ISIS Has Seized 88 Pounds Of Uranium In Northern Iraq

With the mainstream media having moved on in the news cycle to Dow ‘almost’ 17,000 and the ‘Border Crisis’ Scandal, it seems The Islamic State (the terrorists formerly known as ISIS) have stepped up their game and come out swinging… by seizing 88 pounds of nuclear material (uranium compounds) from Mosul University. As Iraq’s UN Ambassador warned, “these nuclear materials, despite the limited amounts mentioned, “can be used in manufacturing weapons of mass destruction… or in combination with other materials in its terrorist acts.”

 

As Reuters reports, insurgents in Iraq have seized nuclear materials used for scientific research at a university in the country’s north, Iraq told the United Nations in a letter appealing for help to “stave off the threat of their use by terrorists in Iraq or abroad.”

Nearly 40 kilograms (88 pounds) of uranium compounds were kept at Mosul University, Iraq’s U.N. Ambassador Mohamed Ali Alhakim told U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in the July 8 letter obtained by Reuters on Wednesday.

 

“Terrorist groups have seized control of nuclear material at the sites that came out of the control of the state,” Alhakim wrote, adding that such materials “can be used in manufacturing weapons of mass destruction.”

 

“These nuclear materials, despite the limited amounts mentioned, can enable terrorist groups, with the availability of the required expertise, to use it separate or in combination with other materials in its terrorist acts,” said Alhakim.

The US is playing down the threat (for a change)

A U.S. government source familiar with the matter said the materials were not believed to be enriched uranium and therefore would be difficult to use to manufacture into a weapon.

 

Another U.S. official familiar with security matters said he was unaware of this development raising any alarm among U.S. authorities.

But, ironicaly, it is is Iraq that is most worried about the nukes…

The Republic of Iraq is notifying the international community of these dangerous developments and asking for help and the needed support to stave off the threat of their use by terrorists in Iraq or abroad,” Alhakim wrote.

 

 

“It also provides for expanded cooperation between and among states regarding rapid measures to locate and recover stolen or smuggled nuclear material, mitigate any radiological consequences of sabotage, and prevent and combat related offences,” according to the IAEA.

*  *  *

Another great addition to ISIS Annual Report and another potentially terrifying prospect for the rest of the world… all this as rockets from Gaza fall around Israel’s Dimona nuclear facility also… Should be good for guaranteeing Dow 17,000 tomorrow…




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1qlIyle Tyler Durden

Japocalypse Now – Machine Orders Crater 19.5%, Biggest Monthly Drop On Record

“Bye, bye, Abe” Just when you thought Japanese macro data couldn’t get any worse… it does. Plumbing new depths in the “you can’t print your way to prosperity” plan, Japanese Private Sector Machine Orders collapsed 19.5% month-over-month – the largest monthly drop ever (as the dragged-forward pre-tax-hike demand left a hole the size of Fukushima behind it). With Abe’s disapproval ratings soaring and inflation surging, hopes for more ‘bad news is good news’ QQE should be quickly dismissed.

 

This 19.5% collapse MoM (compared to expectations of a 1.1% rise!!!!) is not made any more easy for Abe to bear than the 14.3% Year-over-year plunge as Abenomics exuberance makes comps now considerably harder….

 

Think this is normal post-tax hike behavior!! Think again.




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1n9e3ep Tyler Durden

More Proof that the NSA Is Spying On American Politicians

The newly-published revelations from Edward Snowden show that the NSA and FBI spied on an American citizen running for political office:

The NSA also surveilled a U.S. citizen while he ran for political office: https://t.co/UzFya8ltmjhttp://ift.tt/1pZrp4R

The Washington Post’s report last week also shows that the NSA also collected information on President Obama, both as president-elect and as president:

A “minimized U.S. president-elect” begins to appear in the files in early 2009, and references to the current “minimized U.S. president” appear 1,227 times in the following four years.

While the particular NSA reports discussed by the Washington Post don’t specifically mention Obama by name, the Post notes:

[These minimization attempts] border on the absurd, using titles that could apply to only one man.

Of course, the NSA has pretty much admitted to spying on Congress.

But these new reports add some weight to the allegations of high-level NSA whistleblower Bill Binney, who told Washington’s Blog that NSA surveillance allows the government to target:

  • “[CIA head] General Petraeus and General Allen and others like [New York State Attorney General] Elliot Spitzer”
  • “Supreme Court Judges, other judges, Senators, Representatives, law firms and lawyers, and just anybody you don’t like … reporters included”

Binney also told us on Monday:

Bulk collection of everything gives law enforcement all the data they need on every citizen in the country.  And, it gives NSA all that info on everyone too.  Makes them akin to a J Edgar Hoover on super steroids.

These new reports also add some credibility to the allegations of NSA whistleblower Russell Tice (a key source in the 2005 New York Times report that blew the lid off the Bush administration’s use of warrantless wiretapping), who says:

  • The NSA is spying on and blackmailing its overseers in Washington, as well as Supreme Court judges, generals and others
  • The agency started spying on Barack Obama when he was just a candidate for the Senate




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1n9e3em George Washington

It’s Beyond A Bubble: Median LBO Multiple Soars To Mindblowing 11.6x

While we have extensively discussed the emergence of the M&A bubble in recent months, with merger and acquisition activity in 2014 set to match or surpass the previous, 2007, record…

… driven exclusively by the record high stock prices of acquiring companies, which, together with the overabundance of cheap debt, has made the purchasing decision virtually a no-brainer, manifesting itself in the lowest purchasing cash consideration since 2001…

… one thing that has stood out is that while M&A has exploded, LBO transactions by volume, remain in the doldrums:

Why this glaring discrepancy?

Simple. Recall that while for M&A resulting cash flow is a secondary concern, primary being fooling equity analysts over the impact of potential “pro forma” synergies many years down the line (and just repeating “accretive, accretive, accretive” over and over), LBOs are and always have been about cash flows (and, of course, debt-funded dividend recaps). And in the new normal where it is all about Non-GAAP numbers, it is legitimate cash flow that has solidly refused to rise (why? hint: lack of capex).

Not only that, but since the acquiror has to fund the non-debt portion with cash, P/E shops don’t have the benefit of irrational exuberance pushing the acquiring currency to berserk levels.

But the biggest reason LBOs – which after all are a product of the “smartest guys in the room” spotting value which they want to then take private – is the following:

According to just released data by Murray Devine, the Median Ebitda multiple for buyouts has exploded to nosebleed levels, rising by over one full turn of EBITDA since 2013 alone, and at 11.5x in the first half of 2014 is nearly 2x higher than during the last LBO bubble peak in 2008, when the average company was taken private at a conservative 9.6x EV/EBITDA.

Further from the report:

Cheap credit is having a significant impact on the deal-making environment. As mentioned previously, the median debt percentage for 2014 deals has hit 72%, a six percentage-point jump from 2013’s 66%. Leverage use has skyrocketed since 2011, when the median debt percentage for PE deals was around 55%. Median debt percentages in 2013 and the first half of 2014 both outpaced the percentages seen during the buyout boom; for context, the median only reached 63% in 2007.

 

Analysts have noted recently that PE firms, armed with cheap debt financing, have been pushing purchase price multiples beyond what many strategic acquirers are willing to pay. Danaher (NYSE: DHR), for instance, came up short twice against PE bidders in 1Q, first with Ashland’s water technologies business, which CD&R agreed to carve out for $1.8 billion in February, and later with Johnson & Johnson’s diagnostics unit, which Carlyle agreed to buy for $4 billion in March.

 

To win those deals, PE investors have pushed valuations (11.5x) to historically high levels and have added an extra turn of debt to their transactions. Last year’s median debt-to-EBITDA multiple ballooned to 6.9x, a big jump from the 4.9x median in 2012. Through the first two quarters of 2014, debt multiples are even higher at 8.2x. Part of those high debt multiples, according to some, is tied to a resurgence in cash-flow lending in the industry. Equity-to-EBITDA multiples, on the other hand, have been muted. This year the median has shrunk to 3.3x, down from 3.6x in 2013 and way down from the 3.9x median in 2011.

And here is where the crying will begin once the Fed’s latest, and at this point last, credit bubble finally bursts.

So yes, there is a bubble, pure and simple. In fact, it’s the biggest bubble ever. Anyone claiming otherwise is an idiot and/or an economist.

Let’s move on.

Source




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1qX0DtC Tyler Durden

Gold And China’s Challenge To The “Narrative Of Central Bank Omnipotence”

Submitted by Ben Hunt via Salient Partners' Epsilon Theory blog,

There were no donkeys in Guizhou until an eccentric took one there by boat; but finding no use for it he set it loose in the hills. A tiger who saw this monstrous-looking beast thought it must be divine. It first surveyed the donkey from under cover, then ventured a little nearer, still keeping a respectful distance.

One day the donkey brayed, and the tiger took flight and fled, for fear of being bitten. It was utterly terrified. But it came back for another look, and decided this creature was not so formidable after all. Then, growing used to the braying, it drew nearer, though it still dared not attack. Coming nearer still, it began to take liberties, shoving, jostling, and charging roughly, till the donkey lost its temper and kicked out.

“So that is all it can do!” thought the tiger, greatly pleased.

Then it leaped on the donkey and sank its teeth into it, severing its throat and devouring it before going on its way.

Poor donkey! Its size made it look powerful, and its bray made it sound redoubtable. Had it not shown all it could do, even the fierce tiger might not have dared to attack.
Liu Zongyuan (773-819 AD)

A quick email to follow up on last week’s big note “The Dude Abides: China in the Golden Age of Central Bankers.” A number of readers asked if China’s accumulation of physical gold played a significant role in China’s current and forthcoming challenges to the Western monetary policy status quo. Absolutely! It has exactly the same meaning as the recently announced dollar-free natural gas trade agreement with Russia. It’s a fang. It’s a claw. It’s a tool in the construction of an alternative monetary policy regime structure.

Gold has meaning to China in the same way that gold has meaning (or should have meaning) to Western investors. Not as an inherent store of value or some timeless monetary standard … if you’ve gotten nothing else out of Epsilon Theory over the past year I hope it’s a recognition that there’s nothing eternal or timeless about anything that the human animal does, particularly in social practices like trade or commerce … but as a symbol of failed confidence in Western central bank control over market outcomes. To both investors and China, gold is an insurance policy against Western central bankers losing control of their massive monetary policy experiment. The difference is that China has the power to do something about it.

What will China do and when will they do it? Other than pointing you to what China is already doing – weakening the renminbi, pushing against the dollar denomination of international trade in every possible venue, acquiring technology by any means necessary, claiming vast tracts of energy-rich territory – and suggesting that these behaviors will accelerate and expand … I have no idea. But this is exactly why it’s possible to find asymmetric risk/reward opportunities for trading on future Chinese-led challenges to the Narrative of Central Bank Omnipotence. If this were simply a matter of identifying the outcomes and odds of known policy initiatives, then we wouldn’t be talking about the possibility of a Big Trade. Identifying that potential in an environment of uncertainty as opposed to mere risk, whether it’s a bet on gold or – my choice – a bet on the hard peg of the Hong Kong dollar and US dollar coming undone, is where game theory can really shine and what gets me up in the morning.

How should the US respond to the “shoving, jostling, and charging roughly” that the Chinese tiger is starting in the economic realm? Coolly, with no braying or kicking out in anger. So long as China perceives the US as another, larger tiger – as opposed to a donkey – this is not an inevitably apocalyptic Great Power confrontation. To switch metaphors from animals to poker, China will not put the US all-in unless it believes that it knows the cards everyone is holding. The careful use of intentional ambiguity is extremely useful in these situations, but unfortunately that has not exactly been the US forte of late! Understanding this sort of strategic interaction and communication is what game theory is designed to do, and it’s an analysis that I hope you’ll look to Epsilon Theory to provide.




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1mAMM8R Tyler Durden

Reality-Optional Economics: Cockamamie Stories Infecting the Body Politic

Submitted by James H. Kunstler via Peak Prosperity,

The total tonnage of economic malarkey being shoveled over the American public these days would make the late Dr. Joseph Goebbels (Nazi Minister of “Public Enlightenment and Propaganda”) turn green in his grave with envy. It’s a staggering phenomenon because little about it is conspiratorial; rather, it’s the consensual expression of a public that wants desperately to believe things that are untrue, and an economic leadership equally credulous, unmanned, and avid to furnish the necessary narratives that might preserve their jobs and perqs.

By “economic leadership” I mean the consortium of business executives, government officials, academic economists, and media disseminators — and even some bloggers and financial advisers. Some of the latter may be “talking their book,” since they may manage other people’s money and need those other people to believe in the soundness of markets, true or not. And some of the former may be motivated by the fear that even a little erosion of trust in the system could lead to a collapse of the system basted together by little more than blind faith in currencies and dubious “innovative” instruments. But most of these characters are mainly just flat-out delusional.

Recently, John Mauldin predicted (on a recent Financial Sense podcast) that “…pretty soon we’re gonna be energy independent… a net energy exporter in the next three, four years.” This meme has been all over the web and the mainstream media since about 2011, emitted by commentators who haven’t noticed either the steep production declines in shale oil and gas wells or the supernatural flows of junk-derived capital for a drilling frenzy that distracts observers from the financial incongruities of the entire shale energy model (in which the word “profit” is absent).

Anyway, a week after Mauldin’s prediction, the US Energy Information Agency (EIA) published a 96% knocked-down revised estimate of recoverable oil from the Monterey/Santos shale formation, going from about 15.4 billion barrels to about 600 million (or about 30 days of US supply). That 15.4 billion represented about 64% of the EIA’s total for all the nation’s shale oil reserves, so one might expect at least a shock to the system of junk financing.

On the gas side, you have the stark fact that the first three big shale gas “plays” of the shale era (the Barnett, the Haynesville, and the Fayetteville) are now in decline or flat, leaving the Marcellus and Eagle Ford. What makes anyone think that the steep decline rates in the early plays won’t lead to the same fate for these two plays? (Answer: wishful thinking.) The Monterey shale play was going to gin up 2.8 million new jobs and boost California’s tax haul by about $25 billion. As Jim Hansen, publisher of The Master Resource Report pointed out:

Probably the most important lesson from this is that many of the distinctions between resources, reserves, technically recoverable reserves and so on are lost on the mass media, the public and most importantly government leadership. Headline numbers like 15.4 billion barrels and 2.8 million jobs are what set the agenda. Reality is much more nuanced, complicated and sometimes grossly different.

Yet there remains a number of other prominent cheerleaders of the “shale miracle.” The magisterial George Friedman of the geopolitical website Stratfors.com, came on David McAlvaney’s weekly podcast touting the prospects of massive gas exports to Europe and Asia. Friedman characterized it as:

“…a technological revolution as dramatic as Silicon Valley was in introducing the microchip. All the assumptions about energy in the world have been turned on their heads. The United States is now a major producer. The problem is logistic. How do you get it from here to there.”

This is worse than a simplistic view of the situation. The shale gas industry has never been profitable at US prices seen since production ramped up bigtime around 2007. Currently it’s at $4.60/mmbtu, still well under an economically rational level, though it swooned near a miserable $2 just two years ago. So the export idea is that US can build out a massive new infrastructure of gas pipeline terminals to liquefy the gas and a fleet of expensive liquid gas tankers in order to ship gas to Europe and Asia, where demand has exploded, and the price is as high as $15/mmbtu. Okay, when and if the US has the ability to export all this gas (big if, considering the needed cap-ex), what happens to American customers who find themselves competing for this commodity with five billion Asians and Europeans? Do they just freeze in the dark?  Mr. Friedman apparently failed to notice the hemorrhaging of jobs and incomes among the disintegrating American middle class. I wonder if he thinks they can afford to run their furnaces at $15/mmbtu.           

Willful misunderstanding of the shale gas situation is just one of many examples of thought failure among the class of Americans who even pretend to think for a living. It cannot be due to a sheer lack of brain power (though who can say what the aggregate effect of food additives, off-gassing carpets, and other chemical insults might have had on recent American generations). We apparently just don’t like reality and seem to think we can turn it off, or switch to another channel or web address for a better buzz. This is surely true of the investing sector of the public, some of whom still read and occasionally experience activity that resembles thinking. But they switch the channel away from reality to Fox, Bloomberg, and CNBC for the excellent reason that their good fortune in rising rigged markets makes them feel immune from danger. The state and the central bank have declared unconditional ZIRP and QE, and the portfolios resound with the ka-ching of dividends and capital gains, so why worry… be happy!

It’s a tragic fact of history that sometimes societies lose their bearings. They make terrible choices and bad things happen. It doesn’t have to take the form of a conspiracy, but rather a consensus — that is, a simple agreement between people in charge (and the public subject to their rule) about where that society will direct its priorities and make its investments. Proof of this was the behavior of national leaders and the public in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crash. The system was hugely burdened by the debris of loans gone bad, a lot of it packaged into fraudulent bonds. The biggest banks in the nation were implicated in the creation of these frauds and left holding a lot of their own bad paper when the music stopped. Clearing the debris would have restored structural integrity to the banking system. Prosecuting financial criminals in the executive suites of the banks would have disincentivized racketeering and control fraud.

American leadership allowed neither restructuring or prosecution. Banks (except for Lehman Brothers, the unloved “fall guy”) were not only prevented from failing, they were stuffed with taxpayer bailout money, plugged into a new Federal Reserve carry-trade racket (ZIRP), given a green light on unlimited accounting fraud (FASB 157), and allowed to continue their old rackets in new ways, e.g. the new bundled rental payment bonds, “covenant-lite” junk bonds,  and new iterations of shady collateralized loan obligations. And, of course, not one bank executive was prosecuted (not to say jailed) for criminal shenanigans that cost the US economy $22 trillion according to the US General Accounting Office.

The public went along with all this to the degree that few of their political representatives were turned out of office, nor was any effective political resistance mounted besides two movements that proved to be weak and ineffectual: Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party. (David Brat, who unseated House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in the recent Virginia primary, tried and failed to get backing from the Tea Party.)  President Obama, who first campaigned on “hope and change” in the very moment when Wall Street blew itself up, and did absolutely nothing to change the racket-riddled banking system afterward, was rewarded with re-election in 2012. The obvious conclusion is that America, from top to bottom, didn’t want to restructure anything about our national life — and still doesn’t. It wants to stay stuck where it is in a very perilous moment of history, and it has enlisted a laundry list of fallacious beliefs to support its “do nothing” spirit.

Here’s a roundup of the other items from the roster of delusions currently making the rounds.

  • We’ve entered a “manufacturing renaissance.”
  • The “Central Corridor” of the USA, running from Texas to Minnesota, will soon turn into a dynamic industrial powerhouse.
  • A revolution in higher education is underway that will produce a generation of super geniuses.
  • The US financial markets will dominate the world indefinitely.
  • Accelerating advancements in technology will ring in a new golden age of comfort, leisure, and security.
  • The USA has unmatched exceptional entrepreneurial spirit.

In Part 2: On The Fast Track To Crisis, we explore why each of these notions is untrue. Subscribing to them will leave us at least disappointed and at most woefully unprepared for the circumstances in store for our country.

Click here to read Part 2 of this report. (Free executive summary. Enrollment required for full access)

 




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1mhbgUY Tyler Durden

President Obama To Dictate How He’ll Fix The Immigration Scandal – Live Feed

Having explained how well the economy is going – best in the world, apparently – President Obama is moving on to the immigration scandal. In an unexpected address from his fund-raising trip to Texas (Dallas actually – 100s of miles from the border), and on the heels of his 'executive action' demands on immigration reform, Obama will explain how it's none of his fault and unless 'the other side' give him carte blanche, it's a humanitarian crisis… think of the children (and the taxpayer funding)…

 

Live Feed (due to speask at 1845ET)

http://ift.tt/13bL5o3…) no-repeat; padding-top:13px; height:30px; float:left;”>JOIN THE LIVE CHAT

 

 

Who could have seen this coming?

 

Source: Investors.com

 

While he ruminates, here (from a year ago) are 19 facts abouit 'illegal' immigration:

#1 57 percent of all households that are led by an immigrant (legal or illegal) are enrolled in at least one welfare program.

#2 According to one study, the cost to U.S. taxpayers of legalizing current illegal immigrants would be approximately 6.3 trillion dollars over the next 50 years.

#3 The Obama administration has distributed flyers that tell illegal immigrants that their immigration status will not be checked when they apply for food stamps.

#4 The Department of Homeland Security says that it has lost track of a million people that have entered this country but that appear never to have left.

#5 One out of every five children living in Los Angeles County has a parent that is in the country illegally.

#6 In one recent year, taxpayers in Los Angeles County spent 600 million dollars on welfare for children of illegal immigrants.

#7 Thanks to illegal immigration, California’s overstretched health care system is on the verge of collapse.  Dozens of California hospitals and emergency rooms have shut down over the past decade because they could not afford to stay open after being endlessly swamped by illegal immigrants who were simply not able to pay for the services that they were receiving.  As a result, the remainder of the health care system in the state of California is now beyond overloaded.  This had led to brutally long waits, diverted ambulances and even unnecessary patient deaths.  At this point, the state of California now ranks dead last out of all 50 states in the number of emergency rooms per million people.

#8 It has been estimated that U.S. taxpayers spend $12,000,000,000 a year on primary and secondary school education for the children of illegal immigrants.

#9 It is estimated that illegal aliens make up approximately 30 percent of the population in federal, state and local prisons and that the total cost of incarcerating them is more than $1.6 billion annually.

#10 The federal government actually has a website that teaches immigrants how to sign up for welfare programs once they arrive in the United States.

#11 The Obama administration recently introduced the very first “unmanned” border station along the Texas-Mexico border.

#12 The Obama administration has sued individual states such as Arizona that have tried to crack down on illegal immigration.

#13 According to the FBI, there are approximately 1.4 million gang members living in our cities.  Illegal immigration has been one of the primary factors that has fueled the growth of these gangs.

#14 As I have written about previously, there are only about 200 police officers assigned to Chicago’s Gang Enforcement Unit to handle the estimated 100,000 gang members living in the city.

#15 Mexican drug cartels make approximately 6.6 billion dollars a year “exporting” illegal drugs to the United States.

#16 It is an open secret that Mexican drug cartels are openly conducting military operations inside the United States.  The handful of border patrol agents that we have guarding the border are massively outgunned and outmanned.

#17 According to the Justice Department’s National Drug Intelligence Center, Mexican drug cartels were actively operating in 50 different U.S. cities in 2006.  By 2010, that number had skyrocketed to 1,286.

#18 Overall, more than 55,000 people have been killed in drug-related violence in Mexico since 2006.  That same level of violence will eventually show up in major U.S. cities unless something dramatic is done about illegal immigration.

#19 It is being projected that the Senate immigration bill will bring 33 million more people to the United States over the next decade.

*  *  *

 

 

*  *  *

We are sure he will fix it…




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/VM9DEH Tyler Durden

Obama’s ‘Third Way’ Looks a Lot Like the War on Drugs

We know President Obama is committed
to “drug policy reform” because he keeps telling us he is. Since
April 2012, when the phrase
first appeared
on the White House website, it has been
mentioned
there 65 times. But what does it mean? According to
the latest
National Drug Control Strategy
, which was released
today by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP),
we must seek to avoid over-simplified debates between the
idea of a ‘war on drugs’ and the notion 
of
legalization as a panacea.” Fans of
Obamaspeak
will appreciate the way that sentence poses a false
choice while renouncing false choices. After all, legalization need
not be a “panacea,” or anything resembling one, to be better than
the disastrous war on drugs, which Obama himself once called
“an utter failure.”

What is the president offering in its place?
“Drug use and its consequences are complex phenomena
requiring an array of evidence-based policy responses,” the
ONDCP says. Understanding this reality, “the Administration remains
committed to charting this ‘third way’ toward a healthier, safer,
and more prosperous America.” 
But in practice,
Obama’s “third way” looks an awful lot like the first way, because
he refuses to renounce the use of violence to stop people from
consuming politically incorrect drugs.

The administration does endorse some sensible
harm-reducing policies, including syringe exchange programs that
curtail the spread of blood-borne diseases, wider availability of
the opioid antagonist naloxone to prevent overdose fatalities, and
the adoption of laws that shield people who report overdoses from
criminal liability. But Obama’s notion of a more enlightened and
compassionate drug policy seems to consist mainly of forcing
illegal drug users to choose between jail and “treatment.” That
makes sense, according to the ONDCP, because “substance use
disorders are medical conditions.” Therefore illegal drug users
should be treated just like people afflicted with cancer or heart
disease, who are routinely forced to undergo treatment by the
threat of imprisonment.

On second thought, maybe that’s not such a good
comparison. What about alcoholics, who surely are just as afflicted
with a substance use disorder as people who favor marijuana,
cocaine, meth, or heroin? Nope, heavy drinkers are not compelled to
undergo treatment either (unless they harm or endanger others while
under the influence). So how is it logical or fair to treat
marijuana, cocaine, meth, or heroin addicts like criminals,
especially since the ONDCP insists that it’s wrong to think
someone with a substance use disorder is
exhibiting a willful choice rather than suffering from a recognized
medical condition”? As Bill Piper, director of national affairs at
the Drug Policy Alliance,
observes
, “The Administration says drug use is a health issue
but then advocates for policies that put people in the criminal
justice system.”

To its credit, the administration thinks some drug
offenders should spend less time in that system. It supported less
severe penalties for crack offenses, and it favors additional
sentencing reforms. The ONDCP regrets that “t
he United
States has the largest per capita
prison 
population in the world,” and it cites
Attorney General Eric Holder’s effort
to curtail the use of mandatory minimum sentences “
for
certain nonviolent, low-level drug 
offenses.”
A
t the same time, the administration believes
“serious, high-level, or violent drug traffickers” deserve “the
most severe mandatory minimum penalties.” That description covers
plenty of people whose only crime is engaging in peaceful,
consensual transactions. For helping people do what the
administration says is not really a crime, they go to prison for
years or decades.

Aside from sentencing reform (and clemency, assuming Obama
follows through on his
rumored plans
to commute hundreds or thousands of drug
sentences), the president’s most significant drug policy legacy may
prove to be his grudging tolerance of marijuana legalization in
Colorado and Washington. The ONDCP presents the decision not to
challenge those laws or go after state-licensed marijuana growers
and sellers as an exercise in drug law enforcement.
In August,” it says, “DOJ released guidance
reiterating that marijuana remains illegal under Federal law
and that Federal law enforcement activities in these two states
would continue to be guided by eight priorities focused on
protecting public health and safety.”

While Obama deserves credit for letting these experiments
proceed (and for
admitting
that marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol, a
point that ONDCP Acting Director Michael Botticelli also has

conceded
), the administration in other ways continues to
display an irrational anti-pot prejudice that is hardly consistent
with the “evidence-based policy responses” it claims to support. To
this day it
defends
the proposition that marijuana belongs on Schedule I of
the Controlled Substances Act, which is supposedly reserved for
drugs with a “high potential for abuse” that have “no currently
accepted medical use” and are so dangerous that they cannot be used
safely, even under a doctor’s supervision. The ONDCP bemoans
reductions
in the percentage of teenagers who think trying marijuana or using
it occasionally poses “a great risk,” even though the truth is that
trying marijuana or using it occasionally
doesn’t pose a great risk.

Perhaps most gratuitiously, the administration continues
to back “zero tolerance” drugged driving laws that treat people
with any trace of marijuana in their blood as public menaces even
when they are not impaired at all. The ONDCP likes that standard,
which makes even less sense than the excessively strict five-nanogram
rule
recently adopted by Washington state, because it
increases the ability to prosecute
drivers using drugs other than alcohol without specifying a bodily
fluid concentration.” But if the point
is 
protecting the public from impaired drivers,
shouldn’t there be some evidence that the drivers who are
prosecuted actually were impaired? Not if 
the
ostensible concern for road safety is just an excuse to punish
people for smoking pot. If you believe the ONDCP, that is
the sort of mindlessly tough policy that comes from “relying on
science, research, and evidence to improve public health and safety
in America.”

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1n8Qm64
via IFTTT