadas truckers are unvaxxed. This will further ensnare the arrival of both raw materials and finished goods into the country. More: Biden may close a major natural gas pipeline from the Great White North because of climate change concerns, hitting US consumers with rising fuel costs. Everyday concerns of Americans struggling to pay their bills or fill their cars with gasoline are being dismissed.

From theRight: Latinx = Electoral Poison

Progressives insistence on the word Latinx alienates Hispanics,warns Alex Perez at Spectator World. In a new Politico poll, only 2 percent of Hispanics refer to themselves as Latinx, so the push to normalize the term shows progressives have little interest in learning about the groups they hope to assimilate into their increasingly fractured political coalition. While progressives are quick to submit to these language shifts due to their white guilt and conformism, they fail to understand that this bureaucratic impulse does not comport with the sensibilities of working-class Hispanics. Indeed, 40 percent of Hispanics are offended by the term and 30 percent are less likely to vote for a politician who uses it. Beware: With Hispanics already shifting to the right, Democrats cant risk using a term that will alienate the demographic. In short, Latinx is toxic.

Education beat: Systemic Racism vs. . . . Asians

What the NAACP calls systemic racism looks an awful lot like what Asian-Americans are experiencing these days, especially in education,rails The Wall Street Journals Bill McGurn. E.g.: San Franciscos school board replaced competitive admissions with a lottery at the crown jewel of its public-school system, Lowell High, to reduce the number of Asian kids there, critics say. When a judge ruled that the board didnt give proper public notice for the switch, the superintendent claimed it would be logistically impossible to reverse course. Translation: Even when Asian-Americans win, the system ensures they still lose. How ironic that the same board that invoked pervasive systemic racism to ditch Lowells merit-based admissions is now using the system to ensure fewer Asian-Americans get in.

Peanut gallery: If Baldwin Fired in Anger . . .

Legal experts are speculating that rageaholic Alec Baldwin deliberately fired his gun in anger at Rustdirector of photography Halyna Hutchins, reports Debra Heine at American Greatness. They cite several previous incidents in which the actor had been provoked into a rage, including multiple incidents with reporters. One lawyer suggests that Baldwin did not appreciate being ordered around by a young, female cinematographer. If he indeed fired in anger, even thinking the gun unloaded, then a charge of criminally negligent homicide is definitely within the realm of possibility, Hutchins concludes.

Pandemic journal: De Blasios Vax Overreach

Mayor Bill de Blasios decision to expand vaccine mandates to young children is too hasty, unnecessarily coercive and impractical,declares Reasons Liz Wolfe. Parents must vaccinate 5- to 11-year-olds if they want to bring the kids to any indoor restaurant, fitness center or entertainment venue or have them join such extracurriculars as sports, orchestra and dance those same ones they took an involuntary, collective hiatus from for much of 2020. This keeps families with unvaccinated little ones from participating in normal city life. Itll also hit tourism, since most countries havent OKd COVID jabs for kids. And for what? Fewer than 700 COVID deaths have been reported among kids nationwide, with just 146 among kids 5 to 11. Blas is creating a new underclass composed, oddly, of the tiny humans threatened least by the virus.

Compiled by The Post Editorial Board

Read the rest here:
Biden worsens supply-chain mess and other commentary - New York Post

As I begin this op-ed, Im tempted to harangue Harvard for its burdensome academics, its cutthroat extracurriculars, perhaps its general ambiance of competitiveness, especially during final exams period. And while such a critique is warranted, I also tend to believe its rather useless.

Im both an optimist and a pessimist. Im the latter because I dont have confidence that student complaints whether person-to-person, via The Crimson, or perhaps in focus groups go far in making change. In particular, I tend to get fatigued by pessimistic stances about Harvards complicity in the suffering of its students. This isnt to say student suffering is overplayed. That is far from the truth. Many issues facing students are deeply harmful and require Harvards institutional intervention.

Nonetheless, when grievances are presented without overwhelmingly forceful (and simultaneously palatable) evidence, many complaints especially those critiquing Harvards education system tend to fall flat before the administration's eyes.

When it comes to some campus issues, then, I might consider myself a campus-libertarian of sorts. And in this way Im optimistic. Its true: Harvard hasnt listened to us well.

But, if we want to transform our schools culture, the power lies in the student bodys hands.

One issue to test this theory about which I have unlimited complaints is Harvards performative culture. Over a casual lunch conversation, a GroupMe thread, a late-night study session among Harvard students, one thing is clear: Were overburdened by our school work and further stretched by our self-perpetuated, competing priorities amongst extracurriculars, relationships, and jobs.

As a result, Harvard is a place where, at least for me, much of what I learn in the classroom is superficial. Its a place where students come to class having skimmed the book, but not read it deeply, because theyve got a bajillion other things going on at the moment, and the reading assignment was probably too long, anyways. Nonetheless, it is our task to talk up the section as though we were experts on the topic. The fruit of this sort of conversation is increasing performativity, lots of I agree and lots of hidden fears about not knowing enough masked beneath robust vocabulary and classroom conversational skills.

For some, this is a sign that real, deep education is in decline. But for me, it means Harvard is doing exactly what it was meant to do: preparing us for the real world.

A Harvard degree is less about the knowledge one gains and more about the skill set and type of person it represents. An employer looking at a college graduate is less concerned about what they know than how quickly they can catch on, how well they can work in a team, and how fluidly they operate under pressure. So while our education over these four years especially for those of us who just love to learn new things often seems underwhelming and busy, the stress we experience, the resolve we build, and the priorities we learn to manage are marketable.

Harvard, then, is not the problem. It is merely a symptom of a broader culture of overburdened, passionately over-engaged, too socially active people. Its doing a great job at what it was designed to do: producing the next generation of citizens and citizen-leaders for our society. Deep learning can be found outside of the classroom: at parties, in dining halls, in late-night conversations about class content we fear would be censored by our own performativity.

Harvards performative culture if measured by real-world preparation and effectiveness is good. But what if youre a dreamer and dont want the real world?

In that case, it might be time for a revolution.

Sterling M. Bland 23, a Crimson Editorial editor, is a joint concentrator in Sociology and African and African American Studies in Quincy House.

Have a suggestion, question, or concern for The Crimson Editorial Board? Click here.

Read more from the original source:
Why Harvard's Performative Culture is Good | Opinion - Harvard Crimson