Medical Marijuana and the FDA

April 27: NY Congressman Maurice Hinchey Leads Bipartisan House Coalition In Calling For FDA To Explain Baseless Anti-Medical Marijuana Policy

Twenty-Four Members Say Agency Needs To Start Responding To Science & Not To Political Pressure
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ny22_hinchey/morenews/042706medmarijuanafdaletter.html

The National Review agrees, saying

"The FDA has proclaimed that there is no scientific support for the
medicinal benefits of marijuana. Yet the pronouncement appeared to be
driven more by politics than by science. The FDA's statement conflicts
with earlier studies, most notably one done in 1999 by the Institute
of Medicine, a non-profit medical advisory group. And then there are
experts such as Dr. Jerome Kassirer, a former editor of The New
England Journal of Medicine who says of the FDA's claim: "I think it's
ridiculous. The fact is there are circumstances where smoked marijuana
may be helpful to patients who are desperately ill." Such sparring may
be interesting, but in the end it is tangential to the policy
question: If some suffering patients believe they can find comfort in
smoking dope, and they don't interfere with anyone else, what
legitimate interest does the state have in prosecuting them?"

The left and the right are coming together on this issue. Eleven states have taken the lead and have medical marijuana laws on the books. Libertarians believe no one should be prosecuted for smoking pot, but let's at LEAST agree to take the patients out of the line of fire, OK?

As they say..."consider the source"

The FDA Awaits a Cure for Its Malaise
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-fda30apr30,1,6025000.story?track=crosspromo&page=2&coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true

Ex-Head of F.D.A. Faces Criminal Inquiry
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/29/washington/29fda.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1146283200&en=488e5d05bb70e967&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin
[Karma: 0 (+/-)] bonnie on 05.03.06 @ 03:24 AM ET [link] [6 Comments]

Eminent Domain: proposed Massena grab benefitting Wal*Mart DROPPED

This case is an interesting one. Even before their planned February 15 public hearing on the subject, the Massena town board and St Lawrence county officials were announcing that the plan to use Eminent Domain to grab a portion of the Saint Lawrence Centre mall was off. They had been planning to do this so that the owners of the Saint Lawrence Centre--the Carlyle Development Group of White Plains--could sell the land to Wal*Mart to build a supercenter. What's wrong with a private company selling property to another private company, you ask? Well, according to News10, one of the Saint Lawrence Centre tenants, Hannaford's Grocery, has a contract that says no other grocery store would be permitted on mall property.

The local officials are doing the right thing. If Wal*Mart wants that supercenter built badly enough, they can buy out Hannaford's on the free market. There is no possible justification to use "condemnation" (on a thriving property, no less) to break a contract in favor of a different private entity or non-emergency use.

[Karma: 2 (+/-)] bonnie on 02.16.06 @ 09:43 AM ET [link] [74 Comments]

Reforming NY: Judicial Elections

As the Times Union wrote on January 31, "A federal judge has ruled unconstitutional the process by which Supreme Court judicial candidates are selected -- which is to say, by political party bosses. And he wants the Legislature to come up with a better system." See: http://timesunion.com/AspStories/storyprint.asp?StoryID=445451

New York's judicial nominating process has been tightly controlled by party leaders instead of by the members of the parties in conventions or primaries. The NY Times wrote that the current system "has allowed political party leaders in some cases to treat selections to the state's highest trial court like classic patronage positions." The current system also locks out most libertarian choices for judicial office, because only the recognized parties (ones who have received 50,000 votes for governor in the last election) may easily place judicial nominees on New York's ballots. Independent bodies, like the Libertarian Party, must collect a great number of petition signatures to do so.

According to Newsday, U.S. District Judge John Gleeson (the same judge who gave us our enrollment decision) issued "a preliminary injunction enjoining the state's Board of Elections from enforcing the existing system, and instructed the state to hold traditional primary elections to pick Supreme Court candidates until the Legislature enacts a replacement scheme." Family, county and city court judges around the state are selected in primary elections.

The Times Union calls for the Legislature to pass laws allowing judicial appointments by the parties rather than more open elections. What do you think? Do you think that "independent panels" can be independent in an atmosphere like Albany's?

There are also calls for public financing of judicial campaigns, such as from the Commission to Promote Public Confidence in Judicial Elections, chaired by John Feerick, the former Dean of Fordham Law School. Public financing would make problems even worse, because public financing supports the incumbant parties, locking out reformist groups trying to make change. See: http://www.moderncourts.org/News/New/clamor.html.

Feerick's Commission suggests:
* Judicial retention elections (where a judge faces only a yes/no vote, not an opponent)
* State-sponsored independent screening panels to vet judicial candidates
* Public financing of judicial election campaigns
* Voter guides containing information on candidates and the justice system
* Public access to candidates’ campaign finance information via the Internet, as well as a web-based judicial directory

The complete report of the Feerick Commission is available at http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reports/JudicialElectionsReport.pdf It's hard to see how the Feerick Commission's suggestions will make it any easier for libertarian judges -- who understand the true intent of our founders for limited government -- to get on the ballot and get elected.

The case was brought by Margarita Lopez Torres, then an elected Civil Court judge and now a surrogate judge, plus eight voters and the group Common Cause. They were represented by the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law. State Supreme Court judges are currently paid $136,700 a year.

This is the first in a series of articles on "Reforming NY" at http://ny.lp.org/. Your comments are welcome.
[Karma: 2 (+/-)] bonnie on 02.10.06 @ 01:22 PM ET [link] [59 Comments]

Eminent Domain: Bank declines to support ED-enabled development

January 25, 2006
BB&T announces eminent domain policy

WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. – BB&T Corporation today said it will not lend to commercial developers that plan to build condominiums, shopping malls and other private projects on land taken from private citizens by government entities using eminent domain.

BB&T news release:
http://www.bbandt.com/about/media/newsreleasedetail.asp?date=1%2F25%2F06+9%3A48%3A52+AM

The New York Libertarian Party state committee voted today (January 28, 2006) to acknowledge BB&T Corporation's policy to not support eminent domain activity.

Please contact the BB&T management to thank them for their principled position:
https://www.bbandt.com/apps/contact/corporate.asp
[Karma: 2 (+/-)] bonnie on 01.28.06 @ 05:55 PM ET [link] [4 Comments]

Border Patrol: internal checkpoints and new passport schemes

The U.S. Border Patrol's activities are in the news again. NCPR played a feature on the internal checkpoints this morning. You can listen to it there, and read the LPNY's background page on the U.S.B.P. checkpoints, like the one in Essex County, which are inside our borders.

In related news, there was a recent Newswatch 50 story on the new PASS (People Access Security Service) IDs, which will be required of travellers going between the U.S and Canada starting in 2008. "Chertoff says the PASS program will eventually feed into what he calls a 'global security network.'" The PASS cards would eventually be able to carry biometric data, such as fingerprints or iris scans, according to The Detroit News, and the system should be up and running by the end of this year.

This PASS plan seems to replace the prior plan to require passports to go between Canada and the U.S. (and Mexico, the Caribbean). There was a lot of unhappiness on both sides of the northern border from law-abiding businesses, business people, and tourists over that plan. The government's new hype is that the PASS cards (about $50 each) will be cheaper than passports (about $100 each), but would it change the mind of a family of four in St Lawrence COunty to make a day trip up to Montreal? How about taking your Girl Scout troop up to Montreal or Quebec city, as I recall doing as a teen?

Having the PASSes will also be cheaper than upgrading all of NY's licenses to be "secure documents," as Homeland Security spokesman Jarrod Agen implies in the Detroit News article. He says they will "keep costs down for the enhanced driver's licenses for people not wanting to cross borders," yet "allow Homeland Security to meet the January 2008 deadline set by Congress for tougher documentation." Bloomberg Canada reports that "U.S. citizens who travel to and from Canada and Mexico by plane or boat would still be required to have passports by the beginning of next year."

On the passport side, we getting e-Passports, which are being tested currently in San Francisco, Singapore, and Sydney, Australia in a special program going until April 15. Slashdot had a post back in November on RFIDs use in passports. You can read more about ePassports from Scoop.co.nz, 2006: “ePassports” will lead way for biometrics or get the latest from Google on ePassports.

[Karma: 3 (+/-)] bonnie on 01.20.06 @ 01:21 PM ET [link] [8 Comments]

Health Care: Prescription Overdose

Note: This great clip came via Ender's Review of libertarian news.

by Susan Callaway from The Price of Liberty

"I've been watching a little television the last few weeks as I waited for
my broken leg to mend. Boredom will drive even me to amazing things
sometimes, but it has been educational as well as sickening. I hadn't
watched TV for about 5 years before, and it may be a lot longer before I
look at it again. The most striking thing I've seen is the constant
bombardment of prescription drug (and other health related) advertising and
the propaganda pieces for the various government programs like the new
Medicare drug welfare plans. The first tries to convince people to take
pills they most likely don't need - at real risk to their health - and the
second shows them how they can get someone else to pay for it."

http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/06/01/09/editor.htm

[Karma: 2 (+/-)] bonnie on 01.16.06 @ 08:14 AM ET [link] [8 Comments]

Elections: NY's problems complying with HAVA

HAVA, or the Help America Vote Act requires changes in the way the state conducts elections. NY's implementation has been tied up in bureaucracy.

From the Daily Star, January 13, 2006, Feds may sue N.Y. over voting:
In addition to not having voting-machine standards adopted, New York has failed to compile a statewide computerized list of registered voters, Kim said...Thus far, New York has received $220 million in federal funds to help comply with HAVA requirements. http://www.thedailystar.com/news/stories/2006/01/13/vote1.html

Tie-ups might not be a bad thing. There is some concern that the rush is leading to adoption of insecure machines.

Related

Electronic Frontier Foundation on E-Voting
http://www.eff.org/Activism/E-voting/

National Ballot Integrity Project:
http://www.ballotintegrity.org/

Black Box Voting:
http://blackboxvoting.org

Order the book VoteScam:
http://www.votescam.com/orderbookform.php


[Karma: 2 (+/-)] bonnie on 01.13.06 @ 02:48 PM ET [link] [4 Comments]