Month: June 2019

Watching the rapid advance of mushroom decriminalization has been a trip. On Tuesday, the city council of Oakland, California voted to decriminalize the psychedelic fungus, citing the promise they’ve shown in treating depression, substance abuse, and other disorders.

“This initiative aims to empower the Oakland community by restoring their relationship to nature,” reads a city council analysis of the decriminalization law. “Decriminalizing nature provides individual and community sovereignty to explore different levels of the human experience, including mystical and spiritual states of consciousness.”

Oakland’s new ordinance comes less than a month after Denver residents approved a ballot measure decriminalizing psychedelic mushrooms, the first city in the country to do so. Activists in both Oregon and California are trying to get their own mushroom decriminalization measures on their respective state ballots.

Oakland’s ordinance is more sweeping than Denver’s decriminalization initiative, which only applied to various psychedelic mushrooms.

The law that just passed in Oakland decriminalizes “entheogenic plants”, which includes not only mushrooms, but also ayahuasca, peyote, and iboga.

Under the new law, city officials are barred from devoting any resources or funds to “the enforcement of laws imposing criminal penalties for the use and possession of entheogenic plants by adults” and makes arresting or investigating people for their plants “the lowest law enforcement priority for the city.”

The ordinance also calls on the district attorney for Alameda County—where Oakland is the county seat—to cease prosecution of cases involving the use of entheogenic plants, and instructs the city’s lobbyists to work for decriminalization at the state and federal level.

The ordinance was a joint effort by Councilman Noel Gallo and local advocacy group Decriminalize Nature Oakland (DNO).

“I’m thrilled. I’m glad that our communities will now have access to the healing medicines and we can start working on healing our communities,” said DNO co-founder Nicolle Greenheart to the San Francisco Chronicle after the vote.

The Chronicle reports that Oakland police have investigated 19 cases involving the use of illegal mushrooms in the last year.

At Tuesday’s city council meeting, an amendment was added clarifying that Oakland’s new ordinance does not legalize the manufacture or sale of entheogenic plants, and that those who use them should do so with a friend.

The idea that mushrooms and other psychedelic drugs might be decriminalized seemed almost laughable a few years ago, when activists in even the most progressive states were fighting tooth and nail to legalize marijuana.

The pace of reform is therefore pretty amazing, and a bright spot in our current political moment.

Check out Reason‘s video on Denver’s mushroom decriminalization effort:

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2WnDVla
via IFTTT

If you give 53 Republican senators and their staffers a closed-door forum and also promise them anonymity, a handful might say that tariffs aren’t a great idea.

No wonder President Donald Trump doesn’t seem too worried about a revolt.

The Washington Post has the details on a closed-door meeting of Republican senators that took place Tuesday afternoon to discuss a response to Trump’s threat to hit all Mexican imports with 5 percent tariffs. While the general mood of unhappiness with Trump’s brash decision to threaten America’s third-largest trading partner with taxes that will be paid by American businesses and consumers is refreshing, the piece isn’t exactly a profile in courage.

“During a closed-door lunch, at least a half-dozen senators spoke in opposition to the tariffs, while no one spoke in support, according to multiple people present who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the private meeting,” the Post reports. Other media outlets, including CNN and the Associated Press, also ran with the “half-dozen” figure, presenting it as proof of widespread opposition within the GOP.

Perhaps that revolt will materialize. Sen. Kevin Cramer (R–N.D.) told the Post that he believes as many as 20 Republicans would vote to spike the Mexican tariffs if it came to a vote.

From across the ocean, Trump doesn’t seem too concerned.

“I think its more than likely that the tariffs go on,” Trump said during a press conference on Tuesday in London, where he’s on an official state visit. He was talking about the 5 percent tariffs that he’s threatened to impose on all goods imported from Mexico starting on June 10. Those tariffs will “gradually increase until the illegal immigration problem is remedied,” Trump tweeted on Friday, and the White House later outlined a plan to hike the tariffs from 5 percent to 25 percent by October.

But the president saved his sharpest jab for Congress, the proverbial punching bag of American politics that has so far done nothing to stop the president’s tariff-happy trade policies—nevermind the fact that Article I of the U.S. Constitution clearly gives it authority over these matters (though much of that power has been delegated to the president since the 1940s).

“If they do” anything to stop the tariffs on Mexico from happening, Trump warned, “it’s foolish.”

Certainly no more foolish than the tariffs themselves, which would amount to an $87 billion tax increase on Americans, would disrupt more than $670 billion in annual cross-border trade between the two nations, and would unnecessarily imperil the completion of Trump’s much-ballyhooed United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). The tariffs would also be unlikely to accomplish the primary policy aim of stopping Central American migrants from trying to reach the United States, which is what Trump says he wants Mexico to do.

Republicans in Congress rose up in opposition to Trump’s executive overreach once already this year. In March, the House and Senate slapped down the White House’s declaration of a national emergency on the southern border and the associated $3.6 billion in funding for a few miles of border wall, but Congress was ultimately unable to override the president’s inevitable veto. Is it too much to ask that lawmakers find their spines twice in such a short span of time?

In fairness, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.) was willing to put his name on the record to say “There is not much support in my conference for tariffs.” Sen. Rob Portman (R–Ohio) told the Associated Press that “Congress is likely to have a vote” on Trump’s Mexico tariffs if they go into effect as planned next week.

On one hand, it’s understandable that Congress’ response to the tariffs has been muted—at least publicly—so far. Few senators or representatives enjoy openly defying a president from their own party, and Trump has aggressively attacked those who did so.

There’s also the hope that Trump will change his mind about the Mexican tariffs without congressional action—Vice President Mike Pence is scheduled to meet with Mexican officials on Wednesday, while Trump is still out of the country. Congress could also be waiting to see whether Trump has the legal authority to impose these tariffs. The law he’s invoking, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, has never been used to impose tariffs and the courts might stop Trump from expanding his powers in that direction. Privately, White House staffers are not convinced Trump has the authority to do this, CNN reported last week.

And there’s always the chance that someone in the White House chain of command will simply refuse to carry out his orders, as has happened before.

Such deus ex machina outcomes aside, Congress may be forced to act. If the nation’s legislators can get up off the mat, Trump may not like the result.

When the Senate voted against his previous emergency declaration on March 12, the resolution got 59 votes, eight short of being veto-proof. Whether the outcome is different this time will likely depend on GOP senators who supported the president in that earlier showdown but who might go against him this time.

Like Sen. Ron Johnson (R–Wis.), for example. Though he stuck with Trump in March, Johnson told Politico on Tuesday that “This would be a different vote…This would certainly give me great pause.”

Again, not exactly a call to man the barricades—but surely better than nothing.

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2ETkeHc
via IFTTT

What can we do to counter Russian “hack and dox” interference with US election campaigns and candidates?  A lot more than we think, as long as we’re willing to open the first amendment Overton window.  I posted my modest proposal on the topic over at Lawfare.  Here’s the gist:

Of course, stopping the dissemination of such information raises real First Amendment questions, but the Supreme Court’s pronouncements on this topic have been surprisingly qualified and leave plenty of room for legislation that would drain much of the fun out of Russian cyber-kompromat. In the leading case, Bartnicki v. Vopper, the court refused to enforce a statutory prohibition on disseminating the contents of illegally wiretapped conversations. The conversation in question was a cell phone call in which a member of a teachers’ union said to the union’s negotiator that if the school district didn’t improve its offer to end a strike, “we’re gonna have to go to their, their homes … to blow off their front porches, we’ll have to do some work on some of those guys.” The Supreme Court’s opinion considered two principal justifications for a ban on dissemination of tapped conversations—deterring wiretapping and preserving privacy. The court dismissed the first because it thought deterrence could be achieved by prosecuting those who conducted the illegal tap. It was troubled by the second, recognizing that failing to punish the disclosure of private conversations was itself likely to restrain private speech. Nonetheless, in an expressly narrow decision, the court concluded that the conversation being disclosed was a matter of public concern, so that prohibiting dissemination would trench too far on freedom of speech. Two justices who were necessary to the majority wrote separately, narrowing the decision further by declaring that only a communication threatening physical harm or the like was of sufficient public concern to justify overriding the dissemination ban.

To my mind, this decision leaves plenty of room for imposing restraints on the distribution of private emails stolen by a foreign government. The government’s interest in protecting private speech remains strong in the case of foreign government hacking, and it is bolstered by a deep national security concern that was quite lacking in Bartnicki. What’s more, the Bartnicki court’s notion that such thefts can be deterred by criminal prosecution is demonstrably wrong where government hackers are concerned. We’ve indicted Russian, Chinese and Iranian government hackers; it hasn’t deterred any of them for long. Even taken at face value, the decision protects only dissemination that addresses a matter of public concern. That by itself would seem to allow Congress to restrict massive dumps of private communications that do not touch on significant public issues, let alone make threats of violence.

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2HX4QeF
via IFTTT