A+ A A-

Froma Harrop - Legal pot means more money for states & less for gangs

The good things that should happen after marijuana is legalized are happening in Colorado. In November, voters in Colorado — and Washington state — legalized pot for recreational use. (Many states allow medical use of marijuana.)
What are the good things?
For starters, money, money, money for the state coffers. As of last week, lawmakers in Denver were still tussling over how heavily to tax marijuana sales. A leading plan centers on excise and sales taxes totaling 30 percent. The tax can't go so high that it encourages a black market.
The first $40 million collected from the excise tax would go to schools. And revenues from a 15 percent sales tax on pot plus the 2.9 percent ordinary state sales tax would be sent to local governments and cover the cost of enforcing the new marijuana regulations.
Meanwhile, the state would save money it now spends on arresting, prosecuting and jailing citizens caught smoking the stuff. As one small example, Washington state no longer trains new police dogs to sniff out marijuana.
Some lawmakers say they want "safeguards" in place to ensure that marijuana doesn't end up in the hands of kids, criminals and cartels — like it's not happening already.
Speaking of which, turning pot producers and vendors into legitimate businesses is perhaps the most welcome outcome of marijuana legalization. As Elliott Klug, head of Pink House Blooms, a $3-million-a-year marijuana business in Denver, told The Wall Street Journal: "We were the bad guys. Now we are still the bad guys, but we pay taxes."
What he means is that while the new marijuana operations can operate in the open, they are not being treated as leniently as other farming ventures. The state is regulating them with a heavy hand, to the point of doing background checks on the growers' tattoos.
As more people pile into marijuana merchandizing, prices fall. (Pot prices in Denver are already down a third from their levels in 2011.) Taking the big money out of a formerly illegal but popular product dismantles the criminal cartels' business model. That means less violence on the streets, less smuggling at the Mexican border. It means ordinary citizens can hike in national forests without fear of tripping upon some gang-run marijuana operation.
Unfortunately, while Colorado and Washington state are doing their bit to end the insanity, the federal government has not. Under federal law, marijuana remains an illegal substance.
This means that legitimate pot growers can't borrow money. (Banks will not lend to businesses the feds do not consider legal.) If a grower develops an especially high-quality plant, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office will not register it.
Marijuana has been a $1.3 billion-a-year business in this country, a business largely closed to the law-abiding. And there's a collateral lost opportunity caused by our crazy prohibition on hemp farming. Hemp is an industrial product with many uses. Though it lacks the psychoactive properties of marijuana, hemp is a cousin of marijuana bearing some family resemblance. That's the only reason American farmers are banned from growing it. Across the northern border in Canada, hemp waves on thousands of acres.
Sadly, the Obama administration has lacked the courage to boldly move forward on changing the national marijuana laws. Last winter, President Obama took the baby step of saying the administration wouldn't spend much time on recreational users.
The U.S. Department of Justice is currently scratching its head over what to do about Colorado and Washington state. Eventually, the feds will come around, but how much money must be wasted on prosecution and how much tax revenues lost before that happens?
(A member of the Providence Journal editorial board, Froma Harrop writes a nationally syndicated column from that city. She has written for such diverse publications as The New York Times, Harper's Bazaar and Institutional Investor.)

Last Updated on Wednesday, 31 December 1969 07:00

Hits: 224

Bob Meade - The new normal

"The new normal." That phrase has been popularized during the last few years. It stems from the horror of "9-11" when terrorists brought down the World Trade Center buildings, killing more people than were killed when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, on December 7, 1941.
The new normal indicates a change in lifestyle, of the adjustments to our awareness that become necessary to avoid possible harm. It means we are to be suspicious of those things that were routinely accepted as part of our daily life in the past. We are to be suspicious because of a person's ethnicity, but we can't openly say so because that would not be politically correct. Fear, which has always been the final motivator, now moves to the head of the line.
Law abiding citizens in this country are not used to having fear as a primary motivator. We expect the "old normal" of shopping, dining out, going to school, visiting with friends, taking in a ball game, all to be devoid of our suspicions. But, in the "new normal", we are to adjust our mindsets from what had been pleasant or routine, to fear, and therefore, suspicion.
There's more though. It seems like our "new normal", includes blatantly calling others "liars", or "pathological liars". We claim others have made statements they never made because it suits our purpose to do so. We use language so foul that it causes the print media to scrap on-line commentary on the things others have written. We imply cowardice on the part of others in an effort to boast of our own manhood. We routinely put political party before country. We seek to invalidate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights because we think we're smarter than the founders. And, we righteously cry foul if those of the other party reciprocate to our bias. We allow ourselves to be subservient to politicians who overstay their time in office because of their desire for the euphoria of power. We let tenured academicians indoctrinate rather that teach. We tolerate destroying the most innocent among us, but give little thought to the fact that we were allowed to live and weren't destroyed in a similar manner. We watch as "success" is demonized as greed and we ignore the envy we perpetrate in doing so. We communicate through "social" media because it's faceless and indifferent to the emotions inherent in personal dialogue. We use 140 characters, a single "packet" of information, to remotely express a thought. We unproductively follow celebrities on Twitter for who knows why. We lose precious time standing in lines at airports watching as other are groped in search of myriad contraband items, perhaps something as dangerous as a bottle of shampoo. It matters not that it's a seven year old girl or her seventy year old grandma in a wheelchair. You see, political correctness dictates a numerical statistic not necessarily the most suspicious. And our fear creates a previously unseen hypocrisy as we are fearful of offending a Muslim, but not a Christian or a Jew. We call an on-base massacre at Fort Hood, "workplace violence" because we fear offending those of the Muslim faith. And, we ignore the fact that soldiers and their families are slighted and denied benefits because we refuse to acknowledge the incident as an act of war. (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/members-congress-demand-obama-administration-classify-ft-hood/story?id=18493746)
These "new normal" items represent victories for those who would try and destroy us; those in the west who value life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They claim victory each time they instill fear or have us change how we live our lives. The reputation of the United States as the most powerful nation in the world is shredded as two young men wreak havoc at the Boston Marathon. Innocent people are killed and scores of others are injured, suffering, and maimed for life. Two young men inflicting pain on a major metropolitan area, a state, and a nation. In addition to the physical pain and anguish, has anyone calculated the impact of lost revenues to businesses and lost wages to workers, or the impact such terror will have on the city of so many universities and first rate hospitals . . . how will the act change the way those institutions operate in a safe and secure manner, and at what cost?
The "new normal" can be a step up, it doesn't have to be a life of fear and suspicion. Maybe we can start by putting aside the negatives being hurled at each other and simply consider that the one you are trying to denigrate, may be the one you might need to come to your aid.
(Bob Meade is a Laconia resident.)

Last Updated on Wednesday, 31 December 1969 07:00

Hits: 210

Jim Hightower - Right moving to gag ag biz journalists & whistleblowers

In most state legislatures today, "off the wall" has become the political center, and bizarre bills are no longer unusual.
Still, it seems strange that legislators in so many states — including Arkansas, California, Florida, Indiana, Missouri, Ohio and Vermont — have simultaneously been pushing "ag-gag" bills that are not merely outrageous, but downright un-American. Each is intended to quash free speech by banning journalists, whistleblowers, workers and other citizens from exposing illegal, abusive or unethical treatment of animals that are incarcerated in the factory feeding operations of huge corporations.
Our nation's founders mounted a revolution to establish our free-press and free-speech rights, enshrining them in the First Amendment to ensure the free exchange of ideas — even when the Powers That Be didn't like the message that such freedoms produce. In fact, the Founders knew from hard experience that the protection of those freedoms was especially essential when the Powers That Be have something they're eager to hide from the citizenry.
Yet here comes a mess of so-called "conservatives" attempting to use state government to outlaw messengers who shine a light on corporate wrongdoing — turning those who expose crimes into criminals. Even kookier, these repressive laws declare that truth-tellers who so much as annoy or embarrass the corporate owner of the animal factory are guilty of "an act of terrorism."
Oddly, each of these state proposals is practically identical, even including much of the same wording. That's because, unbeknownst to the public and other legislators, the bills don't originate from the state lawmakers who introduce them. Instead, they come from a Washington-based corporate front group named ALEC — the American Legislative Exchange Council.
This infamous "bill mill" periodically convenes its corporate funders to write model bills that serve their special interests. Then ALEC farms out bills to its trusted cadre of state lawmakers across the country, who introduce them as their own, not mentioning the corporate powers behind them.
The secretive ALEC network produced the model ag-gag bill in 2002 and began shipping it from state to state under the ominous tile, "Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act."
The freedom-busting terrorists in this fight are not those who reveal the abuse, but the soulless factory-farm profiteers in the corporate suites and the cynical lawmakers who serve them.
Actually, factory farms are not farms at all. They are corporate-run concentration camps for pigs, cows, chickens, turkeys and other food animals.
Held in corporate confinement, these creatures of nature are denied any contact with their natural world, instead being crammed by the thousands into concrete-and-metal buildings, where they are locked in torturously tiny cages for the duration of their so-called "life" — which is nasty, brutish and short. All this merely so food giants like Tyson Foods, Smithfield and Borden can grab fatter and quicker profits. Their abusive industrial system is so disgusting that America's consumers would gag at the sight of it.
That's why they're desperate to keep you from knowing what goes on inside. Nonetheless, word has been getting out, as animal rights advocates, consumer groups, reporters, unions and others have exposed some of the realities of animal confinement to the public, including showing wretch-inducing photos and videos. Rather than cleaning up their act, however, the industrial food powers have simply doubled down on disgusting by getting industry-funded state legislators to go after anyone who reveals their ugly secrets.
Their attack on whistleblowers will gag you almost as badly as viewing the gross animal abuse. But, really, who do they think they're fooling? If they have to pass a law that says, "Don't look here," people will naturally wonder what they're hiding — and will demand to see it and change it. Six states have passed ag-gag laws, and six more are presently moving toward passage. To see what your legislature is doing — and to join the fight to stop factory farming everywhere — go to humanesociety.org.
(Jim Hightower has been called American's most popular populist. The radio commentator and former Texas Commissioner of Agriculture is author of seven books, including "There's Nothing In the Middle of Road but Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos" and his new work, "Swim Against the Current: Even Dead Fish Can Go With The Flow".)

Last Updated on Wednesday, 31 December 1969 07:00

Hits: 228

Roy Sanborn — The sky isn't falling (SEE CHART CALLED March Solds 2013)

There were 71 residential home sales in March in the 12 communities covered by this Lakes Region Real Estate Market Report. The average price came in at $227,182 with a median price point of $166,000. This compares to 64 sales last March at an average price of $314,161 with a median price point of $199,200.
For the first quarter of 2013 there were 172 residential transactions in these same towns compared to 171 in the first quarter of 2012. That's pretty consistent, if nothing else! The average sales price for the first quarter of 2013 was $226,492 compared to $272,526 in 2012. The median price point also dropped from $176,200 in 2012 to $169,000 in 2013. Sales are steady, but once again prices are down.
You could say this is all doom and gloom! Should you bend over and kiss your real estate patootie goodbye?! I really don't think so! Market data is all about numbers and what is selling. Sometimes numbers by themselves can be misleading. It just so happens that a lot more inexpensive homes are selling right now compared to higher end homes. That's just the way it is. There are a lot of bank owned and lower priced homes on the market that are being scooped up. It has been that way for the past few years.
So before you think that the real estate sky is falling and your home value is continuing to slide down the cliff that is not necessarily the case. It is pretty easy to see why our numbers are down so far this year. In the first quarter of both 2012 and 2013 we had about the same number of sales below $200,000. But, in 2012 there were 24 homes that sold over the $500,000 mark for a total sales volume of $21.5 million. There were seven sales over the $1 million mark. This year there were half the number of sales over $500,000 for a total of only $10.9 million in sales and there were just two sales over a million! This definitely has had an impact on the average and median prices so far this year!
There's no doubt that your home's value has been affected over the past few years, but quality homes have retained their value better than those that are poorly maintained, ill kept, and poorly presented in the market place. It also seems that there is a definite shortage of really nice, mid-price homes on the market right now. If you are contemplating selling your home, think about what it has to offer in this market compared to some of the other homes that are available. Talk with several real estate agents to get their opinion of your home, where they feel the market is, and see how they can position you to get the maximum return on your investment. With fewer really nice properties on the market there is less competition which makes this a good time to sell.
The fact is, is seems like the mood in the housing market is a much more positive than it has been for a long time. The news from all over the country touts that the housing markets are on the mend and prices are beginning to rise! According to a recent AP article, new home construction is picking up with a 46 percent increase in new home starts nationwide in March compared to March of 2012. But remember that real estate is very local and we were one of the last markets to feel the pinch when things went bad. The AP article stated that "Housing construction fell 5.8 percent in the Northeast but showed gains in the rest of the country led by a 10.9 percent rise in the South. Housing construction was up 9.6 percent in the Midwest and 2.7 percent in the West."
So, we may a little behind in terms of a new construction rebound but we have been blessed with a very strong second home, vacation, and waterfront home market so I don't believe we will be far behind in a market upturn. I'm banking on that along with some nice new properties coming on the market at realistic prices to lead the way...
Please feel free to visit www.lakesregionhome.com to learn more about the Lakes Region real estate market and comment on this article and others. Data was compiled using the Northern New England Real Estate MLS System as of 4/15/13. Roy Sanborn is a REALTOR® at Four Seasons Sotheby's International Realty and can be reached at 603-455-0335.

Last Updated on Friday, 26 April 2013 08:12

Hits: 250

Susan Estrich - No baby-faced innocent, but not enemy combatant either

Sometimes a picture speaks volumes. Sometimes it's outright deceptive. The picture of "Bomber No. 2" didn't look a bit like a mass murderer. A sweet-faced college kid, the former lifeguard, the nice young man described by classmates and friends. It couldn't be. There must be some outside organization calling the shots. An international conspiracy, perhaps. Brainwashing.
Or maybe it was just a deceptive picture of a cold-blooded murderer.
He and his brother put bombs next to children. One of those children was murdered.
In a court of law, innocence is presumed. That is a rule of law, not a finding of fact. For those of us who watched, watched over and over, the proof appears to be nothing less than overwhelming. Others may have been involved. Further investigation is absolutely required.
But I for one have no doubt that the defendant is not a baby-faced college student, that he is no one's victim, that he is responsible for heinous crimes. Responsibility is not an exacting standard in criminal law. Did he know what he was doing? Did he understand that there was a bomb in that backpack, and that bombs kill people and terrorize cities? Whatever other pressures may have been at work, however influenced he was by religion or his brother or anyone else, if he knew what he was doing, if he understood the nature of his conduct, that is enough to make him responsible.
But that does not make him an enemy combatant.
The calls by politicians to treat him as one, led by Sen. Lindsey Graham, a lawyer who should know better, demonstrate the triumph of politics over law. According to Graham, speaking on the Senate floor, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's "ties to radical Islamic thought" and his Chechen heritage should justify holding him as an "enemy combatant" subject to trial by a military tribunal.
Ties to "radical Islamic thought" do not make a person an enemy combatant.
Ties to thought are, in fact, at the core of the protection afforded by the First Amendment. Actions are another matter. But there is absolutely no evidence that this man was a member of al-Qaida or the Taliban, or that his acts were directed by foreign enemies. He is an American citizen who (allegedly) killed innocent people and would have (absent the brilliance of the Boston hospital trauma system) killed many more — on American soil using devices made in America.
Indeed, even Graham acknowledges this. He just wants him to be treated as an enemy combatant until proved otherwise. Nothing in the law or the Constitution supports this. It is totally unnecessary.
The evidence against Tsarnaev is overwhelming. He wouldn't need to say a word to government authorities to be convicted in an American court. The only consequence of not giving him Miranda rights is that his statements might not be admissible in a criminal trial, which, frankly, won't matter. Anyone who thinks a Boston jury will be unduly sympathetic (unlike military officers) is just plain wrong. Indeed, for my money, military officers — who are more accustomed to seeing death on the fields of battle than the rest of us are to seeing destruction and devastation in Copley Square — might have an easier time focusing solely on the evidence admitted at trial.
In our ridiculously polarized media and political culture, we have a tendency to see everything in extremes, which means that more often than not we're wrong.
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is not a baby-faced innocent, even if that is how he looks in the pictures that flashed on the screen every minute. He placed a bomb in the middle of hundreds of innocent people, children included.
He is also not an enemy combatant by any definition, nor do we need to treat him as one in order to ensure that justice is done.
(Susan Estrich is a professor of Law and Political Science at the University of Southern California Law Center. A best-selling author, lawyer and politician, as well as a teacher, she first gained national prominence as national campaign manager for Dukakis for President in 1988.)

Last Updated on Wednesday, 31 December 1969 07:00

Hits: 323

 
The Laconia Daily Sun - All Rights Reserved
Privacy Policy
Powered by BENN a division of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Login or Register

LOG IN