Radley Balko points out that Karen Tandy is leaving the DEA.

Note that I don’t use the word “rapist” lightly. Yet, Tandy’s conviction to ridding the United States of drugs often belies her general lack of depth or understanding. She’s a product of black-and-white/no-inbetween bias. Her actions have left many pain patients in hopeless agony, a badge she wears with pride. So what do we call someone who intentionally pursues policies regardless of the number of cases where the issue is, and can never be, black-and-white?  She’s a do-gooder of the worst kind, completely incapable of recognizing the consequences of her actions - actions that have persecuted and tortured many a soul who would, by any rational argument, have some means finding solutions to treating their own pain in privacy. The woman must have taken some perverse interest in persecuting people, leaving them to suffer, all to her delight. So, if she wishes to use the law to violate the natural rights of a person and the sanctity of the self, I have no qualms calling it rape and Tandy a rapist.

UNKINDEST CUT OF ALL | Daily News | 09/04/2007

It’s interesting to see what happens when government coffers run dry on these special interest projects. I’m not saying the program is a bad idea or that their efforts are in vain, but why always the dependency on government funds to take this type of role as a public program? While many are sitting, awaiting the outcome of government decisions, leaders could be taking present action to continue the work they do, but do it in the private marketplace as a non-profit organization.

So long as you have strong accountability, there is no reason why this group depends on the whims of politicians. Is the program valuable enough that these group leaders will not let their progress wither away? If so, they would diversify their revenue stream and take nothing from the government. It is of the same whim that government must provide that most people have ascribed themselves to.

BBC NEWS | Health | Cannabis raises psychosis risk

The BBC is reporting that there appears to be some elevated risks of psychosis from smoking weed. I no longer partake in it nor do I really believe it. The story points out that the study was a meta-study, or a study of other studies. Now where does that sounds familiar? For Americans, the EPA study which the bulk of the second hand smoke argument still rests on, was a highly flawed meta-study. I’d rather smoke a joint that having smoke blown up my ass any day of the week.