Feds Raid Pot Dispensaries in Washington, Where the Drug is Legal

As state laws decriminalizing marijuana begin to take effect (and grow in number), proponents of access to the drug have been holding their breaths to see how the feds would react. And in Washington State, it looks like several medical marijuana dispensaries found out the answer today as the Drug Enforcement Administration confirmed a series of raids in the Seattle area.

RELATED: The Future of Marijuana Legalization Looks... Cloudy

Colorado and Washington State have decriminalized the drug, while close to 20 states have laws on the books regulating its medical use. But marijuana is still illegal by federal law, meaning that state efforts to legalize pot have more or less moved forward with the knowledge that federal agencies might just go ahead and enforce federal law anyway. Here's NBC, explaining more:

One of the dispensaries was the Bayside Collective in Olympia, the state capital, where seven government vehicles converged Wednesday morning. Agents with guns drawn seized business records and about $2,500 worth of marijuana intended for cancer patients, Casey Lee, who works at the clinic, [said]. "It's humiliating," Lee said. "They don't get to see the cancer patients."

According to the AP, the raid on Bayside, and presumably the other clinics, was part of a two-year investigation that'll go before a grand jury in September. Washington state law allows for the possession of marijuana up to one ounce, and has state laws regulating its use medically.

RELATED: Smoking Out Mice to Study Memory; Human Ancestor Found

And while access for patients to medical marijuana will likely drive the conversation surrounding the latest raids, there's another discussion out there challenging the way in which marijuana laws are enforced in the U.S.: earlier this year, a New York Times report, citing ACLU data, outlined the stark racial disparity in marijuana arrests nationwide, with Brooklyn, it turns out, being the epicenter of disparity in pot arrests.

RELATED: The Emerging Pro-Weed Majority

Meanwhile, we're wondering how the recent raids in the Seattle area will affect former Microsoft exec Jamen Shively's plans to found the Starbucks of pot.

• by NRDC
• July 24, 2013

by Claire Morgenstern, NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council)

Last month in a landmark speech on climate, President Obama announced that he would not approve the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline if it will drive more global pollution and more climate chaos.

We already have clear and compelling evidence that this carbon-spewing behemoth would do exactly that, detailed in a new report released this week by NRDC (read the full environmental and economic analysis here). But basically what it means is that the President’s climate promise could be a game-changer in the fight against tar sands oil.

It also means that it’s more critical than ever that we call on President Obama to reject the Keystone XL. NRDC is pulling out all the stops this summer — in the media, on Capitol Hill and at the White House itself — to prove that the Keystone XL is a climate-destroying monster that the President has no choice but to reject. That includes running this powerful ad in The Washington Post, which features a letter from 10 Nobel Laureates calling on President Obama to show leadership by rejecting the pipeline, and this new hard-hitting video from Robert Redford exposing tar sands oil for the environmental disaster that it is — and rallying hundreds of thousands to make their voices heard inside the White House.

Here are the facts: the Keystone XL would pump more than 800,000 barrels a day of tar sands crude, one of the world’s dirtiest, planet-cooking fuels. It’s the linchpin of the oil industry’s plan to more than triple tar sands production by 2030, which will drive 250 percent more global warming pollution than it did just three years ago.

Canada’s tar sands contain a carbon reservoir equivalent to all the carbon burned in human history. Simply put, if the Obama Administration approves the Keystone XL, it will light the fuse on that carbon bomb and trigger still more climate upheaval, leaving none of us unscathed.

While the oil industry rakes in billions of dollars, the rest of us will pay the price in climate disruption for decades to come.

Meanwhile, we are getting clear signs of what the future will bring if the Keystone XL gets built. The Exxon tar sands pipeline rupture in Mayflower, Arkansas last March coated a suburban neighborhood with hundreds of thousands of gallons of tar sands crude, the massive toxic waste spill from an oil and gas operation in Alberta last month killed “every plant and tree” in its path and most frighteningly, the level of heat-trapping CO2 in our atmosphere just cracked the once-unthinkable barrier of 400 parts per million — and is well on its way to 450 unless we take drastic action to reverse course.

Right now, that’s still possible! Standard & Poor’s has stated that the tar sands industry is depending on the Keystone XL to move tar sands oil to overseas markets. And analysts at Goldman Sachs say that without the pipeline, the development of Alberta’s tar sands would be greatly slowed and its climate impacts significantly reduced.

So let’s say you’re President Obama and you’re submitting the Keystone XL to a climate test. Rejecting the pipeline should be a no-brainer, right?

But the President’s State Department just doesn’t seem to get it — which is particularly unfortunate since they’re the ones charged with evaluating the pipeline’s environmental impacts. The department’s latest review merely parrots Big Oil’s bankrupt assertion that the Keystone XL will not drive tar sands expansion or increase global warming pollution.

So what now? Will President Obama go along with that charade? Or will he have the courage to slam shut the floodgates on a river of climate-destroying, tar sands crude?

It’s up to us to hold the President to his promise on climate … and we must do so swiftly, loudly and relentlessly. Before it’s too late.

Take Action Now: Tell President Obama to reject the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline once and for all.

• by Kristina Chew
• July 24, 2013

More young women are dying from excessive alcohol consumption in England and Scotland at a time when both countries are seeing a decline in such deaths among the general population. Sally Marlow of the Institute of Psychiatry at Kings College London tells the BBC that these findings could be the first indicator of a “ticking time bomb” of alcohol problems in women born in the 1970s.

It goes without saying that such a finding is “worrying.” Marlow suggests that the “ladette” culture of the 1970s in which women could be “very out there, embracing male behaviours – one of which was excessive drinking” could be a factor in why, in Glasgow, “notable numbers” of women born between 1970 and 1979 were found to have died from alcohol-related causes at a much earlier age than women who had been born in the 1960s. Deborah Shipton, one of the authors of the study, also suggests that cheaper alcohol has played a part, along with “better marketing and longer drinking hours.”

The researchers studied men and women of all ages in Glasgow, Liverpool and Manchester from 1980 to 2011, but their findings resonate across the Atlantic. For the past few years, I’ve taught classes on Friday morning (at a small university in New Jersey) and routinely found myself facing rows of bleary-eyed students. It’s open knowledge that Thursday, if not Wednesday, is when the weekend, and the partying, starts.

It’s not news that college students drink and binge drink. But as a teacher seeing the effects of all this on young women and men in the classroom, and as a 40-something-ish mother born just before the cut-off date for the British researchers’ study, I’ve wondered if the habits learned in college could carry over to students’ later lives.

Older Women Binge Drink, Too

Binge drinking — four or more drinks for women, five or more for men within two hours — is not just for co-eds on Spring Break, as Gabriel Glaser recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal. As a recent study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found, among women in the U.S., 24 percent of those who did so are college-age but ten percent are women between 45 and 64 and three percent are women older than 65.

Glaser suggests that more women in the U.S. are drinking than ever:

In the nine years between 1998 and 2007, the number of women arrested for drunken driving rose 30 percent, while male arrests dropped more than 7 percent. Between 1999 and 2008, the number of young women who showed up in emergency rooms for being dangerously intoxicated rose by 52 percent. The rate for young men, though higher, rose just 9 percent.

Moreover, a Gallup poll has found that “the more educated and well off a woman is, the more likely she is to imbibe.” The “drinking mom” has become what Glaser calls a “cultural trope” (e.g., some members of the cast of “Real Housewives” have introduced their own wine labels) but it is one based on realities. I wasn’t surprised to learn that there are nearly 650,000 women following “Moms Who Need Wine” on Facebook. I’ve read many a status update or or tweet in which a friend (after a long day of work, childcare, fighting insurance companies to get medical procedures for children with disabilities covered while struggling to care for children with complex needs) has mentioned the same.

More and Better Treatment Options for Drinking Problems in Women Needed

As Marlow implies and Glaser notes, rising rates of alcohol consumption in women are, in one sense, a “sign of parity.” But women need to keep in mind that their bodies process alcohol differently than’s men’s. Women, due to having more fat and less water, retain alcohol more. As a result, a woman can become intoxicated more quickly than a man even when drinking the same amount of alcohol.

Another real concern is that treatment methods developed specifically for women with drinking problems are still lacking. Alcoholics Anonymous’ 12-step program has been “embraced by the nation’s courts, much of the medical establishment, insurance companies and popular culture as a one-size-fits-all approach to harmful drinking.” AA meetings, though, which require members to submit to a “higher power,” refrain from all drinking and “tame their egos,” are not, says Glaser, well-suited to women.

Women may have started drinking excessively in the first place due to higher rates of anxiety and depression; to having to make their way climbing the career ladder and “fit in.” Glaser describes other treatment options that may include personal counseling and medicine that may be more suited to women’s needs and, therefore, more effective.

A very dear friend of my husband’s died last month from alcohol-related causes. He was not the first we have known who drank excessively as a young person, only to suffer from the effects in adulthood. His partner, who is a few years younger than me, has said that she has given up alcohol entirely.

Read more: aa, alcohol, binge drinking, college students, drinking, wine

Photo from Thinkstock

WASHINGTON (AP) — The House narrowly rejected a challenge to the National Security Agency's secret collection of hundreds of millions of Americans' phone records Wednesday night after a fierce debate pitting privacy rights against the government's efforts to thwart terrorism.

The vote was 217-205 on an issue that created unusual political coalitions in Washington, with libertarian-leaning conservatives and liberal Democrats pressing for the change against the Obama administration, the Republican establishment and Congress' national security experts.

The showdown vote marked the first chance for lawmakers to take a stand on the secret surveillance program since former NSA systems analyst Edward Snowden leaked classified documents last month that spelled out the monumental scope of the government's activities.

Backing the NSA program were 134 Republicans and 83 Democrats, including House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, who typically does not vote, and Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi. Rejecting the administration's last-minute pleas to spare the surveillance operation were 94 Republicans and 111 Democrats.

It is unlikely to be the final word on government intrusion to defend the nation and Americans' civil liberties.

"Have 12 years gone by and our memories faded so badly that we forgot what happened on Sept. 11?" Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., chairman of the Intelligence Committee, said in pleading with his colleagues to back the program during House debate.

Republican Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan, chief sponsor of the repeal effort, said his aim was to end the indiscriminate collection of Americans' phone records.

His measure, offered as an addition to a $598.3 billion defense spending bill for 2014, would have canceled the statutory authority for the NSA program, ending the agency's ability to collect phone records and metadata under the USA Patriot Act unless it identified an individual under investigation.

The House later voted to pass the overall defense bill, 315-109.

Amash told the House that his effort was to defend the Constitution and "defend the privacy of every American."

"Opponents of this amendment will use the same tactic that every government throughout history has used to justify its violation of rights: Fear," he said. "They'll tell you that the government must violate the rights of the American people to protect us against those who hate our freedom."

The unlikely political coalitions were on full display during a spirited but brief House debate.

View gallery."

Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich. returns to his office on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, July 24, …

"Let us not deal in false narratives. Let's deal in facts that will keep Americans safe," said Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., a member of the Intelligence committee who implored her colleagues to back a program that she argued was vital in combatting terrorism.

But Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., a senior member of the Judiciary Committee who helped write the Patriot Act, insisted "the time has come" to stop the collection of phone records that goes far beyond what he envisioned.

Several Republicans acknowledged the difficulty in balancing civil liberties against national security, but expressed suspicion about the Obama administration's implementation of the NSA programs — and anger at Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.

"Right now the balancing is being done by people we do not know. People who lied to this body," said Rep. Mick Mulvaney, R-S.C.

He was referring to Clapper who admitted he gave misleading statements to Congress on how much the U.S. spies on Americans. Clapper apologized to lawmakers earlier this month after saying in March that the U.S. does not gather data on citizens — something that Snowden revealed as false by releasing documents showing the NSA collects millions of phone records.

With a flurry of letters, statements and tweets, both sides lobbied furiously in the hours prior to the vote in the Republican-controlled House. In a last-minute statement, Clapper warned against dismantling a critical intelligence tool.

Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Congress has authorized — and a Republican and a Democratic president have signed — extensions of the powers to search records and conduct roving wiretaps in pursuit of terrorists.

Two years ago, in a strong bipartisan statement, the Senate voted 72-23 to renew the Patriot Act and the House backed the extension 250-153.

Since the disclosures this year, however, lawmakers have said they were shocked by the scope of the two programs — one to collect records of hundreds of millions of calls and the other allowing the NSA to sweep up Internet usage data from around the world that goes through nine major U.S.-based providers.

Although Republican leaders agreed to a vote on the Amash amendment, one of 100 to the defense spending bill, time for debate was limited to 15 minutes out of the two days the House dedicated to the overall legislation.

The White House and the director of the NSA, Army Gen. Keith Alexander, made last-minute appeals to lawmakers, urging them to oppose the amendment. Rogers and Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, D-Md., leaders of the House Intelligence Committee, implored their colleagues to back the NSA program.

Eight former attorneys general, CIA directors and national security experts wrote in a letter to lawmakers that the two programs are fully authorized by law and "conducted in a manner that appropriately respects the privacy and civil liberties interests of Americans."

View gallery."

Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich. walks through a basement tunnel to the House of Representatives on Capito …

White House press secretary Jay Carney issued an unusual, nighttime statement on the eve of Wednesday's vote, arguing that the change would "hastily dismantle one of our intelligence community's counterterrorism tools."

Proponents of the NSA programs argue that the surveillance operations have been successful in thwarting at least 50 terror plots across 20 countries, including 10 to 12 directed at the United States. Among them was a 2009 plot to strike at the New York Stock Exchange.

Rogers joined six GOP chairmen in a letter urging lawmakers to reject the Amash amendment.

"While many members have legitimate questions about the NSA metadata program, including whether there are sufficient protections for Americans' civil liberties," the chairman wrote, "eliminating this program altogether without careful deliberation would not reflect our duty, under Article I of the Constitution, to provide for the common defense."

The overall defense spending bill would provide the Pentagon with $512.5 billion for weapons, personnel, aircraft and ships plus $85.8 billion for the war in Afghanistan for the next budget year.

The total, which is $5.1 billion below current spending, has drawn a veto threat from the White House, which argues that it would force the administration to cut education, health research and other domestic programs in order to boost spending for the Pentagon.

In a leap of faith, the bill assumes that Congress and the administration will resolve the automatic, across-the-board spending cuts that have led the Pentagon to furlough workers and cut back on training. The bill projects spending in the next fiscal year at $28.1 billion above the so-called sequester level.

By voice vote, the House backed an amendment that would require the president to seek congressional approval before sending U.S. military forces into the 2-year-old civil war in Syria.

Rep. Trey Radel, R-Fla., sponsor of the measure, said Obama has a "cloudy foreign policy" and noted the nation's war weariness after more than 10 years of conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The administration is moving ahead with sending weapons to vetted rebels, but Obama and members of Congress have rejected the notion of U.S. ground forces.

The House also adopted, by voice vote, an amendment barring funds for military or paramilitary operations in Egypt. Several lawmakers, including Rep. Kay Granger, R-Texas, who heads the panel overseeing foreign aid, expressed concerns about the measure jeopardizing the United States' longstanding relationship with the Egyptian military.

The sponsor of the measure, Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., insisted that his amendment would not affect that relationship.

The overall bill must be reconciled with whatever measure the Democratic-controlled Senate produces.