Fear of Mexicans, Not Blacks, Led Kansas to Ban Marijuana

Steven Alford, a Republican who represents Ulysses in the Kansas House of Representatives, recently opined that his state banned marijuana because blacks “responded the worst” to it, due to “their character makeup” and “their genetics.” He was wrong, of course. The contemporaneous evidence suggests it was mainly Mexicans, along with white teenagers, who were on the minds of Alford’s predecessors when they voted to ban marijuana in 1927 (not “in the ’30s,” as Alford claimed).

Coverage of marijuana in Kansas newspapers and in The Kansas City Star, across the border in Missouri, from the turn of the 20th century through 1930 tied the plant, over and over again, to frequently violent and usually permanent insanity in Mexicans. A widely carried 1904 story, attributed to the Mexican Herald, involved Manuel Guerrero and Florencio Pino, who after smoking cigarettes containing marijuana “ran amuck” in the street, “shouting, vociferating, and attacking everybody.” The two men were “captured and sent to the hospital, where they had to be put in straitjackets.” It was feared they would “lose their minds permanently, as is the case often with marihuana smokers.”

A 1920 article in the Star described “a Mexican in Vera Cruz” who “attacked and killed a policeman and wounded three others” after smoking marijuana. “Such occurrences are frequent,” the paper reported, averring that “people who become addicted to smoking marihuana finally lose their minds and never recover.” According to the Star, marijuana’s impact on “moral self-control” was especially dramatic in poor Mexicans. “With the Mexican peon,” the paper reported in 1924, “the outcome is likely to be murder in its bloodiest form, or in any event some unnatural or revolting crime.”

These outrages were not confined to Mexico. As Donald Trump might have said if he had been alive at the time, Mexicans were “bringing drugs” and “bringing crime” across the border. “The Mexican is the commonest user of marihuana in the United States,” the Star reported in 1919. “While under its influence, he has the hallucination of being a man unseen and becomes dangerous, for he feels he is clothed with such invisibility he can commit any act with the assurance he cannot be seen. He becomes fearless and exceedingly hard to handle.”

Blacks did figure prominently in subsequent anti-pot propaganda. But the only mention of blacks in connection with marijuana that I found in these papers during this period appeared in a 1924 Star report about California’s “mounting problem” with marijuana, “mainly among Mexicans and negroes.” Closer to home, the main worry was that Mexicans would pass their mind-destroying habit on to innocent white adolescents.

The Kansas ban on marijuana was largely the product of agitation by one C.H. Almond, a special agent with the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railway who, according to a 1926 report in The Hutchinson News, knew from his experiences with railroad employees that “nine out of ten Mexicans who go crazy are victims of marihuana smoking.” To his alarm, Almond said, he discovered that Mexicans were selling marijuana to Kansas high school students but could not be charged with a crime because state legislators had neglected to ban the plant. “Continued use of marihuana will cause violent insanity,” Almond warned in 1926, urging a group of police officers in Topeka to support a state ban.

After Kansas banned marijuana, Almond successfully lobbied for a similar law in Missouri, also in the name of child protection. As the Star explained in 1930, the wicked weed appealed to “girls and boys of high school age in search of a ‘kick’ in the accelerated pace of their modern good times.” The Star reported that Wyandotte County, Kansas, Sheriff Harry Powers had recently “raided a ‘whoopee’ party in a deserted house,” finding “high school age boys and girls glassy-eyed and befuddled from smoking marihuana cigarettes.”

Steven Alford, in short, was wrong even about the bigoted origins of his own state’s ban on marijuana. It was Mexicans, not blacks, whose cannabis consumption scared Kansas legislators. They had heard that Mexicans were prone to commit violent crimes under the influence of what the Star called “the most harmful of narcotic drugs,” a plant that produced “a species of insanity which frequently ends in horrible death.” They worried that Mexicans were leading astray “the flaming youth of the country who do not realize the dangers involved in the drug,” as Almond put it.

Asked to explain his remarks (which Brian Doherty noted here on Monday), Alford told The Garden City Telegram, “There are certain groups of people, their genetics, the way their makeup is, the chemicals will affect them differently. That’s what I should have said was, drugs affect people differently, instead of being more specific.” He added, “It’s just the history of how come we are with the drug laws that we do have today, and how come the United States was so prevalent in outlawing drugs. I think we’ve got to look back to see what has happened in the past to look forward.”

While you or I might look back at the racist roots of marijuana prohibition and shake our heads at how readily people can be led astray by fear and hatred of outsiders, Alford looks back and sees sound arguments in favor of continuing that policy. On Monday, when Alford finally seemed to understand that his perspective is not universally shared, he clarified that he was worried about marijuana’s “damaging effects on the African American community,” adding, “I regret my comments, and I sincerely apologize to anyone whom I have hurt.”

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2qQWoXF
via IFTTT

Buffett: “I Would Buy A Five-Year Put On Every Cryptocurrency”

Warren Buffett doubled down on his criticism of bitcoin Wednesday during an interview with CNBC, where he said he’s almost certain the cryptocurrency craze “will end badly” and that the current runup in value will be fleeting.

But paradoxically, he also admitted that he “doesn’t know anything” about digital currencies after saying he would eagerly buy five-year puts on “every one of the cryptocurrencies.”

“In terms of cryptocurrencies, generally, I can say with almost certainty that they will come to a bad ending,” said Buffett, the chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway.

“When it happens or how or anything else I don’t know,” he added in an interview on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” from Omaha, Nebraska.

“But I know this: If I could buy a five year put on every one of the cryptocurrencies, I’d be glad to do it but I would never short a dime’s worth.”

While explaining why he wouldn’t take a short position, he said he “gets into enough trouble with things I know something about…”

“I get into enough trouble with things I think I know something about,” Buffett said. “Why in the world should I take a long or short position in something I don’t know anything about.”

His comments notably come a day after JP Morgan Chase & Co. CEO Jamie Dimon said he “regrets calling bitcoin a fraud.” Dimon last fall famously compared bitcoin to the Dutch tulip mania and threatened to fire any JPM trader caught buying or trading digital currencies.

Buffett added that his remarks are purely hypothetical. “We’ll never own a position in them,” he said.

Still, Buffett admitting that he’d be a seller even though he “doesn’t know anything about” bitcoin – he even claimed he wouldn’t be able to explain bitcoin to a classroom of young students – should signal that readers should take his comments with a grain of salt.

After all, by his own admission, Buffett doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

via RSS http://ift.tt/2Fo9eAe Tyler Durden

Kodak Is Now Up Over 300% Since Launching KodakCoin

Greater-est fools discovered…

Following yesterday’s launch of “KodakCoin” and Eastman Kodak’s explosion higher, ‘investors’ continue to pile their hard-earned gambling chips into the stock this morning.

KODK is now up over 300% since the company unleashed “a photocentric cryptocurrency to empower photographers and agencies to take greater control in image rights management.”

http://ift.tt/2Fp1duO

Who’s buying? That’s easy… (as Bloomberg notes)

The answer just might surprise you. Turns out, some experienced day-traders are trying to ride the surge of buying that invariably follows companies that suddenly reinvent themselves as blockchain ventures. That’s enough, market watchers say, to bring in high-frequency traders and computer algos.

And to these players, what really matters isn’t so much that crypto is real, but that the share-price moves — and the quick profits — are.

“The interest in these stocks is so strong because many traders like me are so hungry for the increased volatility,” said Jim DePorre, a professional day trader and founder of sharkinvesting.com. “I know that there are still traders willing to jump in, so who cares if the stock has questionable value?”

The spikes in volume have probably also attracted various algorithmic buyers that weren’t necessarily looking for the next crypto-related trade, according to Tucker Balch, co-founder of Lucena Research.

“My hypothesis is that momentum is initiated by retail traders or pump and dump and then algos are hopping on the bandwagon.

That may leave investors vulnerable to bad actors trying to game the system and the market feeling a little like the Wild West, according to Michael Covel, author of “Trend Following” and “The Complete Turtle Trader.” But it’s a small price to pay if cryptos ultimately prove to be legit.

“Con artists will always try to ride the new new thing,” he said. “But if cryptos are for real, and keep growing into dynamic liquid markets, honest players, including momentum, will jump in to ride trends up and down.”

In the mean time, traders like DePorre couldn’t care less what kind of money is in on the blockchain name-change game — dumb money, fast money or otherwise — as long as there’s enough money willing to bet on it.

“As long as there is confidence that other traders are still willing to trade them,” he said, “there is no reason to stay away.”

via RSS http://ift.tt/2D0k2Xu Tyler Durden

Judge Saves DACA For Now, Ex-Breitbart Staffer Sues Twitter, Larry Flynt Fights for Execution Secrets: A.M. Links

  • A federal judge is temporarily blocking the Trump administration’s attempt to end the popular Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) immigration program, writing that the Department of Homeland Security’s “decision to rescind DACA was based on a flawed legal premise.”
  • Former Breitbart News reporter and notorious alt-right clown Chuck Johnson is suing Twitter, saying the private company violated his First Amendment rights by deleting his account in 2015.
  • Larry Flynt’s fight to reveal how Missouri handles executions continues, with the ACLU of Missouri arguing on Flynt’s behalf in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday.
  • In Kentucky, the ACLU is challenging public-school “Bible literacy” courses that are basically Baptist Sunday School.
  • Brazil is the latest country to consider censoring the internet in the name of stopping “fake news.”

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter, and don’t forget to sign up for Reason’s daily updates for more content.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2Erd2zm
via IFTTT

White House “Outraged” After Judge Blocks Trump’s DACA Decision

Update: White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders has responded:

We find this decision to be outrageous, especially in light of the President’s successful bipartisan meeting with House and Senate members at the White House on the same day,”

“An issue of this magnitude must go through the normal legislative process

“President Trump is committed to the rule of law, and will work with members of both parties to reach a permanent solution that corrects the unconstitutional actions taken by the last administration”

*  *  *

A federal judge has once again foiled President Donald Trump’s efforts to limit both legal and illegal immigration: Late Tuesday night, a US judge in San Francisco issued a temporary injunction against the president’s decision to end a program shielding young people brought to the US illegally by their parents from deportation.

The Trump administration announced in September it would rescind Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, a decision that was challenged in multiple federal courts by a variety of Democratic state attorneys general, organizations and individuals, as Reuters reported.

This time, the administration’s antagonist is US District Judge William Alsup, who ruled the program must remain in place while the litigation is resolved. The ruling could complicate negotiations between Trump and congressional leaders over immigration reform.

The White House responded Thursday morning, saying the ruling was “outrageous.”

“We find this decision to be outrageous, especially in light of the President’s successful bipartisan meeting with House and Senate members at the White House on the same day. An issue of this magnitude must go through the normal legislative process.”

 

DACA

Per the Washington Post, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the decision to terminate the program on Sept. 5 and said no renewal applications would be accepted after Oct. 5. Under the administration’s plan, permits that expired after March 5 cannot be renewed.

According to WaPo, nearly 690,000 people who were brought to the US as children will continue to be covered by DACA as long as they were previously registered before Sessions made his September announcement.

A spokesman for the Department of Justice said the ruling “doesn’t change…its position”.

“Today’s order doesn’t change the Department of Justice’s position on the facts,” said the department’s spokesman Devin M. O’Malley. The department “will continue to vigorously defend this position,” he said.

However, so-called Dreamers who haven’t already registered for protected status no longer can: Alsup ruled that the federal government did not need to process new applications from people who had never before received protection under the program. However, the judge ordered the government to continue processing renewal applications from people who had previously been covered.

“DACA gave them a more tolerable set of choices, including joining the mainstream workforce,” Alsup wrote. “Now, absent an injunction, they will slide back to the pre-DACA era and associated hardship.”

And as the Wall Street Journal  reminds us, a different federal judge in San Francisco in November issued a permanent, nationwide injection barring the administration from withholding some federal grant money from so-called sanctuary cites, which don’t cooperate with immigration authorities.

Democrats are pushing to enshrine DACA protections into law as part of an immigration deal with the White House. This ruling presumably gives them more time to reach such a deal.

 

via RSS http://ift.tt/2mmLTH2 Tyler Durden

Deflation’s Back? Core Import Prices Tumble In December

While the world worries about inflation, US import prices (ex petroleum) printed a shocking 0.2% decline MoM in December (a big drop from recent monthly gains and big miss to expectations).

This is the biggest monthly decline since June 2016…

 

http://ift.tt/2mmFcVn

Year over year, import price gains rolled over…

 

http://ift.tt/2qOmcUm

 

Headline import prices also missed expectations, rising just 0.1% MoM in December (the weakest gain since July).

 

China’s deflation export was stable…

 

http://ift.tt/2moFJ9h

via RSS http://ift.tt/2moFKdl Tyler Durden

Tobacco Sales Regs Punish Poor People: New at Reason

The nanny state doesn’t stop.

John Stossel writes:

Store owner Kamal Saleh was just hit with thousands of dollars in fines.

His crime? He sold three cigars for $8.89. “Too cheap!” say New York City bureaucrats. “The cigars should have cost 11 cents more.”

Politicians want you to spend more for tobacco.

They decided this after anti-smoking crusader Dr. Kurt Ribisl told the Centers for Disease Control, “Higher prices will deter children from smoking.”

A pit of socialist micromanagers called the New York City Council quickly embraced the idea. “It’s also being considered very seriously in a number of jurisdictions in California,” Ribisl told me.

When health totalitarians make suggestions, leftist politicians jump.

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2mour4U
via IFTTT

Bill Blain: “This Is The Moment We’ve Been Waiting For!”

Submitted by Bill Blain of Mint Partners

US Bonds hit 2.59% – this is the moment we’ve been waiting for! Normalisation and what it means for markets! In Bonds Lies The Truth!

   –  “Wisdom is one of the few things that looks bigger the further away it is..….”

US 10 year Treasury hits 2.59%.

In Bond Markets lies the truth. Leaving aside the false-start blips early last year and in 13/14, the current rise in rates looks the clearest chart signal rates are normalising since before the crisis. Is the Bear Break above 2.50% in US rates the signal we’ve been waiting for?

 

asd

Big names on the tapes are sagely confirming it’s the beginning of the bond bear market! The End of Days!

Predictions say the 10-year bond will hit anywhere between 3-3.5% in the next 12 months. Some folk say the Japanese are to blame, while others are panicking about a bond debacle leading to a slew of defaults as sovereigns struggle to launch their front-loaded 2018 funding plans. (Some $65 bln of new government funding due this week!). Others are looking for the hi-yield bond markets to melt-down. There are some saying buy Financials as higher rates are great for their margins, while doomsters say dump tech stocks.

What does it all really mean?

Ladies and Gentlemen – welcome to the new world.

We are back in a bond environment where the realities of economic activity come back to the fore: inflation, the economy, job’s and wage growth, economic activity, demand and supply blockages and bottlenecks, infrastructure, labour relations and all the other economic forces that move markets. These will increasingly take precedence over the Central Bank and regulatory siege mentality and extraordinary monetary policy, QE and its devilish derivatives that have distorted markets these last 10-years.

And it’s global. We’ve been moving to this point for a while – since the Fed kicked off with hikes in 2015. The short-end of the US market is normal. It’s been global demand for US bonds (driven by BoJ and ECB rate policy) that held down US long rates and flattened the curve. That is now normalising as the rest of the global economy lines up behind the US and starts to grow – Global Aligned Macro Policy! Yep, I even agree on the “global synchronised growth” tag every other strategist is now so blithely throwing around..

In terms of returns, this is going to favour risk assets. AS LONG AS WE DON’T GET A DESTABILISING BOND SHOCK! Growth forecasts are rising – justifying stock market valuations. We’ve even got apparent strength in commodities – witness oil’s gains and news flow. (And oil is worthy of a whole screed of articles to figure out where it’s going.)

I asked my macro economist Martin Malone to put this fundamental shift-point into context: over the past 10-years of “crisis recovery phase” we’ve seen global central bank balance sheet growth, economic growth, plus financial assets (bonds and stocks) put some $100 trillion on the global balance sheet. Stocks are over half that gain – a fact we should not lose sight of. For all my complaints about central bank distortions, global QE is far lesser around 14%.

Martin concludes the unwind of central bank intervention can be more than balanced by continued double digit gains from stocks as normalised economic activity picks up, fuelled by the ongoing ultra-low rate and easy global financial conditions?

So if we’re now in the new economic phase, is this the boom time? Martin thinks so! He’s was bullish all last year, and called the rise in global stocks on the nail. Now he’s saying:  “Max short nominal bond, max long inflation linkers, long credit risk and max long stocks” as his base calls, predicting “ significant returns as low volatility allows maximum leverage across investments.”   

What are the risks within this bright new world? Of course, it never goes quite as smoothly as we’d like. There are clear risks that could derail the process. Confidence is a fickle friend. There are political risks just about everywhere. It will take you about 30 seconds to search the internet to find analysis on the likely effects of Theresa May’s government falling (rise in sterling on hopes for a second referendum (really?), or Trump not making the end of his term, or Italian Elections, too early a shift in ECB policies killing a very porcelain-like European recovery. Or an Oil Shock. Or a Climate Shock. Yep. If you want to stay awake all night, then there is plenty not to sleep about.

But, perhaps the news risks are very different. The pace of change of disruptive technical society change is faster than ever before. We’d never heard of UBER just a few years ago. What new approaches are going to change markets? How disruptive and entrophic will blockchain and evolved cryptocurrencies prove? And what about society – how long before the masses rise up to income inequality, or we see a return to the labour strife that characterised my childhood?  

Meanwhile, back on planet Here-and-now; I read a fascinating article in the Pink-un about the current German economic miracle – apparently, most of Europe expects it to go for ever and a day. There are only a few doubters. Pretty much the same debate within the ECB as the pressure mounts for ending extraordinary policy as Europe normalises.

The article reminded me of the Minsky Rule: “Prolonged periods of stability lure investors and bankers into ever riskier behaviour that ultimately triggers a collapse”.

Hyman Minsky spent his career unravelling the whys and wherefores of financial crises – concluding speculative investment bubbles are part of the normal life cycle of fragile market economies. I might be deeply flawed bond trader, but understand enough to realise markets drive the often irrational behaviour of participants. It’s that uncertainty, driven by “Headology” of market inter-reactions, that makes economics the dismal and unpredictable science it is.

(For more on Headology I suggest you put down your economic text books and consult Terry Pratchett – its much more interesting. For example, his theory of “Socioeconomics Unfairness”: The reason the rich are rich is because they spend less money: a rich man buys a pair of good boots that cost £50 and last 10-years while a poor man will spend a £100 on cheap boots over the same period, and still have wet feet.)
Out of time and back to the day job… Watch the Bond Markets….

 

via RSS http://ift.tt/2FpfTdd Tyler Durden

Trump Attorney Sues Fusion GPS, BuzzFeed For Dossier Defamation

A fourth individual has filed a lawsuit against opposition research firm Fusion GPS and Buzzfeed over the infamous unverified “Trump-Russia” dossier, Bloomberg reported Tuesday.

asd

Michael Cohen (Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

Donald’ Trump’s personal attorney, Michael Cohen, filed suit against the two companies involved in the creation and distribution of the salacious 34-page dossier, which has been a key focus of Congressional inquiries into the FBI conduct during the 2016 election – and in particular, whether it was used to launch a counterintelligence investigation against Mr. Trump. 

The dossier contains unverified claims that Cohen and Trump had suspicious connections with Russian figures. Most other U.S. news organizations declined to publish the document because many of its claims — some of them salacious — havent been substantiated.

It will be proven that I had no involvement in this Russian collusion conspiracy, Cohen said in an interview on Tuesday. My name was included only because of my proximity to the president. –Bloomberg

Cohen is mentioned in the dossier 15 times, though he told Bloomberg that he and the President “don’t talk about” the Russia investigations, adding “Why waste time talking about something that’s not legitimate.” 

During testimony in front of Congressional investigators, the Trump attorney said that he has never engaged with, received money from, or communicated with anyone representing the Russian government, or anyone else about hacking or interfering with the US election, creating fake news stories to assist the Trump campaign, or hacking the Democratic party. 

Cohen’s suit specifically names Fusion GPS and its co-founder Glenn Simpson, as well as Buzzfeed editor-in-chief Ben Smith, reporter Ken Bensinger and editors Miriam Elder and Mark Schoofs. 

While Fusion GPS attorney Joshua Levy said he hadn’t heard of the suit, Buzzfeed attorney Matt Mittenthal responded, stating The dossier is, and continues to be, the subject of active investigations by Congress and intelligence agencies. It was presented to two successive presidents, and has been described in detail by news outlets around the world. Its interest to the public is obvious.

Meanwhile, Congressional investigators are honing in on the timing of the release – with particular attention to the sequence of events. According to Judiciary Committee member Jim Jordan (R-OH), the dossier was published after former FBI Director James Comey’s January 6 briefing of the dossier to then President-elect Trump gave it legitimacy. 

What I do know is that on January 6, the intelligence community went to Trump Tower and briefed President-elect Trump on the dossier. If you remember, Clapper told James Comey to stay around after the briefing and further brief the President on the dossier. Shortly thereafter it was leaked to the press and CNN talked about it and Buzzfeed printed the entire dossier.

I think what happened in that meeting, was when the FBI director briefs the President-elect, it gives the dossier legitimacy and someone leaked out the fact that, “oh, the FBI director thought it was important enough to tell the President-elect,” then it’s out there. 

So we hope this didn’t happen, but if it did, it seems to me its because the then Obama administration briefs the President and somebody leaks it to Buzzfeed and to CNN. 

Meanwhile, Fusion GPS and Buzzfeed are also being sued for libel by three Russian businessmen-bankers in US District Court for their inclusion in the Dossier. Fusion is also facing legal action by the execs over a separate story they fabricated about secret server communications between Trump Tower and Moscow’s Alfa Bank. The report was debunked after internet sleuths traced the IP address to a marketing server located outside Philadelphia. Alfa bank executives Mikhail Fridman, Petr Aven and German Khan filed suit in early October, claiming their reputations were harmed by the largely unsubstantiated document.

asd
Petr Aven (right) and Mikhail Fridman

 

“Plaintiffs seek an award of compensatory and punitive damages for the harm to their personal and professional reputations, current business interests, and the impairment of business opportunities that resulted from the blatantly false and defamatory statements and implications about them published by the Defendants and republished by BuzzFeed and countless other media around the world,” the complaint says.

“Even though the Dossier contained unverified allegations, Defendants recklessly placed it beyond their control and allowed it to fall into the hands of media devoted to breaking news on the hottest subject of the day: the Trump candidacy,” the suit alleges.

While Congressional Republicans contend that the Fusion GPS dossier triggered the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into the Trump team, the New York Times reported on December 30 that a drunken conversation between Trump advisor George Papadopoulos and an Australian diplomat was the basis for the investigation.

Fusion GPS co-founders Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritsch penned a defense of their actions during the election in the NYT last week in which they claim, without evidence, that their dossier was not related to the FBI’s probe. 

With recently leaked and highly redacted transcripts of Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson’s Congressional Testimony now on record, perhaps Cohen’s lawsuit will shed more light on the shadowy opposition research firm and those they work for. 

via RSS http://ift.tt/2Foqp4i Tyler Durden

Federalists Can’t Support a Cannabis Crackdown: New at Reason

Before last Thursday, state-licensed marijuana merchants operated in a highly uncertain legal environment, subject to the whims of federal prosecutors who could at any moment decide to shut them down, take their property, and send them to prison. Now that Attorney General Jeff Sessions has clarified the Justice Department’s policy regarding the cannabis industry, state-licensed marijuana merchants operate in a highly uncertain legal environment, subject to the whims of federal prosecutors who could at any moment decide to shut them down, take their property, and send them to prison.

Sessions calls this “a return to the rule of law.” The description is dubious, Jacob Sullum says, not only because the situation for state-legal marijuana growers and distributors is fundamentally unchanged but also because the cannabis crackdown threatened by Sessions offends a basic principle of constitutional law: The federal government may not exercise powers it was never granted.

View this article

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2CKf4dd
via IFTTT