Here is the text from that video, originally released on March
3, 2009:
Thank you, President Obama, for keeping your campaign
pledge to end
raids on medical marijuana dispensaries that are legal
under state laws in California and elsewhere. Thank you for
reversing an inhumane policy established by the Clinton
administration and continued by the Bush
administration.
Given the experience you and other elected officials have had with
illegal drugs and your willingness to challenge the status quo, now
is the time to reconsider decades of prohibitionist drug policies
that have succeeded only in massively increasing the toll of human
misery, violence, and hypocrisy. As with alcohol prohibition, the
drug war
intensifies and exacerbates every negative outcome it
is ostensibly designed to combat.
President Obama, do the right thing and end the war on
drugs.
“Obama, You’re No Stranger to the Bong” was written,
performed, and edited by Paul Feine; special thanks to Alex
Manning.
Here is the text from that video, originally released on March
3, 2009:
Thank you, President Obama, for keeping your campaign
pledge to end
raids on medical marijuana dispensaries that are legal
under state laws in California and elsewhere. Thank you for
reversing an inhumane policy established by the Clinton
administration and continued by the Bush
administration.
Given the experience you and other elected officials have had with
illegal drugs and your willingness to challenge the status quo, now
is the time to reconsider decades of prohibitionist drug policies
that have succeeded only in massively increasing the toll of human
misery, violence, and hypocrisy. As with alcohol prohibition, the
drug war
intensifies and exacerbates every negative outcome it
is ostensibly designed to combat.
President Obama, do the right thing and end the war on
drugs.
“Obama, You’re No Stranger to the Bong” was written,
performed, and edited by Paul Feine; special thanks to Alex
Manning.
New York to Regulate Bitcoin: Is the Cryptocurrency Biz
Like “the Wild West?”
Original release date was January 30, 2014. Original
text is below:
Yesterday, the New York State Department of Financial
Services (DFS) concluded a two-day
fact-finding hearing on how to regulate Bitcoin and other
virtual cryptocurrencies. The purpose of the hearing was to
consider whether or not Empire State regulators should have a
direct role in overseeing the use of virtual cryptocurrencies, or
if existing federal regulations suffice.
In his opening remarks, New York State Superintendent of Financial
Services Benjamin M. Lawsky made it clear that the question wasn’t
so much if New York should regulate
cryptocurrencies, but how. “Right now, the regulation
of the virtual currency industry is still akin to the Wild West,”
said Lawsky. “That lack of regulation is simply not tenable for the
long-term.” Lawsky also expressed a desire not to “clip the wings”
of a promising new technology, and acknowledged the potential of
cryptocurrencies to revolutionize the money transmission
industry.
The first panel consisted of some of the leading investors and
venture capitalists in the world of Bitcoin,
including Barry
Silbert of SecondMarket and the Bitcoin Investment
Trust, Jeremy
Liew of Lightspeed Venture Partners, Fred Wilson of Union
Square Ventures, and Cameron and Tyler
Winklevoss of Winkelvoss Capital Management. All five
participants urged the DFS to take a light touch to avoid quashing
innovation or driving the industry abroad.
When one panelist suggested that small upstarts could outsource
their regulatory compliance duties to other firms, Fred Wilson of
Union Square Ventures told the panel, “That sounds like a terrible
idea.” He continued:
You’re talking about introducing all of the costs into the system
that we’re trying to take out of the system. Let’s just understand
what we’re trying to do with Bitcoin. We’re trying to create a
world where transactions can move globally for free. And making
these companies hire some outsource compliance firm is a bad
idea.
Members of the DFS voiced concern that Bitcoin could be used to
facilitate narcotrafficking and other illegal activities, as it did
in the case of Silk Road, an online drug bizarre that
was shut
down by the government in October. On Monday, the day
before the hearings began, Charlie Shrem, the founder and CEO of
BitInstant and a major figure in the Bitcoin community,
was arrested on
charges of using cryptocurrency to launder money. The Winkelvoss
brothers, who participated in the hearing, were major investors in
Shrem’s firm.
Jeremy Liew of Lightspeed Venture Partners told the panel that
these cases demonstrate that additional laws and regulations to
protect against money laundering aren’t necessary. “Law enforcement
did a fantastic job using existing regulations,” said Liew. “It
appears to have been controlled.” At a later session, Cyrus R.
Vance, Jr., the district attorney of New York County, and Richard
B. Zabel, the deputy U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New
York, argued that these recent prosecutions pointed to the need for
more oversight. “There were hundreds of people engaged in criminal
conduct dealing with these entities and dealing in virtual
currencies and they haven’t all been arrested,” said Zabel.
But what sorts of rules are needed to help combat money laundering
that don’t already exist on the federal level? The
participants offered few specifics. Bitcoin investors expressed
hope that any new regulations will be written broadly enough that
they don’t halt innovation or drive the industry abroad.
“Regulators are going to have to come up with a way to treat
Bitcoin that is balanced and thoughtful,” said Barry Silbert, “but
also recognize that this is a global phenomenon.”
“Bitcoin challenges the duopolistic incumbents,” said Tyler
Winklevoss, “and I think that’s very healthy and I think that’s
very American and it’s what we should all be striving for.”
About 3 minutes.
New York to Regulate Bitcoin: Is the Cryptocurrency Biz
Like “the Wild West?”
Original release date was January 30, 2014. Original
text is below:
Yesterday, the New York State Department of Financial
Services (DFS) concluded a two-day
fact-finding hearing on how to regulate Bitcoin and other
virtual cryptocurrencies. The purpose of the hearing was to
consider whether or not Empire State regulators should have a
direct role in overseeing the use of virtual cryptocurrencies, or
if existing federal regulations suffice.
In his opening remarks, New York State Superintendent of Financial
Services Benjamin M. Lawsky made it clear that the question wasn’t
so much if New York should regulate
cryptocurrencies, but how. “Right now, the regulation
of the virtual currency industry is still akin to the Wild West,”
said Lawsky. “That lack of regulation is simply not tenable for the
long-term.” Lawsky also expressed a desire not to “clip the wings”
of a promising new technology, and acknowledged the potential of
cryptocurrencies to revolutionize the money transmission
industry.
The first panel consisted of some of the leading investors and
venture capitalists in the world of Bitcoin,
including Barry
Silbert of SecondMarket and the Bitcoin Investment
Trust, Jeremy
Liew of Lightspeed Venture Partners, Fred Wilson of Union
Square Ventures, and Cameron and Tyler
Winklevoss of Winkelvoss Capital Management. All five
participants urged the DFS to take a light touch to avoid quashing
innovation or driving the industry abroad.
When one panelist suggested that small upstarts could outsource
their regulatory compliance duties to other firms, Fred Wilson of
Union Square Ventures told the panel, “That sounds like a terrible
idea.” He continued:
You’re talking about introducing all of the costs into the system
that we’re trying to take out of the system. Let’s just understand
what we’re trying to do with Bitcoin. We’re trying to create a
world where transactions can move globally for free. And making
these companies hire some outsource compliance firm is a bad
idea.
Members of the DFS voiced concern that Bitcoin could be used to
facilitate narcotrafficking and other illegal activities, as it did
in the case of Silk Road, an online drug bizarre that
was shut
down by the government in October. On Monday, the day
before the hearings began, Charlie Shrem, the founder and CEO of
BitInstant and a major figure in the Bitcoin community,
was arrested on
charges of using cryptocurrency to launder money. The Winkelvoss
brothers, who participated in the hearing, were major investors in
Shrem’s firm.
Jeremy Liew of Lightspeed Venture Partners told the panel that
these cases demonstrate that additional laws and regulations to
protect against money laundering aren’t necessary. “Law enforcement
did a fantastic job using existing regulations,” said Liew. “It
appears to have been controlled.” At a later session, Cyrus R.
Vance, Jr., the district attorney of New York County, and Richard
B. Zabel, the deputy U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New
York, argued that these recent prosecutions pointed to the need for
more oversight. “There were hundreds of people engaged in criminal
conduct dealing with these entities and dealing in virtual
currencies and they haven’t all been arrested,” said Zabel.
But what sorts of rules are needed to help combat money laundering
that don’t already exist on the federal level? The
participants offered few specifics. Bitcoin investors expressed
hope that any new regulations will be written broadly enough that
they don’t halt innovation or drive the industry abroad.
“Regulators are going to have to come up with a way to treat
Bitcoin that is balanced and thoughtful,” said Barry Silbert, “but
also recognize that this is a global phenomenon.”
“Bitcoin challenges the duopolistic incumbents,” said Tyler
Winklevoss, “and I think that’s very healthy and I think that’s
very American and it’s what we should all be striving for.”
About 3 minutes.
One of the more remarkable
results of the rise of industrial capitalism was that, for the
first time in human history, the poorest classes of people gained
access to luxury goods. Another remarkable result was that
wealthier people who claimed to be allies of the poor told them
this was bad for them. Recent developments in American popular
music demonstrate that this paradox lives on. Last Sunday night,
Macklemore and Lorde, artists who have built their careers upon
songs attacking the desire for luxuries among African-Americans,
received the highest commendations from the music establishment in
the form of multiple Grammy awards. Thaddeus Russell says their
songs continue a long tradition, rooted in progressivism, of
protests against the pleasures of the poor.
The American Board of Addiction Medicine
and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) believe that people
never overcome addiction. Yet, people recover from addiction all
the time. How do we know? Stanton Peele points to government
research conducted by the NIDA and its sister agency (with which it
is soon to be combined) the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and
Alcoholism that tells us just that.
Two years after Gibson factories in Tennessee were raided by
government agents, the venerable guitar manufacturer has released a
special Government Series II Les Paul. As the
press release explains:
Great Gibson electric guitars have long been a means of
fighting the establishment, so when the powers that be confiscated
stocks of tonewoods from the Gibson factory in Nashville—only to
return them once there was a resolution and the investigation
ended—it was an event worth celebrating. Introducing the Government
Series II Les Paul, a striking new guitar from Gibson USA for 2014
that suitably marks this infamous time in Gibson’s
history.
…Each Government Series II Les Paul also includes a
genuine piece of Gibson USA history in its solid rosewood
fingerboard, which is made from wood returned to Gibson by the US
government after the resolution.
Reason TV reported on the Gibson case back in 2012. Original
text from February 23, 2012 video is below.
“They…come in with weapons, they seized a
half-million dollars worth of property, they shut our factory down,
and they have not charged us with anything,” says Gibson Guitars CEO
Henry Juszkiewicz, referring to the August 2011 raid on his
Nashville and Memphis factories by agents from the Departments of
Homeland Security and Fish & Wildlife.
The feds raided Gibson for using an inappropriate
tariff code on wood from India, which is a violation of
the anti-trafficking statute known as The Lacey Act. At issue is
not whether the wood in question was endangered, but whether the
wood was the correct level of thickness and finish before
being exported from India. “India is wanting to ensure that raw
wood is not exported without some labor content from India,” says
Juskiewicz.
Andrea Johnson of the Environmental Investigation Agency
(EIA) counters that “it’s not up to Gibson to decide which
laws…they want to respect.” She points out that Gibson had
previously been raided under The Lacey Act for imports from
Madagascar.
This much is clear: The government
has yet to file any charges or allow Gibson a day in court to
makes its case, much less retrieve its materials. “This is not
about responsible forestry and sustainable wood or illegal logging,
this is about a bureaucratic law,” argues Juszkiewicz, who
testified last year before a congressional hearing convened by
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). It is, he says, ”a blank check for
abuse.”
“Is Hawaii’s Anti-GMO Movement Really Just
Anti-Science?” produced by Sharif Matar.
Original release date was January 29, 2014 and
original writeup is below.
Hawaii is at the center of the fight over genetically
modified organisms (GMOs) – and the food people are eating all over
the United States.
Because of Hawaii’s favorable climate, plant breeders
and food companies do huge amounts of research and seed development
there, including modifying and transforming crops via all sorts of
biotechnology. In 2013, two islands in the Aloha State passed
legislation restricting GMO use and local and international
activists are pushing for broader bans across the rest of the
state. Anti-GMO activists say that the crops are potentially
harmful and can contaminate the rest of Hawaii’s
agriculture.
Legislators are currently considering a bill that would
mandate labeling on all foods with genetically engineered material,
a move that critics claim would increase the cost of food in Hawaii
even more (according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Hawaii
already pays about 40 percent more for food than other states).
Other states are also proposing GMO-labeling schemes because of the
fears associated with such products. Connecticut and Maine, for
instance, have already passed labeling laws, but they won’t go into
effect until after other states follow suit.
The battle over GMOs will likely turn on questions of
safety and property rights: Are GMO foods safe for human
consumption? And who gets to decide how cropland is used – voters
or landowners?
Reason TV traveled to Hawaii and reports on both
issues.
For more on the situation in Hawaii – and the
scientific consensus that GMO foods are absolutely safe to eat –
read Reason Science Correspondent Ronald Bailey’s story, “The
Fable of Hawaiian Frankencorn.” For Reason’s coverage of
GMOs, go
here.
“Is Hawaii’s Anti-GMO Movement Really Just
Anti-Science?” produced by Sharif Matar.
Original release date was January 29, 2014 and
original writeup is below.
Hawaii is at the center of the fight over genetically
modified organisms (GMOs) – and the food people are eating all over
the United States.
Because of Hawaii’s favorable climate, plant breeders
and food companies do huge amounts of research and seed development
there, including modifying and transforming crops via all sorts of
biotechnology. In 2013, two islands in the Aloha State passed
legislation restricting GMO use and local and international
activists are pushing for broader bans across the rest of the
state. Anti-GMO activists say that the crops are potentially
harmful and can contaminate the rest of Hawaii’s
agriculture.
Legislators are currently considering a bill that would
mandate labeling on all foods with genetically engineered material,
a move that critics claim would increase the cost of food in Hawaii
even more (according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Hawaii
already pays about 40 percent more for food than other states).
Other states are also proposing GMO-labeling schemes because of the
fears associated with such products. Connecticut and Maine, for
instance, have already passed labeling laws, but they won’t go into
effect until after other states follow suit.
The battle over GMOs will likely turn on questions of
safety and property rights: Are GMO foods safe for human
consumption? And who gets to decide how cropland is used – voters
or landowners?
Reason TV traveled to Hawaii and reports on both
issues.
For more on the situation in Hawaii – and the
scientific consensus that GMO foods are absolutely safe to eat –
read Reason Science Correspondent Ronald Bailey’s story, “The
Fable of Hawaiian Frankencorn.” For Reason’s coverage of
GMOs, go
here.
Like
a phoenix made of pork, the Farm Bill has risen from the ashes. And
for opponents of farm subsidies and wasteful government spending,
that’s bad news. The most notable change in this year’s Farm Bill
is the elimination of direct farm subsidies, the
multi-billion-dollar handout to mostly wealthy farmers. That’s a
good thing. But in its place, Congress has substituted
taxpayer-subsidized crop insurance. And, writes Baylen Linnekin,
the bill taxpayers may foot for crop insurance subsidies—at least
$89 billion over ten years—may outweigh what taxpayers would have
contributed in direct subsidies.