Los Angeles County Banned Outdoor Dining. There’s Zero Evidence It Spreads COVID-19.

idea 4

On November 22, Los Angeles became the only county in America this winter to ban outdoor dining.

The order, which will last a minimum of three weeks, will be financially devastating for many restaurants and could lead would-be diners to congregate in venues that are less safe.

There’s no evidence that outdoor dining has contributed to the spread of COVID-19, nor has indoor dining been particularly risky. Los Angeles County public health data identifies 16 restaurants where the virus was spread, but this occurred among employees and not customers. Restaurants don’t even make the county’s top five list of COVID-19 exposure sites. The county has found that most restaurants comply with its health orders, and cases fell throughout the summer even while outdoor dining was permitted.

“I personally feel like we’re being punished,” says Kat Turner, a chef and partner at Highly Likely cafe in the West Adams neighborhood of Los Angeles.

“They’ve shut us without saying, ‘Hey, here’s a solution…This is how we’re going to help you get through this period,'” says David Combes, the executive director of Botanical Hospitality Group. The company owns two restaurants in West Hollywood, including E.P. & L.P., which was forced to shift to outdoor rooftop dining. 

Combes says he and his partners have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to ensure the restaurant can provide a safe and compliant outdoor dining experience. They haven’t turned a profit since it reopened.

The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health issued the order the weekend before Thanksgiving, citing a 108 percent increase in cases and rising hospitalizations.

“Even if you’re outdoors, gathering with people you do not live with can increase the chances of getting or spreading COVID-19,” said the county’s public health director, Barbara Ferrer. Though she estimates from the county’s contact tracing efforts that 10 to 15 percent of COVID-19 transmissions are linked to “dining experiences,” she hasn’t clarified how many of those transmissions were attributed to outdoor dining at restaurants and declined to provide the underlying data when quizzed by reporters at a recent press conference.

Combes believes that restaurants are paying the price for the county’s lack of comprehensive contact tracing and testing.

“It feels like we are being disadvantaged by a lack of process from L.A. County,” says Combes. “And now…for political optics…the first thing we’re going to do is we’re going to shut down restaurants and bars.”

Turner worries that shutting down outdoor dining will only push people indoors to less safe settings.

“It’s stupid. I think people are still gonna want to get together. And now they’re going to do it inside at other people’s homes instead of meeting outside at a restaurant to have dinner,” says Turner. 

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 to uphold the health department’s order. The California Restaurant Association has already filed suit against the county.

Turner says she worries about the unintended consequences of an indefinite shutdown of one of the only relatively safe places in Los Angeles where people can gather.

“I think it’s completely irresponsible to shut down outdoor dining. What we have here is good for the community, and it’s good for the economy, and it’s good for our staff, and we’re doing it safely,” says Turner. 

Produced by Zach Weissmueller.

Photo credits: Sarah Reingewirtz/ZUMA Press/Newscom

Music credits: “Fused,” “It Was Time We Let Go,” and “Like We Used To” by Stanley Gurvich.

 

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/33yhKu6
via IFTTT

Will Anybody Besides Michael Flynn Get Mercy from Lame Duck Trump?

mflynn_1161x653

President Donald Trump gave Michael Flynn a reason to be thankful over the holidays, announcing late Wednesday he was pardoning his former national security adviser. As Trump’s administration wraps, will anybody else—especially anybody not directly connected to the president—get similar mercy?

Flynn pleaded guilty in 2017 to lying to the FBI about conversations with a Russian ambassador after Trump was elected but before Trump took office. Given the government’s failure to directly tie Trump’s administration to Russia’s attempts to influence the 2016 election, Flynn’s prosecution feel like a last-ditch effort to collect somebody‘s scalp over all of what happened. It’s extremely unlikely, after all, that the U.S. will ever actually get their hands on the Russians who allegedly did attempt to meddle with the election.

The FBI’s treatment of Flynn is typical of how the bureau tries to salvage prosecutions when it can’t prove underlying crimes. Flynn is no hero, and he has a troubling history of working for corrupt governments like Turkey’s, but it’s not justice to toss him in federal prison for failing to pin any other actual crimes on him. It’s easy to reconcile the belief that Trump has some corrupt cronies with the idea that the government failed to make a good case that Flynn belongs in jail.

But will there be any additional acts of mercy from Trump that aren’t heavily driven by politics or direct connections to the president?

Trump has made a big deal of having commuted the life sentence of Alice Marie Johnson, then pardoning her, for her federal conviction back in the 1990s for involvement in a drug conspiracy. There’s a reason why Johnson is the name Trump keeps bringing up: There aren’t many others he could cite. Trump has a pretty terrible record when it comes to commutations and pardons: He has used his clemency powers less often than any modern president, even when compared to fellow one-termers George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter. Pew Research notes that Trump has used his clemency powers (either commuting a sentence or pardoning somebody entirely) 44 times during his presidency so far. The senior Bush used his clemency powers 77 times. Carter used it 566 times. Even Richard Nixon had a more merciful record.

Some are still hoping for some pardons of some high-profile targets of federal prosecution, such as surveillance whistleblower Edward Snowden and Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. On the day Trump announced Flynn’s pardon, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) again requested, as she has in the past, that Trump pardon the two men. Snowden still faces federal espionage charges for revealing the National Security Agency’s domestic surveillance, even as that system has subsequently been reformed in part because of his actions. Assange faces a political prosecution that threatens to undermine the First Amendment because he helped Chelsea Manning (who had her sentence commuted under President Barack Obama) reveal classified information about the management of America’s overseas wars.

Both should be pardoned. If it makes Trump feel better, pardoning them will anger all the right people. When he was vice president, President-elect Joe Biden tried to stop other countries from granting Snowden asylum. And several media pundits argue that Assange is not a “real” journalist deserving the protections of the First Amendment.

At the moment, though, Trump is still insisting that he really won the election, even as his challenges to the results in various states keep losing. Given his lack of mercy throughout his administration, it’s not clear whether or why he’d suddenly offer a lot of mercy to others.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/37lmqEG
via IFTTT

Iran Nuclear Scientist Was Shot With Mounted Remote-Controlled Machine Gun

Iran Nuclear Scientist Was Shot With Mounted Remote-Controlled Machine Gun

Tyler Durden

Mon, 11/30/2020 – 14:05

Iranian state media has issued for the first time the stunning details of last Friday’s assassination of top nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh. 

Importantly, Iranian state media is claiming that a machine gun recovered from the site was made in Israel. “The remains of the weapon used in the Friday assassination of senior nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh show that it was made in Israel, an informed source has told Press TV,” according to the state-run English language news site.

The killing was done “entirely remotely” with no assassins on the ground and no apparent drone activity, according to Iranian officials. But how? 

Scene of the assassination, via AP

“The source made the revelation on Monday, saying the weapon collected from the site of the terrorist act bears the logo and specifications of the Israeli military industry,” PressTV continued.

Tehran officials said they will soon publicize all available evidence showing who was behind the hit, which occurred in a small city east of the capital and included a hail of gunfire and detonation of a vehicle which took out the scientist’s convoy and body guards. Officials have further vowed “hard revenge” for the killing which they had in the hours after blamed on Israel.

Initially international reports strongly suggested a multiple-man hit team forced Fakhrizadeh’s vehicle to stop before opening fire. However, Iranian state media just dropped details suggesting sophisticated remote-controlled machine guns were used

On Monday Ali Shamkhani, the secretary of the Islamic Republic’s Supreme National Security Council, confirmed that it is Iranian investigators’ belief that Israel used “electronic devices” to take out Fakhrizadeh, according to the Associated Press

The following is a translation and paraphrase of key sections of a new Iranian state-run Fars news report by Axios correspondent Barak Ravid:

Amazing new details of the Fakhrizadeh assassination emerge in the Iranian press: IRGC affiliated Fars news reports the assassination was done using an automatic machine gun operated with a remote control and not with gunmen who were on the ground.

According to the report Fakhrizadeh and his wife were on their way to spend the weekend at their house in a Tehran suburb. There were three security cars with them and at a certain point the leading car left the motorcade to do a preliminary security check of the house.

Right after the car at the front of the motorcade left shots were fired on Fakhrizadeh’s car and it stopped. Fakhrizadeh stepped out of the car thinking his car hit an object on the road or there was a problem with the engine.

At that point shots were fired again from a Nisan pickup truck which stopped 150 meters from Fakhrizadeh’s car. The shots were fired from an automatic machine gun which was mounted on the pickup truck and operated by remote control.

Fakhrizadeh was hit by three bullets – one hit him in the spine. Seconds later the Nisan pickup truck exploded in what looks like a self destruct mechanism. According to Fars news Iranian security forces identified the owner of the pickup truck who left Iran on October 29th.

Fars reported the assassination operation lasted only three minutes and was all done by remote control with no gunmen on the ground.

Illustrative image: A photographed remote control gun previously used by ISIS in Mosul as an anti-aircraft weapon, via Popular Front military analysis site.

If true, this would further point to a likely foreign intelligence operation, whether Israeli or with American help.

It sounds like the stuff of Hollywood movies. The 1997 film The Jackal involves just such a scenario where an assassin seeks to kill a politician using just such a high-tech remote controlled automatic long-range gun.

Here are the official details of the targeted killing being circulated by top Iranian officials Monday, as summarized in the AP:

“Unfortunately, the operation was a very complicated operation and was carried out by using electronic devices,” Shamkhani told state TV. “No individual was present at the site.”

Satellite control of weapons is nothing new. Armed, long-range drones, for instance, rely on satellite connections to be controlled by their remote pilots. Remote-controlled gun turrets also exist, but typically see their operator connected by a hard line to cut down on the delay in commands being relayed. Israel uses such hard-wired systems along the border with the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.

It may be the first time in known history that such a high level assassination was carried out entirely through on the ground stationary remote-controlled automatic weapon fire.

Israel has long possessed remote controlled automatic weapons. Illustrative example via WikiWand: “the Samson Remote Controlled Weapon System for 30 mm autocannon is designed to be mounted on lightly-armored, high-mobility military vehicles and operated by a gunner or vehicle commander operating under-the-deck.”

Mideast editor of Jane’s Defence Weekly, Jeremy Binnie, mused, “Could you set up a weapon with a camera which then has a feed that uses an open satellite communications line back to the controller?” 

Binnie answered his own rhetorical question with: “I can’t see why that’s not possible.”

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3fQJkri Tyler Durden

Los Angeles County Banned Outdoor Dining. There’s Zero Evidence It Spreads COVID-19.

idea 4

On November 22, Los Angeles became the only county in America this winter to ban outdoor dining.

The order, which will last a minimum of three weeks, will be financially devastating for many restaurants and could lead would-be diners to congregate in venues that are less safe.

There’s no evidence that outdoor dining has contributed to the spread of COVID-19, nor has indoor dining been particularly risky. Los Angeles County public health data identifies 16 restaurants where the virus was spread, but this occurred among employees and not customers. Restaurants don’t even make the county’s top five list of COVID-19 exposure sites. The county has found that most restaurants comply with its health orders, and cases fell throughout the summer even while outdoor dining was permitted.

“I personally feel like we’re being punished,” says Kat Turner, a chef and partner at Highly Likely cafe in the West Adams neighborhood of Los Angeles.

“They’ve shut us without saying, ‘Hey, here’s a solution…This is how we’re going to help you get through this period,'” says David Combes, the executive director of Botanical Hospitality Group. The company owns two restaurants in West Hollywood, including E.P. & L.P., which was forced to shift to outdoor rooftop dining. 

Combes says he and his partners have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to ensure the restaurant can provide a safe and compliant outdoor dining experience. They haven’t turned a profit since it reopened.

The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health issued the order the weekend before Thanksgiving, citing a 108 percent increase in cases and rising hospitalizations.

“Even if you’re outdoors, gathering with people you do not live with can increase the chances of getting or spreading COVID-19,” said the county’s public health director, Barbara Ferrer. Though she estimates from the county’s contact tracing efforts that 10 to 15 percent of COVID-19 transmissions are linked to “dining experiences,” she hasn’t clarified how many of those transmissions were attributed to outdoor dining at restaurants and declined to provide the underlying data when quizzed by reporters at a recent press conference.

Combes believes that restaurants are paying the price for the county’s lack of comprehensive contact tracing and testing.

“It feels like we are being disadvantaged by a lack of process from L.A. County,” says Combes. “And now…for political optics…the first thing we’re going to do is we’re going to shut down restaurants and bars.”

Turner worries that shutting down outdoor dining will only push people indoors to less safe settings.

“It’s stupid. I think people are still gonna want to get together. And now they’re going to do it inside at other people’s homes instead of meeting outside at a restaurant to have dinner,” says Turner. 

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 to uphold the health department’s order. The California Restaurant Association has already filed suit against the county.

Turner says she worries about the unintended consequences of an indefinite shutdown of one of the only relatively safe places in Los Angeles where people can gather.

“I think it’s completely irresponsible to shut down outdoor dining. What we have here is good for the community, and it’s good for the economy, and it’s good for our staff, and we’re doing it safely,” says Turner. 

Produced by Zach Weissmueller.

Photo credits: Sarah Reingewirtz/ZUMA Press/Newscom

Music credits: “Fused,” “It Was Time We Let Go,” and “Like We Used To” by Stanley Gurvich.

 

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/33yhKu6
via IFTTT

Will a Historic House Vote on Marijuana Legalization Nudge Biden Toward More Ambitious Reforms?

cannabis-leaves-6-MIS-Photography

This week the House of Representatives is expected to vote on a bill that would repeal the federal ban on marijuana, the first time the chamber has considered that move. While the bill is unlikely to get an enthusiastic reception in the Republican-controlled Senate, it is an important milestone in the fight against marijuana prohibition, which Congress enacted in the guise of a revenue measure 83 years ago and reaffirmed in the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) of 1970.

As currently written, the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act, introduced by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D–N.Y.), would remove cannabis from the CSA’s schedules and eliminate federal criminal penalties for growing, distributing, or possessing it. The bill would establish “an automatic process” for expunging the records of people who were convicted of federal marijuana crimes and authorize resentencing of federal prisoners serving time for such offenses.

The MORE Act—which has 120 cosponsors, all but one Democrats—also would prohibit the denial of federal public benefits because of convictions involving cannabis consumption and eliminate immigration disabilities based on marijuana-related conduct. Less promisingly, the bill would impose a 5 percent federal tax on cannabis products, assigning the revenue to law enforcement and a Community Reinvestment Grant Program aimed at providing “services for individuals most adversely impacted by the War on Drugs.”

Democrats had planned to vote on the MORE Act before the election but reconsidered, apparently in response to concerns raised by law enforcement groups and fears that supporting legalization would hurt rather than help some of their party’s candidates. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D–Md.) recently announced that the vote will happen this week instead, probably on Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday.

Democratic skittishness on this issue may seem surprising in light of public opinion. According to the latest Gallup poll, 68 percent of Americans, including 83 percent of Democrats, favor legalization. While that poll found that 52 percent of Republicans still support prohibition, this month’s election results in three red states show that marijuana reform has cross-partisan appeal. Mississippi voters approved medical marijuana, Montana expanded its tolerance of medical use to include recreational consumption, and South Dakota became the first state to simultaneously legalize marijuana for both medical and recreational use. Recreational legalization also passed in Arizona, lately classified as a purple state, and in deep-blue New Jersey.

All told, 35 states recognize cannabis as a medicine, including 15 that also have legalized recreational use. The latter group includes about one in three Americans.

“I’ve been working on this issue longer than any politician in America and can confidently say that the MORE Act is the most comprehensive federal cannabis reform legislation in U.S. history,” Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D–Ore.), co-chair of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus, said in a press release last week. “Our vote to pass it next week will come after people in five very different states reaffirmed the strong bipartisan support to reform the failed cannabis prohibition. National support for federal cannabis legalization is at an all-time high….Congress must capitalize on this momentum and do our part to end the failed policy of prohibition.” 

Despite their pre-election misgivings, House Democrats look brave compared to President-elect Joe Biden, a supposedly reformed drug warrior who continues to resist federal legalization, unlike most of the candidates he beat for his party’s nomination. His pro-legalization rivals included Vice President–elect Kamala Harris, a recent convert who sponsored the Senate version of the MORE Act. While the 2016 Democratic Party platform supported “a reasoned pathway for future legalization,” this year’s Biden-shaped platform does not even aspire to that vague goal.

Biden instead says he wants to “decriminalize cannabis use,” expunge the records related to such cases, and move marijuana to a less restrictive legal category. Those first two steps would not have much impact, since the Justice Department rarely prosecutes low-level possession cases. Moving marijuana from Schedule I of the CSA, a category supposedly reserved for exceptionally dangerous drugs with no accepted medical use, to Schedule II, which indicates that a drug has a high abuse potential but can be used as a medicine, might facilitate research. But it would not address the untenable conflict between the CSA and state laws that allow medical or recreational use of marijuana, which casts a dark shadow over the burgeoning cannabis industry.

Might House passage of the MORE Act nudge Biden in a more ambitious direction? If he can’t bring himself to support outright repeal of marijuana prohibition, maybe he could see the political appeal of amending the CSA so that it does not apply to state-legal conduct, as a 2017 House bill that attracted bipartisan support would have done. That approach would jibe with Biden’s promise to “leave decisions regarding legalization for recreational use up to the states,” and it should appeal to the federalist instincts of at least some Republican legislators.

If that is also off the table, Biden might be persuaded to support piecemeal reforms with a better chance of passing both chambers. The Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act, for instance, would protect banks that serve state-licensed marijuana businesses from the threat of criminal penalties and potentially ruinous regulatory sanctions. The bill, introduced by Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D–Colo.), attracted 206 cosponsors, including 26 Republicans, and passed the House by a margin of more than 3 to 1 in September. It would address a longstanding problem that makes it difficult for state-legal cannabusinesses to access financial services.

The Small Business Tax Equity Act would amend Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code, which prohibits state-licensed marijuana suppliers from deducting business expenses on their federal returns. That bill, which was introduced by Blumenauer, would eliminate a disability that can raise a marijuana supplier’s effective tax rate to as high as 75 percent. It currently has just 11 cosponsors, including two Republicans. But it should be a relatively easy sell for Republicans who generally support federalism and champion small businesses.

Another Blumenauer bill, the Veterans Equal Access Act, would allow doctors in the V.A. health care system to recommend medical marijuana in states where it is legal. That bill has 21 cosponsors, including seven Republicans. It’s a modest reform that should appeal to legislators who want to be seen as standing up for veterans, especially now that 70 percent of the states allow medical use of cannabis.

Biden may never come around on marijuana legalization. But he could still support steps like these, which would significantly reduce the harm caused by federal prohibition. A historic House vote to repeal that ban would allow him to go further than he has so far without sacrificing his cherished reputation as a moderate.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3obsqXq
via IFTTT

Which Ninth Circuit Judges Were Waiting For A Democratic President to Take Senior Status?

In February, several Ninth Circuit judges complained to the Los Angeles Times about the Trump appointees. Now, three, or possibly four Ninth Circuit judges have talked to the Times again–this time about members of the Court taking senior status with a Democrat in the White House.

The article begins:

For the last four years, some federal judges postponed retirement plans rather than give President Trump the opportunity to name more conservatives to the nation’s powerful appeals courts. . .  .All eyes are now on nine active 9th Circuit judges appointed by President Clinton. They are in their 60s or 70s, and some have been waiting for a Democratic president so they can take senior status.

The first judge told the Times:

“I anticipate quite a few people doing things to enter senior status,” said one of several 9th Circuit judges who predicted turnover.

The judge, however, added a caveat. “They might want to wait for a Democratic Senate, although I don’t know whether that ever will happen.”

That judge and others who spoke about possible turnover declined to be identified by name, saying they were unauthorized to speak for the court or their colleagues.

There is a dilemma. If the Republicans take win one or two of the Georgia seats, then any vacancy could remain open for 2 years. If the Republicans win the Senate in 2022 the vacancy could remain open for 4 years. A judge could take senior status, contingent upon the confirmation of their successor. But that confirmation could happen with a Republican president. I suppose a judge could withdraw their notification to take senior status. Such a move would be brazenly political. But we are talking about the Ninth Circuit here.

The second judge told the Times:

A 9th Circuit judge noted in an interview that “Clinton judges across the country have just been holding on” for a Democratic presidency. They should make taking senior status contingent on Senate confirmation of a successor if Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) remains majority leader, the jurist advised.

The judge expressed concern about McConnell “in light of his treatment of Merrick Garland’s nomination, which I thought was a travesty.”

The third judge told the Times:

A third 9th Circuit judge said politics may determine the number of Clinton appointees who take semi-retirement. “The real issue is going to be the Senate,” the judge said. If Republicans retain the majority, the jurist said, moderate nominees may get through but liberals won’t.

“And it is entirely possible that they [Senate Republicans] may go back to the blocking tactics they applied previously with Obama,” the judge said.’

The article quotes another judge, who may be a fourth judge, but it isn’t clear:

Among the Clinton appointees qualified to take senior status are 9th Circuit Judges Richard A. Paez, William A. Fletcher and Marsha S. Berzon.

“Would the Republicans let someone replace them with people similarly liberal?” a 9th Circuit judge asked. “I don’t think so.”

And, Erwin Chemerinsky is quoted:

Whatever the judges’ inclinations, the outlook for an exodus will depend on which party controls the Senate, said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Berkeley’s law school.

“I have certainly heard from some of the Democratic appointees that they would be inclined to take senior status with Biden winning,” he said. “But if the Republicans control the Senate, they will want to make sure that the Republican senators will confirm Biden nominees.”

James Phillips and I are writing an article about judges who strategically time their taking of senior status. By our count, there are seven Clinton appointees on the Ninth Circuit who are eligible for senior status. Five of them were eligible during the Obama administration, but held on. The other two became eligible in 2017 and 2018, respectively.

  1. Judge Richard Paez (eligible on 5/5/2012)
  2. Judge William A. Fletcher (eligible on 6/6/2912)
  3. Judge Marsha S. Berzon (eligible on 4/7/2013)
  4. Judge Ronald M. Gould (eligible on 11/22/2013)
  5. Judge Susan B. Graber (eligible on 7/4/2014)
  6. Judge Johnnie B. Rawlinson (eligible on 12/16/2017)
  7. Judge Sidney Thomas (eligible on 8/14/2018)

Three W. Bush-appointed judges on the Ninth Circuit are eligible, who did not take senior status during the Trump administration:

  1. Judge Milan Dale Smith Jr (eligible on 5/18/2016)
  2. Judge Consuelo Callahan (eligible on 5/28/2017)
  3. Judge Sandra Segal Ikuta (eligible on 6/24/2020)

One Obama-appointed judge will become eligible in 2022:

  1. Judge Andrew D. Hurwitz (eligible on 10/1/2022).

And in case you are curious, Trump’s appointees to the Ninth Circuit will be eligible to take senior status between 2037 and 2044.

We hope to share our research, at least in a preliminary form, before the inauguration.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/39vdVcW
via IFTTT

Will a Historic House Vote on Marijuana Legalization Nudge Biden Toward More Ambitious Reforms?

cannabis-leaves-6-MIS-Photography

This week the House of Representatives is expected to vote on a bill that would repeal the federal ban on marijuana, the first time the chamber has considered that move. While the bill is unlikely to get an enthusiastic reception in the Republican-controlled Senate, it is an important milestone in the fight against marijuana prohibition, which Congress enacted in the guise of a revenue measure 83 years ago and reaffirmed in the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) of 1970.

As currently written, the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act, introduced by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D–N.Y.), would remove cannabis from the CSA’s schedules and eliminate federal criminal penalties for growing, distributing, or possessing it. The bill would establish “an automatic process” for expunging the records of people who were convicted of federal marijuana crimes and authorize resentencing of federal prisoners serving time for such offenses.

The MORE Act—which has 120 cosponsors, all but one Democrats—also would prohibit the denial of federal public benefits because of convictions involving cannabis consumption and eliminate immigration disabilities based on marijuana-related conduct. Less promisingly, the bill would impose a 5 percent federal tax on cannabis products, assigning the revenue to law enforcement and a Community Reinvestment Grant Program aimed at providing “services for individuals most adversely impacted by the War on Drugs.”

Democrats had planned to vote on the MORE Act before the election but reconsidered, apparently in response to concerns raised by law enforcement groups and fears that supporting legalization would hurt rather than help some of their party’s candidates. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D–Md.) recently announced that the vote will happen this week instead, probably on Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday.

Democratic skittishness on this issue may seem surprising in light of public opinion. According to the latest Gallup poll, 68 percent of Americans, including 83 percent of Democrats, favor legalization. While that poll found that 52 percent of Republicans still support prohibition, this month’s election results in three red states show that marijuana reform has cross-partisan appeal. Mississippi voters approved medical marijuana, Montana expanded its tolerance of medical use to include recreational consumption, and South Dakota became the first state to simultaneously legalize marijuana for both medical and recreational use. Recreational legalization also passed in Arizona, lately classified as a purple state, and in deep-blue New Jersey.

All told, 35 states recognize cannabis as a medicine, including 15 that also have legalized recreational use. The latter group includes about one in three Americans.

“I’ve been working on this issue longer than any politician in America and can confidently say that the MORE Act is the most comprehensive federal cannabis reform legislation in U.S. history,” Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D–Ore.), co-chair of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus, said in a press release last week. “Our vote to pass it next week will come after people in five very different states reaffirmed the strong bipartisan support to reform the failed cannabis prohibition. National support for federal cannabis legalization is at an all-time high….Congress must capitalize on this momentum and do our part to end the failed policy of prohibition.” 

Despite their pre-election misgivings, House Democrats look brave compared to President-elect Joe Biden, a supposedly reformed drug warrior who continues to resist federal legalization, unlike most of the candidates he beat for his party’s nomination. His pro-legalization rivals included Vice President–elect Kamala Harris, a recent convert who sponsored the Senate version of the MORE Act. While the 2016 Democratic Party platform supported “a reasoned pathway for future legalization,” this year’s Biden-shaped platform does not even aspire to that vague goal.

Biden instead says he wants to “decriminalize cannabis use,” expunge the records related to such cases, and move marijuana to a less restrictive legal category. Those first two steps would not have much impact, since the Justice Department rarely prosecutes low-level possession cases. Moving marijuana from Schedule I of the CSA, a category supposedly reserved for exceptionally dangerous drugs with no accepted medical use, to Schedule II, which indicates that a drug has a high abuse potential but can be used as a medicine, might facilitate research. But it would not address the untenable conflict between the CSA and state laws that allow medical or recreational use of marijuana, which casts a dark shadow over the burgeoning cannabis industry.

Might House passage of the MORE Act nudge Biden in a more ambitious direction? If he can’t bring himself to support outright repeal of marijuana prohibition, maybe he could see the political appeal of amending the CSA so that it does not apply to state-legal conduct, as a 2017 House bill that attracted bipartisan support would have done. That approach would jibe with Biden’s promise to “leave decisions regarding legalization for recreational use up to the states,” and it should appeal to the federalist instincts of at least some Republican legislators.

If that is also off the table, Biden might be persuaded to support piecemeal reforms with a better chance of passing both chambers. The Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act, for instance, would protect banks that serve state-licensed marijuana businesses from the threat of criminal penalties and potentially ruinous regulatory sanctions. The bill, introduced by Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D–Colo.), attracted 206 cosponsors, including 26 Republicans, and passed the House by a margin of more than 3 to 1 in September. It would address a longstanding problem that makes it difficult for state-legal cannabusinesses to access financial services.

The Small Business Tax Equity Act would amend Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code, which prohibits state-licensed marijuana suppliers from deducting business expenses on their federal returns. That bill, which was introduced by Blumenauer, would eliminate a disability that can raise a marijuana supplier’s effective tax rate to as high as 75 percent. It currently has just 11 cosponsors, including two Republicans. But it should be a relatively easy sell for Republicans who generally support federalism and champion small businesses.

Another Blumenauer bill, the Veterans Equal Access Act, would allow doctors in the V.A. health care system to recommend medical marijuana in states where it is legal. That bill has 21 cosponsors, including seven Republicans. It’s a modest reform that should appeal to legislators who want to be seen as standing up for veterans, especially now that 70 percent of the states allow medical use of cannabis.

Biden may never come around on marijuana legalization. But he could still support steps like these, which would significantly reduce the harm caused by federal prohibition. A historic House vote to repeal that ban would allow him to go further than he has so far without sacrificing his cherished reputation as a moderate.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3obsqXq
via IFTTT

Which Ninth Circuit Judges Were Waiting For A Democratic President to Take Senior Status?

In February, several Ninth Circuit judges complained to the Los Angeles Times about the Trump appointees. Now, three, or possibly four Ninth Circuit judges have talked to the Times again–this time about members of the Court taking senior status with a Democrat in the White House.

The article begins:

For the last four years, some federal judges postponed retirement plans rather than give President Trump the opportunity to name more conservatives to the nation’s powerful appeals courts. . .  .All eyes are now on nine active 9th Circuit judges appointed by President Clinton. They are in their 60s or 70s, and some have been waiting for a Democratic president so they can take senior status.

The first judge told the Times:

“I anticipate quite a few people doing things to enter senior status,” said one of several 9th Circuit judges who predicted turnover.

The judge, however, added a caveat. “They might want to wait for a Democratic Senate, although I don’t know whether that ever will happen.”

That judge and others who spoke about possible turnover declined to be identified by name, saying they were unauthorized to speak for the court or their colleagues.

There is a dilemma. If the Republicans take win one or two of the Georgia seats, then any vacancy could remain open for 2 years. If the Republicans win the Senate in 2022 the vacancy could remain open for 4 years. A judge could take senior status, contingent upon the confirmation of their successor. But that confirmation could happen with a Republican president. I suppose a judge could withdraw their notification to take senior status. Such a move would be brazenly political. But we are talking about the Ninth Circuit here.

The second judge told the Times:

A 9th Circuit judge noted in an interview that “Clinton judges across the country have just been holding on” for a Democratic presidency. They should make taking senior status contingent on Senate confirmation of a successor if Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) remains majority leader, the jurist advised.

The judge expressed concern about McConnell “in light of his treatment of Merrick Garland’s nomination, which I thought was a travesty.”

The third judge told the Times:

A third 9th Circuit judge said politics may determine the number of Clinton appointees who take semi-retirement. “The real issue is going to be the Senate,” the judge said. If Republicans retain the majority, the jurist said, moderate nominees may get through but liberals won’t.

“And it is entirely possible that they [Senate Republicans] may go back to the blocking tactics they applied previously with Obama,” the judge said.’

The article quotes another judge, who may be a fourth judge, but it isn’t clear:

Among the Clinton appointees qualified to take senior status are 9th Circuit Judges Richard A. Paez, William A. Fletcher and Marsha S. Berzon.

“Would the Republicans let someone replace them with people similarly liberal?” a 9th Circuit judge asked. “I don’t think so.”

And, Erwin Chemerinsky is quoted:

Whatever the judges’ inclinations, the outlook for an exodus will depend on which party controls the Senate, said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Berkeley’s law school.

“I have certainly heard from some of the Democratic appointees that they would be inclined to take senior status with Biden winning,” he said. “But if the Republicans control the Senate, they will want to make sure that the Republican senators will confirm Biden nominees.”

James Phillips and I are writing an article about judges who strategically time their taking of senior status. By our count, there are seven Clinton appointees on the Ninth Circuit who are eligible for senior status. Five of them were eligible during the Obama administration, but held on. The other two became eligible in 2017 and 2018, respectively.

  1. Judge Richard Paez (eligible on 5/5/2012)
  2. Judge William A. Fletcher (eligible on 6/6/2912)
  3. Judge Marsha S. Berzon (eligible on 4/7/2013)
  4. Judge Ronald M. Gould (eligible on 11/22/2013)
  5. Judge Susan B. Graber (eligible on 7/4/2014)
  6. Judge Johnnie B. Rawlinson (eligible on 12/16/2017)
  7. Judge Sidney Thomas (eligible on 8/14/2018)

Three W. Bush-appointed judges on the Ninth Circuit are eligible, who did not take senior status during the Trump administration:

  1. Judge Milan Dale Smith Jr (eligible on 5/18/2016)
  2. Judge Consuelo Callahan (eligible on 5/28/2017)
  3. Judge Sandra Segal Ikuta (eligible on 6/24/2020)

One Obama-appointed judge will become eligible in 2022:

  1. Judge Andrew D. Hurwitz (eligible on 10/1/2022).

And in case you are curious, Trump’s appointees to the Ninth Circuit will be eligible to take senior status between 2037 and 2044.

We hope to share our research, at least in a preliminary form, before the inauguration.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/39vdVcW
via IFTTT

Black Friday Foot Traffic Down More Than 52%

Black Friday Foot Traffic Down More Than 52%

Tyler Durden

Mon, 11/30/2020 – 13:45

By Ben Unglesbee of RetailDive,

Summary:

  • While online sales exploded during the Thanksgiving weekend, trips inside brick-and-mortar stores on Black Friday dropped off significantly, as many analysts anticipated.

  • According to data from Sensormatic Solutions, shopper visits to physical stores on Black Friday fell 52.1% from last year. Online sales, meanwhile, hit a new record with $9 billion, up 21.6% over 2019, Adobe Analytics said. 

  • With many retailers opting to stay closed on Thanksgiving, physical traffic on the holiday fell nearly 95%, according to Sensormatic.

With COVID-19 cases hitting new highs, it comes as little surprise that many shoppers opted to stay away from physical stores this year. That said, the differences between Black Friday 2020 and those that preceded it were stark.

Our traditional store checks over the holiday weekend were like none other we’ve ever experienced in our lifetime — no hustle and bustle, no lines at the register,” said MKM Partners Managing Director Roxanne Meyer in an emailed research note.

Retailers have anticipated and prepared for that, even nudged consumers into changing up their holiday shopping plans to keep them from packing into stores.

Major players like Walmart and Target have been spreading Black Friday-like discounts through the month of November and encouraging online purchases and curbside pickup. Many also followed Amazon’s lead by launching online sales events in October, which pulled holiday purchases into the month and heralded the beginning of the holiday shopping spree.

Black Friday still had a major impact. Sales in the U.S. were up 177% Friday against their October average, according to Criteo data emailed to Retail Dive. By category, fashion was up 240%, consumer electronics were up 359% and home goods were up 148%.

However, year-over-year Black Friday sales were down 5%, meaning that even the online sales surge couldn’t fully make up for the lost foot traffic. Criteo’s data shows, however, that the prior weeks’ discounting may have affected sales on Black Friday itself — which was the plan among retailers all along. Sales in the first three weeks of November were up 7% year over year, Criteo said. 

Observers found lines leading out of stores on Black Friday, but their length was due to social distancing and in many cases they led to stores that were capping foot traffic as a pandemic safety measure.

Analysts with B. Riley Securities said they found through mall checks of specialty and apparel retailers they cover that Aerie, Lululemon and L Brands’ Bath & Body Works represented some of the most post-purchase bags consumers were carrying around. 

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/39tsn5d Tyler Durden

Neera Tanden, Biden’s Pick for Budget Office: Now Is Not the Time To ‘Worry About Raising Deficits and Debt’

zumaamericastwentynine286064

President-elect Joe Biden has tapped Neera Tanden, president of the Center for American Progress and a former advisor to Hillary Clinton, to head the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. The position requires Senate confirmation, which might be a long shot, given Tanden’s long history of feuding with not just Republicans but also fellow Democrats.

If Tanden does take control of the OMB, then the office will be run by someone who has recently said that deficits and the debt should be no obstacle whatsoever to further government spending. At the start of the pandemic, she co-authored a commentary piece titled, “Deficit and Debt Shouldn’t Factor Into Coronavirus Recession Response.”

“Deficits and debt pose no comparable risk,” wrote Tanden. “Policymakers should set aside their concerns about red ink and deliver the response the crisis demands.”

Tanden has said that the purpose of the budget is to “expand opportunity for all Americans” and that excessive fretting about deficits hinders economic growth.

To the extent Tanden has expressed any concern for the debt at all, it was mostly tactical: She has previously worried that spending wildly without paying for it makes the government unpopular with voters. In 2011, she came up with a novel solution to this problem, suggesting in an email to other CAP staffers that “oil rich countries” in the Middle East should pay the U.S. back in exchange for our military presence. She was specifically thinking of Libya, which was in the middle of a civil war at the time, with the U.S. and NATO offering support to the rebel factions. Indeed, Tanden sent this email—which was later leaked to her critics, including Glenn Greenwald—just a day after Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi was brutally killed by rebels.

“We have a giant deficit,” wrote Tanden. “They have a lot of oil. Most Americans would choose not to engage in the world because of that deficit. If we want to continue to engage in the world, gestures like having oil rich countries partially pay us back doesn’t seem crazy to me.”

In context, “engage in the world” meant U.S. military intervention. This did not turn out so well in Libya, which descended into chaos following the killing of Gadhafi and became a haven for terrorists. A second civil war only recently ended. It is doubtful the Libyans feel so grateful that they would like to help relieve the U.S. budget deficit.

Director of the OMB is a very powerful position, given the agency’s important function as an overseer of not just the president’s budget priorities but also various regulatory policies, intergovernmental coordination, and compliance. Even aside from ideological concerns, there is plenty of reason to wonder about Tanden’s fitness for the position. In addition to her distressing lack of concern for the deficit and hawkish foreign policy views, Tanden also has a worrying history of personnel clashes. She was accused of becoming physically aggressive toward a CAP staffer who had dared to question Hillary Clinton about the Iraq War, and she once outed an employee who had filed a sexual harassment complaint. These issues speak to her competency as the leader of an organization.

“Everything toxic about the corporate Democratic Party is embodied in Neera Tanden,” wrote Briahna Joy Gray, former press secretary for the 2020 presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.).

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/33sRW2c
via IFTTT