More than 100,000 people have signed a petition calling for the ouster of Drug Enforcement Administration chief Chuck Roseberg after he flatly rejected the idea that smoking marijuana could have medical benefits. "What really bothers me is the notion that marijuana is also medicinal—because it's not," Rosenberg said during a press briefing earlier this month. "We can have an intellectually honest debate about whether we should legalize something that is bad and dangerous, but don't call it medicine—that is a joke."
In response, a Change.org petition with more than 106,000 signatures is calling upon President Barack Obama to "fire Chuck Rosenberg and appoint a new DEA administrator who will respect science, medicine, patients, and voters."
Rosenberg is clearly wrong, yet it's not entirely inaccurate to call medical marijuana a joke—in California at least.
Roseberg need not look far to find reputable studies documenting the medical value of marijuana, even in its whole-plant, smoked form. As Vox's German Lopez points out, a comprehensive review in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that pot can effectively treat chronic pain and muscle spasticity.
Still, it's not entirely inaccurate to call medical marijuana a joke—at least in California, the state with the nation's most lax medical marijuana law. When I visited a "marijuana doctor" in San Francisco a few years ago, it took me less than 15 minutes to get a pot card for—wait for it—"writer's cramp." Meanwhile, my wife waited for days before being denied a pot recommendation from our HMO, Kaiser Permanente, despite suffering from a flare-up of actual arthritis. While she sat at home popping Advils, I headed to the International Cannabis and Hemp Expo, where my card got me into a "patient consumption area" staffed by busty women in tight-fitting nurse outfits and a dispensary worker with a nametag that read, "Dr. Herb Smoker, MD."
But that sort of irony wasn't what Rosenberg was talking about. He seems to believe that because marijuana is popular as a recreational drug, it can't also be real medicine. Clearly, Dr. Herb Smoker isn't the only medical professional who disagrees.
In the wake of the Paris terror attacks, many in France have said they finally understand what things were like for Americans just after September 11, 2001. The attacks have emboldened France's conservatives and pushed liberal and moderate factions rightward. On Friday, the French parliament voted to extend a nationwide state of emergency for another three months, granting authorities broad powers to limit civil liberties in the name of combating terrorism. The French public overwhelmingly supports the move.
France has "an elected monarch, basically. And the French in general have a more positive view of the state, and government intervention."
The rise of a police state in France may come as a surprise to Americans old enough to remember when France stood out as Europe's greatest critic of President George W. Bush's war on terror—a spat that peaked in 2003 when, in response to French opposition to the invasion of Iraq, the House of Representatives cafeteria rebranded its French fries "Freedom Fries."
Nowadays, of course, just about everyone looks with disfavor on that war, which is credited with giving ISIS a foothold. Though France bombed targets in Syria on November 15, it has so far stopped short of sending in ground troops against ISIS. And, while it's too early to tell, there's no evidence its intelligence services are abducting or torturing terror suspects.
Over the past three days, Twitter has been preventing its users in France from viewing certain images and keywords related to the Paris attacks. The censorship, first reported today by the French newspaper Le Monde, applies to a keyword used by supporters of the Islamic State, tweets advocating terrorism, and, more controversially, graphic photographs taken inside the Bataclan after the terrorist attacks there left dozens dead.
On Sunday, France's National Police used its Twitter account to ask social media users not to contribute to "the spread of photos of crime scenes," out of "respect for victims and their families." It encouraged Twitter users to send links to photos from the Bataclan massacre to PHAROS, a government website that compiles reports of illegal online activity.
The reasons French authorities gave for the request were a "serious attack on human dignity (images of cadavers)" and "secrecy of the investigation."
On the same day, French law enforcement officials sent a request directly to Twitter, demanding the removal of certain tweets, according to Lumen, a Harvard University database of government takedown requests. The reasons the authorities gave for the request were a "serious attack on human dignity (images of cadavers)" and "secrecy of the investigation."
According to Le Monde, Twitter complied by blocking many of the offending tweets and images. Others have been marked "sensitive content" and now must be clicked by users before becoming visible. Twitter has also agreed to prevent a keyword used by ISIS supporters from appearing in the "trending" box on its homepage.
On Tuesday, the French authorities submitted a second request, asking Twitter to delete a tweet advocating terrorism. A French law that went into effect in February allows police to block access to websites that are considered to be promoting terrorism without first obtaining a court order.
"In the face of terrorism, usually the first casualties are free speech and privacy, and that is extremely disappointing."
Twitter did not respond to a request for comment, but civil liberties advocates in the United States were sharply critical of the censorship requests and of Twitter's apparent willingness to comply. "In the face of terrorism, usually the first casualties are free speech and privacy, and that is extremely disappointing," said Eva Galperin, a global policy analyst for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the San Francisco-based group advocating for freedom of expression online.
In the past, Twitter has prided itself on resisting government censorship requests. In 2011, for instance, it declined to remove tweets by users in the United Kingdom who had defied a court order by disclosing details of privacy injunctions obtained by public officials. The company's general manager in the UK said Twitter sees itself as "the free speech wing of the free speech party."
Though many details of the French government's speech crackdown remain unclear, there appears to be no legal basis for it to censor images solely due to their graphic content. Even if there were, it would be unusual for Twitter and many other social media companies to comply to such a request without a court order.
"Companies like Twitter and Facebook and Google, the big tech companies in San Francisco and Silicon Valley, have mostly done a pretty good job of standing up to that kind of pressure," says EFF's Galperin. "But increasingly we've see Twitter bend right over."
Despite France's longstanding reputation as a bastion of free speech, it has proven increasingly willing to limit freedom of expression in response to Islamic terrorism. In 2013, a French court ordered Twitter to disclose the identities of people who violated the country's strict hate speech law by sending anti-Semitic tweets. (Twitter complied only after losing in court.) In response to January's terror attacks on the satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo and a kosher supermarket, the French government announced even stricter hate speech penalties, and a $100 million campaign to monitor and fight "hatred online."
"I never thought I would see the day when France would become the leader in censorship and the criminalization of speech."
The Terrorism Act, passed by France's National Assembly in November 2014, increases penalties for "advocating terrorism" to seven years in jail and a $100,000 fine if the act is "committed using a communication service available to the public on the internet." The same month, France rolled out PHAROS, a site where people can anonymously report "illicit content or behavior" to police.
"France has become nothing short of a nightmare when it comes to free speech," says Jonathan Turley, a professor of public interest law at George Washington University. "The French government has aggressively rolled back free speech protections for years. I never thought I would see the day when France would become the leader in censorship and the criminalization of speech, however, it has become precisely that."
In February, France brought its campaign against online hate speech to the United States. Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve toured Silicon Valley, where he asked representatives of Google, Facebook, and Twitter to immediately remove terrorist propaganda when alerted to it by French authorities. "We emphasized that when an investigation is underway we don't want to go through the usual government-to-government channels, which can take so long," he told reporters at the French consulate in San Francisco, according to the TV station France 24.
But with this push to restrict graphic images of shootings, French officials appear to have taken an incredibly broad interpretation of propaganda. "France is an example of how censorship can become insatiable for the government," says Turley, the Washington University professor. "What we have seen is an effort to regulate images in the name of fighting terrorism, when in reality these images reflect badly on the government."
If you turned out to vote in today's off-year general election, the chances are you voted for a bunch of white dudes. Not because you're racist. (Although you probably are.) But because the ballots are overflowing with white dudes.
According to a study released last week by the Reflective Democracy Campaign, white guys make up 31 percent of the population, but they account for 65 percent of the people elected to county, state, or national office in America in 2012 and 2014. And that probably has a lot to do with the fact that 66 percent of the candidates are white guys. "The problem is not that women and people of color candidates aren't winning," said the campaign's director, Brenda Choresi Carter. "The problem is that the demographics of our office holders are set when our ballots are printed."
All told, the study found that 90 percent of candidates are white and 73 percent are men. Republican candidates, not surprisingly, are even more likely to be white and male. Check it out:
Reflective Democracy Campaign
The racial disparities exposed in the study might have been less stark if it had included elections in large cities, which tend to be more racially diverse than rural areas. But that still doesn't explain the wide gender gap.
Carter blames the imbalances on a political system that favors the social and economic elite. Typically, candidates for elected office can afford not to hold full-time jobs, belong to existing political networks, and are not perceived as "risky" by donors, political parties, and other gatekeepers. And they're typically in office already: 53 percent of all elections are uncontested, and 90 percent of those unopposed candidates are white.
One success of gun-rights activists over the past decade has been their campaign to block the advent of smart guns, firearms that use biometric and other sensor technologies to prevent them from being fired by anyone other than their owners.Even though smart guns are widely available overseas, no American gun retailers sell them—in no small part due to threats and harassment aimed at any who have tried. But now, pending legislation could shake up that status quo.
The chill on smart guns in the United States is to some degree the unintended consequence of a 2002 New Jersey law that would phase out the sale of conventional guns in that state; the law requires New Jersey gun dealers to sell only smart guns once they become available in retail stores anywhere else in the country. The law was intended to spur the market for the technologically innovative weapons, whose backers believe they could enhance safety and help reduce certain types of gun violence, such as attacks with stolen firearms and the all too common accidental shootings deaths of children. But the law badly backfired by becoming fodder for gun-rights activists, who argued that smart guns are part of a government plot to track and ultimately ban all guns.
"This new law forces gun dealers to offer a smart gun, but still provides a choice for gun owners to buy whatever they want."
New Jersey legislators are now aiming to get, well, smarter about the issue. New Jersey state Sen. Loretta Weinberg, who authored the 2002 law, announced on Sunday that she wants to scrap it. A replacement bill that she plans to introduce on Thursday would instead require all of the state's gun dealers to offer at least one model of smart gun for sale.Weinberg made the announcement Sunday night in a 60 Minutes story in which she accused the National Rifle Association of using the 2002 law as a tool to block smart guns nationwide.
"The whole problem with the mandate was that it forced buyers in New Jersey to buy a smart gun," says Ralph Fascitelli, the president of Washington CeaseFire, a prominent Seattle group working to reduce gun violence. "This new law forces gun dealers to offer a smart gun, but still provides a choice for gun owners to buy whatever they want." Fascitelli believes that within a decade smart guns could capture a third of the $3 billion US handgun market. A recent poll presented at a smart-gun conference in Seattle by the political consultancy Penn Schoen Berland found that 54 percent of gun owners under the age of 45 are willing to consider swapping out their conventional pistols for smart guns. And 83 percent of gun owners, it found, want gun dealers to be able to sell the weapons.
The palm-reading biometric gun that James Bond used in Skyfall represents the sexiest version, though the technology still is by no means bulletproof (think the iPhone 6's glitchy fingerprint reader). A more reliable version of the weapons will work only if activated by a radio frequency emitted by a device—typically a bracelet, watch, or ring—worn by the authorized user.
The biometric handgun used by James Bond in Skyfall MGM
In the 1990s, Colt's Manufacturing Co. built a prototype smart gun that could be fired only if the user wore a special ring. In 2000, rival Smith & Wesson promised to make all of its guns available with high-tech safety features. But both companies dropped the efforts after facing devastating boycotts led by gun-rights activists. Smith & Wesson was forced to lay off 15 percent of its staff. Ever since, the mainstream gun industry has steadfastly refused to pursue the technologies.
But some now see a lucrative US market for smart guns. Armatix engineer Ernst Mauch recently quit the company and visited the United States to explore creating a new start-up to build a lower-cost version of the gun for Americans. As the lead engineer at the German gunmaker Heckler & Koch, Mauch designed some of the world's most lethal weapons, including one that reportedly killed Osama bin Laden. "I still want people to understand that there is a huge potential for this technology," he told the Washington Post. "The technology was never in question."
In fact, some high profile Silicon Valley investors are betting that smart guns can disrupt the firearms industry. The billionaire angel investor Ron Conway formed the Smart Tech Challenges Foundation in 2013 to create "the Googles, the Facebooks, the Twitters of gun safety." Conway recently announced plans to fund the development of a biometric gun lock; a version of the technology may eventually be integrated into a gun.
For now, though, gun dealers remain wary. Several in New Jersey contacted by Mother Jones declined to comment on the proposed law, but one was less than enthusiastic. "You can't be required to carry anything in a store," said the person who answered the phone at Lou's Firearms in Raritan, NJ (he declined to give his name). "It's just like telling every shoe store that they have to sell a Nike. I believe they should be available, but the market has to decide what they want to use."