Marijuana Dispensary Closures Increases Crime

MEDIA ROOTS- It seems relatively obvious– legally buying medical marijuana at a dispensary eliminates the need to deal with street drug dealers, which diminishes the risk factor for crime. However, law enforcement agencies continue to argue that the cash troves on site boost crime by attracting thieves who resell the drugs.

Research from a recent report by the RAND Corporation supports the former– crime rates rose significantly in Los Angeles neighborhoods after hundreds of medical marijuana dispensaries in the vicinity were forced to shut down.

Via TIME:

Researchers gathered information and crime reports from 600 dispensaries in Los Angeles County, of which 430 were ordered to close by City Council. They then looked at the 10 days prior to when the ordinance took effect (June 7, 2010) and the 10 days after the shutdown. They found a 59% increase in crime within three-tenths of a mile of the closed dispensaries and 24% increase within six-tenths of a mile.

“If medical marijuana dispensaries are causing crime, then there should be a drop in crime when they close,” said Mireille Jacobson, the RAND study’s lead author and senior economist. Researchers went on to explain that open dispensaries probably strengthened the security of the immediate area, if anything, due to their security cameras and guards, as well as an increase in foot traffic and trumping illegal street sales of marijuana.

One of things that piqued my curiosity most about the study is that the RAND Corporation, the company that conducted the research and released the report, is one of the most powerful globalist think tanks in the world. Its members have written extensive policy prescriptions on the militarization of society in a post 9/11 world, and they proudly display a giant mushroom cloud sculpture constructed out of chain links outside of their LA headquarters.

They were also accused of helping pen the tyrannical Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism and Prevention Act of 2007. Why is RAND throwing the public a bone in the ‘War on Drugs’? This study seems to work against their interests in the ubiquitous ‘War on Everything’ they recommend policy for.

Abby Martin

A report released Tuesday by the RAND Corp., a Santa Monica-based think tank, revealed that after hundreds of medical marijuana dispensaries were forced to close in Los Angeles last year, crime rates rose significantly in nearby neighborhoods.
Law enforcement agencies have long been after these dispensaries, arguing that the large amounts of cash are a magnet for thieves, who often go on to resell marijuana. Yet, after what investigators are calling “the most rigorous independent examination of its kind” of LA dispensaries, it appears that the city might need to rethink their position.
Researchers gathered information and crime reports from 600 dispensaries in Los Angeles County, of which 430 were ordered to close by City Council. They then looked at the 10 days prior to when the ordinance took effect (June 7, 2010) and the 10 days after the shutdown. They found a 59% increase in crime within three-tenths of a mile of the closed dispensaries and 24% increase within six-tenths of a mile.
“If medical marijuana dispensaries are causing crime, then there should be a drop in crime when they close,” said Mireille Jacobson, the RAND study’s lead author and senior economist. Researchers went on to explain that open dispensaries probably strengthened the security of the immediate area, if anything, due to their security cameras and guards, as well as an increase in foot traffic and trumping illegal street sales of marijuana.
While the Los Angeles Police Department isn’t completely convinced, they also reveal that much of the complaints from neighbors of the dispensaries deal with issues of loitering, double parking and noise, rather than actual crime.

Photo by Flickr user KayVee.INC

Cancer: A Different Beast Entirely?

MEDIA ROOTS- Fascinating new research being done at Berkeley could completely transform the way we look at cancer from now on. Scientists are now arguing that the disease might actually be its own foreign species, instead of a creation of our own DNA. If this incredible discovery is indeed true, it could explain a lot about cancer’s resilience and the nature of the beast.

Abby

***

SALON– The science is complex, but it boils down to a shift in thinking about the way in which cancer is born. For years, scientists have believed that the disease begins when a few mutated genes give rise to renegade body cells that multiply beyond control.

But the Berkeley team, led by Dr. Peter Duesberg, argues that cancers are actually born from entire chromosomes, the long bands of genetic material that house our genes. What occurs is a process called aneuploidy, in which “disruptions” in chromosomes cause perversions of our genetic material, which can multiply during cell division. As a result, our DNA is rendered nearly unrecognizable.

According to PhysOrg.com: 

Normally this would be a death sentence for a cell, but in rare cases, [Duesberg] said, such disrupted chromosomes might be able to divide further, perpetuating and compounding the damage. Over decades, continued cell division would produce many unviable cells as well as a few still able to divide autonomously and seed cancer.

The genetic makeup of the cancerous cells, because of aneuploidy, bears strikingly little resemblance to our original DNA. However, the cancer still shows “relatively stable chromosomal patterns.” Those patterns are called karyotypes, and are a hallmark of living organisms.

[Duesberg] and his colleagues analyzed several cancers, clearly demonstrating that the karyotype is amazingly similar in all cells of a specific cancer line, yet totally different from the karyotypes of other cancers and even the same type of cancer from a different patient.

Translation: Each different case of cancer is a unique, parasitic species. And these species are flexible, adaptable, immortal and autonomous — as long as the host survives, of course.

A group of researchers at University of California at Berkeley have proposed a radical new theory that would cast most everything we know about cancer in a new light. While scientists have for years believed that the disease was the result of our own DNA run amok, the truth might be much weirder — that cancer is, maybe, its own separate species.
The science is complex, but it boils down to a shift in thinking about the way in which cancer is born. For years, scientists have believed that the disease begins when a few mutated genes give rise to renegade body cells that multiply beyond control. But the Berkeley team, led by Dr. Peter Duesberg, argues that cancers are actually born from entire chromosomes, the long bands of genetic material that house our genes. What occurs is a process called aneuploidy, in which “disruptions” in chromosomes cause perversions of our genetic material, which can multiply during cell division. As a result, our DNA is rendered nearly unrecognizable.
According to PhysOrg.com: 
Normally this would be a death sentence for a cell, but in rare cases, [Duesberg] said, such disrupted chromosomes might be able to divide further, perpetuating and compounding the damage. Over decades, continued cell division would produce many unviable cells as well as a few still able to divide autonomously and seed cancer.
The genetic makeup of the cancerous cells, because of aneuploidy, bears strikingly little resemblance to our original DNA. However, the cancer still shows “relatively stable chromosomal patterns.” Those patterns are called karyotypes, and are a hallmark of living organisms.
[Duesberg] and his colleagues analyzed several cancers, clearly demonstrating that the karyotype is amazingly similar in all cells of a specific cancer line, yet totally different from the karyotypes of other cancers and even the same type of cancer from a different patient.
Translation: Each different case of cancer is a unique, parasitic species. And these species are flexible, adaptable, immortal and autonomous — as long as the host survives, of course.
In a press release, Duesberg said:
Cancer is comparable to a bacterial level of complexity, but still autonomous, that is, it doesn’t depend on other cells for survival; it doesn’t follow orders like other cells in the body, and it can grow where, when and how it likes. That’s what species are all about … Once a cell has crossed that barrier of autonomy, it’s a new species.

Read more about A Different Beast Entirely.

© 2011 Salon

Photo by Flickr user crafty_dame

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Reply

Wall Street Donated $41 Million to Supercommittee

MEDIA ROOTS- It’s not very comforting to know that Wall Street lobbyists have been paying off members of the very committee in charge of finding $1.5 trillion worth of deficit measures. Can’t count much on “shared sacrifice” from the banks with bribery like this taking place on the hill.

Abby

***

TRUTHOUT– Wall Street has given $41 million in campaign contributions to the members of the Congressional “supercommittee” charged with finding $1.5 trillion worth of deficit reduction measures, according to a report released today by two watchdog groups.

The finance, insurance and real estate sector spent $3.7 billion on lobbying and campaign contributions from 1999 to 2008, according to the report, and the 12 members of the bipartisan Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction have all reaped the benefits.

Congressional veterans Sen. John Kerry (D-Massachusetts) and Sen. Max Baucus (D-Montana) top the list, having each received about $6 million in contributions from the financial sector during the course of their careers in Washington. The top GOP recipient on the committee, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Arizona), has received $5.2 million from the sector.

Donations from the political action committees and executives of Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo – banks that received $95 billion in federal bailout funds – account for one-fifth of the $4.3 million in campaign cash donated by commercial banking interests to the 12 supercommittee members.

The report also identifies 27 former or current aides to supercommittee members who have worked as lobbyists for the financial industry. Manny Rossman, for example, was Kyl’s chief of staff before landing a position at the Breaux Lott Leadership Group, where his clients include Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and Prudential Financial.

“Wall Street bought the deregulation that led to our economic collapse and the American public has paid the price,” said Nick Nyhart, president and CEO of Public Campaign, the group that co-authored the report. “The supercommittee should not give Wall Street and big banks another free ride because of their campaign cash.”

Wall Street has given $41 million in campaign contributions to the members of the Congressional “supercommittee” charged with finding $1.5 trillion worth of deficit reduction measures, according to a report released today by two watchdog groups.
The finance, insurance and real estate sector spent $3.7 billion on lobbying and campaign contributions from 1999 to 2008, according to the report, and the 12 members of the bipartisan Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction have all reaped the benefits.
Congressional veterans Sen. John Kerry (D-Massachusetts) and Sen. Max Baucus (D-Montana) top the list, having each received about $6 million in contributions from the financial sector during the course of their careers in Washington. The top GOP recipient on the committee, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Arizona), has received $5.2 million from the sector.
Donations from the political action committees and executives of Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo – banks that received $95 billion in federal bailout funds – account for one-fifth of the $4.3 million in campaign cash donated by commercial banking interests to the 12 supercommittee members.
“Wall Street bought the deregulation that led to our economic collapse and the American public has paid the price,” said Nick Nyhart, president and CEO of Public Campaign, the group that co-authored the report. “The supercommittee should not give Wall Street and big banks another free ride because of their campaign cash.”

Read more about Wall Street Donated $41 Million to Supercommittee Members

© 2011 Truthout

Photo by Flickr user DonkeyHotey

 

Media Roots Photographs Occupy Wall Street

MEDIA ROOTS- Despite sweeping arrests and police brutality, the occupation of Wall St. continues and is now spreading across the country. Photographer Kelley McCarthy went out to cover NYC’s Occupy Wall Street for Media Roots over the weekend. Her photography captures some of the activist spirit and energy of revolt that the corporate media is trying so hard to stifle.

All photos by Kelley McCarthy, see more of her work at http://mccarthy.viewbook.com/

Obama: A Candidacy Based on Failed Promises

MEDIA ROOTS- After seeing this pro Obama ‘gangsta’ meme circulating on facebook this morning, we felt the need to provide a quick rebuttal to the alleged accomplishments it touts.

Here’s what I promised again and again to do that I didn’t do:

I didn’t close Guantanamo Bay. Sure, it was a cornerstone of my campaign, but still. Terrorists gonna terrorize.

I didn’t repeal the Bush tax cuts. In fact, I extended them.

I didn’t negotiate the health care reform ideas in public or televised sessions, as promised.

In fact, remember when I said this in 2007? “I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American” – Yeah, I was just kidding. What we’re going to do instead is force you to BUY insurance, or we’ll fine you – and if you don’t pay that fine, you’ll go to jail.

I didn’t sign the Employee Free Choice act, making it easy for workers to unionize and protect themselves from thug political bullying, like what happened in Wisconsin.

I didn’t forbid companies going into bankruptcy from giving executive bonuses.

I didn’t allow imported prescription drugs to save citizens money.

I didn’t form an international group to help the millions of displaced Iraq refugees who were pushed out of their country because of a decade long bombing campaign for a terrorist act they had nothing to do with.

I didn’t withdraw from Afghanistan– instead I added more troops. In the case of Iraq, I replaced some troops with corporate thugs-for-hire. Now private military contractors make up half of our force in both countries.

I didn’t double funding for afterschool programs, as I repeatedly promised to do.

I didn’t instill tougher rules against lobbyists. In fact, I did the opposite, and even hired a couple for cabinet positions!

I didn’t use any revenue from cap and trade to support clean energy and environmental restoration.

But yeah, I gave the order to kill a guy in Pakistan and dump his body in the ocean mafia style.

And yeah, I gave the order to drop some million dollar missiles in Libya.

And yeah, I bailed out Wall Street with taxpayer money and then offered nothing to the people, while those same swindling fatcats showered one another with “job creation” money – without creating a single fucking job.

Awesome choices we are given by the establishment: choose between hysterical and unthinkably dangerous creationist caricatures or a lying right wing Republican in Democrat’s clothes who solely serves corporate America while breaking off tiny token crumbs in perfect sync with the election cycle. Obama is just Bush with an iPod. And we are duped into thinking that the sliver of hardened shit might turn to gold if we ‘hope’ hard enough.

Written by Johnny Firecloud, Founder, Managing Editor of Antiquiet.com