Showing posts with label Marijuana. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Marijuana. Show all posts

Monday, December 9, 2019

Cry Havoc. How the marijuana story ends.

Cry Havoc and let slip the dogs of war.

Last week I ran this item:
Lex Anteinternet: The Eastern Shoshone consider cannabis: In one of the many posts that I start and never finish, I had in my draft posts a item that was from the Irish Times on Irish physicians lam...
In it, I noted the following.

I know that this isn't convincing to weed's fans.  Indeed, the post above is one of the rare ones here that not only drew a fair amount of attention at the time I put it up, it drew some really negative attention from Colorado marijuana fans.  But that's the way such things work.  I still recall hearing from smokers as late as the 1990s how smoking wasn't really bad for a person.  And there are plenty of heavy drinkers who deny that they're being hurt in any fashion.

That's going to be the history of marijuana.  We'll find out that it was hugely destructive, and at some point in the future we'll look back at this and be horrified and amused by how dense we were in this era on this topic, and a host of others that seem to be floating about in the confused era we've really slipped into.  But for the time being, we're charging ahead into marijuana like there's no tomorrow.

Which brings me to how this story will develop.

Marijuana is already known to have strongly negative health implications.  When the Federal government ends its prohibition and most of the states follow suit, use will dramatically expand and the full extent of those negative implications will be known.

Within a decade, you'll be seeing advertisements by lawyers on television seeking to have marijuana consumers contact them for lawsuits against the marijuana industry, which by that time will be much more concentrated than it is now.  They'll pitch that the users were duped by those who knew that there will be health risks.  Millions will be made.

Marijuana will still be around, but some of the big outfits that are yet to emerge will be wiped out and bankrupt.

And quite a few people will be suffering from all sorts of conditions both predictable and unknown.

Only lawyers will really benefit.

"Repeal Day". Bad History

Twitter proclaimed December 5, Repeal Day, in honor of the 1932 repeal of the Constituatonal Amendment and accompanying Federal legislation that brought national prohibition of alcohol into effect.  Such luminaries as Julian Castro have noted:



Julián Castro
@JulianCastro
It’s #repealday, the day the United States ended the prohibition of alcohol. 86 years later, it’s time we end the federal prohibition of Cannabis once and for all. Legalize it. Regulate it. Expunge the records of the victims of the war on drugs.

Strong argument, correct?

Well, not really as its historically incorrect.

First of all, contrary to the way its often assumed, the repeal of prohibition didn't actually open the consumption of alcohol across the country.  Rarely appreciated in the story of prohibition, a huge wave of state prohibition statutes had been passed prior to the Federal government entering the picture with a Constitutional amendment. 

The real lesson, in regard to both the prohibition of alcohol and marijuana may be there, as its a story of misplaced Federal overreach.

Left along, the majority of American states were rocketing toward alcohol prohibition in the 1910s and many had already arrived there.  Wyoming got there months ahead of the Federal government in 1919. Colorado also had, with "bone dry" prohibition already coming into effect. 

Had prohibitionist not sought to impose prohibition over the entire country, the entire country may have gotten there on its own.  It was getting there.  But the Federal entry forced it on areas that weren't ready to accept it.  And that got the opposition to it really rolling.

Indeed, you have to wonder to what extent the country would remain dry if the Volstead Act and the Constitutional amendment had never been done. My guess is that a lot more of it would be today.  Contrary to what is imagined today, it was an extremely popular movement prior to national prohibition becoming the law.  And its overall success, in terms of national health, would speak for themselves if they were allowed to speak at all.

Indeed, one of the often missed aspects of the repeal of prohibition is that a lot of states, Wyoming included, used the repeal to fall back on their state prohibition laws, which had not been repealed, and work on new alcohol laws that controlled the trade much more strictly than had been the prior case.  States like Wyoming did follow the national lead, but they didn't go back to the open free for all that had been in place before.

The story of marijuana may be similar.  States made it illegal long before the Federal government entered the picture in the 1970s  Now that states are rushing away from their own state laws the Federal government isn't enforcing the Federal law, which is bad.  It would have been better, probably, if the Federal government had never entered the picture.  If it hand't, by now we'd have a longer history on what making it legal may mean, and I suspect the looming health disaster its likely to be, would be causing a lot of pause now.

Friday, December 6, 2019

The Eastern Shoshone consider cannabis

In one of the many posts that I start and never finish, I had in my draft posts a item that was from the Irish Times on Irish physicians lamenting Ireland's headlong rush into legalizing marijuana use.  They were concerned as there's really very little in the way of study on its long term effects. What studies there are, we should note, are pretty negative.  The physicians were worried about what rushing into this uncharted territory would mean.

Well, perhaps their argument should have been to have the Irish just sit on their hands and see how things go in the United States.  Not that the Irish would have done it.  Ireland right now is one of the Anthony Kennedy's of nations, busy trying to be hip and cool and in the process coming across as just one more oldster who doesn't look hip and cool.  So they're going down this path no matter what.  If they did look, so far the results in the US don't look too good.  I've written about that in the past in regard to Colorado. Rather than repeat it all here, I'll simply link in what I wrote before:

And in an environment that's awash with dope, making it all the worse.

Now as every one surely knows, unless they've been living in a cavern within a cave, and hiding in a corner of that, Colorado has legalized marijuana.  There's been a lot of commentary everywhere about this. And a lot of the commentary really misses the point.

There's a common thread in these stories about how marijuana has been "good" for Colorado. Well, maybe, but it hasn't been good for Coloradans, or the drifters who floated in there, at least by my observation.  Indeed, while I tended to be of the view that the law shouldn't worry about marijuana before, even though I don't approve of its use (and I think most of the "medicinal" excuses people give for using it are a crock), seeing it first hand has really and strongly changed my mind.


Some of the ill effects of the drug I was aware of before, mostly by having been exposed to people who had become addicted to it.  To some degree, they may have been cognizant of the problems it caused, them, and to others, not.  The degree to which they became listless and lazy in some instances was notable.  The addictive nature of it was obvious, and probably most notable to me when a former soldier of mine from the Guard stopped me on the street, after he'd gotten out, and asked me for help to get him off it.  Now, at 22 or so years old and a college student, there wasn't much that I could do. That an older fellow, in his 30s by that time, would ask for help, because I guess I'd been his sergeant, made an impression.

Well, Denver has really made an impression.

And not a good one.

Since weed became quasi legal, and then fully legal in Denver, a giant social experiment has been conducted on its streets and the results are pretty easy to see.  They're overrun, downtown, with listless dirty addicts begging, often quite openly, for money for marijuana. No job, no prospects, no motivation, just a craving for the stuff.  Not pleasant.

The first time I really ran across it was just after or just before, I can't quite recall which, it was legalized fully and there was some sort of dopers gathering in Denver.  Now, admittedly, a convention of dope fans may present a skewed image of the stuff, or not.  But present an image, it certainly did.

I could describe it, but I think the best way to describe what I saw on that occasions, and subsequent ones, it to describe singular people.

On that occasion, the person who made the biggest impression was a girl sitting on the corner, back to traffic.  She was probably about 20, and had once been fairly pretty. Now she was dirty in that funky way that only the really ills, or the really stoned, get.  Not that honest sort of dirty that oilfield workers, for example, have.  No, dirty in a diseased way, probably something we note because in an earlier era our natures told us to watch out when we encountered it.

She was glassy eyed and had a sign begging for money.  On her lap was a Husky puppy.  The puppy was cute.

I almost gave her money, but would have extracted a deal that I got the puppy. That isn't very Christian of me, and I didn't do it, but money for drugs wasn't going to help her any, maybe somebody could have helped the dog.  But then, in her condition, I suspect, the dog was truly her only real friend.

Since that time situations like this have been really common.  I've heard panhandlers yell for money.  I've seen seen other glassy eyed dressed in bizarre mixes of discarded clothes rambling in begging appeals.  They're addicts. Marijuana is all they want.





"Radar plot depicting the data presented in Nutt, David, Leslie A King, William Saulsbury, Colin Blakemore. "Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse" The Lancet 2007; 369:1047-1053. PMID:17382831. For more information, see image. It contains not only the physical harm and dependence data like the aforementioned image, but also the mean social harm of each drug. This image was produced with the python plotting library matplotlib"

Now, I know, I'll hear the argument that "well, those are the exceptions to the rule" and "it's no more addictive than booze". Well, those are hardly good arguments. 

First of all, at least based on my exposure to it, its far from the exception.

Now, I'm sure there are occasional users of marijuana that suffer no ill affects, maybe.  But then this is the case with any drug of any type, so its not much of an argument.  The real question is whether it has a demonstrative ill impact on a significant percentage of the users. It clearly does.

Now, right away, the argument will be made that "well it isn't as bad as alcohol". That's a pathetic argument.

First of all, according to some studies, it is in fact "worse than alcohol" is some real ways.  The study printed above, in chart form, for example, would have it as causing less physical harm, a little less social harm, and causing a little more dependence.  That's hardly a sterling endorsement.  And that assumes that this is correct.  It probably has caused less social harm and less noted psychical harm, so far, as its' been widely illegal.  As it becomes increasingly legal we will likely be surprised to find, oh my, it causes harm.

Indeed, we're already learning that a bit.  A recent study shows that relatively little use amongst minors, including teenagers, causes permanent alteration in the brain.  Not good.  And I suspect that the impacts from smoking it will likely duplicate much of  the non cancerous impacts of smoking tobacco, none of which are very good.  Indeed, people tend to associate smoking tobacco's risks only with cancer, but in reality, there's a lot of other cardio vascular and respiratory damage that it causes.  I can't see a good reason why this would be different for marijuana.

Additionally, in regards to the oft made comparison to alcohol, it's worth remembering that the best evidence suggests that human beings have been consuming alcohol for so long that they have a genetic adaptation to it, varying by human population. This has been addressed here before, but the human tolerance for the poison that is alcohol is likely related to the fact that it was once safer to consume it than water.  But that doesn't make it safe.  The point is that we've been consuming alcohol now for thousands of years, probably tens of thousands of years, and we still can't really handle all of its ill and evil impacts.

If we can't really handle something that's been widely legal for maybe 200,000 years, what makes us think we're going to be any better at this?

I don't think so.

And what is going on, on a large level, that we seem to need to be numbed so much?

Alcohol, as noted, has been with us forever.  Marijuana has not doubt been around for some time, but not as long as an intoxicant, and certainly not in such a widespread manner.  But it isn't just these.   We have made real progress in tamping down some really dangerous drugs that were getting widespread circulation, but at the same time we seem to be in a full scale effort to numb ourselves as much as possible.  We still have booze (but not anywhere near at the consumption rate it was once at, in spite of what some may think).  But we are also numbing ourselves in all sorts of other ways.

Indeed, the pharmaceutical level of mind alternation is at an all time high.  Thousands of people have to take medication just to make it through their day, mentally.  And news came this past week of a new psychological ailment based on an addiction to computerized technology. That is, people so deeply into the fantasy world provided by the Internet that they cannot escape it.

I know that this isn't convincing to weed's fans.  Indeed, the post above is one of the rare ones here that not only drew a fair amount of attention at the time I put it up, it drew some really negative attention from Colorado marijuana fans.  But that's the way such things work.  I still recall hearing from smokers as late as the 1990s how smoking wasn't really bad for a person.  And there are plenty of heavy drinkers who deny that they're being hurt in any fashion.

That's going to be the history of marijuana.  We'll find out that it was hugely destructive, and at some point in the future we'll look back at this and be horrified and amused by how dense we were in this era on this topic, and a host of others that seem to be floating about in the confused era we've really slipped into.  But for the time being, we're charging ahead into marijuana like there's no tomorrow.

And now comes news that the growing of marijuana may be coming to the state, but without the state as the regulator.  The Eastern Arapaho are considering legalizing the growing of it on the Wind River Reservation.

This gets into a complicated legal situation that I'll forgot getting into in depth, but the two tribes on the Wind River Reservation are sovereigns, as are all similarly situated Indian Tribes.  Their situation is perhaps more unique in that the Wind River Reservation itself is shared by two sovereigns, which is not the norm and in fact may be unique to that reservation.  The Reservation has its own Law & Order Code, but in recent years the two tribes have acted independently of each other to a fair degree.  In September the Eastern Shoshone Tribe's General Council voted in favor of a resolution authorizing a group to study legalizing medical marijuana and allowing for hemp cultivation.  One of the goals is financial, as a spokesman has noted. stating "We’re trying to transition hemp and medical cannabis into Wyoming so our tribe can get financially stable.”

The group is frank about its goal being to get cannabis onto the Reservation, which of course means getting it into the state.  And their position in regard to hemp cultivation isn't any different from the state's itself, which has now legalized that and which is seeking to secure Federal approval for the same. Federal approval will come.

Hemp production definitely has legitimate uses, primarily for fiber production.  I.e., it makes good rope, and there are reasons that a natural rope may be better than one made with synthetics.  For one thing, it makes good hay twine as cattle can eat it, which isn't true of the orange synthetic twine that's currently used.

The overall problem, however, is that distinguishing between hemp and marijuana isn't really completely possible overall, as the difference between the two is somewhat like the difference between wolves and wolfy dogs.  Is that a dog, or a wolf?  It's hard to tell.  In fact, there's really no difference between hemp grown for rope and hemp grown to smoke, other than the name and the fact that marijuana has generally been cultivated for its impact on humans, rather than its fiber.  So they're two sides of the same coin.  It is true, as has been noted by others, that smoking hemp won't achieve much in terms of a "high", according to people who have studied it, but that's because the cultivation hasn't emphasized that aspect of it.  Like most plants used by humans in this "no GMO" world, almost all plants we use have been genetically altered through selective cultivation.

Where this really has caused a legal problem is in regard to transportation across state lines.  People get arrested and their fates are uncertain, for doing something that seems to them completely legal at the time they engage in it.  So, on this topic, both the state and the Tribes will have to authorize hemp, and Wyoming is in the process of doing that, lest there be a train wreck for somebody.  There still could be, of course, for those trucking out of the state in any direction other than south.

Beyond that, and finally, the Shoshone aren't proposing to legalize growing marijuana and they definitely aren't proposing to authorize it for any use other than medical use.  But keeping the lid on medical use alone has proven impossible nearly everywhere and the now commonly accepted concept that it actually has a medical use that isn't duplicated without negative effects by other pharmaceuticals is very far from proven.  Indeed, so far about the only really established medical use is for glaucoma sufferers and maybe for Parkinson's sufferers.

What the negative impacts are, and there are definitely negative impacts, aren't known fully.  They may be severe and they definitely aren't minor.  Study on this topic in the US hasn't been done as the FDA doesn't study illegal non pharmaceutical products.  Here, the study better start.

Legalizing marijuana is charging ahead everywhere it seems.  But this should be kept in mind.  At one time it was thought healthful to take a "bracer" of alcohol first hing in the morning.  Now everyone knows all that does is dull your wits.  You can find plenty of advertisements extolling what cigarettes physicians recommended, even after it was already known that they were killers.  Everyday on television you can hear dozens of advertisements from lawyers who are suing drug companies for drugs once considered safe by the FDA but which proved not to be.

This is dangerous territory.

Addendum

Since this was first typed out, its been made clear that the Reservation in general is seeking to establish to legalize the growing of hemp, not just the Eastern Shoshone.

Monday, June 24, 2019

The Rise and Fall, rise and fall, rise and fall, of Denver.

Capitol Hill District of Denver, circa 1898.  A careful observer of this photograph might be tempted to think this is the Capitol building, but it isn't.  It faces the wrong direction and must have been a courthouse or a city building.  Indeed, I suspect this photograph was taken from the capitol looking west.

Recently I put up a photo of a business of a morally dubious nature in downtown Denver on one of our companion blogs, that being:  Painted Bricks: La Boheme, Denver Colorado.

This caused me to recall earlier visits to Denver, and the up and down nature of its downtown.

The edge of the Capitol Hill District of Denver in 2018.  This view doesn't face the same way as the 1898 photo above.

Personal recollection figures on this blog from time to time, even though its main focus is on something else.  In the recollection context, it it occurs to me now that I have a personal connection with Denver that stretches back at least forty years, maybe a bit longer.  Longer than that of most of the people, I'd guess, who live there.  If I add a familial familiarity to it, which of course is less reliable, it would stretch back beyond the late 1920s.

Indeed, while I don't say much about it here, I have a familial connection with Colorado that goes back to the 1860s, much longer than many of the European American folks there. A great grandfather on my father's side moved from Ohio to Leadville to be a miner in the second half of the 19th Century, although he rapidly changed his occupation to shopkeeper in that high altitude town.*  So our family's association with Colorado is, well, nearly as old as the state of Colorado.


In fact, my father was born in Colorado, something I rarely mention.  All of his siblings except for his youngest brother, as well has my father, were born in Denver.  His parents moved to Scotsbluff Nebraska when he was seven, and usually if asked my father would just say he was from Scotsbluff, even though he left Scotsbluff for Casper when he was in his early to mid teens.** That means his association with Denver was nearly as strong as it was with Scotsbluff, although I don't know if the first few years of your life really count that way as you really don't recall much about them personally.

Be that as it may my father didn't talk that much about his childhood in Denver.  In fact, some of the more interesting details of that period in my father's family's history I know from other family members.  For instance, I know that my father started school when he was four years old as the parish priest felt he was ready for it, and he attended a Catholic grade school in Denver.  When they moved to Scotsbluff he was enrolled in the public school there, so he didn't grow up going to Catholic schools.***  His younger brother had the opposite experience, FWIW, attending the Catholic grade school here when the family moved from Scotsbluff, where he'd been born.

Be that as it may, he identified more with Nebraska and when Denver was discussed, when I was a kid, it often entailed relatives who continued living there after our family had left, some of whom still did when I was growing up.  The Bergers in particular were their aunt and uncle who lived there all the way into my high school years, outliving my grandparents by decades.  All of my father's family were extremely fond of them, although I can recall meeting them only once, when they came up here for some reason.

That reflects, I guess, my father's view of Denver, or maybe of travel.  My father didn't like travelling at all and he never went to Denver without a reason.  That reason came when I was in grade school, probably around 5th or 6th grade, which is coincident with my first trip to Denver.

When I was about that age. . . I'm no longer precisely sure of when it was, I developed asthma.  It arrived pretty suddenly. At that time, there were no allergist in our area at all, and the only recourse was to go to Denver, which we did.

To go to Denver to be tested for medical reasons isn't a good introduction to the town, but at the same time I recall looking forward to it for childish reasons.  I knew, of course, that it was a big city.  I also knew that a friend of mine had models that his father, who was a cartographer, brought home when he went to Denver for work.

Going to Denver for work is interesting in and of itself and I've been to Denver hundreds of times for work. But at the time, that seemed very exotic and strange, maybe even a little sad, in and of itself.  But that did introduce me to the concept that Denver had a store that sold really neat models.  While we were there, we went there.

That store was across the street from the Denver Dry Goods store, a huge department store whose building still exists, just off of 16th Street, in downtown Denver, but which is now an apartment building.  For some reason, when my father spoke to his siblings about Denver, the Denver Dry Goods stores was frequently mentioned.  It must have been a place they held in regard from the time in which they lived there.

The model store that was across the street from Denver Dry Goods also sold Avalon Hill games, the first time I'd ever seen them.  We didn't buy one, I know, as I didn't know what they really were, and of course back in those days you couldn't really look such things up anywhere.  A few years later, just a short view, I'd stumble into those games, which I really like even though there's nobody to play them with anymore.  I guess that first trip was my first introduction to them, in a way.

I can also recall that we stayed, on that occasion, in a hotel that was just off of downtown Denver. The building is still there and I still recognize it when I drive past it.  Just down from it was a Big Boy restaurant that we didn't eat in, but which for a long time thereafter was a landmark that I'd recognize. We had to go to National Jewish, the great Denver hospital that focuses on respiratory diseases.  The net result was the disturbing finding that I was allergic to a lot of animals, and some plants.  I'll not go into that other than to note, as is common with asthma, it abated in later years, then came back to some degree, and has abated again, although not before I had to go through three separate rounds of shots over three different periods of time; the first in the 1970s of which we're speaking, the second in the 1990s after I graduated from law school, and the third just recently as a prophylactic measure as we got a dog.****

Anyhow, that Denver of the 1970s was, by my recollection, much like Salt Lake City is now.  It was a big city, but it was a big business like city.  It didn't have the carnival atmosphere that it has now.  It was glass and steel with shops and the like that was unlike anything in Wyoming, but it was also cold and sterile and meant business.

The business that it meant was the oil business at that time, and the 1970s was the era of rampant oil activity in the region.  I didn't know it then, but I'd come to know that Denver had become a major oil hub at least as early as the 1950s.

My mother enters the picture there, actually as in 1957 or so she'd come down to Colorado from Alberta as my aunt Marguerite was getting married.  The family had gone into hard times during the Great Depression and they never really emerged from it.  Starting at age 16 my mother had gone to work and that work took her to Alberta, where she at first worked for the Canadian Pacific Railroad and then worked as an oil and gas secretary.  In 57 or so, however, my aunt had become engaged to a Quebecois engineer who had moved to Colorado to study.  The family circumstances being strained, the decision, nearly an order, was to send one member of the family to Colorado for the wedding and that person was my mother.  In order to do this, she had to quit her job in Alberta.

By her recollection, her employer and co workers in Alberta begged her not to go, and warned her that if she stayed to work in the U.S. which was easy to do, she'd be "worked to death".  Indeed, American oil companies that I've worked with make the reverse complaint about their Canadian colleges, claiming that they basically won't work. That does give testimony to the "American Work Ethic", and whatever it entails, for good or ill.  At any rate, she didn't heed their warnings and quit her job figuring that after the Colorado wedding she could find work in Denver, which was booming due to the oil business.

As it happened, and for whatever reason, the industry in Denver wasn't hiring, but prospective employers uniformly pointed her north towards our city, which is where she ended up and where she found employment, as an oil and gas secretary, right away.  All that leads into another story which I'll forgo now, and maybe just forgo.  But what it shows, in part, is that Denver was an oil town.

It was still an oil town in the 1970s.  And in fact at that time oil companies that were headquartered in Casper Wyoming were pulling out in favor of Denver.  Casper had been a major regional oil hub and the newspaper, as late as the 1970s, declared it to be "the Oil Capital of the Rockies".  It was losing its oil office workers by the late 1970s.  Then the crash of the 1980s came.

When that came it hit Casper hard, and it was devastating to Denver.

It was that Denver that I next became familiar with.

As a University of Wyoming student in the mid 1980s, I started visiting Denver for the first time in over half a decade.  A good friend of mine was highly familiar with Denver and knew his way around.  While going to Denver myself for any reason wouldn't have occurred to me, it was second nature to him, and our group of outdoorsy friends was ironically introduced to urban Denver, as it had very good outdoors stores.  We used to go down to Denver from time to time to hit the sporting goods stores and the outdoors stores, such as REI (then in a different location) or Eastern Mountain Sports, which was downtown.

In that same time frame, I also would go down from Laramie to Denver on the occasional day trip with a girlfriend of the time. As she was outdoorsy (we were all geology students) we'd go to the same sort of places, but she also had a strong interest in music which I did (and do) as well.  So the list of places we'd go to was expanded to include music stores, including ones that sold records.  One of those places still exists, Wax Trax, which has changed hardly at all.  A really neat one, however in a residential neighborhood off of downtown I couldn't possibly find today, assuming it exists.

Wax Trax in Denver, which has weathered the ages.

At some point in this time frame I also discovered the Tattered Cover bookstore, but I"m not sure who introduced it to me.  I suspect it was the girl I was dating, but I'm not sure.  Oddly enough my father knew of the store at that time, even though it was founded in 1971, well after he had left the city as a boy, so I have no idea how he was aware of it.

The Denver of that era seemed busy to us, but its downtown had taken a pounding.  Many buildings were closed at first, but by the mid 80s a new downtown was developing after 16th Street was closed to vehicle traffic.  A new retail district began to pop up.  Still, lower downtown Denver was a wreck dominated by the massive Gates Rubber Company building, which was completely abandoned.  Nobody dared walk in that era unadvisedly.  Five Points, the area just off downtown, was legendary for being rough and had a reputation for that which dates back into the 1930s.  While we tried to avoid it, occasionally you'd hit its edges coming and out of town past a traffic island park that was always covered with drunk people at any hour of the day.  Off of downtown, as you approached the Capital Hill District, you encountered neighborhoods that were highly decayed.  The large episcopal cathedral dominated the area near Wax Trax and was in such rough shape, with boarded up windows, that I assumed when first encountering it that it had been abandoned.


Indeed, at that time, if you went to 16th Street you didn't stray much off of it.  Only a block away the town had a much different character.  Down by the Gates building it was a hobo jungle and completely dissolute.  Nobody in their right mind went there at all.

After 1986 I didn't go to Denver again for years.  We all graduated from UW and went off to work or unemployment.  I went on to the latter, as did most of the geology students I knew at the time.  The last time I was in Denver of that era was in 1986 itself, when I went down once by myself.  I wasn't in Denver again until the spring of 1990, when I was a law student.  On that single occasion I went down with a friend and was really left with no particularly noteworthy memories of the trip except for seeing a bagpipe player on the street who was playing Garryowen.  More than anything else the trip on that time left me with that sad feeling of old memories not really being capable of recapture.  The fun part of going to the town with my undergraduate geology friends was really gone, and the fact that I was there with a law school friend didn't make up for it.  Had I thought on it more, that trip, symbolizing an evolution of various sorts, would have probably made me pretty blue about the experience.

It was after I started practing law that I started going to Denver a lot.  And it was after the construction of Coors Field that the town began to change massively.


You wouldn't think that the construction of a baseball field would change a city, but Coors Field did.  

Coors Field was opened in 1995 and was constructed where Gates Rubber had been. The classic baseball stadium brought new life to lower downtown Denver and absolutely everything about it began to change thereafter.  The nearly wrecked area of lower downtown started to rapidly evolve into a hip, cool and youthful area.  It's still evolving in that direction twenty five years later, the change being both complete and ongoing.  By the 2000s it was highly evident, and the areas around 16th Street that had been scary were swept up in it.

That's what brings me to La Boheme.

La Boheme, Denver Colorado.


This is a photograph of the mural on the side of La Boheme in Denver, which euphemistically calls itself a "gentleman's cabaret". By that it means, no doubt, something on the order of "strip club".

La Boheme, which means the female Bohemian in French, is located in what was once a pretty rough downtown Denver neighborhood which went through gentrification after Coors Field was constructed. The transformation in this area was remarkable and its still ongoing, Colorado's legalization of marijuana had reintroduced a feeling of decay into downtown once again.  At any rate, in spite of many old buildings being bought and converted into new upscale uses, and in spite of being located across the street from the downtown Embassy Suites, a nice Denver business hotel, La Boheme keeps on keeping on.

I can't recall this mural being there until just recently, so it's presumably a new addition.  Perhaps keeping in mind where it is, it's not shockingly skanky and is actually fairly well done.  It's placement resulted in a minor debate with my travel companions on whether it depicts Marilyn Monroe, Jenny McCarthy, or none of the above.  The first two choices would in some ways emphasize the tragic nature of the establishments purpose.  Anyhow, it's fairly well done except that the figures left hand, which isn't really visible in this photo, is quite meaty, making for an odd appearance.

I couldn't recall if it was La Boheme or not, and now in recollection, I realize it it wasn't. But in the 2000s I had an occasion to go to Denver for work and in so doing I parked downtown to walk to 16th Street.  Construction was ongoing just as it is now, as old dilapidated buildings yielded to new construction.  At any rate, I was walking towards downtown on a path that took me past a bar that was a strip joint.  This was probably around 11:00 a.m. or so.  As I did that, a girl came out of the club who was obviously employed as one of the "dancers".

She wasn't good looking, in the way that movies like to imagine girls so employed to look.  Indeed, she was skinny and extremely pale in the way that people who never see the light of day are pale.  Her occupation was betrayed by her dress, which was only suitable for one of two professions, both of which are a species of prostitution.  She barreled out of the door on her way to somewhere else, probably after having picked up her wages for selling her appearance the night prior, and perhaps having just finished up from whatever wreck of an evening it had been.

The old dilapidated Denver boldly defiant in the face of the new, cool Denver.

Well wherever that place was, it's gone now, I'm sure.  But La Boheme, the last of the really old seedy Denver, keeps on keeping on, out of place, and out of time.

Which doesn't mean that Denver has become a mythical bright shining city on a hill.

Indeed, quite contrary to that, Denver gives really good evidence of the human inclination to destroy everything through our worst instincts.  Denver is why we can't have nice things.

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheIwg_CTqxiHQl2XL0roarriUD_P2rJ3SbNYZpahYmnpX4EXTT-r1k0tMYhuuuc8t4rm32MyG4yujfaswvl6z-JyjOZitsUNN5m5qyt7DaZTIRfEgYQMuKaSHvwZIQ5CRSd3e65n5ooHc/s640/2013-11-19+11.34.56.jpg

Denver's downtown was changing in character by the late 1990s in any event, and while it was getting increasingly vibrant, it was also getting increasingly grungy.  And then marijuana came.

As Denver's fortunes boomed based on a new, and largely consumer basis in a new economy, it drew in tens of thousands of people from elsewhere in the country, many from California.  "Californication" became a slam on the process but Colorado simply became overwhelmed, transforming the state.  It's a lesson for those who always have a growth is good mindset, as much of the old Colorado was killed in the process.  And as part of that process, a new California outlook came to the state's politics, which ironically went from the pro grown political right to the progressive liberal left.  With that came the push to legalize marijuana.

And legalize it Colorado did.

Marijuana has ruined Denver.

That statement might be too harsh, of course, but only a little.  With the legalization of marijuana all the predicted social problems that would never come about, it's backers claimed, have.  Law enforcement problems of all sorts have dramatically increased, for example. And the number of street people living on Denver's streets, which in recent years have generally been relatively warm in the winter, are now epic.

Street people were always a feature of downtown Denver, but the numbers and character have really changed.  In the 1980s these sad souls were concentrated in lower downtown and Five Points  Now they're just everywhere in the downtown area. And they aren't the same people.  In the 80s, they were sad victims of poverty and alcohol.  Now they tend to be the young who surrendered their lives to dope.

The social lesson there, and the legal one, is self evident, but being ignored.  Money talks and people are making money off of the drug, the human toll doesn't matter.  Denver is a good argument for making marijuana illegal, not the opposite.

And with the decline, the rise in self indulgent  artificial trend of the moment has captured Denver as well.  Denver's not only become wealthier, but an element of artificialness has crept in as well, the way that suddenly wealthy societies built on a false and temporary wealth are.  Think the Roaring Twenties.

Will it stay that way?  Hard to say. But watching Denver over a long period of time, and having noted its rise and fall of fortunes, it's not safe to say.  The one thing that can be said is that its a new Denver, and its not necessarily a better one.

_________________________________________________________________________________

*This isn't a thread on Leadville.  I'll have to put one up someday.  But I will note here is that my grandfather and grandmother's location in Leadville put them in that town in its heyday, and in that period of time during which all of its famous residents, such as the Browns and the Tabors, lived there.  There was a apparently a community of relocated Leadville residents, which would have included the Browns, who lived in Denver after Leadville declined and who regularly met.

**He'd already been to one year of high school, maybe two, when he moved to Casper.  I'd thought for a long time that the entire family moved to Casper at that time but in fact my grandfather must have gone back and forth from Scottsbluff to Casper for some time, as it seems that he was already operating the meatpacking plant he purchased in Casper in 1940 or so.  Chances are that economically there was a period when they weren't able to get a second house and whatnot so there may have been a year or two when he was commuting back and forth very frequently.

***My mother, in contrast went to all Catholic schools. Quebec didn't have public schools at the time and all schooling was private.

****A typical condition of those with asthma is not to talk to people about it and most asthmatics, myself included, never speak of the condition to outsiders.  That's because its impossible to describe and involves some very odd experiences when a person is actively afflicted, including the knowledge that you are repeatedly brought to the edge of death and then back out.  Most young asthmatics, I suspect, spend the rest of their lives with the knowledge that life is very fragile and never have the illusion of long life or the expectation of it that other people have.  Simply having had the condition is its own Momento Mori.  I' only note that all here as childhood asthma creates a profound psychological impact on the person who endures it even if you outgrow it, which a large number of people afflicted with it do.

I've outgrown it and mostly had by the time I had graduated from high school.  Indeed when I enlisted in the National Guard I stated that I hadn't been afflicted since age 13, even if I was, or might have been, fudging on that age. Even at that, however, it came back to a degree while I was in law school when I acquired a new allergy that was a real seasonal problem for several years and which caused a second round of shots.  As that went away, which thankfully it did, the Manx cat volunteered to live with us and took up residence in our home in spite of my theoretically being allergic to cats.  For whatever reason, however, he never caused me to have very many problems, although he did cause some, and when he sadly passed my wife campaigned for a dog, which she had always wanted. That caused the third round of shots.

Swing back to Denver, I'm allergic to something there, but only mildly.  I have no idea what its, but for much of the year if I'm simply there I have a slightly runny nose and feel slightly allergic to something.

Wednesday, February 13, 2019

February 13, 1919. No love for alcohol


The big Wyoming news on this Valentine's Day Eve was the passage of a "Dry Bill" that limited the production of alcohol to beverages with no more than 1% of the stuff in them.

This has been noted before here, but the curious thing about this bill is that it was wholly redundant.  It was known at the time that the Federal government was going to pass its own bill to bring the provisions of the 18th Amendment into force. So why was a state bill necessary? Well, it really wasn't.

Or maybe it wasn't.  A modern analogy might be the bills regarding marijuana, which remains illegal under Federal law.  Many states prohibited it, and still do, under state law.  The Federal law remains in full force and effect for marijuana which technically, in legal terms, makes all state efforts to repeal its illegality, which date back to the early 1970s, moot.  However, in recent years the Federal Government has chosen not to enforce the law, and states have legalized it under state law.  There's nothing to preclude the Federal government from enforcing its own laws again other than that it would be unpopular.

Something similar, but not identical, occurred with alcohol.  The Prohibition movement was successful in making it illegal under the laws of numerous states before the 18th Amendment became law.  Even running right up to that states were passing anti alcohol laws right and left, and as can be seen, some passed them even after Prohibition came to the U.S. Constitution.  But that meant than when the 18th Amendment was repealed those same states, i.e., most of them, had to figure out how to deal with the ban under their own laws.  Wyoming chose to step out of Prohibition slowly over a term of years.

To bring this current, in recent years there's been efforts in Wyoming to have Wyoming follow the smoky trail laid down by weedy Colorado, and to allow marijuana for some purposes.  If it did, that would certainly be the first step to being a general legalization under state law.  As people have become unaware that it remains illegal under the Federal law, that would be regarded as a general legalization, and indeed my prediction is that at some point in the future when the Democrats control both houses of Congress, the Federal law will be repealed.

All of that is, in my view, a tragedy as Americans clearly don't need anything more to dull their whits chemically than they already have.  While I'm not a teetotaler, and I think passing the 18th Amendment in general was a foolish thing to do, it's a shame that once it came it was reversed as society would have been better off without alcohol quite clearly.  In terms of public health, Prohibition was a success and likewise, the legalization of marijuana will be a disaster.  About the only consolation that can be made of it is that, in my view, within a decade it'll prove to be such a public health threat that lawyers will be advertising class action law suits against weed companies for whatever long lasting health effects, and it will have some, that its proven to have.  It'll vest into American society like tobacco, something that we know is really bad for us, but people use anyway, and then they file suit against companies that produce it based on the fact that they turn out to be surprised that its really bad for you.

In other 1919 news, a big blizzard was in the region.

Monday, January 8, 2018

Jeff Sessions allows the U.S. Attorneys to prosecute the Federal Marijuana laws. . .and that's a really good thing. . .

in spite of what all the weedy stoners and now drugy states may state about it.


Sessions didn't write the law.  He's not even requiring that it be enforced.  He's merely withdrawn the Obama era declaration that U.S. Attorneys violate their oath to uphold the laws of the United States and abstain from prosecuting for the violation of a Federal law, at least one of two instances in which President Obama, unable to secure a repeal of a law, mandated that his officers violate their oaths of office and fail to uphold it.

Now, it's no doubt clear from my posts here I'm not in favor of legalizing marijuana.  Frankly, while I'm not a teetotaler, I wouldn't have been in favor of the repeal of Prohibition either.  The evidence is good enough that humans fall into destructive addictions easily, and that taking any drug isn't really a good idea if you can avoid it.  I've already gone into the topic of why alcohol is both destructive and perhaps a bit of an exception from an evolutionary biological prospective, and if people want to read and complain about that in that thread, hey, have at it.
"Radar plot depicting the data presented in Nutt, David, Leslie A King, William Saulsbury, Colin Blakemore. "Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse" The Lancet 2007; 369:1047-1053. PMID:17382831. For more information, see image. It contains not only the physical harm and dependence data like the aforementioned image, but also the mean social harm of each drug. This image was produced with the python plotting library matplotlib"  Note, alcohol is on the high side of social harm in this plot, but then it would be.  It's the only legal drug in the lot and therefore the most used by default.

This topic isn't on any of that.

Having a law on the books breeds contempt for the law, particularly a law which at least a significant minority of a population supports.  If the law is no longer wanted, it should be repealed.

Now, critics will scoff and say this is an exception and it hasn't been enforced for a long time, etc. They're wrong.

And the reason they're wrong is not only that ignoring a law breeds contempt of all law, but it sets a precedent.

Don't think so?

Well, consider this.  This law was ordered to be ignored as the Obama Administration basically is okay with states going their own way on marijuana, but Congress wasn't.  So the order went out, ignore the law.

How many other closely debated topics are there like this?

Plenty.

Some examples.

Some right wing politicians have long argued that Form 4473s which people fill out when they purchase a firearm are excessively intrusive.  I disagree, but they argue it.  Others argue that prohibitions on any type of weapon, such as machineguns, are improper and illegal. What if some administration, say the Trump Administration, ordered the Federal government to cease all prosecution of Federal firearms violations?  Would states like California be cool with that?

 M249 automatic rifle (it's not a machinegun, silly). You'd be okay with the Administration ordering no restrictions be enforced on these. . .right?

In my state there are two Gubernatorial candidates who are already arguing that the Federal government and its nasty regulations are holding the state down, even though the Trump Administration in fact has cut regulations like weeds with a weed whacker. Frankly, the argument isn't credible at this point, if it ever was, but what if Trump simply ordered that no environmental regulation be enforced.  None.  Would that be okay by you?  It wouldn't be with everybody.  If that example sounds extreme, I could frankly easily see him doing that.

And something like that has in fact happened before. At one time, under one GOP Administration, the Federal government simply didn't budget for MSHA (Mine Safety) training.  The regulations said that the training had to take place, and it had to be from a certified MSHA instructor, but the Federal government wouldn't certify anyone as instructors.  Good result?

Or how about this. The entire Federal judiciary only has authority as the Executive Branch carries out their decisions.  If you don't follow a Federal Court's order, all sorts of things can happen to you, but the Court isn't going to do it.  To give an example, if a state ignores Obergefell, and there were some states that seriously gave some thought to that, it isn't as if Anthony Kennedy and Ruth Ginsberg were going to ride into town at the head of the Federal Court Cossacks.  Nope, they have none.

 Justice Anthony Kennedy enforcing one of his more unpopular decisions on the states. . . nah. . .probably not.

So if a President decided that Obergefell was a judicial coup, which it basically was, and he cared not to enforce it, is it okay with everyone that he just says "nah. . . .don't bother with it"?  If that example sounds absurd it has in fact occurred. That's exactly what Andrew Jackson did with the Supreme Court's finding that removing the Cherokees was illegal.  He called their bluff and it happened anyway.

 Cherokee chief during the removal period. . . but  you're okay with that as long as it means the government ignore weed, right?

To a very large extent law works in a democratic society as the Executive Branch has sworn it will enforce it, like it or not. That's its obligation.  When it ceases doing that, and decides to pick and choose what law it will enforce, it's acting illegally.  More than that, it's acting dictatorially. And oddly, in fashion that encourages contempt for the law, and a type of low grade anarchy.

Don't like the law? Argue it be changed.

Saturday, January 6, 2018

Panem et Circenses?

(Note. I started this entry prior to Jeff Sessions announcing that he's allowing the various U.S. Attorneys leeway whether to prosecute Federal laws in regard to marijuana or not, so this wasn't a reaction to Sessions announcement, although I do plan to post on that topic.)


The United States has approximately 45,000 homeless people.

Of that tragic figure, 26,000 of them live in Los Angeles.

That's right, over half of the nation's homeless live in a single city in California.  Expanded out logically, as we should do, this means well over half of the nation's homeless live in the state of California.  Homeless people live, of course, everywhere. And there's more than one explanation, I suppose, for why half of the nation's homeless live in one warm state. . . but there's no good reason why over half of the nation's homeless live in one single Californian city.

This figure, by the way, has climbed dramatically in recent years, but it stretches back at least over both of the recent administrations. . .so I don't want to hear "it's all Trump's fault" or "it'a all Obama's fault".  I'm not sure whose fault it is, and its probably a lot of people's fault.  Having said that, out of a country of over 325,000,000 people, about 45,000 isn't actually as many as I would have expected. . . not that its a good figure.

Whatever the reason for that figure is, it pretty much disqualifies California from constantly lecturing the rest of the country on anything.  Indeed, California, for that reason alone, should qualify as a failed state.  If there was  a way to revoke a state's statehood, like there was once a way to revoke a dominion's status in the British Empire, California would deserve it.  And no, I'm not kidding.  With the state as messed up as it is, it would make more sense to simply revoke its statehood and return it to territory status, but for one thing.  There's no good reason to believe that the Federal Government would do a much better job at it.  Oh well.

But that does mean that California's politicians probably ought to stick to local topics.  California more messed up now than it has ever been, and it needs to fix that.  Advertisements on television about how nifty it is, in order to draw tourists, don't cut it.

Of course California would likely point out that it may be on the receiving end of the homeless, rather than the creation end. And that would almost certainly be true.  In that case, the US is creating the problem and California merely enduring it.  There's no doubt there's something to that.

Anyhow, the one thing that California definitely doesn't really need right now it so go down the same road as Stoned Colorado and make a bad situation worse, but it's going to.

Colorado, following the oilfield slump of the 1980s, saw Denver, its capitol, go from Big Dump to Super Dump.  However, some clever urban planning based on downtown renewal centered around Coors Stadium managed to pull it back out of that status, much to their credit.

Then Colorado legalized weed and the once hip and cool district down by the river became a Stoner tent city.  Denver stoners will deny it, but the city is receding back into a dump, although this time its a Stinking Stoner Dump.

Clearly, California, which already has so many troubles that it defies description, needs to follow the lyrics of the old Bob Dylan song, "Everyone Must Get Stoned".

The thesis is no doubt that California, the Tarnished Golden State, must be on the forefront of liberty and freedom. . . unless it involves certain constitutional rights in which case it must the in the forefront of retrogression. And the money will be flowing in.

But the practical effect is a lot of desperate people, a fair number of whom are already addicts, are going to be much worse off. And that's not a good thing at all.

Thursday, March 30, 2017

Colorado criminalizes marijuana

On this day in 1917 Colorado's legislature passed a bill that criminalized marijuana.  The act passed on this date stated:
An act to declare unlawful the planting, cultivating, harvesting, drying, curing, or preparation for sale or gift of cannabis sativa, and to provide a penalty therefore.

Section 1. Any person who shall grow or use cannabis sativa (also known as cannabis indica, Indian hemp and marijuana) that he has grown shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction shall be punished by a fine of not less than ten nor more than one hundred dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail not more than thirty days, or by both such fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court.
The bill was in part inspired by the civil war in Mexico.  It was being asserted that Pancho Villa funded his Division del Norte in part through the sale of cannabis. Whether this is true or not, marijuana was not unknown by any means in Mexico and it shows up even in music of the period at least to the extent that it features in the Mexican Revolution ballad La Cucaracha.  The bill was introduced in Colorado by a Hispanic legislator from one of Colorado's southern counties which were and are predominately Hispanic in culture and where there was  strong desire to disassociate themselves from Mexican refugees, including any assertion that they might approve of the use of the drug.

Colorado was not the first state to address marijuana statutorily.  At least California (1907), Massachusetts (1911), New York (1914), Maine (1914), and Wyoming (1915) had.  Colorado was one of the states that enacted the prohibition of alcohol by that time and therefore not acting on marijuana would have been odd under the circumstances.  It had already been addressed by Federal law to some extent at that time.

There's a certain irony in this, I suppose, in that Colorado is now a pioneer in a national movement that has seen several states decriminalize marijuana, although the irony would be diminished if the entire matter is considered in the context of its times.  It remains subject to Federal penalties, something that has seemingly been lost in the discussion of this topic, and there is no sign that this will change any time soon.  The Federal government, however, seems to have basically stopped enforcing the law on the Federal level for the time being, although that could change at any moment.

Circling back to Colorado, while often not noted in the discussion on this, Denver Colorado has provided a big test of the impact of the change in the law, and not in a good way.  Almost any casual observer who is familiar with Denver over time has noted the impact of the change and Denver, which has had a fairly large homeless population for decades now has a larger, but rather weedy one.  Open begging downtown for cash for marijuana is now common, and encounters with stoned younger people who are part of a marijuana culture will occur at some point if a person spends any time downtown at all.  All of this is the type of discussion that does not tend to occur, for some reason, in discussions over the monetary impacts of the change or on the degree to which the substance itself is dangerous or how dangerous it is.