Tag Archives: regulation

Dangerous Mistake

Posted on by
Reply

The Trump administration is completing its move to change the classification of marijuana from a Schedule I drug…alongside LSD and heroin…to Schedule III, making it obtainable with a prescription.

This is a mistake on two fronts. The first is that marijuana is a highly dangerous drug, having been bred explicitly to strengthen its effects. Those effects include brain damage on developing brains, and human brains are always developing; although the pace of development slows markedly in a human’s middle twenties. The damage done, too, isn’t like a smoker’s damage to his lungs, which can be mostly repaired if the smoker stops smoking. Despite the plasticity of our brains, damage done chemically by the materials in marijuana is permanent.

That leaves aside the slowed reflexes and impaired judgment of a marijuana user while he’s using. Driving or operating machinery while under the influence of marijuana is just as dangerous to the user and to others as is driving or operating machinery while drinking alcohol.

The other front is that this is the wrong place to make money. The profits from universally legal cultivation and sale of marijuana qua marijuana is just chump change compared with the profits available from commercializing marijuana for medicinal use. There is a plethora of anecdotal evidence that marijuana helps with pain management, PTSD, depression, and the like. That warrants serious research to determine the specific chemicals and chemical combinations in marijuana that have these and potentially other medicinal benefits.

With that successful research, and I submit that with concerted effort by a variety of pharmaceutical companies, success is within five years, the cultivation of marijuana for medicinal purposes and the extraction of those chemicals and chemical combinations can be done under license (which we already know how to do in the narcotic medicine venue). Those actual medicines then can be sold under prescription or over the counter, depending on the specific combination. (I’m eliding here the fact that herbal medicine—which is what marijuana would be, even by prescription—suffers badly from inconsistent dose control.)

Progressive-Democrats Destroy Again

Posted on by
Reply

This time they’re Illinois’ Progressive-Democrat governor, the inestimable JB Pritzker, and the State’s Party-dominated legislature. (The Wall Street Journal misattributed the fiasco to Pritzker, but even within Party, Governors need the complicity of Party’s legislative syndicate.) Following is from the Chicago Tribune, from which the WSJ quoted.

The owner of two-thirds of a massive natural-gas-fired power plant in Will County is moving their part of the facility to Texas.
Literally.
As in, putting huge turbines on flatbed trucks and driving them south to friendlier climes.
We’ve learned that two-thirds of the capacity at the 1,350-megawatt Elwood Energy facility—the largest natural-gas-fired peaker power plant in Commonwealth Edison’s territory and one of the biggest in the nation—now is being shut down thanks to Illinois’ landmark clean-energy law [Climate & Equitable Jobs Act] enacted in 2021. The sudden removal of that whopping 900 megawatts of capacity could well drive up local electric bills that already have been rising.

And this:

The remaining three units at Elwood will continue to operate at the site and now will be permitted to do so under the law until 2045. Why? Because the previous owner, J-POWER, sold those three units to Dairyland Power Cooperative, of LaCrosse, Wisconsin, which by virtue of being a nonprofit is allowed by CEJA to operate gas-fired power plants over the next few decades that otherwise would have to shutter in a few years.
So those emissions also will continue well into the future, but only because ownership changed from a private company to a nonprofit.
Yes, that’s how CEJA works. If you’re not a privately held gas-plant operator, you can continue to pollute.

This is far more than the empty virtue signal that the WSJ article suggested. This is the wanton foolishness resulting in destruction that Party is so enthusiastically pursuing for reasons only Party members can have a glimmer of understanding.

Progressive-Democratic Party and Religious Freedom

Posted on by
Reply

Consider the Dominican Sisters of Hawthorne, who operate a 42-bed nursing facility in New York that gives free palliative care to poor people with cancer. The State of New York is trying to force this Catholic institution to deliberately violate their religious beliefs. The New York State Department of Health requires the Sisters to begin

  • assigning patients to rooms by self-identified sex
  • [stop] segregating restrooms by biological sex
  • use…patients’ preferred pronouns even when the patient is not present
  • allow patients to cross-dress

The Department is threatening the Sisters with fines, injunctions, potential loss of licensing, and imprisonment if they do not repudiate their religious beliefs and commit these egregious to them acts.

The Sisters have applied for a religious exemption, and the State has ignored their application.

The Sisters are just the tip of a monstrous iceberg. This is Party’s attitude toward the 1st Amendment’s Establishment and Free Exercise clauses. Party already badly wants to disarm us and deny us our right to speak as we see fit. Now we’re to have no conscience, as well.

Regulating Reputational Risk

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democrat ex-Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden used their banking regulators to “encourage” banks to do no businesses that might inflict “reputational risk” on the bank’s soundness and to end existing business relationships with such enities. Those reputation-damaging businesses—according to those administration men—centered on such Nasties as payday lenders, gun retailers, and crypto.

By focusing on reputation risk, supervisors attempt to understand and anticipate public opinion regarding issues and events and then to attempt to directly connect this public opinion regarding issues and events to an institution’s condition in ways that have proven nearly impossible to assess or quantify with accuracy[.]

Those are the words of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and Comptroller of the Currency bosses as they work on a rule that would bar regulators from “reputational risk” evaluations. If regulators can’t quantify what it is they want to regulate, they have no business trying to regulate it—that’s on top of regulators need to be limiting on their regulatory activities in the first place.

Reputational risk assessments in particular are entirely subjective, and that just excuses and enables administrations of whatever stripe to regulate out of business any enterprise of which the regulators or their political bosses disapprove.

The market is fully capable of assessing reputational risk, and it should be left free to do so without government “assistance.”

That’s One Spin

Posted on by
Reply

The DC Circuit Court has denied Anthropic’s appeal of a DoD decision to cut the company out of Defense contracts as a security risk to Defense supply chains. Meanwhile a Northern District of California Federal court judge has upheld Anthropic’s appeal on free speech grounds. This, of course, creates a split of sorts that, ultimately, the Supreme Court will need to resolve, unless the 9th Circuit overrules the District judge wih a ruling that substantially aligns with the DC Circuit.

What’s interesting, though, is Computer & Communications Industry Association CEO Matt Schruers’ characterization of the split.

The DC Circuit’s denial will prolong ambiguities regarding whether political considerations can drive federal procurement[.]

This is Schruers’ conclusory characterization centered on his preferred outcome. It couldn’t possibly be the California district judge’s ruling that is prolonging ambiguities.