Tag: news

• NBC White House correspondent
  Chuck Todd is the latest to complain about the White House is
  
  extremely controlling and obsessed with leaks to the media,
  pointing out they’re often more concerned with the leaks themselves
  than the content of them.
• Treasury Secretary Jack Lew is “incredulous” at the
  growing popularity of bitcoin and says the feds need more time
  to examine it. He is, of course, worried most about the challenges
  in monitoring their use.
• Former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell and his wife, Maureen, have
  both
  pleaded not guilty to 14 federal charges that they traded
  influence for gifts worth thousands of dollars from a
  businessman.
• House Speaker John Boehner is
  not running for president, he says.
• Everybody on Twitter wants you to know that Gmail
  was down for a while.
• An Oklahoma lawmaker trolled gun-grabby pundit Piers Morgan by
  
  naming legislation loosening gun controls after him.

Get Reason.com and Reason 24/7
content widgets for your
websites.

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

In a recent Washington
Post op-ed, left-wing activist Steve Rosenthal sounds a
lot like other wishful thinkers arriving at a comfortable partisan
conclusion. America, he writes, is only a few years from a
full-blown progressive electorate. David Harsanyi says it just
doesn’t work that way. Support for gay marriage does not mean
support for unions. Pot legalization does not mean we’re ready to
nationalize energy policy. And support for immigration reform
doesn’t mean people are prepared to “make everything owned by
everybody” as a writer in Rolling Stone suggests. If anything,
we’re trending toward libertarianism.

View this article.

In a recent Washington
Post op-ed, left-wing activist Steve Rosenthal sounds a
lot like other wishful thinkers arriving at a comfortable partisan
conclusion. America, he writes, is only a few years from a
full-blown progressive electorate. David Harsanyi says it just
doesn’t work that way. Support for gay marriage does not mean
support for unions. Pot legalization does not mean we’re ready to
nationalize energy policy. And support for immigration reform
doesn’t mean people are prepared to “make everything owned by
everybody” as a writer in Rolling Stone suggests. If anything,
we’re trending toward libertarianism.

View this article.

Washington’s liquor control
board, charged with regulating that state’s newly legal marijuana
businesses, will soon begin issuing licenses to producers,
processors, and retailers. The applicants
include more than 30 would-be growers in Yakima, a city of about
93,000 in central Washington where the liquor control board also
plans to license five marijuana retailers. But this week the Yakima
City Council made it clear that none of those new businesses is
welcome,
approving a ban on cannabis suppliers by a 6-to-1 vote.

Can they do that? Yes, according to an opinion
issued last week by Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson.
Unlike Colorado’s legalization initiative, Washington’s, known as
I-502, does not explicitly authorize local governments to ban
cannabusinesses. But neither does it explicitly say they can’t, and
Ferguson concluded that no such pre-emption is implied either.

“Under Washington law,” Ferguson notes, “there is a strong
presumption against finding that state law preempts local
ordinances.” Washington courts have approved local bans on
activities, such as hunting and motor boating, that are licensed by
the state. Ferugson says “a challenger must meet the heavy burden
of proving that state law creates an entitlement to engage in an
activity in circumstances outlawed by the local ordinance.” In
2005, for example, the Washington Supreme Court struck down a local
ordinance that banned smoking in areas where state law explicitly
said business owners had the discretion to allow smoking. By
contrast, Ferguson says, the marijuana regulations issued under
I-502 constitute “regulatory preconditions to engaging in such
businesses,” rather than “an entitlement to engage in such
businesses regardless of local law.”

Since Ferguson says local governments may impose explicit bans
on cannabusinesses, it is not suprising that he also concludes they
are free to impose prohibitive regulations, as long as the rules
can be said to promote “public safety, health, or welfare.” He
notes that I-502 anticipates local regulation of marijuana
businesses, saying “the issuance or approval of a license shall not
be construed as a license for, or an approval of, any violations of
local rules or ordinances,” including “building and fire codes,
zoning ordinances, and business licensing requirements.” So even if
the courts do not agree with Ferguson that local bans are
consistent with I-502, they might still approve restrictions that
amount to bans in practice.

In addition to Yakima, Pierce County and the cities of Wenatchee
and Mossyrock have banned marijuana businesses, while more than 20
others have imposed moratoriums that may be allowed to expire.
Since the state attorney general is taking the position that local
jurisdictions are under no obligation to accept growers,
processors, or sellers, challenging bans presumably will fall to
licensees. Brian Smith, a spokesman for the liquor control board,
says the agency has not yet decided how to handle applicants in
jurisdictions with bans.

Last week Sharon Foster, the board’s chairwoman,
said Ferguson’s opinion “will be a disappointment to the
majority of Washington’s voters who approved Initiative 502.” She
noted that local bans will “reduce the state’s expectations for
revenue generated from the legal system we are putting in place.”
Foster also argued that bans “will impact public safety by allowing
the current illicit market to continue.” In his opinion
Ferguson acknowledges that possibility. “We are mindful that if a
large number of jurisdictions were to ban licensees, it could
interfere with the measure’s intent to supplant the illegal
marijuana market,” he says. “The legislature, or the people by
initiative, can address this potential issue if it actually comes
to pass.”

Friday night’s theme episode of Fox Business Network’s The
Independents (9 pm ET, 6 pm PT, repeats at midnight) is an
attempt to sketch out what American health care will look like in
2014 and beyond. Kicking off the show is a fascinating interview
with Dr. Ron Paul, who describes why he got into medicine (hint: to
avoid killing people!), how government intervention has altered the
health-care market, what parts of your body you should be able to
sell, and whether he’d do it all again. You won’t want to miss
it.

Speaking of Ron Paul, here he is on Tuesday’s
Independents, talking NSA and Edward Snowden:

Also on the program will be a couple of doctors familiar to
Reason readers. First is Jeffrey A. Singer, the good
doctor for
liberty, talking about themes he explored in a classic 2013
magazine piece, “How
Government Killed the Medical Profession: As health care gets
more bureaucratic, will doctors go Galt?” Then Keith Smith, subject
of Reason.tv’s 2012 feature “Oklahoma
Doctors vs. Obamacare,” will explain how his insurance-free,
transparently priced clinic works in Obamacare America.

Tonight’s Party Panel wears lab coats: Dermatologist
Elizabeth Rosenthal and Cardiologist Steven
Reisman talk about their similar experiences with—but different
conclusions about—the Affordable Care Act. Another Mr. MD,
Cedars-Sinai liver/pancreas specialist
Nick Nissen, explains how the molecular revolution and advances
in surgical techniques are ushering forth a more promising future
in treating the worst cancers.

Finally, there will be some personal segments about how the
co-hosts’ various brushes with the health care industry have
informed their weird opinions about it. A certain French lady is
implicated.

Speaking of inappropriate personal comments, here is the “Two
Minutes Hate” segment from Wednesday’s show: 

Yes, that will be a regular feature, so keep ‘em coming, both in
the comments thread and on Twitter @IndependentsFBN.