Connect with us

Cannabis News

True or False – Legalizing Drugs Would Put an End to Human Trafficking?



stop human trafficking

How to Stop Human Trafficking: Legalize Drugs!

The largest illicit market on the planet is not weapons, exotic animals, or even human beings – it’s drugs. Since 1971, when the United Nations amended its narcotic charter and essentially declared an international war on drugs, the global drug trade has only grown in size and complexity.

Despite the best efforts of law enforcement agencies worldwide over the past five decades, drugs have become more prevalent, more accessible, and far more dangerous.

From the streets of American cities to remote villages in Afghanistan, the drug trade has left a trail of addiction, violence, and corruption in its wake. It’s safe to say that after 75 years of futile efforts, drugs have definitively won the war.

But the illegal drug trade does more than line the pockets of criminals and cartels. It also serves as a shield for one of the most horrific crimes imaginable: human trafficking.

The same shadowy networks that smuggle cocaine and heroin across borders are often deeply intertwined with the traffickers who buy and sell human beings as chattel.

In this article, we’re going to explore the number one thing the world can do to stop human trafficking – legalize all drugs.

But we’re not talking about a free-for-all where anyone can buy anything at any time. Instead, we’ll lay out a nuanced approach to legalization and regulation designed to reduce the harms of drug abuse while focusing law enforcement resources on the fight against human trafficking.

By removing the profits generated by the illegal drug trade, we can strip away the financial incentives that fuel trafficking networks. And by redirecting policing efforts towards identifying and protecting victims rather than endlessly chasing drug dealers, we can make a real dent in this abhorrent practice.

It won’t be easy, and it won’t happen overnight.

But if we’re serious about ending human trafficking, we need to start by rethinking the failed war on drugs. The evidence is clear – prohibition has only made the problem worse. It’s time for a new approach, one grounded in public health, human rights, and common sense. Let’s dive in.

Since the adoption of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs in 1961 and the subsequent declaration of the war on drugs in 1971, the illegal drug trade has exploded in size and reach. What was once a relatively small-scale, localized problem has morphed into a global behemoth with tentacles in every corner of the planet.

According to estimates from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), the global drug trade is now worth between $426 and $652 billion annually. That’s more than the GDP of most countries and represents a staggering increase from the pre-1961 era when the trade was a fraction of its current size.

But it’s not just the scale of the trade that has changed – it’s also the nature of the drugs themselves. In response to prohibition efforts, drug producers and traffickers have become incredibly innovative, constantly developing new synthetic substances to evade detection and skirt the law.

One prime example is “Spice,” a synthetic cannabinoid that mimics the effects of marijuana but is infinitely more dangerous. Because Spice is unregulated and its chemical composition is constantly changing, users have no way of knowing what they’re ingesting. The result has been a wave of overdoses and deaths that have devastated communities around the world.

Meanwhile, the financial institutions that are supposed to be safeguarding the global economy have become complicit in the illegal drug trade. Banks like HSBC have been caught repeatedly laundering money for drug cartels, yet they’ve only been slapped with fines rather than facing criminal charges.

In 2012, HSBC admitted to laundering nearly $900 million for the notorious Sinaloa Cartel in Mexico, yet no executives went to jail. Instead, the bank paid a fine of $1.9 billion – a mere slap on the wrist compared to the profits it had reaped from its illicit activities.

This double standard is a stark reminder of the inherent inequities of the war on drugs. While low-level dealers and users face harsh prison sentences, the wealthy and well-connected can profit from the trade with impunity.

Perhaps most tragically, drug prohibition has created a black market where profits are prioritized over safety. With no regulation or quality control, drug producers often cut their products with dangerous adulterants or increase potency to maximize profits. The result is a staggering number of drug-related deaths that could have been prevented with a more rational approach.

According to the CDC, over 93,000 Americans died from drug overdoses in 2020 alone – a record high. Many of those deaths were caused by fentanyl, a synthetic opioid that has become increasingly common in the illegal drug supply.

The numbers don’t lie – the war on drugs has been an abject failure. If the goal was to reduce drug use and combat criminal organizations, then by every empirical measure, it has fallen short. Continuing to support a failed system is not only misguided – it’s actively causing harm to individuals and communities around the world. It’s time for a new approach.

While the illegal drug trade may grab more headlines, human trafficking is a shockingly prevalent and profitable criminal enterprise. In fact, it’s the second largest illicit market in the world, generating an estimated $150 billion in annual profits for traffickers.

The scale of human trafficking is staggering. According to the International Labor Organization (ILO), there are over 40 million victims of human trafficking worldwide, with women and girls accounting for 75% of those trafficked. Perhaps most disturbingly, one in four victims of trafficking are children.

These victims are bought, sold, and exploited for a variety of purposes, including forced labor, domestic servitude, and commercial sexual exploitation. The primary motivations for traffickers are greed and the desire for power and control over others but mostly supply and demand.

While trafficking occurs in virtually every country, some regions are particularly prone to this horrific practice. Asia and the Pacific region account for the largest number of victims, with 15.4 million people trafficked in that region alone. Africa and Europe also have high rates of trafficking, with millions of victims in each region.

So who are the buyers driving this brutal trade? While there is no single profile, research suggests that many purchasers of trafficked persons are individuals with wealth and power. From corrupt politicians to wealthy businessmen to high-ranking officials, the demand for trafficked persons often comes from the upper echelons of society.

The infamous case of Jeffrey Epstein is a prime example. Epstein, a wealthy financier with connections to powerful figures in politics and business, was accused of trafficking and sexually abusing dozens of underage girls. He allegedly used his private island in the Caribbean as a base for his trafficking operations, flying in girls on his private jet to be exploited by him and his associates.

The Epstein case raises disturbing questions about the priorities of our justice system. While law enforcement agencies pour billions of dollars into fighting the war on drugs, how much attention and resources are being devoted to combating human trafficking?

The answer is that U.S. government spends roughly 64 times more on fighting drug trafficking than it does on combating human trafficking. ($35.6 billion in 2021 for drug trafficking vs $560 for human trafficking)

Could it be that the focus on drugs serves as a convenient distraction from the uncomfortable reality that some of the most powerful people in our society are complicit in the buying and selling of human beings? Is the war on drugs a way to protect the interests of the wealthy and influential while ignoring the suffering of trafficking victims?

These are not easy questions to answer, but they must be confronted if we are serious about ending human trafficking. It’s not enough to pay lip service to the issue or to prosecute the low-level traffickers who are often victims themselves. We must be willing to hold the buyers and enablers of trafficking accountable, no matter how powerful they may be.

The numbers don’t lie – human trafficking is a massive and growing problem that demands our attention and action. We cannot continue to turn a blind eye to the suffering of millions of victims around the world. It’s time to prioritize the fight against trafficking and to hold those who profit from this heinous crime accountable, no matter who they are.

The legalization of drugs is a complex and controversial issue that requires a nuanced, evidence-based approach. Simply declaring all drugs legal without any restrictions or regulations would be irresponsible and potentially dangerous. Instead, we must look to science and best practices to guide our policy decisions.

First and foremost, it’s important to recognize that not all drugs are created equal. Some substances, like fentanyl, are highly addictive and can be lethal in very small doses. These drugs should not be readily available to the general public and should be tightly controlled.

However, that doesn’t mean we should continue to criminalize addiction. Instead, we could follow the model pioneered by Switzerland in the 1990s, which provided heroin to addicts for free in designated clinics. This approach may seem counterintuitive, but it has proven to be remarkably effective in reducing the harms associated with drug use.

By providing a safe, regulated supply of heroin to addicts, the Swiss government was able to reduce disease transmission, overdose deaths, and crime associated with the illegal drug trade. Addicts were able to access the drug they needed without resorting to desperate measures, and many were eventually able to wean themselves off heroin entirely.

For other drugs like cannabis, LSD, and psilocybin, the risks of addiction and overdose are much lower. While these substances can still be abused, the vast majority of users do not develop problematic use patterns or experience significant harms.

In these cases, legalization and regulation may be the most sensible approach. By allowing the sale of these drugs to adults in licensed dispensaries, we can reduce the harms associated with the illegal market, generate tax revenue for prevention and treatment programs, and free up law enforcement resources to focus on more serious crimes.

Of course, legalization is not a panacea, and there will undoubtedly be challenges and unintended consequences along the way. But the alternative – continuing to pour billions of dollars into a failed war on drugs while neglecting the scourge of human trafficking – is simply unacceptable.

Consider this: the United States currently spends around $35 billion per year on drug interdiction and enforcement efforts, while allocating just $560 million to combat human trafficking. That means we spend over 60 times more on fighting the drug trade than we do on fighting the buying and selling of human beings.

By legalizing and regulating drugs, we could redirect those resources towards ending human trafficking and supporting its victims. The profits generated from the legal drug trade could be used to fund robust prevention, treatment, and recovery programs, while law enforcement could focus on dismantling trafficking networks and bringing perpetrators to justice.

It’s time to acknowledge that our current approach to drugs has failed by every metric. Despite decades of aggressive enforcement and trillions of dollars spent, drugs are more available, more potent, and more dangerous than ever before. Meanwhile, human traffickers operate with near impunity, exploiting the most vulnerable members of our society for profit.

We need a new approach, one that is grounded in science, compassion, and human rights. By legalizing drugs and focusing our resources on ending human trafficking, we can reduce the harms associated with both issues and build a more just and equitable society for all.

It won’t be easy, and there will undoubtedly be setbacks along the way. But the alternative – continuing down the path of prohibition and neglect – is simply not an option. We owe it to the victims of trafficking and addiction to do better, and to create a world where every person can live with dignity and freedom from exploitation.





Source link

Cannabis News

90% of People over 50 are Using Cannabis for One Reason




cannabis for chronic pain and arthritis

Tilray Medical, a division of Tilray Brands, Inc., unveiled its latest scientific publication titled “Medical Cannabis for Patients Over Age 50: A Multi-Site, Prospective Study of Usage Patterns and Health Outcomes” on Tuesday.


This new research expands upon an earlier Tilray study revealing a rising number of older patients seeking medical marijuana. The study identified chronic pain (27.8%), arthritis (14.9%), and anxiety (9%) as prevalent conditions prompting cannabis use among older adults. Pain emerged as the primary symptom, followed by anxiety and insomnia/sleep disorders.


Known as the Medical Cannabis in Older Patients Study, this multi-site, prospective, observational research investigates how medical marijuana, guided by healthcare providers, affects patients over 50. It underscores the impact of medical cannabis on health outcomes, particularly focusing on pain relief, sleep improvement, and overall quality of life.


With 299 participants averaging 66.7 years old, the study found that 90% used medical cannabis primarily for pain management, notably chronic pain and arthritis. The results indicated that medical cannabis correlated with better pain scores, improved sleep, and enhanced quality of life among a growing subset of patients, along with a notable reduction in concurrent medications.


José Tempero, the company’s medical director, emphasized their commitment to advancing medical research and supporting products aligned with comprehensive findings. He underscored the role of medical cannabis in enhancing therapeutic options for an ageing population.


Study Focus and Methodology


Leading the way in examining the effects of medical cannabis use on the health of older adults, Tilray Medical’s “Medical Cannabis for Patients Over Age 50” study included 299 participants, most of whom were female and averaged age 66.7. The study was conducted at several sites and used a prospective, observational design to evaluate the effects of medical marijuana under the supervision of a healthcare provider on actual health outcomes.


The study’s central focus was on the efficacy of medicinal cannabis in treating chronic pain, arthritis, anxiety, and other diseases common among the elderly. Participants were followed to determine changes in pain ratings, sleep patterns, and general quality of life, offering information on cannabis’ medicinal potential in addressing age-related health issues.


The findings underscored a significant trend: approximately 90% of participants reported using medical cannabis primarily for pain relief, with notable reductions in co-medication observed. This research not only highlights the growing acceptance and application of medical cannabis among older adults but also underscores the importance of continued scientific inquiry into its benefits and implications for ageing populations.


Key Findings on Patient Demographics and Conditions


The study by Tilray Medical provided insightful demographics and conditions prevalent among older adults using medical cannabis. Among the 299 participants, the average age of 66.7 years reflects a cohort squarely within the ageing demographic seeking alternative therapies. Notably, over 62% of the participants identified as female, indicating a significant gender distribution in the study sample.


Of the participants, 27.8% cited chronic pain as their major reason for seeking medical cannabis treatment. This made chronic pain the most prevalent primary symptom driving medical cannabis usage. This result is consistent with more general healthcare trends, which show that older adults continue to have significant concerns about managing chronic pain. After chronic pain, arthritis was shown to be another common ailment that led to cannabis usage, as 14.9% of individuals used cannabis to treat this inflammatory chronic illness. With 9% of research participants suffering from anxiety, it was also a major ailment, underscoring the variety of therapeutic uses of medicinal cannabis among older persons.


The study’s emphasis on these particular disorders highlights medicinal cannabis’s growing potential as a therapy for illnesses that are typically linked to ageing. By clarifying the characteristics and ailments that are common among elderly medical cannabis users, the study offers a significant understanding of the incorporation of alternative treatments into geriatric healthcare procedures.


These results provide insight into the health problems and demographics of older adults who use cannabis medicinally. They also lay the groundwork for future research on the safety and effectiveness of cannabis-based treatments for age-related health disorders. Studying medical cannabis’s impact on conditions like chronic pain, arthritis, and anxiety is becoming more and more crucial for lawmakers and healthcare professionals as it gains acceptance as a therapeutic option.


Key Findings on Patient Demographics and Conditions


The study by Tilray Medical provided insightful demographics and conditions prevalent among older adults using medical cannabis. Among the 299 participants, the average age of 66.7 years reflects a cohort squarely within the ageing demographic seeking alternative therapies. Notably, over 62% of the participants identified as female, indicating a significant gender distribution in the study sample.


Chronic pain was identified as the most prevalent primary condition driving medicinal cannabis usage, with 27.8% of patients indicating it as the major reason for therapy. This conclusion is consistent with wider healthcare trends, in which chronic pain treatment remains a major problem among older populations. Following chronic pain, arthritis was found as another common reason for cannabis usage, with 14.9% of participants looking for treatment for this chronic inflammatory illness. Anxiety was also identified as a significant problem, impacting 9% of research participants, illustrating the broad therapeutic uses of medicinal cannabis in older persons.


By clarifying the demographics and conditions common among older medical cannabis users, the research adds important insights into how alternative therapies are being integrated into geriatric healthcare practices. The study’s focus on these particular conditions highlights the evolving role of medical cannabis as a potential treatment option for ailments traditionally associated with ageing.


As medical cannabis becomes more and more popular as a therapeutic option, legislators and healthcare professionals will need to understand the effects of medical cannabis on conditions like chronic pain, arthritis, and anxiety. These results shed light on the health issues and demographics of older people who use medicinal marijuana. They also serve as a foundation for future studies on the safety and effectiveness of cannabis-based therapies for age-related health issues.


Bottom Line


The Tilray medicinal research emphasizes how important medicinal cannabis is for older persons’ chronic pain, arthritis, and anxiety. According to the findings, cannabis can enhance pain ratings, sleep quality, and general quality of life, as indicated by the fact that 90% of the 299 participants used it primarily for pain relief. This study highlights the necessity for further research into the advantages of medicinal cannabis and its incorporation into geriatric healthcare, supporting its increasing recognition as a therapeutic alternative for older adults.





Source link

Continue Reading

Cannabis News

What Does the Corporate Transparency Act Mean (CTA) for the Cannabis Industry?




On January 1, 2024, the federal Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) took effect. The CTA requires a host of both domestic and foreign entities to disclose their beneficial ownership to the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). Compliance with the CTA is required for all businesses, including those in the cannabis industry. In this post, I’ll overview some (but not all) key requirements of the CTA, and some of the implications for the cannabis industry.

What is the CTA?

The purpose of the CTA is to combat illegal activities like money laundering by disclosure of information concerning “beneficial owners” to FinCEN. Beneficial ownership essentially means the individuals who own or control a company (more on that below). FinCEN and other domestic governmental authorities can use this beneficial ownership information in certain contexts for law enforcement purposes. Detailed FAQs on the CTA are available here.

Who must report?

Corporations, limited liability companies, and other business entities are considered reporting companies for purposes of the CTA. Certain sole proprietors may not count as reporting companies, and CTA exempts 23 classes of entities, such as governmental bodies, banks, and certain large operating companies.

Figuring out whether a business qualifies for an exemption can in some cases be complicated, and businesses can flow in and out of exemptions over time. So it’s a good idea for businesses to confer with counsel to determine whether they are compliant.

When must reporting happen?

Reporting is done by submitting an initial beneficial ownership report (BOIR) with FinCEN via an electronic portal called the Beneficial Ownership Secure System, located at, free of charge. There are some key reporting deadlines, which change based on when a company was formed (for domestic companies) or registered in the US (for foreign companies) as follows:

  • Entities created or registered before January 1, 2024, must submit their initial BOIR by January 1, 2025.
  • Entities registered in 2024 are required to file within 90 calendar days of their registration becoming effective.
  • For registrations from January 1, 2025, onwards, the deadline is 30 calendar days post-registration notice.

CTA also has requirements to periodically update beneficial ownership information after changes occur. Failure to comply with CTA can lead to monetary penalties and even criminal liability.

What must be reported?

Reporting companies must disclose individuals with substantial control or those owning at least 25% of the entity. Substantial control includes abilities like appointing or removing directors, making significant business decisions, or other forms of major influence. For example, question D8 on FinCEN’s FAQs addresses how management companies could be considered beneficial owners of a reporting company. Sound familiar?

Disclosure itself is not dissimilar to state-level cannabis regulatory disclosures. Beneficial owners must provide their legal name, date of birth, address, and an identifying number (e.g., SSN).

How will this affect the cannabis industry?

In case you were wondering, CTA applies to cannabis businesses. There is no exemption for reporting by state-legal cannabis companies.

A lot of cannabis companies will probably get squeamish at the thought of making detailed beneficial ownership disclosures. That’s especially the case where CTA by its terms allows FinCEN to share beneficial ownership information with other federal agencies engaged in law enforcement activities, or federal agencies that supervise financial institutions.

So, expect to see owners of cannabis businesses engage in all kinds of corporate changes to obscure beneficial ownership or reduce equity and control rights to get out of disclosures. In some cases, this will not work and people will face penalties.

Also expect to see a lot of cannabis companies (and non-cannabis companies for that matter) make a good-faith effort to comply with CTA initially but fail to update information as required by law. This is just going to happen, the way CTA is set up. Whether or not people are actually penalized for late disclosures or updates absent some kind of misfeasance remains to be seen.


CTA is complicated and has already been a headache for many businesses – so much so that at least one group of businesses brought a challenge to its constitutionality and won. Fortunately or unfortunately (depending on how you look at it) the court did not issue a nationwide injunction but only enjoined enforcement of CTA against the specific plaintiffs. It’s possible that in different litigation or future appeals, the law itself is enjoined on a nationwide level. But for the time being, it’s the law of the land.

Source link

Continue Reading

Cannabis News

Could the Smell of Marijuana Ever Be So Strong That It Knocks You to the Ground?




knock you over marijuana smell

Ohio’s New Miami Village Council unanimously voted on June 27 to fire Police Chief Harold Webb after Mayor Jewell Hayes-Hensley accused him of having an office that smelled of marijuana. This information, reported by the New York Post, was based on a letter from the mayor’s office obtained by Ohio’s Fox 19.


A ballot initiative approved in November 2023 completely legalized cannabis in Ohio.


On June 20, when Hayes-Hensley and another council member went to Webb’s office to pick up his daily logs, they noticed a strong marijuana smell. This is when the incident started.


“When I first said, ‘Who has been smoking weed in here?'” The mayor of New Miami Village, a hamlet of 2,226 people in southeast Ohio, stated, “The smell of marijuana could knock you off your feet.”


Cananbis with a strong odor is known as “loud” or “dank” in the cannabis community.


Marijuana Odor from a Bust Four Months Ago?


In the same letter regarding the marijuana odor, Mayor Jewell Hayes-Hensley accused Police Chief Harold Webb of multiple infractions, including stealing hot dogs from a gas station where only free soda was allowed on duty, refusing to respond to 911 calls, “theft of office,” falsifying timesheets and daily logs, and “cashing his paycheck knowing he was required to show proof of his being at work.”


The mayor suggested that the marijuana smell might be linked to a bust that occurred four months prior, implying that Webb could have been smoking the confiscated cannabis. However, experts note that the smell of cannabis smoke typically lingers in a room for only four to six hours and does not cling to furniture or curtains like tobacco smoke. This casts doubt on the idea that the odor from a previous bust could still be present in Webb’s office months later.


The allegations against Webb extend beyond the marijuana odor, painting a picture of misconduct and unprofessional behavior. The claim about stealing hot dogs suggests a disregard for department policies and ethical standards. Refusing to respond to 911 calls is a severe accusation, indicating a failure to perform critical duties that could endanger public safety. The “theft of office” and falsification of timesheets and daily logs imply deceit and misuse of taxpayer funds.


Whether Webb’s dismissal was based on the marijuana smell, the stolen hot dogs, or the accumulation of these allegations, the situation underscores the importance of accountability and integrity in law enforcement. The controversy surrounding Webb’s behavior has undoubtedly affected the New Miami Village community, emphasizing the need for trust and transparency in public officials.


Ultimatum Delivered: Take a Drug Test or Face Consequences


On June 24, the New Miami town attorney delivered a letter to Police Chief Harold Webb at his home, informing him that he had until 5 p.m. the following day to take a drug test at the request of Mayor Jewell Hayes-Hensley or face “disciplinary action.”


Chief Webb arrived at the testing site on June 25 but refused to provide a urine sample in front of a nurse, describing the process as “belittling.” This refusal was a critical turning point in the situation, further complicating his position and raising additional concerns about his conduct.


Following his refusal to complete the drug test, Webb texted the mayor, expressing his frustration and feeling of being unfairly targeted. “You know what, you win,” he wrote. “This is the third time you have questioned my integrity.” This message highlighted the escalating tension between Webb and Mayor Hayes-Hensley, suggesting a breakdown in communication and trust.


The mayor responded decisively, instructing Webb to resign. “Sorry things didn’t work out,” Hayes-Hensley wrote. “Please turn in all your New Miami Village properties along with your resignation and leave all access to video cameras and computers turned over to me.”


This interaction highlights the greater confrontation between Webb and the village leadership, marked by claims of misbehavior, refusal to comply with directions and personal animosities. Webb’s unwillingness to take the drug test, exacerbated by the other claims against him, finally led to his dismissal. The event shows how difficult it is to uphold professional standards and responsibility in law enforcement and emphasizes the importance of following clear procedures and treating misbehavior claims with respect from one another.


Fallout and Community Reaction


The dismissal of Police Chief Harold Webb from New Miami Village has triggered a wave of reactions and repercussions within the community. Residents, caught off guard by the sudden removal of their police chief, are divided in their responses. Some express concern over the allegations leveled against Webb, particularly regarding the integrity and conduct expected of law enforcement officials. They emphasize the importance of accountability and transparency in local governance, calling for thorough investigations into the accusations made by Mayor Jewell Hayes-Hensley.


Conversely, others in the community rally behind Chief Webb, questioning the timing and validity of the accusations. They argue that Webb’s contributions to public safety and his tenure should be taken into account before any hasty decisions are made. Supporters of Webb highlight his past achievements and dedication to the village, urging for fair treatment and due process in resolving the controversy.


Meanwhile, the broader implications of Webb’s dismissal extend beyond local sentiment. The incident has raised broader questions about leadership and governance within New Miami Village. It underscores the challenges faced by small communities in maintaining effective law enforcement and ensuring public trust. Moving forward, community leaders and residents alike are seeking clarity and resolution, hoping to restore stability and confidence in the village’s administration amidst the ongoing controversy.


Bottom Line


The case of Police Chief Harold Webb in New Miami Village serves as a stark reminder of the complexities and responsibilities involved in local law enforcement. The allegations, ranging from a peculiar marijuana smell to serious accusations of misconduct, have deeply impacted both the community and its leadership. While some residents advocate for accountability and transparency in addressing these issues, others stand by Webb, questioning the fairness of his dismissal. As the village navigates through this controversy, the need for clear protocols, mutual respect, and adherence to professional standards remains paramount. The outcome of this case will likely shape the future governance and public trust in New Miami Village, underscoring the importance of due process and ethical conduct in all levels of public service.





Source link

Continue Reading


Copyright © 2021 The Art of MaryJane Media