As many of you know, I’ve never been one to pull punches when it comes to critiquing politicians, regardless of their party affiliation. Trump, Biden, Harris – they’ve all felt the sting of my keyboard at one point or another. Why? Because in my view, they’re all playing the same game, dancing to the tune of their donors rather than genuinely serving the American people.

Today, we’re turning our discerning gaze towards Vice President Kamala Harris and her latest campaign promise. Specifically, we’re dissecting her attempt to woo young Black male voters with promises of cannabis reform and economic opportunities. Now, don’t get me wrong – these are important issues that deserve attention. But there’s something about the timing and presentation that’s got my bullshit detector working overtime.

Let’s be real for a second. Harris’s support among Black voters, especially young Black men, has been surprisingly low compared to her predecessors. It’s a trend that’s been worrying Democratic strategists, and this new “Opportunity Agenda” feels like a calculated response to those polling numbers.

While I want to believe in the sincerity of Harris’s newfound passion for these issues, I can’t help but see it as a classic case of political pandering. It’s the kind of move that treats voters as monolithic blocks rather than individuals with diverse concerns and aspirations.

So, buckle up, dear readers. We’re about to embark on a journey to unmask what I’m calling “The Black Pander.” We’ll explore why relying on racial issues and stereotypical assumptions is probably the worst way to gain popularity in a presidential campaign. It’s time to cut through the smoke and mirrors and get to the heart of what’s really going on here.

let’s dive into this “Opportunity Agenda” and see what Kamala Harris is serving up to young Black men. On the surface, it’s a smorgasbord of promises aimed at addressing economic disparities and creating pathways to success for Black Americans. But as we peel back the layers, we might find it’s more reheated leftovers than a fresh, nourishing meal.

The general gist of the Opportunity Agenda is to provide Black men with tools to “build wealth, support their families, and lead in their communities.” It’s a noble goal, to be sure, but one that’s been trotted out by politicians time and time again. The plan touches on various areas including entrepreneurship, education, healthcare, and criminal justice reform.

Let’s look at some of the key promises:

1. Providing 1 million forgivable loans of up to $20,000 to Black entrepreneurs and others facing barriers to starting or growing a business.

2. Expanding pathways for Black men to secure good-paying jobs in high-demand industries.

3. Supporting a regulatory framework for cryptocurrency and digital assets to protect Black investors.

4. Legalizing recreational marijuana at the federal level and creating opportunities for Black Americans in the cannabis industry.

Now, let’s hear it straight from the horse’s mouth. The agenda states, “Vice President Harris knows that Black men have long felt that too often their voice in our political process has gone unheard and that there is so much untapped ambition and leadership within the Black male community.”

On the topic of education, the plan promises to “build a pipeline of Black male teachers, including by investing in programs under the Department of Education, which Trump wants to eliminate, to collaborate with Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs).”

One particularly intriguing aspect of the agenda is Harris’s stance on digital currencies. The plan states, “More than 20% of Black Americans own or have owned cryptocurrency assets. Vice President Harris appreciates the ways in which new technologies can broaden access to banking and financial services.” It goes on to promise a regulatory framework to protect Black men and others who participate in this market.

Now, I’m all for financial inclusion and protecting investors. But I can’t help but raise an eyebrow at the specific focus on cryptocurrency in a plan targeting Black men. It feels a bit like pandering to stereotypes rather than addressing fundamental economic issues.

As for the promise to legalize marijuana federally, well, you know I’m always going to perk up at that. The agenda states Harris will “break down unjust legal barriers that hold Black men and other Americans back by legalizing marijuana nationally, working with Congress to ensure that the safe cultivation, distribution, and possession of recreational marijuana is the law of the land.”

It’s a bold promise, and one that’s long overdue. But it’s also one that comes with a hefty dose of irony, given Harris’s history as a prosecutor. We’ll dive into that can of worms a bit later.

For now, let’s take a step back and look at the bigger picture. While the Opportunity Agenda touches on many important issues, there’s something about its approach that doesn’t sit quite right. It’s as if Harris is trying to check off a list of what she thinks young Black men care about, rather than addressing the systemic issues that create disparities in the first place.

In our next segment, we’ll dissect what’s wrong with this approach and why it might do more harm than good in the long run.

hile on paper, this plan aims to empower Black men, it reeks of last-minute vote-grabbing before the election. It’s like watching a politician suddenly remember they need the Black vote and hastily cobbling together a wish list of promises.

Now, don’t get me wrong – addressing the impact of prohibition on Black communities is crucial. But let’s not forget that the War on Drugs didn’t discriminate in its destruction. Sure, racist cops used weed as an excuse to target Black folks for decades, but Latinos, poor whites, and countless others also found themselves caught in the crosshairs of these draconian laws. By focusing solely on one group, Harris is missing the forest for the trees.

Moreover, this race-directed approach is a slippery slope. While it might seem noble to specifically empower Black men, it inadvertently excludes everyone else who’s been screwed over by prohibition. Race-based politics is a dangerous game that often backfires, creating more division than unity.

If Harris really wanted to level the playing field, she’d focus on creating a standard of entry into the cannabis marketplace that gives everyone an equal shot. Instead of handing out loans, why not lower the barriers to entry? Create micro-licenses that are easily obtainable by young entrepreneurs of all backgrounds. But that would mean less regulation, and we all know how much the government loves its red tape.

Let’s talk about those loans for a second. One million forgivable loans of up to $20,000? That’s a potential $20 billion giveaway. Now, I’m all for investing in communities, but let’s put this in perspective. Victims of natural disasters like Hurricane Helene and the Maui fires only got $750 loans from the feds, and they could lose their property if they don’t pay up. Talk about a slap in the face to folks who’ve lost everything.

And let’s be real – getting Congress to approve these loans is about as likely as Jeff Sessions joining a cannabis cultivation class. We’ve seen this playbook before with Biden: promise big, stall bigger. It’s a classic move that leaves voters feeling betrayed and cynical.

At the end of the day, this Opportunity Agenda feels less like a genuine attempt to address systemic issues and more like a carefully worded document aimed at securing the Black male vote. It’s pandering, plain and simple. And I’ve got a hunch it might not work as well as Harris hopes.

Look, I’m not against empowering marginalized communities or providing opportunities for those who’ve been locked out of the system. But true progress comes from inclusive policies that lift all boats, not just a select few. If we’re serious about righting the wrongs of prohibition and creating a fair cannabis industry, we need approaches that unite rather than divide.

As we barrel towards November, it’ll be interesting to see how this plays out. Will Black voters buy what Harris is selling, or will they see through the smoke? Only time will tell. But one thing’s for sure – this cannabis chronicler will be watching closely, ready to call out the BS wherever I see it.

SOURCES:

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/10/14/harris-forgivable-loans-legal-marijuana-trump-black-voters.html

https://kamalaharris.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/FMfcgzQXJZxzLGgcKmSNQSXCRKXShwxJ.pdf

KAMALA HARRIS ON LEGALIZING WEED, READ ON…

THE KAMALA HARRIS PLAN TO LEGALIZE CANNABIS IN AMERICA!

The U.S. Supreme Court is about to make a crucial decision that could reshape the rules around drug testing in workplaces across the nation. The case involves a truck driver who was terminated after testing positive for THC, the psychoactive compound in marijuana, despite claiming to have only used legal cannabidiol (CBD) products. This case is gaining attention because it touches on key issues such as the fairness of drug testing, employee rights, and the evolving legal status of cannabis-related products.

The Rise of CBD and Legal Ambiguities

Understanding CBD and THC

Cannabidiol (CBD) is a non-psychoactive compound derived from the cannabis plant, often touted for its potential therapeutic benefits, including pain relief and anxiety reduction. Unlike THC, which is associated with the “high” commonly linked to marijuana use, CBD products are marketed as safe alternatives that do not impair cognitive function or motor skills. However, the legal landscape surrounding CBD is complex. The 2018 Farm Bill legalized hemp-derived CBD products at the federal level, provided they contain less than 0.3% THC. Despite this legalization, many consumers remain unaware that even trace amounts of THC can lead to positive drug tests.

The Employment Context

For commercial drivers like Horn, drug testing is not merely a workplace policy but a federal requirement governed by the Department of Transportation (DOT). The DOT mandates regular drug testing for safety-sensitive positions to ensure public safety on the roads. A positive THC test can lead to severe repercussions, including job loss and disqualification from future employment in driving roles.

Douglas Horn’s Dismissal

In 2020, Douglas Horn, a truck driver employed by a logistics company, found himself at the center of a legal battle that would ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court. His ordeal began when he decided to try a CBD (cannabidiol) product called Dixie X, produced by Medical Marijuana Inc., which he believed to be completely free of THC (tetrahydrocannabinol), the psychoactive compound in cannabis. This decision was motivated by Horn’s desire to manage chronic pain resulting from injuries sustained in a previous trucking accident.

Horn’s journey into the world of CBD started after he suffered significant injuries, including shoulder and hip damage, from a truck accident in 2012. In search of relief, he turned to CBD products, which were marketed as natural remedies with therapeutic benefits but without the intoxicating effects associated with THC. After researching various options, Horn purchased Dixie X, which claimed to contain “0% THC.” He felt confident in his choice, believing it would not jeopardize his job as a commercial driver, which required him to undergo regular drug testing.

However, shortly after using the product, Horn was subjected to a routine drug test mandated by his employer. To his shock and dismay, the test results came back positive for THC. This unexpected outcome led to his immediate termination from the trucking position he had held for over ten years. The loss was not just professional; it also resulted in significant financial strain for Horn and his family. His wife, who worked alongside him as a team driver, felt unsafe continuing without him and subsequently quit her job as well.

Following his termination, Douglas Horn took legal action against Medical Marijuana Inc., alleging that the company had misrepresented their product. He claimed that their advertising falsely assured consumers that Dixie X was free of THC, leading him to believe it was safe for use without risking his employment. The lawsuit was filed under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, a federal statute originally designed to combat organized crime.

Horn’s legal argument hinged on whether his job loss constituted harm to his “business or property,” which is a prerequisite for pursuing claims under RICO. This aspect of the case is particularly significant because it raises questions about how personal injuries can be framed within the context of business losses.

The RICO Act

The RICO Act allows individuals who have suffered injuries due to racketeering activities to sue for damages. It provides a mechanism for victims to seek triple damages if they can prove that their injury resulted from unlawful activities conducted by an organization. While traditionally associated with organized crime, RICO can also apply in civil cases where individuals claim economic harm due to fraudulent practices.

In Horn’s case, he argued that Medical Marijuana Inc.’s misleading marketing constituted racketeering activity that directly led to his job loss. He claimed that the company’s actions amounted to mail and wire fraud under RICO provisions.

Legal Proceedings and Challenges

Initially, Horn’s lawsuit faced challenges in lower courts. A federal trial judge dismissed his RICO claim, stating that it did not meet the necessary criteria for “business or property” injury as outlined in the statute. However, Horn appealed this decision, and the Second Circuit Court overturned the dismissal, allowing his case to proceed.

The appeal brought forth several critical questions regarding the interpretation of RICO and its applicability in this context:

• Definition of Harm: Did Horn’s termination from his job constitute harm to his business or property? The crux of this question lies in whether personal injuries can be reclassified as business injuries under RICO.

• Causation: Was there sufficient evidence to establish that Medical Marijuana Inc.’s actions directly caused Horn’s job loss? Establishing this link is essential for proving damages under RICO.

• Implications for Future Cases: If Horn were successful in his claim, what precedent would it set for similar cases involving CBD products and employment disputes?

Supreme Court Review

The case eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court, where justices deliberated on whether Horn could pursue his lawsuit against Medical Marijuana Inc. under RICO. During oral arguments, several justices expressed concerns about the implications of allowing personal injury claims to be framed as business injuries under federal law.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that while there are complexities involved in interpreting RICO’s provisions, establishing that Horn suffered harm to his business or property would be crucial for his case to proceed. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised questions about whether Horn’s situation truly represented an injury beyond personal harm.

The manufacturers’ legal team argued that Horn’s injuries were personal and did not fall within the scope of RICO protections designed for economic harm related to business interests. They contended that allowing such claims could lead to an influx of lawsuits where personal grievances are transformed into federal issues better suited for state courts.

Conclusion

Douglas Horn’s dismissal and subsequent legal battle represent a significant moment in cannabis law and employment rights. As attitudes toward cannabis products evolve and more individuals turn to CBD for relief from various ailments, cases like Horn’s highlight the urgent need for regulatory clarity regarding product labeling and consumer protections.

The Supreme Court’s ruling on this matter will not only determine Horn’s fate but may also set important precedents affecting how similar cases are handled across the country. As we await their decision anticipated by June 2025 the implications for workers navigating employment policies amid changing cannabis laws will undoubtedly continue to unfold.

TESTING POSITIVE FOR THC AFTER TAKING JUST CBD, READ ON…

CAN YOU TEST POSITIVE FOR THC AFTER TAKING CBD? YEP!

In recent years, we’ve heard politicians clamoring about the dangers of “misinformation” and “disinformation,” with some even calling for regulations on free speech. But these same politicians seem to have a glaring blind spot when it comes to their own history of spreading falsehoods, particularly regarding cannabis.

For over a century, the U.S. government has been the primary purveyor of marijuana misinformation, running smear campaigns that have shaped public perception and policy. From outlandish claims about cannabis-induced insanity in the 1920s to Nixon’s war on drugs in the 1970s, official channels have consistently peddled propaganda over facts.

The irony is palpable. While decrying the spread of misinformation in the digital age, many politicians conveniently ignore the government’s long-standing role as the chief architect of cannabis myths and misconceptions.

Today, we’re diving into this rich history of government-sponsored cannabis disinformation and examining recent findings from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) that reveal a telling trend: Americans don’t trust official sources when it comes to marijuana information.

As we peel back the layers of propaganda and explore the roots of public mistrust, we’ll see how the government’s own actions have undermined its credibility on this issue. The marijuana misinformation machine has been running for decades, and it’s time to set the record straight.

So buckle up, dear readers. We’re about to embark on a journey through the smoky haze of cannabis history, separating fact from fiction and exposing the hypocrisy at the heart of the war on drugs. Let’s dive in!

In an era where information is at our fingertips, it’s ironic that when it comes to cannabis, Americans are turning away from traditional sources of medical knowledge. A recent study published in the Journal of Cannabis Research, partially funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, has shed light on this phenomenon, revealing a startling lack of trust in government and medical sources for cannabis information.

The study, which surveyed 1,161 adults nationwide, found that only 4.7% of respondents relied on government agencies for cannabis-related information. Even more surprisingly, health and medical care providers fared only slightly better at 9.3%. Instead, the majority of people turn to friends and family (35.6%) or websites (33.7%) for their cannabis knowledge.

This mistrust isn’t unfounded. For decades, the U.S. government has been the primary purveyor of cannabis misinformation, running smear campaigns that have shaped public perception and policy. This propaganda has not only affected the general public but has also seeped into medical education, creating a knowledge gap among healthcare providers.

The study highlights this medical ignorance, noting that only 9% of medical schools in 2016 offered cannabis-specific curricula. This lack of education isn’t necessarily the fault of individual healthcare providers, but rather a systemic issue rooted in years of government-sponsored misinformation. Many medical professionals simply haven’t had the opportunity to update their “firmware” on the subject matter.

As cannabis use continues to rise and legalization spreads across the country, it’s clear that the medical community needs to catch up. The study authors emphasize the “strong need for better clinician education, public outreach strategies, and improved communication between patients and clinicians about cannabis.”

However, addressing this knowledge gap isn’t as simple as updating medical textbooks. A separate study published in PeerJ Life & Environment reveals a troubling trend in biomedical education materials. The study found that many authors of influential medical textbooks have undisclosed financial conflicts of interest, including patents and compensation from pharmaceutical companies.

This ethical conflict of interest raises questions about the objectivity of medical education materials, particularly when it comes to topics like cannabis that could potentially threaten pharmaceutical profits. As we push for better cannabis education in medical schools, we must also address these underlying conflicts of interest to ensure that future healthcare providers receive unbiased, evidence-based information.

The age of mistrust in official sources of cannabis information presents both challenges and opportunities. While it’s concerning that so few people turn to medical professionals for guidance, it also highlights the need for a major overhaul in how we educate both the public and healthcare providers about cannabis.

As we move forward, it’s crucial that we address the legacy of misinformation, update medical curricula, and ensure transparency in medical education materials. Only then can we hope to bridge the trust gap and provide accurate, unbiased information about cannabis to those who need it most.

The prohibition of cannabis in the United States is a tale woven with threads of deception, racism, and political manipulation. From its inception, the campaign against marijuana has relied on sensationalism and outright lies to justify its existence.

As NORML points out, the initial push for cannabis criminalization had little to do with public health or safety. Instead, it was fueled by xenophobia and racist rhetoric. A prime example is a 1927 New York Times story headlined “Mexican Family Goes Insane,” which farcically claimed that a widow and her children were driven insane by eating the “marihuana plant.” Such sensationalist reporting was common, with a 1933 academic paper in The Journal of Law and Criminology asserting that marijuana use inevitably resulted in “incurable” insanity and death.

At the forefront of this misinformation campaign was Harry J. Anslinger, America’s first “Drug Czar.” Anslinger successfully lobbied Congress to ban cannabis nationwide in 1937, relying heavily on racist rhetoric. He claimed, “There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the U.S., and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers.” He even went so far as to assert that marijuana caused “white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others.”

The weaponization of cannabis misinformation reached new heights during the Nixon administration. Despite privately acknowledging that cannabis wasn’t “particularly dangerous,” Nixon and his team publicly doubled down on the supposed marijuana threat for political gain. John Ehrlichman, Nixon’s domestic policy chief, later admitted the true motives behind their actions: “We couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the (Vietnam) war or Black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and Blacks with heroin… we could disrupt those communities.”

This legacy of lies continued well into the late 20th century with programs like D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education), which perpetuated exaggerated claims about marijuana. The “lazy stoner” stereotype, heavily promoted by these campaigns, has been debunked by recent studies showing that cannabis users tend to be more active than their non-using counterparts.

Given this extensive history of deception, is it any wonder that people don’t trust the government on cannabis-related information? The federal government didn’t just create fake studies; they actively stonewalled legitimate research to sustain a policy founded on lies and misinformation. This deliberate suppression of scientific inquiry has had far-reaching consequences, hindering our understanding of cannabis and its potential benefits for decades.

The damage caused by this misinformation campaign extends beyond public perception. It has shaped policy, driven mass incarceration, and stifled potentially life-changing medical research. The classification of cannabis as a Schedule I substance, alongside drugs like heroin, flies in the face of scientific evidence and has been a major obstacle to comprehensive study.

This is why simply rescheduling cannabis is not enough. What we need is a complete dismantling of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). We need an independent, unbiased group to research these substances without the weight of decades of political baggage. It’s time to rethink our approach as a society to drug consumption and remove the regulatory hurdles that have long impeded research and product development.

The path forward requires more than just correcting misinformation; it demands a fundamental shift in how we approach drug policy. We must acknowledge the racist and politically motivated roots of cannabis prohibition and work to undo the harm caused by decades of lies. Only then can we hope to develop a rational, evidence-based approach to cannabis that prioritizes public health, individual liberty, and scientific truth over political agendas and corporate interests.

As we move into a new era of cannabis policy, let’s learn from the mistakes of the past. It’s time to replace fear-mongering with facts, propaganda with peer-reviewed research, and prohibition with sensible regulation. The history of cannabis prohibition in America is indeed a history of lies – but it doesn’t have to be our future.

After more than half a century of lies, misinformation, and propaganda, the U.S. government and healthcare establishment face a monumental task: regaining the public’s trust on cannabis and drug policy. But here’s the harsh truth – they can’t. At least, not without radical, systemic change.

The problem runs deep. How can we trust pharma-sponsored studies when there’s an obvious conflict of interest? How can we believe government agencies that have consistently prioritized political agendas over scientific truth? The credibility well has run dry, and refilling it will require more than just a change in rhetoric or policy tweaks.

The only path forward is a complete overhaul of our approach to drugs in America. This means dismantling the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and renegotiating how we produce, distribute, and regulate drugs in the U.S. Until we take this drastic step, public trust in government agencies and healthcare providers on these issues will remain – justifiably – at rock bottom.

We need to create a new system built on transparency, scientific integrity, and genuine concern for public health. This means severing the ties between drug policy and corporate interests, political agendas, and law enforcement quotas. It means funding independent research, free from the influence of pharmaceutical companies or government agencies with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

Let’s be clear: you can’t trust a politician who takes money from Big Pharma or law enforcement unions to make unbiased decisions about drug legalization. That’s like trusting an obese person’s advice on losing weight – the conflict of interest is too glaring to ignore.

Moving forward, we need to demand full transparency in medical education, research funding, and policy-making. We need to elevate voices that have been historically marginalized in these discussions, including those of cannabis users, medical patients, and communities disproportionately affected by the war on drugs.

The road to rebuilding trust will be long and challenging. But it starts with acknowledging past wrongs, committing to radical change, and putting the wellbeing of individuals and communities above political and corporate interests. Only then can we hope to create a drug policy that truly serves the American people.

SOURCES:

1. https://norml.org/blog/2024/10/07/norml-op-ed-marijuana-prohibition-has-been-a-fraud-from-the-get-go/

2. https://www.marijuanamoment.net/most-people-dont-trust-the-government-for-marijuana-information-federally-funded-study-shows/

3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6613575/

MISINFORMATION IN YOUR FEED, YOU BET, READ ON…

HOW “EAT THIS NOT THAT “SPREAD MARIJUANA MISINFORMATION!