The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [Social Issues]
2018-01-09 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Social Issues , 232 references
[Comments enabled]  

Let's just get down to brass tacks, ok.

Marijuana was made illegal on a public fraud.  It was claimed -- to Congress -- that weed made white women take off their clothes and screw black Jazz singers.  No, I'm not making this up.  It was also claimed to turn Mexicans (who were here in the United States) into homicidal maniacs.

Both of these claims were knowing lies and yet they formed the entire reason marijuana was first prohibited in the United States.  Tricky Dick Nixon doubled down on same, effectively ratifying said lies.  So did Reagan, and for that both of them are burning in Hell as they have destroyed the lives of millions without a care in the world, and neither deserves anything more dignified than spit or urine on their gravestones.

A so-called "public policy" that is predicated up on a deliberate falsehood - not a mistake, but a lie, ought to be voided immediately upon discovery of said lie.  Such a "law" is nothing more than thuggery; it is unconstitutional, it is morally bankrupt and anyone attempting to enforce it deserves to be struck by lightning while retrieving their mail.

Now we have both Senators and Representatives from states that have legalized marijuana for either medical purposes, recreational enjoyment or both.  May I remind you that under Federal Law as a "Schedule 1" drug marijuana cannot be used for either medical or recreational purposes as by definition a drug cannot be on Schedule 1 if it has medical purpose.

Since the Federal Government admits marijuana has medical purpose (not that it has the right to label anything in such a fashion in the first place; where do you see that as a delegated power in the Constitution or Amendments?) the government itself has voided it's own classification.  But nobody seems to care -- even when the very government that puts in place a structure then runs a criminal fraud within that same structure.  This is amplified, by the way, by the fact that the Federal Government knew it had no power to prohibit alcohol production and sales without a Constitutional Amendment.

As expected the sycophants for the pharmaceutical and other medical businesses, all of whom stand to lose billions as their addictive "options" become less valuable -- along with the religious nuts -- are out in force on the issue.  All of them should find themselves unemployable and are deserving of an asteroid strike; an example is found here:

The Baby Boomers reading this column should realize that the marijuana being produced today is many times stronger and more potent than what we saw in the 1960s.  The science today is also much clearer: we have far greater knowledge of the long-term, deleterious effects of marijuana on the physical and mental health of users, particular children and teenagers. 

The first sentence is true; the rest is documented to be false.

Never mind this lie:

The bottom line: today’s pot is a potentially dangerous substance.  That’s why it is classified as a Schedule I controlled drug along with heroin, LSD, and ecstasy – it isn’t alcohol. While alcohol can be abused, it is not addictive for most people. Moreover, most consumers stop well shy of the point of intoxication.  Moderate amounts even have some positive health benefits such as reducing the risk of heart disease and stroke.

I can tell you with absolute certainty that this claim about alcohol is a bald lie.  I can tell you this because I have actual, hard data to support that position.  You see, I and millions of others these days wear devices that track all sorts of things, most importantly to this discussion all-day heart rate and variability, which maps directly to cardiac stress.  I can state with absolute certainty that even one drink in a given day results in higher stress and poorer sleep quality.  Just one.  It does so repeatedly -- in fact it does so every single time.  My experience is not singular; I have a number of friends who also have said devices and have looked at their data and in every single instance I can tell them on exactly which days they have consumed any alcohol -- even just one beer, glass of wine or mixed drink -- and those on which they have not.

Of course the alcohol lobby does not want to talk about that, which includes every bar and restaurant owner with a license to serve booze.  Nor do any of the liquor and grocery store owners; nearly every one of the latter also has a license to sell alcohol.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not advocating that we ban booze again.  We tried that and it was a disaster.  We just refused to learn from that experience when it comes to other drugs; Prohibition not only didn't shut the booze off it provided a huge funding source for criminal gangs by driving alcohol production and sales into the black market exactly as we have done with other so-called "controlled substances."

Today's weed is indeed stronger and that means those who choose to use it need smoke or otherwise consume much less.  But unlike alcohol there is no "LD-50" for marijuana; you cannot fatally overdose by smoking or otherwise consuming it as you become impaired enough to be unable to hoist the bong (or joint) and if you narf a huge amount of some edible preparation while you'll get extremely stoned and very uncomfortable it won't kill you. If you decide to call 911 or show up in the ER it's not because you're dying, it's because you're uncomfortably stoned out of your gourd.  This is in stark contrast to alcohol which does kill people all the time through alcohol poisoning; it is in fact not hard at all to drink the point of not only severe intoxication but literal poisoning and die.

Never mind that increased potency, if you're smoking it, is a good thing because you consume far less smoke.  Smoking anything is bad for you for all the obvious reasons but the fewer "hits" you consume the less smoke you consume and thus the less lung damage.  "Modern" weed has also come with modern consumption devices such as vape pens and similar which nearly-eliminate the risk from smoking since they do not actually burn the cannabis.

Today’s pot pushers are just Big Tobacco 2.0.  Why else would they be infusing THC, the active ingredient, into everything from cookies to ice cream to Gummy Bears? 

Because some people don't like the very real risks that come with smoking something or have compromised lungs due to some non-weed-smoking medical condition and yet wish to use marijuana for some medically-related or recreational purpose.  Consuming cannabis by eating it is the obvious choice.

This is generally less popular, by the way, because it's very hard to accurately figure out how stoned you're going to get.  It's not a shock that many people who get way too wasted do so accidentally by eating cannabis products given that it takes upwards of an hour to figure out how "effective" what you just ate is going to be.  If the "thing" you are eating are brownies (or similar) it's pretty easy to munch a whole bunch of them before you feel the effects of the first one, with obvious results.

States like Colorado that have legalized marijuana use have seen huge increases in marijuana-related traffic accidents and fatalities 

This is a flat-out lie.

With regard to car accidents:

 “We found no significant association between recreational marijuana legalization in Washington and Colorado and subsequent changes in motor vehicle crash fatality rates in the first 3 years after recreational marijuana legalization,”

Nobody should be able to run documented lies like this in public, whether in "Op Eds" or otherwise without the publishing concern being sanctioned if it fails to follow even basic journalistic standards and fact-checks said claims.  This is not being presented as opinion it is being presented as fact to justify an opinion and it is blatantly false.  Such lies are exactly identical to the public fraud used to make marijuana illegal in the first place and should result in prison terms for those who run them for this sort of purpose as it not only places people at real risk it is in fact intended to kill them.

Yes, I said intended to kill, because it is.  Colorado has a record of reduction in opiate overdose deaths since the state legalized recreational marijuana.  It's one of the few states that has seen a reduction over the last few years and it's also one of the oldest recreational weed-legal states.  The association is clear; some percentage of people who would otherwise use opiates and die apparently will, given the choice and a legal alternative in marijuana, decide to use that instead and live.

It is time for the American people to demand and enforce via whatever means are necessary the full reversal of the original fruit of the lie run on Americans when weed was made illegal.  Marijuana must be removed from federal drug schedules entirely, not just "downgraded", as it was placed there originally as a result of a racist series of intentionally-false allegations for both political and financial purpose.  To fail to do so is to embrace and in fact support institutionalized and government-sanctioned racism which, I remind you, is indeed unconstitutional.

Such "laws" are void as repugnant to the constitution and must be formally repealed.

Further, until Congress does act on same the governors of such states as Colorado have an obligation (not just a right), given the laws passed in their states and which are valid within their borders, to call up their National Guards and expel all federal law enforcement agents and prosecutors who have or do attempt to enforce such a law within the boundaries of their states.  The 10th Amendment and Commerce Clause clearly delineate the line of jurisdiction and neither Jeff Sessions or those prosecutors have no authority to override either.

If the people of this nation can't or won't do this, either as citizens or governors, then it is time for same to stand down from all political pretense or, for that matter, any pretense that you're an American.  You are not.  You have no right to claim citizenship because citizenship comes with responsibilities, not just rights, and one of them is to uphold and defend the Constitution.  By utterly refusing those responsibilities you have demonstrated you're unworthy of anything other than spit directed at your shoes and urine off a rooftop wherever you may walk.

Those ordinary citizens of any political persuasion, irrespective of alleged respect for citizenship and its responsibilities, who claim to be so offended by "sexual harassment" and "racism" need to either take this as far as necessary in order to delete all cannabis products from any sort of federal law banning same or shut the **** up.  The simple fact of the matter is that the plant was made illegal as a blatantly racist act and therefore all such laws today are inherently an expression of racism.

You either care about that enough to raise hell or you don't -- there is no middle ground, and this particular expression of racism has done more damage than any other set of laws since slavery ended in the late 1800s -- by far.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2018-01-07 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Social Issues , 272 references
[Comments enabled]  

So #metoo is all the rage.

Yeah, there's a problem with predatory people in the workplace and elsewhere.  It's commonly thought it's all men doing women, but that's false.  A hell of a lot of women teachers, for example, seem to like to do boys.  While there are plenty of male soccer and gymnastics coaches that have stood accused of diddling a female athlete (and more than a few did it) there seems to be a new one every day in the news now when it comes to women teachers boffing their male students.

Now to be fair, that may have a lot to do with the demographics of teachers and their sexes.  It also may have plenty to do with the fact that most 15 year old boys wouldn't exactly call a hot teacher wanting their body "rape" (whether the law sees it that way or not.)

But Diane, you ought to be careful here.

The #metoo movement made the cover of Time Magazine, a fitting prominence given that it is bringing about the greatest gender shift since women were granted the vote.

The scales of justice have been readjusted and now men accused by victims are considered guilty unless proven innocent.


**** you.

Since when is a mere allegation bereft of evidence enough?  I say never.

Not that you care, just like plenty of other women don't.

That's ok, because this sort of witch-hunt mentality has a price and it's going to come fast and hard for you and others: Men will simply give women the finger.

See, there's a point at which romance isn't worth it.  While some men have that infamous "biological clock" thing going on it's a hell of a lot more prevalent in women.  Men have two hands and while it's not as good it sure beats being financially and personally destroyed by a false, even malicious, allegation.

Don't tell me those false accusations don't happen either -- they most-certainly do.  Indeed, it appears that during the last Presidential campaign you had "fine lawyers" offering six figures to women who would accuse Trump of harassment or worse.

Did you really get assaulted or harassed if you will only spin a tale for money?  Or are you lying for profit?

Then there's the Moore thing.  We know one accuser forged at least part of a yearbook "signature" because she admitted it -- but only after close scrutiny appeared by myself and others who not only noted the odd color problems with the ink but the rather clear insanity involved in keeping around a memento from someone who you claim sexually assaulted you for decades when you had no idea it would have political value down the road.  Did that accuser forge the rest?  Was the real name in that book "Ray" and not "Roy"?  I don't know and neither do you, but guess what -- she's vanished and so has the evidence, and I'll bet it's never seen again.  Yes, Moore lost the election, but did he lose it due to a false accusation or is he really a creep?

I don't know and neither do you -- but Roy Moore does.

Yeah, there's a problem here, but it's one you don't care about.

You should, especially if you have daughters or are unmarried now.

There's not a thing you can do about that ticking sound most women hear, but far fewer men do.  The finger goes up by those men, a few years go by, and, well, there's going to be a problem when you discover that only the worthless jackass men are willing to take the risk because they have nothing to lose.

Then what?

Tell me what your daughter will think of your bull**** when all the eligible and desirable men refuse to have anything to do with her, leaving her to choose between a vibrator or some douchebag drunk, nasty jackass.

You should also care when it comes to employment and small business.  Think I'll set one up and hire people?  Nope.  Never, as long as this crap continues.  Are you nuts?  It's illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex in employment which means there's exactly zero realistic means available to prevent a false allegation from being made.

The risk simply isn't worth that first hire today.

Let me remind you that the last time around, before all this horse****, that first hire led to a nice-sized business that employed a few dozen people.

Today, in this environment, do you think I'll do it again?

Not a prayer in Hell and the job that doesn't get created would have been yours -- or your daughter's.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection:
The License Server Paradigm

Full-Text Search & Archives
Archive Access

Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.


The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.