Chicago Judge Says His Bail Reforms Were a Success. But Independent Reviews Show Flaws and More Crimes.

Chicago’s bail reforms may not have had the rosy outcomes indicated by a top county judge’s analysis, which independent researchers say is downplaying the new crimes that have resulted from allowing defendants to await trial outside of jail.

Those are the results of an analysis by a group of Chicago Tribune reporters in a new investigative piece as well as a just-published data analysis paper by University of Utah professors Paul Cassell and Richard Fowles.

In 2017, Cook County Chief Judge Timothy Evans implemented an order reforming how the Chicago area courts handled pretrial detention. The goal was to reduce the demands for cash bail, which tend to keep people trapped behind bars on the basis of poverty rather than risk. Cook County met its goal of detaining fewer defendants before their trials. The number of defendants who secured pretrial release between 2016 and 2018 jumped from 71.6 percent to 80.5 percent. When cash bail was ordered, the amount demanded was much lower than before. Cook County’s jail population dropped from 7,443 to less than 6,000.

Last May, Evans released a report that showed releasing more defendants from jail did not put the community at greater risk of crime. A high proportion of defendants (83 percent) charged with felonies and released under the new system returned to court as ordered and did not commit new crimes while released. In all, Evans’ report painted a positive picture that matched the narrative of those who support bail reform: That court systems in Cook County were accurately sorting defendants based on the risk they posed to public safety and their likelihood of showing up to trial, rather than simply leaving everyone in jail simply because they couldn’t afford to pay what the courts ordered.

But further examination of Evans’ data paints a less rosy picture. Last week, The Chicago Tribune reported that Evans’ report left out hundreds of violent crime charges filed after the bail reforms were implemented. The reporters say he did this by including certain violent crimes (murder, attempted murder, non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated battery) and excluding incidents like domestic violence, assault with a deadly weapon, battery, reckless homicide, and others. If Evans’ report had included all these other crimes, the Chicago Tribune calculates the number of violent crimes allegedly committed by released defendants would jump from 147 to 578. The largest chunk of these charges—231 of them—were for domestic battery.

Furthermore, Evans’ report stated that only three defendants who had been released under the new pretrial system had subsequently been charged with homicide. But the Tribune identified 21 defendants accused of murder who had been released during the 15 months of bail reform the report reviewed. Their exclusion from Evans’ report is supposedly a result of incomplete records and some odd reporting decisions like only counting the first new charge a defendant received after being released (two of the defendants were arrested for another charge, then released, and then allegedly killed people); or not counting them because their initial charges weren’t felonies (five murder defendants had been bonded out on misdemeanor charges).

In a separate review, Cassell and Fowles reanalyzed Evans’ data and found other problems.

For one thing, there’s a significant flaw in how Evans measured new crime charges prior to his bail reforms and afterward. When calculating the crime rate, Evans’ report evaluated the “before” defendants for an average of 243 days and the “after” defendants for an average of just 154 days. This is a significant methodological problem because reducing the time frame in the post-reform evaluation gives these defendants less time to commit new crimes. Cassell and Fowles argue that this difference of nearly 100 days may well mean that, in actuality, the post-reform crime rate among those released might be even higher. Cassell and Fowles’ report observes, “the second group will, other things being equal, undoubtedly commit fewer additional crimes simply because they have had less time to commit such crimes.”

The two attempt to estimate what the crime rate might actually be if the report monitored the post-change pool for the same time frame. It’s a challenging calculation, they note, because they couldn’t find any studies showing month-to-month re-arrest rates among those released pretrial. So they used some modifications in stats from the Bureau of Justice Statistics for recidivism rates among those who have been released from prison, combined with some pretrial recidivism rates from Cook County’s data. They conclude that in all likelihood, Cook County’s report undercounted new crimes committed by released defendants by about 1,200. When they correct for the time frame, Cassell and Fowles estimate that there was actually a 45 percent increase in the number of new crimes caused by defendants who had been released.

It’s important to make it clear that this is a mathematical model, and Cassell and Fowles aren’t specifically detailing a bunch of concrete new crimes that have been committed by these defendants. But part of the problem here is that the court has been reluctant to share the data Evans used with Chicago Tribune reporters, which required the newspaper to file a petition with the Illinois Supreme Court. Evans has since agreed to share his data with the newspaper.

Cassell and Fowles write that their goal is not to kill off bail reforms or scare courts away from implementing them. Rather, they are concerned about biases in self-analysis that “always lurks when an entity implementing reform later studies whether that reform is successful. In this case, it appears that many dangers stemming from the court’s expansion of pretrial release were not carefully assessed by the court’s own subsequent study.”

These kinds of independent assessments are extremely valuable in part because these reforms are still relatively new and they make a number of people very, very nervous. Part of that fear results from deliberate scaremongering by those who have a financial or political stake in protecting a harsh status quo, like bail bond companies and jail officials.

But as the Cassell and Fowles report notes, poorly managed pretrial reforms can backfire and cause additional harms. If you agree, for example, with the argument for reform—that it’s a violation of a person’s rights to keep them locked up before they’re convicted only because they cannot pay bail—you must also consider the risk they pose to the rights of other people if they are released before trial. In a city like Chicago, it is mostly poor people whose rights are violated by the bail requirement and mostly poor people whose rights are violated by the defendants who commit additional crimes before their trials.

If, on the other hand, you make a utilitarian argument that keeping people locked up because they’re too poor to pay bail but aren’t dangerous is much more expensive than letting them return home, Cassell and Fowles note that the cost-benefit analysis changes if the person commits new crimes before trial. While there are established financial harms to pretrial detention (lost jobs and housing) and established benefits to letting them out to continue to work and care for families, the economic impact of a homicide wipes out the financial benefits of letting more people out of jail.

At some point, the cost of new crimes committed by a percentage of defendants free before trial financially outweighs the savings of freeing people who aren’t dangerous. Data-driven bail reform is supposed to prevent a few bad defendants from spoiling it for everyone, yet Cassell and Fowles argue that it does not appear to be working as intended in Chicago: “Given equal weight to the benefits the pool of such defendants receive when compared to the costs inflicted on victims seems dubious.”

The report ends not trying to bash reforms but warning that court systems need to really explore the impact of pretrial release data and make sure they’re not perpetuating new harms: “To be sure, such pretrial release reforms can have significant benefits. But only if both benefits and costs are accurately measured can a sound decision be made about which way the scales tip and whether the ‘reform’ was truly an improvement.”

Cassell wrote about the report’s release over at The Volokh Conspiracy, hosted here at Reason.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2T5o0mQ
via IFTTT

Chicago Judge Says His Bail Reforms Were a Success. But Independent Reviews Show Flaws and More Crimes.

Chicago’s bail reforms may not have had the rosy outcomes indicated by a top county judge’s analysis, which independent researchers say is downplaying the new crimes that have resulted from allowing defendants to await trial outside of jail.

Those are the results of an analysis by a group of Chicago Tribune reporters in a new investigative piece as well as a just-published data analysis paper by University of Utah professors Paul Cassell and Richard Fowles.

In 2017, Cook County Chief Judge Timothy Evans implemented an order reforming how the Chicago area courts handled pretrial detention. The goal was to reduce the demands for cash bail, which tend to keep people trapped behind bars on the basis of poverty rather than risk. Cook County met its goal of detaining fewer defendants before their trials. The number of defendants who secured pretrial release between 2016 and 2018 jumped from 71.6 percent to 80.5 percent. When cash bail was ordered, the amount demanded was much lower than before. Cook County’s jail population dropped from 7,443 to less than 6,000.

Last May, Evans released a report that showed releasing more defendants from jail did not put the community at greater risk of crime. A high proportion of defendants (83 percent) charged with felonies and released under the new system returned to court as ordered and did not commit new crimes while released. In all, Evans’ report painted a positive picture that matched the narrative of those who support bail reform: That court systems in Cook County were accurately sorting defendants based on the risk they posed to public safety and their likelihood of showing up to trial, rather than simply leaving everyone in jail simply because they couldn’t afford to pay what the courts ordered.

But further examination of Evans’ data paints a less rosy picture. Last week, The Chicago Tribune reported that Evans’ report left out hundreds of violent crime charges filed after the bail reforms were implemented. The reporters say he did this by including certain violent crimes (murder, attempted murder, non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated battery) and excluding incidents like domestic violence, assault with a deadly weapon, battery, reckless homicide, and others. If Evans’ report had included all these other crimes, the Chicago Tribune calculates the number of violent crimes allegedly committed by released defendants would jump from 147 to 578. The largest chunk of these charges—231 of them—were for domestic battery.

Furthermore, Evans’ report stated that only three defendants who had been released under the new pretrial system had subsequently been charged with homicide. But the Tribune identified 21 defendants accused of murder who had been released during the 15 months of bail reform the report reviewed. Their exclusion from Evans’ report is supposedly a result of incomplete records and some odd reporting decisions like only counting the first new charge a defendant received after being released (two of the defendants were arrested for another charge, then released, and then allegedly killed people); or not counting them because their initial charges weren’t felonies (five murder defendants had been bonded out on misdemeanor charges).

In a separate review, Cassell and Fowles reanalyzed Evans’ data and found other problems.

For one thing, there’s a significant flaw in how Evans measured new crime charges prior to his bail reforms and afterward. When calculating the crime rate, Evans’ report evaluated the “before” defendants for an average of 243 days and the “after” defendants for an average of just 154 days. This is a significant methodological problem because reducing the time frame in the post-reform evaluation gives these defendants less time to commit new crimes. Cassell and Fowles argue that this difference of nearly 100 days may well mean that, in actuality, the post-reform crime rate among those released might be even higher. Cassell and Fowles’ report observes, “the second group will, other things being equal, undoubtedly commit fewer additional crimes simply because they have had less time to commit such crimes.”

The two attempt to estimate what the crime rate might actually be if the report monitored the post-change pool for the same time frame. It’s a challenging calculation, they note, because they couldn’t find any studies showing month-to-month re-arrest rates among those released pretrial. So they used some modifications in stats from the Bureau of Justice Statistics for recidivism rates among those who have been released from prison, combined with some pretrial recidivism rates from Cook County’s data. They conclude that in all likelihood, Cook County’s report undercounted new crimes committed by released defendants by about 1,200. When they correct for the time frame, Cassell and Fowles estimate that there was actually a 45 percent increase in the number of new crimes caused by defendants who had been released.

It’s important to make it clear that this is a mathematical model, and Cassell and Fowles aren’t specifically detailing a bunch of concrete new crimes that have been committed by these defendants. But part of the problem here is that the court has been reluctant to share the data Evans used with Chicago Tribune reporters, which required the newspaper to file a petition with the Illinois Supreme Court. Evans has since agreed to share his data with the newspaper.

Cassell and Fowles write that their goal is not to kill off bail reforms or scare courts away from implementing them. Rather, they are concerned about biases in self-analysis that “always lurks when an entity implementing reform later studies whether that reform is successful. In this case, it appears that many dangers stemming from the court’s expansion of pretrial release were not carefully assessed by the court’s own subsequent study.”

These kinds of independent assessments are extremely valuable in part because these reforms are still relatively new and they make a number of people very, very nervous. Part of that fear results from deliberate scaremongering by those who have a financial or political stake in protecting a harsh status quo, like bail bond companies and jail officials.

But as the Cassell and Fowles report notes, poorly managed pretrial reforms can backfire and cause additional harms. If you agree, for example, with the argument for reform—that it’s a violation of a person’s rights to keep them locked up before they’re convicted only because they cannot pay bail—you must also consider the risk they pose to the rights of other people if they are released before trial. In a city like Chicago, it is mostly poor people whose rights are violated by the bail requirement and mostly poor people whose rights are violated by the defendants who commit additional crimes before their trials.

If, on the other hand, you make a utilitarian argument that keeping people locked up because they’re too poor to pay bail but aren’t dangerous is much more expensive than letting them return home, Cassell and Fowles note that the cost-benefit analysis changes if the person commits new crimes before trial. While there are established financial harms to pretrial detention (lost jobs and housing) and established benefits to letting them out to continue to work and care for families, the economic impact of a homicide wipes out the financial benefits of letting more people out of jail.

At some point, the cost of new crimes committed by a percentage of defendants free before trial financially outweighs the savings of freeing people who aren’t dangerous. Data-driven bail reform is supposed to prevent a few bad defendants from spoiling it for everyone, yet Cassell and Fowles argue that it does not appear to be working as intended in Chicago: “Given equal weight to the benefits the pool of such defendants receive when compared to the costs inflicted on victims seems dubious.”

The report ends not trying to bash reforms but warning that court systems need to really explore the impact of pretrial release data and make sure they’re not perpetuating new harms: “To be sure, such pretrial release reforms can have significant benefits. But only if both benefits and costs are accurately measured can a sound decision be made about which way the scales tip and whether the ‘reform’ was truly an improvement.”

Cassell wrote about the report’s release over at The Volokh Conspiracy, hosted here at Reason.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2T5o0mQ
via IFTTT

Chinese Regime Deploys 1,600 Online Trolls To Suppress Information On Coronavirus

Chinese Regime Deploys 1,600 Online Trolls To Suppress Information On Coronavirus

Authored by Cathy He and Eva Fu via The Epoch Times,

The propaganda department in virus-stricken Hubei Province has engaged over 1,600 censors to scrub the internet of “sensitive” information relating to the coronavirus outbreak, according to an internal document obtained by The Epoch Times.

The internal report, dated Feb. 15, detailed the agency’s efforts to ramp up censorship measures. It was drafted after a speech given by Chinese leader Xi Jinping via video link on Feb. 10 to “frontline responders” of the coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan, the capital of Hubei, where the virus first broke out.

The revelations come as the Chinese regime tightens information controls over the worsening outbreak, as netizens have increasingly turned to the internet to vent their frustrations about the authorities’ response, or document what is happening on the ground.

The illness has seen a steadily growing official list of infections and deaths on a daily basis. Experts and commentators, however, believe the actual number of infections to be far greater, due to underreporting and shortages in testing kits and hospital beds—meaning many people are left undiagnosed.

1,600 Trolls Deployed

According to the document, the department has hired more than 1,600 trolls, known as the 50-cent army in China, to regulate internet speech continuously, 24/7.

The trolls, through technological and manual screening, had identified as many as 606,800 posts online with “sensitive or harmful information,” it said.

Their approach, it said, was to “timely dispel the online rumors” and “strike powerful blows offline.”

As of Feb. 14, the online censors had deleted as many as 54,000 such “rumors,” and had social media influencers write nearly 400 commentary articles to shape the narrative.

The regime’s propaganda efforts, the report said, should be directed toward promoting the effects of officials’ outbreak control measures and the “moving deeds” of volunteers, community workers, and the police.

Some professional “internet commentators” had also made 400,000 comments to “counter the negative public opinions,” according to the document.

Posts mourning whistleblower doctor Li Wenliang, who died of the virus he was warning about in December, quickly disappeared from the internet in the hours after the news of his passing was first announced. “I want free speech,” a phrase that became trending on Chinese social media following his death, was also swiftly erased.

Wuhan citizen journalists Fang Bin and Chen Qiushi also recently disappeared after posting regular videos online highlighting the severity of the outbreak.

As of Feb. 11, over 2,500 people had signed a joint online petition expressing anger over Li’s death and criticizing the government for suppressing free speech during the outbreak. Several co-signees were subsequently summoned by local police. At least one was detained.

The department has also set up 11 work groups for the purpose of “wartime propaganda” work. The groups were communicating daily with propaganda officials from the central government to “coordinate public opinion” in real time on issues “online and offline,” “inside the country and overseas,” it stated.

Ousting Local Reporters

According to the leaked report, at least 60 reporters from 33 overseas news agencies came to Wuhan after the coronavirus outbreak began earlier this year. However, at least 47 of them agreed to leave, through the department’s “communication and persuasion.”

As of the evening of Feb. 14, only five non-mainland outlets had reporters in Hubei.

Meanwhile, the propaganda department as of Feb. 4 has sent over 300 state-run media reporters to Hubei to promote positive media coverage.

To “lead overseas media to objectively report on the outbreak information,” the department has set up an international language section and have published 200 pieces on the outbreak from official channels in seven languages, the document said.

On Jan. 14, a group of reporters from at least four Hong Kong media were taken to a police station located within a hospital in Wuhan after trying to interview patients, according to local media.

The police searched their belongings and asked them to delete the videos taken around the hospital. They were only released after 1 1/2 hours of interrogation.

Censorship Overdrive

The Chinese regime has made the suppression of information about the virus a priority.

At a Feb. 3 meeting, the Chinese Communist Party’s Politburo Standing Committee, the top decision-making body, called for authorities to “strengthen internet and media control.”

This has filtered down to local authorities cracking down on people for “spreading rumors” on the internet about the outbreak.

Chinese state-run media have warned people not to “spread fake information” about the coronavirus, lest they be in violation of China’s Criminal Law.

A provision of that law states that anyone found fabricating and spreading false information on an epidemic, disaster, or police activity, can be sentenced to three to seven years in prison.

Washington-based nonprofit Chinese Human Rights Defenders documented 254 cases of arrests between Jan. 22 and Jan. 28, in which Chinese citizens were punished for “spreading rumors” relating to the virus. The forms of penalty included fines, verbal warnings, and forced confessions.

In a list of 167 cases of people punished for rumor-mongering published by U.S.-based website China Digital Times, the majority of the “offenses” were posts about confirmed or suspected cases in their city or neighborhood. Some included the number of deaths.

For instance, a man in Baoding City, Hebei Province, wrote on his blog: “I truly believe the authorities have not revealed the true number of infected patients. I heard that in a village about 20 kilometers [12.4 miles] from ours, the number of confirmed cases was six on Jan. 26. All were sent to the hospital for quarantine. But I have not seen any official reports that included these six cases.”

He received five days of administrative detention for this posting. Administrative detention refers to the arrest and detention of an individual without trial.


Tyler Durden

Thu, 02/20/2020 – 15:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3bTMN66 Tyler Durden

Billion Dollar Family Offices Now Get Direct Access To Investment Bank Trading Desks

Billion Dollar Family Offices Now Get Direct Access To Investment Bank Trading Desks

In what probably should come as a surprise, but most likely won’t, it appears that multi-billion family offices are getting access to trading desks that smaller offices and retail traders can’t access.

We know, you’re shocked.

Offices with at least $1 billion are increasingly bypassing private bankers and are allowed to go direct to investment bank trading desks, according to Bloomberg

Luigi Pigorini, Citi Private Bank’s region head for Europe, Middle East and Africa said: “Some of them are so sophisticated and have such buying power. We have them trading directly with some of our desks in the markets division. There’s not that many, but there’s quite a few and that number keeps growing.”

The number of family office style firms has surpassed 10,000 globally over the past 10 years, including the offices of names like Bill Gates and Michael Dell. Last year, the average family office had assets of $917 million, according to UBS. The offices with direct access to desks at banks like Citigroup generally trade equities, forex and futures. By having a direct line to the trading desk, they can get the undivided attention of traders and get access to some products not traditionally offered through the private bank. 

Family officies like Eric Schmidt’s Hillspire LLC have gone out of their way to hire staff with experience in institutional investing. Their CIO, Massimo Iacono, previously worked as a relationship manager for institutional clients in Turin, Italy. 

Goldman Sachs has employees specifically set aside to deal with family office needs. They focus on everything from lending to philanthropy – and Goldman is looking to hire more employees to act as these types of liaisons. 

Andre Portelli, co-head of investment for Barclay’s private bank said that Barclay’s “…gives wealthy clients access to private equity and debt deals handled by its investment bank.”

A top banker at UBS has warned that billionaires are bypassing financials institutions as they engage in private transactions, noting that almost 85% of all family offices make direct investments. 

Pigorini concluded: “We love to have clients that sit on the other side of the table and know exactly what we’re talking about. They have the knowledge and experience to understand the most sophisticated ideas that we can propose to them.”

As long as the fees keep rolling in, right Luigi? 


Tyler Durden

Thu, 02/20/2020 – 14:47

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3bQny4J Tyler Durden

The First Amendment Right To Encourage Illegal Immigration

Federal law makes it a felony for any person “for the purpose of commercial advantage or financial gain” to encourage or induce an undocumented alien to illegally enter or remain in the United States. On February 25, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case, United States v. Sineneng-Smith, which asks whether that sweeping prohibition should be struck down as an unconstitutional infringement on protected speech.

It should. Applied on its face, the federal prohibition against encouraging illegal immigration for financial gain criminalizes a wide range of lawful speech. For example, let’s say that a self-described advocate of open borders writes a book urging civil disobedience in the face of what that author sees as America’s unjust immigration regime. The book explicitly advises all undocumented immigrants to remain in the United States, to speak out, and to fight for their rights.

Would the sale of such a book encourage the unlawful presence of undocumented immigrants for financial gain? Clearly it would. But the First Amendment would just as clearly protect the author’s liberty to write and sell such a book without facing federal charges.

Here’s another example of how the law at issue criminalizes constitutionally protected speech. As the lawyers for Evelyn Sineneng-Smith point out in their brief to the Supreme Court, “the government admits telling a district court that it could use the encouragement provision to prosecute an immigration attorney for advising an undocumented client to stay in the country, and notably does not disavow that position in its brief.”

Needless to say, there are plenty of good reasons why an immigration attorney might offer such legal advice. Perhaps the undocumented client has a compelling case and the lawyer believes there’s a strong chance of persuading federal authorities to alter the client’s legal status. The law at issue, however, makes it illegal for the lawyer to speak and act professionally in such matters.

Sineneng-Smith, the operator of an immigration consulting firm in San Jose, California, was convicted in 2010 on multiple counts of violating the law. Her position is that the law is unconstitutional on its face, not merely that it is unconstitutional as applied to her.

As the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized, the Constitution frowns upon “overbroad laws that chill speech within the First Amendment’s vast and privileged sphere.” The overbroad law at the center of U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith fits that description.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2wqWXL5
via IFTTT

The First Amendment Right To Encourage Illegal Immigration

Federal law makes it a felony for any person “for the purpose of commercial advantage or financial gain” to encourage or induce an undocumented alien to illegally enter or remain in the United States. On February 25, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case, United States v. Sineneng-Smith, which asks whether that sweeping prohibition should be struck down as an unconstitutional infringement on protected speech.

It should. Applied on its face, the federal prohibition against encouraging illegal immigration for financial gain criminalizes a wide range of lawful speech. For example, let’s say that a self-described advocate of open borders writes a book urging civil disobedience in the face of what that author sees as America’s unjust immigration regime. The book explicitly advises all undocumented immigrants to remain in the United States, to speak out, and to fight for their rights.

Would the sale of such a book encourage the unlawful presence of undocumented immigrants for financial gain? Clearly it would. But the First Amendment would just as clearly protect the author’s liberty to write and sell such a book without facing federal charges.

Here’s another example of how the law at issue criminalizes constitutionally protected speech. As the lawyers for Evelyn Sineneng-Smith point out in their brief to the Supreme Court, “the government admits telling a district court that it could use the encouragement provision to prosecute an immigration attorney for advising an undocumented client to stay in the country, and notably does not disavow that position in its brief.”

Needless to say, there are plenty of good reasons why an immigration attorney might offer such legal advice. Perhaps the undocumented client has a compelling case and the lawyer believes there’s a strong chance of persuading federal authorities to alter the client’s legal status. The law at issue, however, makes it illegal for the lawyer to speak and act professionally in such matters.

Sineneng-Smith, the operator of an immigration consulting firm in San Jose, California, was convicted in 2010 on multiple counts of violating the law. Her position is that the law is unconstitutional on its face, not merely that it is unconstitutional as applied to her.

As the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized, the Constitution frowns upon “overbroad laws that chill speech within the First Amendment’s vast and privileged sphere.” The overbroad law at the center of U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith fits that description.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2wqWXL5
via IFTTT

Marijuana Vaping Madness Is Reaching ‘Reefer’ Proportions

Drug warriors in Arizona recently held a conference to fret about “the dangers of vaping marijuana.” And no, they’re not talking about the potentially toxic additives in black market vaping products; they emphasize the pursuit of a high itself. That’s a shame, because there are potential dangers in vaping improperly manufactured black market THC products—a message the conference glossed over.

“The stuff that’s being vaped, it’s a high concentration form of THC. It’s actually up to 98 percent THC,” warned Northern Arizona University (NAU) professor Cindy Scott, a former police officer who served as the public face of the cop-heavy anti-drug gathering at NAU’s Phoenix campus.

At least in their public statements, conference participants went on to link THC use to sinister dealers trying to hook customers, the dangers of going bonkers and, of course, nefarious pot advocates.

“It’s not about the high to the people selling it. It’s about addicting you to that drug,” insisted the Arizona Department of Public Safety’s Colonel Frank Milstead.

“The biggest one is psychosis,” Jason Hutchings, executive director of Awaken Recovery Center, claimed of the mental health dangers of vaping THC.  “Earlier in my career, you would never see anyone with THC that’s having mental issues as a result of THC. Paranoia. Delusions. In the last five years, we’ve seen quite a few of those.”

“It’s being marketed to kids and it’s being tied up in the whole campaign of the legalization of marijuana with all these great medicinal properties,” Scott told Arizona’s KTAR News.

If you’ve seen the 1936 movie Reefer Madness, you know that this script isn’t getting any fresher. And, as they did when that movie came out, prohibitionists now threaten to make things worse by keeping an industry in the shadows where the real dangers lie.

“Investigators have homed in on black-market cannabis or nicotine products, recently warning consumers to steer clear of them and to stop modifying these products at home,” MedPage Today reported last September, after areas around the country started seeing (sometimes fatal) lung illnesses related to vaping. In Kings County, California, “all eight of the respiratory cases reported in the recent cluster included patients who had purchased THC- or CBD-containing vaping cartridges from unlicensed ‘pop-up’ retailers.”

A Mayo Clinic study of 17 vapers with suspected vaping-associated lung problems suggested the damage stems from “some kind of direct chemical injury,” according to Brandon Larsen, a surgical pathologist at Mayo Clinic Arizona. “Based on what we have seen in our study, we suspect that most cases involve chemical contaminants, toxic byproducts or other noxious agents within vape liquids.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has fingered synthetic Vitamin E as one likely culprit. Vitamin E acetate is used by some underground manufacturers to control the viscosity of the product and to stretch the cannabis content.

“Vitamin E acetate is strongly linked” to “emergency department visits related to e-cigarette, or vaping, products,” says the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on its website, continuing:

National and state data from patient reports and product sample testing show tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)-containing e-cigarette, or vaping, products, particularly from informal sources like friends, family, or in-person or online dealers, are linked to most EVALI cases and play a major role in the outbreak.

Vitamin E acetate has been found in product samples tested by FDA and state laboratories and in patient lung fluid samples tested by CDC from geographically diverse states.

The agency recommends “that people not use THC-containing e-cigarette, or vaping, products, particularly from informal sources like friends, family, or in-person or online dealers.”

So, there is some vaping danger, but it’s driven by the continuing illegality of marijuana and its derivatives at the federal level and in many jurisdictions, which make legal, professionally manufactured THC vaping products hard to come by (a prohibition that results in 78 percent of THC vapers getting their products from “informal sources”—black market dealers—according to the CDC).

THC can pose dangers of its own, if you do the cannabis equivalent of chugging a bottle of vodka. Just as Prohibition led bootleggers to avoid beer in favor of easily stored and transported distilled liquor, and laws against cocaine brought us concentrated crack, black market vaping manufacturers have an incentive to pack as much punch as they can in their products. As with other substances, the highest concentrations aren’t always the best stuff.

“The best vape cartridges are usually not the most potent in terms of THC,” writes Lester Black, who covers marijuana news for Seattle’s The Stranger. “To achieve 90 percent potency processors often have to heavily process the concentrate, losing lots of the terpenes that give you an enjoyable high.”

More isn’t necessarily better in several ways. While low concentrations of THC mellow people out, high concentrations can lead to gastrointestinal problems and anxiety. And yes, psychosis can be an issue, though not so much in terms of the sudden psychotic break that the participants at the NAU conference suggested.

“Studies show that cannabis can raise the risk of early-onset of psychotic symptoms in those predisposed to the illness, especially with daily use of cannabis that is high in THC,” Nature noted last summer. Although, “it might be that people who have or are predisposed to psychotic mental illnesses are more likely to use cannabis.”

“I compare it to alcohol,” Earl Miller, a cognitive neuroscientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology told the publication. “Too much or the wrong situation can be bad, but in other situations it can be beneficial. I think we’re going to find the same thing with cannabis.”

So, just like alcohol or pretty much anything else, use THC in moderation. If you do vape the stuff, purchase vaping products made to professional standards of quality and safety. That’s sensible advice best followed in an environment of legality in which responsible people can openly manufacture, market, buy, and sell goods, and hold each other accountable.

But that’s not what you hear from the new generation of marijuana prohibitionists who seem determined to remake Reefer Madness with vaping products substituting for joints.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2SI2Ige
via IFTTT

COVID-19 To Hammer Japan And The Yen

COVID-19 To Hammer Japan And The Yen

Authored by Bruce Wilds via Advancing Time blog,

The coronavirus spreading across Asia and the world is very likely to hammer Japan and the yen. Some people consider the Japanese yen a “safe-haven” currency where they can safely store their wealth in times of financial turmoil. This flies in the face of reason because Japan is destined to eventually face an economic crisis brought on by the growing debt of its government. Central banks have promoted the myth that a major currency cannot fail, however, the rapid demise of either the yen or the euro is all that will be needed to reveal the truth and remind people our system of fiat money is held together only by faith in the system and a prayer.

An accurate timetable for the collapse of the yen is nearly impossible to predict. Several factors play into such a scenario and how fast it might unfold. In recent years as Japan has undertaken a policy to weaken its currency and to strengthen its exports America has remained mute in sympathy for the problems Japan is facing. The reality is that much like the situation that developed in Greece, Japan is facing a wall of debt that it will never be able to repay. The difference is that Japan controls the press that prints its money.

BOJ Leads In This Experiment

Near the end of last year, Daniel Lacalle wrote the failure of Abenomics has been phenomenal. Lacalle points to the balance sheet of Japan’s central bank which has ballooned to more than 100% of the country’s GDP. The central bank now owns almost 70% of the country’s ETFs and is one of the top 10 shareholders in the majority of the largest companies of the Nikkei index. Despite the record-low cost of debt, Japan’s government spends almost 22% of its budget on interest expenses. This has occurred while none of the results that were expected from the massive monetary experiment, inventively called QQE (quantitative and qualitative easing) have materialized.

Abenomics has consistently missed both its inflation and economic growth targets. Japan has been unable to offset the problem of demographics and productivity with higher debt and money printing. Japan has incentivized malinvestment and government spending has resulted in transferring wealth to unproductive sectors which has zombified the economy. The QQE program was based on three “arrows”; monetary policy, government spending, and structural reforms which never happened because protecting the bureaucratic machine of government always takes priority over what is best for the people.

Shifts From Bigger Players Move Yen

In the future, Japan’s debt can only be addressed by printing more money and debasing the yen. This means Japan would be paying off its debt with worthless yen when possible and in many cases defaulting on promises made. Japan’s public debt, which stands at around 250% of its GDP is the highest in the industrialized world (click here to view debt clock). Because of its size, people tend to forget that the island nation of Japan is an economic powerhouse with a GDP that ranks third behind only the United States and China. Japan is an export-driven economy meaning it sucks in raw materials from all over the world, adds value to them, and then spews out finished goods. This leaves the country and its economy dependent on and vulnerable to the countries buying its products. A weak yen makes these goods more competitive on the world market and propels the economy forward.

The yen is part of a somewhat self-defending system of reserve currencies which are considered the most liquid and sound in the global economy. The value between them constantly fluctuates and as one currency falls out of favor investors shift into the other three seeking the least bad choice. As long as savers, investors, and institutions keep their wealth stored within these four currencies and continue the delicate balancing act of avoiding the worse and exiting the most overvalued the system remains relatively stable and will continually readjust partly because it is so self-contained. Each of these currencies has its particular strengths and weaknesses, however, the most vulnerable of the two are probably the Japanese yen and the Euro which is the official currency of the Eurozone, which consists of 19 of the 28 member states of the European Union. A key weakness of the euro is the questionable accountability of its controlling institution. 

Weak Growth And Huge Debt

Over recent decades because of its size in the global economy the current Bank of Japan policy has quietly and systematically distorted financial markets across the planet. With super-low interest rates, it has become a key player in the carry trade. In recent years investors and the mega-banks across the world have drastically reduced their Japan Government Bond (JGB) holdings. This has quietly transferred the risk of who gets hurt in the case of a falling yen or a default directly to the Japanese public. As Japan continues down this path it is only a matter of time before the credibility of the BOJ is lost and the yen plunges in value. Many economists have taken a dim view as to the yen’s future, however, when it will succumb to economic reality has been delayed because it is so well insulated and intertwined in world markets.

Demographics paint a bleak picture for Japan which is stuck with an aging and shrinking population that is increasingly expensive for the government to provide for. Adding to its woes the Fukushima nuclear disaster shuttered its nuclear power plants and forced the country to import more expensive energy alternatives. All in all neither monetary nor fiscal policy will adequately solve Japan’s problems. Continuing to run fiscal deficits only means that government debt is pushed onward and upward. Simply put, the fundamentals of Japan are lousy. It should be noted that Japan would be sitting in far worse shape if it were not for the wealth currently shifted from America to the small island nation each year. America spends billions each year defending Japan and puts much of this money directly into the economy. Another way America supports Japan is by purchasing many of the goods the country produces. The massive trade deficit America has with Japan feeds large amounts of money into Japan, without this money the massively indebted nation would be in even more trouble.

For years it has been noted that a key strength that Japan holds is its ability to control its own economic fate and that it cannot be held hostage to foreigners because the people and institutions of Japan hold its debt. In the past, we have seen that outside creditors can wield a great deal of sway over a nation that is deeply in debt. It is not uncommon for creditors to squeeze, threaten, and even blackmail a country that owes them a great deal of money. A country can always drive its currency downward, however, supporting it is much more difficult. To drive a currency lower a country only needs to print and sell their currency using it to buy one or more of the other three reserve currencies. It should be noted that in recent years a great deal of the yen’s resilience may be contributed to the fact Japan has strong economic ties to China. This bolstered the yen during China’s boom years and as growth in China slowed the yen became a conduit to move wealth out of China.

Unlike many other leading economies, Japan has been battling deflation or falling prices for the best part of the past two decades. At some point expect this to change and a new reality to take hold. To support their stock market the BOJ has even gone to buying stock. When investors in Japan’s government bonds begin to believe that Abenomics will be successful in bringing back inflation it would be logical for owners of  JGB’s to move out of low yielding securities and buy foreign bonds or equities. The moment the Japanese stock market fails to rise enough to offset a falling yen and inflation we may see a tsunami of money fleeing Japan. This would constitute the end of the line for those left holding both JGB’s and the yen.

This has been a long time coming and when this finally occurs and Japan crumbles it will be felt across the world.


Tyler Durden

Thu, 02/20/2020 – 14:36

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/38JkrcE Tyler Durden

Assange Seeks Asylum In France As Extradition Trial Approaches

Assange Seeks Asylum In France As Extradition Trial Approaches

Julian Assange will seek asylum in France, according to the Associated Press. Lawyers for the WikiLeaks founder are currently preparing for his lates hearing, where he faces extradition to the United States on 17 criminal charges for unlawfully publishing the names of classified sources, as well as conspiring with former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to obtain access to classified information.

Manning’s 35-year sentence was commuted by President Obama after spending nearly seven years in prison. Assange, meanwhile, spent nearly seven years on Ecuador’s London embassy before he was ejected and arrested by British police for jumping bail in an unrelated case.

Speaking from Paris, Assange’s defense team said that the case against him is unfair, and violates his human rights while his health is suffering.

“We consider the situation is sufficiently serious that our duty is to talk about it” with French President Emmanuel Macron, said French lawyer Eric Dupont-Moretti.

Assange’s Spanish coordinator, Baltasar Garzon, confirmed that the legal team will argue that former Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) acted as a middle man for the Trump administration to offer Assange a pardon if he showed proof that Russia was not involved in the 2016 hack of the Democratic National Committee’s email. White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham denied on Wednesday.

“The President barely knows Dana Rohrabacher other than he’s an ex-congressman,” said Grisham. “He’s never spoken to him on this subject or almost any subject. It is a complete fabrication and a total lie.”


Tyler Durden

Thu, 02/20/2020 – 14:16

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2V4uogZ Tyler Durden

Marijuana Vaping Madness Is Reaching ‘Reefer’ Proportions

Drug warriors in Arizona recently held a conference to fret about “the dangers of vaping marijuana.” And no, they’re not talking about the potentially toxic additives in black market vaping products; they emphasize the pursuit of a high itself. That’s a shame, because there are potential dangers in vaping improperly manufactured black market THC products—a message the conference glossed over.

“The stuff that’s being vaped, it’s a high concentration form of THC. It’s actually up to 98 percent THC,” warned Northern Arizona University (NAU) professor Cindy Scott, a former police officer who served as the public face of the cop-heavy anti-drug gathering at NAU’s Phoenix campus.

At least in their public statements, conference participants went on to link THC use to sinister dealers trying to hook customers, the dangers of going bonkers and, of course, nefarious pot advocates.

“It’s not about the high to the people selling it. It’s about addicting you to that drug,” insisted the Arizona Department of Public Safety’s Colonel Frank Milstead.

“The biggest one is psychosis,” Jason Hutchings, executive director of Awaken Recovery Center, claimed of the mental health dangers of vaping THC.  “Earlier in my career, you would never see anyone with THC that’s having mental issues as a result of THC. Paranoia. Delusions. In the last five years, we’ve seen quite a few of those.”

“It’s being marketed to kids and it’s being tied up in the whole campaign of the legalization of marijuana with all these great medicinal properties,” Scott told Arizona’s KTAR News.

If you’ve seen the 1936 movie Reefer Madness, you know that this script isn’t getting any fresher. And, as they did when that movie came out, prohibitionists now threaten to make things worse by keeping an industry in the shadows where the real dangers lie.

“Investigators have homed in on black-market cannabis or nicotine products, recently warning consumers to steer clear of them and to stop modifying these products at home,” MedPage Today reported last September, after areas around the country started seeing (sometimes fatal) lung illnesses related to vaping. In Kings County, California, “all eight of the respiratory cases reported in the recent cluster included patients who had purchased THC- or CBD-containing vaping cartridges from unlicensed ‘pop-up’ retailers.”

A Mayo Clinic study of 17 vapers with suspected vaping-associated lung problems suggested the damage stems from “some kind of direct chemical injury,” according to Brandon Larsen, a surgical pathologist at Mayo Clinic Arizona. “Based on what we have seen in our study, we suspect that most cases involve chemical contaminants, toxic byproducts or other noxious agents within vape liquids.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has fingered synthetic Vitamin E as one likely culprit. Vitamin E acetate is used by some underground manufacturers to control the viscosity of the product and to stretch the cannabis content.

“Vitamin E acetate is strongly linked” to “emergency department visits related to e-cigarette, or vaping, products,” says the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on its website, continuing:

National and state data from patient reports and product sample testing show tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)-containing e-cigarette, or vaping, products, particularly from informal sources like friends, family, or in-person or online dealers, are linked to most EVALI cases and play a major role in the outbreak.

Vitamin E acetate has been found in product samples tested by FDA and state laboratories and in patient lung fluid samples tested by CDC from geographically diverse states.

The agency recommends “that people not use THC-containing e-cigarette, or vaping, products, particularly from informal sources like friends, family, or in-person or online dealers.”

So, there is some vaping danger, but it’s driven by the continuing illegality of marijuana and its derivatives at the federal level and in many jurisdictions, which make legal, professionally manufactured THC vaping products hard to come by (a prohibition that results in 78 percent of THC vapers getting their products from “informal sources”—black market dealers—according to the CDC).

THC can pose dangers of its own, if you do the cannabis equivalent of chugging a bottle of vodka. Just as Prohibition led bootleggers to avoid beer in favor of easily stored and transported distilled liquor, and laws against cocaine brought us concentrated crack, black market vaping manufacturers have an incentive to pack as much punch as they can in their products. As with other substances, the highest concentrations aren’t always the best stuff.

“The best vape cartridges are usually not the most potent in terms of THC,” writes Lester Black, who covers marijuana news for Seattle’s The Stranger. “To achieve 90 percent potency processors often have to heavily process the concentrate, losing lots of the terpenes that give you an enjoyable high.”

More isn’t necessarily better in several ways. While low concentrations of THC mellow people out, high concentrations can lead to gastrointestinal problems and anxiety. And yes, psychosis can be an issue, though not so much in terms of the sudden psychotic break that the participants at the NAU conference suggested.

“Studies show that cannabis can raise the risk of early-onset of psychotic symptoms in those predisposed to the illness, especially with daily use of cannabis that is high in THC,” Nature noted last summer. Although, “it might be that people who have or are predisposed to psychotic mental illnesses are more likely to use cannabis.”

“I compare it to alcohol,” Earl Miller, a cognitive neuroscientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology told the publication. “Too much or the wrong situation can be bad, but in other situations it can be beneficial. I think we’re going to find the same thing with cannabis.”

So, just like alcohol or pretty much anything else, use THC in moderation. If you do vape the stuff, purchase vaping products made to professional standards of quality and safety. That’s sensible advice best followed in an environment of legality in which responsible people can openly manufacture, market, buy, and sell goods, and hold each other accountable.

But that’s not what you hear from the new generation of marijuana prohibitionists who seem determined to remake Reefer Madness with vaping products substituting for joints.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2SI2Ige
via IFTTT