iftttwall

Eight police departments in the
state of New York recently added Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected
(MRAP) vehicles to their fleets.

MRAPs, which were specifically designed for guerilla combat
during the Iraq War, are being distributed to local police forces
throughout the country as part of Department of Defense’s “1033
program.” The latest recipients of these 18-ton, behemoths,
each of which bears a retail price tag of about $500,000, are
Albany, Warren, Jefferson, and five other counties and villages
throughout upstate New York.

Albany County sheriff Craig Apple
assured the Associated Press (AP) that his department is not
becoming militarized. Neverthless, Apple, whose fleet already
operates four other military surplus vehicles, giddily stated his
approval of the MRAP: “It’s armored. It’s heavy. It’s intimidating.
And it’s free.” To ensure that no confusion arises over its
function, part of the refurbishing process will include changing
the MRAP’s paint job from “military sand” to “civilian black.”

In nearby Warren County, Undersheriff Shawn Lamouree explained
more bluntly, “We live in the North Country. It’s very common for
people to have high-powered hunting rifles.” He noted a past
situation in which the MRAP could have been useful to overcome
barricades. The AP notes that the Lamouree also suggested “it could
be used occasionally by the emergency response team, which has used
armored vehicles to serve drug warrants.”

Although it may be the easiest means for the Pentagon to
relinquish itself of surplus equipment, many are critical of the
increasing trend of police militarization. The American Civil
Liberties Union has
repeatedly warned that militarization can curtail freedom and
foment violence. Former Reason staffers Radley Balko and
Mike Riggs
discussed in a recent interview the multiple ways in which
domestic police are becoming more militaristic.

There are also practical problems with MRAPs, some of which
Reason
covered when Ohio State University received one earlier this
year. Domestic roads and bridges are not build to accommodate these
vehicles. Even if police can get one onto a major roadway, the MRAP
top out at 65mph. This makes them unlikely to beat standard police
vehicles to a crime scene. Additionally, although the police
departments received the MRAPs for free, they are responsible for
the cost of refurbishing, fueling, and attending to their
specialized mechanical issues. Also, these top-heavy vehicles, for
which the military requires unique training and licensing to drive,
are prone to rolling over especially on mountainous
terrains. 

Jacob Sullum has noted that despite new
policies by the Department of Justice to pull back on prosecutions
against medical marijuana dispensaries that are operating within
their state’s laws, Melinda Haag, the U.S. attorney for Northern
California, is doing
nothing of the sort.

Haag’s unwillingness to listen to the her own agency, not to
mention the city leaders where she’s trying to shut dispensaries
down, has prompted four members of the House of Representatives,
Barbara Lee, George Miller, Sam Farr, and Eric Swalwell (all
California Democrats) to send Haag a letter begging her to stop.

The letter reads in part:

It is counterproductive and economically prohibitive to continue
a path of hostility toward dispensaries. Moreover, it appears to
directly  counter the spirit of Deputy Attorney General Cole’s
memo, and is in direct opposition to the evolving view toward
medical marijuana, the will of the people and, by now, common
sense.  Additionally, the State of California has also
received legislative direction and guidelines from California
Attorney General Kamala Harris on responsibly delivering medical
marijuana. 

It is our view that the intent of the Justice Department is to
not enforce its anti-marijuana laws in conflict with the laws of
states that have chosen to decriminalize marijuana for medical and
recreational uses.  California understands the urgency toward
putting together a statewide regulatory system, and we can all be
helpful in that regard, but some municipalities, including Oakland,
have already done an extraordinary job regulating medical
marijuana.  California is moving in the correct direction in a
measured manner, and should be given the opportunity to do so.

Follow this story and more at Reason
24/7.

Spice up your blog or Website with Reason 24/7 news and
Reason articles. You can get the widgets
here. If you have a story that would be of
interest to Reason’s readers please let us know by emailing the
24/7 crew at 24_7@reason.com, or tweet us stories
at @reason247.

In a unanimous decision, members of the San Rafael City Council
have approved the
strictest smoking ordinance in the country. Effective last
week,
Assembly Bill 746 bans residents of apartments, condos,
duplexes, and multi-family houses from smoking cigarettes and
“tobacco products” inside their homes.

Introduced by Assembly Member Marc Levine and
pushed
by the Smoke-Free Marin Coalition for over seven years, the
ordinance applies to owners and renters in all buildings that house
wall-sharing units for three or more families. The purpose is to
prevent second-hand smoke from travelling through doors, windows,
floorboards, crawl spaces, or ventilation systems (i.e. any
conceivable opening) into neighboring units.

Levine said the bill is motivated by his desire to ensure that
“Californians [can] breathe clean air in their own homes.” He
continued, “In apartments or condominiums, whenever a neighbor
lights up, everyone in the building smokes with them.”

Rebecca Woodbury, an analyst at the City Manager’s office who
helped write the ordinance,
explained some of the bill’s specifics to ABC
News. “It doesn’t matter if it’s owner-occupied or
renter-occupied,” she said. “We didn’t want to discriminate. The
distinguishing feature is the shared wall…I’m not aware of any
ordinance that’s stronger.”

The bill’s proponents cited scientific evidence that shows
cigarette smoke is able to travel through the ventilation systems
of apartments. Some of this evidence was produced by two
CDC studies, which found that roughly 45 percent of apartment
dwellers claimed to have been exposed to second-hand smoke in their
homes in the past year.

Some anti-smoking groups, like the American Lung Association,
have expressed their support for the legislation. The President and
CEO of California’s division
said the ordinance is “groundbreaking” and called for a
state-wide ban. 

The ordinance is not without its detractors, however. 

A researcher at the Heartland
Institute, a free-market policy think tank in Chicago, said the
ban is part of a larger, disturbing trend of government
encroachment on personal freedoms. As he
told ABC News:

I don’t like cigarettes, and I’ve never taken a puff. My
sympathies aren’t with smokers because I am one, it’s because of
the huge growth in laws and punishments and government restricting
people more and more. Illinois’ criminal code was 72 pages long in
1965; today it’s more than 1,300 pages long. 

Brian Augusta, of the Western Center on Law and Poverty, said
that targeting multifamily units disproportionately affects
low-income families and workers. According to the
Sacramento Bee, Augusta said, “If smoking is an addiction,
and it clearly is, are we telling people that they have to quit
smoking—without support—or leave their homes?” 

George Koodray, New Jersey state coordinator for Citizens
Freedom Alliance and the Smoker’s Club,
decried the evidence linking apartment-dwelling to second-hand
smoke exposure as weak. “The science for that is spurious at best,”
he said.

The California Apartment Association has not taken an official
position on the issue, but has
stated its doubts as to how the ordinance will be enforced and
by whom. As it stands, AB 746 levies rule-breakers with fines but
does not identify who will respond to complaints or write
tickets.

Levine said that he
hopes the ordinance will be “self-enforcing,” but it’s clear
that landlords are being prodded to take up the torch. In an
informational pamphlet published by the city,
landlords are advised to threaten rule-breaking tenants with
eviction. 

California’s High-Speed Rail
Authority (CHSRA) can’t even spin this one: A state judge in
Sacramento, in two separate rulings, has taken the business plans
for the state’s bullet train outside, tossed them in a rusty barrel
behind the courthouse, and set them on fire. As Reason has
repeatedly noted across several years, the CHSRA’s runaway rail
plan was wildly different, more expensive, and simply
not in compliance with what was approved by voters in a ballot
initiative in 2008. Today Judge Michael Kenny agreed with opponents
that the state could not push forward with its plans as they are.
From the
Associated Press:

Judge Michael Kenny rejected a request from the California
High-Speed Rail Authority to sell $8 billion of the $10 billion in
bonds approved by voters in 2008, saying there was no evidence it
was “necessary and desirable” to start selling the bonds when a
committee of state officials met last March.

He said the committee was supposed to act as “the ultimate
`keeper of the checkbook'” for taxpayers, but instead relied on a
request from the high-speed rail authority to start selling bonds
as sufficient evidence to proceed.

In a separate lawsuit, Kenny ordered the rail authority to redo
its $68 billion funding plan before continuing construction, a
process that could take months or years. He had previously ruled
that the authority abused its discretion by approving a funding
plan that did not comply with the requirements of the law. The
judge said the state failed to identify “sources of funds that were
more than merely theoretically possible.”

Proposition 1A, which voters approved in 2008, required the rail
authority to specify the source of the funding for the first
operable segment of the high-speed rail line – a 300 mile stretch –
and have all the necessary environmental clearances in place. Kenny
had said the agency did not comply with either mandate in approving
the start of construction from Madera to Fresno, about 30
miles.

Technically and politically, the ruling doesn’t kill the plan,
but the blow is pretty devastating. The state does not have the
money to build a full 300-mile stretch of the $68 billion
boondoggle. Despite blinkered claims by progressive that
California’s economy is recovering, it is
wallowing in huge amounts of debt, unfunded state pension
liabilities, and rapidly expanding health care costs. And there’s

little sign of additional federal subsidies coming unless the
Democrats win the day in 2014 and take back the House.

Nevertheless, CHSRA is trying to act like they expected a judge
to order them to start the process over the whole time:

“Like all transformative projects, we understand that there will
be many challenges that will be addressed as we go forward in
building the nation’s first high-speed rail system,” authority
board Chairman Dan Richard said in a written statement.

Going backward instead is quite the challenge to your efforts to
go forward.

Today,
nearly a year after Adam Lanza murdered 20 children and six adults
at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, the
state’s attorney managing the investigation of the massacre, Steven
Sedensky, issued a report that
refutes or casts doubt on several theories about Lanza and his
horrifying crimes. A few highlights:

1. Did Lanza have a grudge against the
school?

“The shooter indicated that he loved the school and liked to go
there….As best as can be determined, the shooter had no prior
contact with anyone in the school that day. And, apart from having
attended the school as a child, he appears to have had no
continuing involvement with SHES….The evidence clearly shows that
the shooter planned his actions, including the taking of his own
life, but there is no clear indication why he did so, or why he
targeted Sandy Hook Elementary School.”

2. Did mental illness make him do it?

“The shooter had significant mental health issues that affected
his ability to live a normal life and to interact with others
[including social awkwardness and a lack of empathy that his mother
described as Asperger syndrome]….What contribution this made to
the shootings, if any, is unknown….The shooter’s mental status is
no defense to his conduct as the evidence shows he knew his conduct
to be against the law. He had the ability to control his behavior
to obtain the results he wanted, including his own death.”

3. Could he have been stopped if only people had paid
attention to warning signs?

“Those mental health professionals who saw him did not see
anything that would have predicted his future
behavior….[Investigators] have not discovered any evidence that
the shooter voiced or gave any indication to others that he
intended to commit such a crime…[In high school,] he was not
known to be a violent kid at all and never spoke of
violence….Despite a fascination with mass shootings and firearms,
he displayed no aggressive or threatening tendencies.”

4. Did obsessive playing of violent video games warp his
mind?”

“He played video games often, both solo at home and online. They
could be described as both violent and non-violent. One person
described the shooter as spending the majority of his time playing
non-violent video games all day, with his favorite at one point
being ‘Super Mario Brothers.’…The shooter liked to play a game
called ‘Dance Dance Revolution’ (DDR)….He regularly went to the
area of a theater that had a commercial version of the DDR game in
the lobby. In 2011 and up until a month before December 14, 2012,
the shooter went to the theater and played the game. He went most
every Friday through Sunday and played the game for four to ten
hours.”

5. What about drugs?

“No drugs were found in the shooter’s system….Reportedly the
shooter did not drink alcohol, take drugs, prescription or
otherwise, and hated the thought of doing any of those things.”

6. Could a better background check system for gun buyers
have stopped him?

“All of the firearms were legally purchased by the shooter’s
mother. Additionally, ammunition of the types found had been
purchased by the mother in the past, and there is no evidence that
the ammunition was purchased by anyone else, including the
shooter.”

Today,
nearly a year after Adam Lanza murdered 20 children and six adults
at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, the
state’s attorney managing the investigation of the massacre, Steven
Sedensky, issued a report that
refutes or casts doubt on several theories about Lanza and his
horrifying crimes. A few highlights:

1. Did Lanza have a grudge against the
school?

“The shooter indicated that he loved the school and liked to go
there….As best as can be determined, the shooter had no prior
contact with anyone in the school that day. And, apart from having
attended the school as a child, he appears to have had no
continuing involvement with SHES….The evidence clearly shows that
the shooter planned his actions, including the taking of his own
life, but there is no clear indication why he did so, or why he
targeted Sandy Hook Elementary School.”

2. Did mental illness make him do it?

“The shooter had significant mental health issues that affected
his ability to live a normal life and to interact with others
[including social awkwardness and a lack of empathy that his mother
described as Asperger syndrome]….What contribution this made to
the shootings, if any, is unknown….The shooter’s mental status is
no defense to his conduct as the evidence shows he knew his conduct
to be against the law. He had the ability to control his behavior
to obtain the results he wanted, including his own death.”

3. Could he have been stopped if only people had paid
attention to warning signs?

“Those mental health professionals who saw him did not see
anything that would have predicted his future
behavior….[Investigators] have not discovered any evidence that
the shooter voiced or gave any indication to others that he
intended to commit such a crime…[In high school,] he was not
known to be a violent kid at all and never spoke of
violence….Despite a fascination with mass shootings and firearms,
he displayed no aggressive or threatening tendencies.”

4. Did obsessive playing of violent video games warp his
mind?”

“He played video games often, both solo at home and online. They
could be described as both violent and non-violent. One person
described the shooter as spending the majority of his time playing
non-violent video games all day, with his favorite at one point
being ‘Super Mario Brothers.’…The shooter liked to play a game
called ‘Dance Dance Revolution’ (DDR)….He regularly went to the
area of a theater that had a commercial version of the DDR game in
the lobby. In 2011 and up until a month before December 14, 2012,
the shooter went to the theater and played the game. He went most
every Friday through Sunday and played the game for four to ten
hours.”

5. What about drugs?

“No drugs were found in the shooter’s system….Reportedly the
shooter did not drink alcohol, take drugs, prescription or
otherwise, and hated the thought of doing any of those things.”

6. Could a better background check system for gun buyers
have stopped him?

“All of the firearms were legally purchased by the shooter’s
mother. Additionally, ammunition of the types found had been
purchased by the mother in the past, and there is no evidence that
the ammunition was purchased by anyone else, including the
shooter.”