Why the GOP can walk all over its voters–and get away with it

The GOP finally got their bill to repeal and replace the ACA out the house. It’ll now go to the senate, where it’s pretty much doomed. If it doesn’t collapse altogether, it’ll be sent back as a much different bill. Regardless, pundits and experts are predicting that the AHCA has shown the republican hand, namely that they care more about tax cuts for the rich and not at all about your health.

That’s certainly true.

The bill sees hundreds of millions of dollars cut from medicaid and a corresponding tax break for the wealthy. It also allows insurers to drop you if you become ill or have a pre-existing condition. It’ll raise premiums for the elderly. It’s just an awful, awful bill. Which is why pundits are predicting a major backlash against the party come 2018.

I don’t think we’re going to see that.

Ultimately, a few red districts in blue states may flip, but it won’t be enough to shift the balance of power. Because I don’t think that this will perturb republican voters. History has shown, time after time, that they’ll vote against their own self-interest and I don’t think that this moment in history is an exception. Many of the deep red states have had republican governors, legislatures, and courts for 30+ years. And yet things keep getting worse for those states. If republican voters were ever going to finally wake up to the fact that they’re voting against their own interests, it would have happened by now. In fact, it’s probably never going to happen.

Here, take a look at this:

170504112456-gfc-healthcare-states-with-highest-pre-existing-conditions-exlarge-169.png

Every single one of those states is solid red, and every single one voted for Trump. And every single one of those voters with a pre-existing condition will see their insurance either disappear or skyrocket in price. But I’m willing to wager that come 2018 they’ll still vote for the very same congressman who voted to strip them of healthcare. Why? Because many republicans are single issue voters. And what is that issue, you ask?

Abortion.

As long the GOP continues to be the party that opposes abortion and wants to overturn Row v. Wade they can pretty much do whatever they want to voters and still get re-elected.

59% of republican voters think abortion should always be illegal. Even among moderate or ‘liberal’ republicans, 41% think it should always be illegal. And that number has shifted up from where it stood in 1995; 20 years go, republicans were split almost evenly, 49%/48%. In the last two decades, republican voters have only become more conservative on this issue. In 2015, 21 percent of Americans said they would only vote for a candidate who shared their abortion views, up from 13 percent in 2008.

Particularly ironic, given that the AHCA isn’t friendly to pregnant women or babies and children. But I digress.

Economically, many conservatives align with progressive values. 52% of republicans with family incomes <$30,000 say the government has a responsibility to provide healthcare coverage for everyone, up from 31% just last year. And in a recent Gallup poll, 45% of republicans said they think the wealthy don’t pay their fair share in taxes. They hate those free trade deals that sent their jobs overseas–something Bernie Sanders talked about extensively during the election.  In other words, conservative voters know that they’re getting screwed over economically. As time goes on, they seem to be getting more progressive economically.

And yet…when it’s time to step into that voting booth, they always pull the red lever. And what does it get them? Healthcare? Gone. Overtime pay? Gone.  Clean water and air? Gone, too. Taxes? More income redistributed from the middle and lower classes to the donor class.

But hey, abortion, right?

The new GOP “healthcare” plan

In case you missed it, republicans are back with a re-vamped version of their failed ACA repeal. The new American Healthcare Act (AHCA) is somehow even worse than before after a new amendment was added by Representative Tom MacArthur (R-NJ). The problem with the last bill was that it apparently didn’t screw enough people over, so the “freedom caucus” (hint: the freedom they want is the freedom for you to die destitute) lifted their noses in disgust and said no. The new amendment by MacArthur aims to bring those ultra-conservative members of the freedom caucus over to their side. How does this amendment do this, you ask?

I am so glad you asked. Here’s a copy of the actual amendment to the bill. The proposed changes are many, but I’d like to focus on one specific part which I think illustrates why this bill isn’t really a healthcare bill at all. One of the main focuses of this amendment is eliminating the mandate that insurance plans offer certain “essential health benefits” as outlined by the ACA. Here’s the actual text of the amendment:

(B) In the case of plan years beginning 2 on or after January 1, 2020, for health insurance coverage offered in the individual or small  group market in such State, to apply, subject to paragraph (5), instead of the essential health benefits specified under subsection (b) of section 1302 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, essential health benefits as specified by the State.

“Essential health benefits” are things that, by law, insurance is currently REQUIRED to cover. So, what kind of things did the ACA define as “essential” to your heathcare plan?

  1. Ambulatory services
  2. Emergency services
  3. Hospitalization
  4. Maternity and newborn care
  5. Mental health and substance use disorder services
  6. Prescription drugs
  7. Rehabilitative services
  8. Laboratory services
  9. Preventive services and chronic disease management
  10. Pediatric care, including oral and vision screening

Right off the bat, we can see some major hypocrisy here. I find it truly insulting that the party that claims to be about “family values” and touts how “pro-life” it is says you don’t need newborn care, maternity care, and screw your children’s pediatric care. They don’t give a fuck if your child’s teeth rot out or he can’t get glasses.

Second, whenever the issue of gun control comes up, republicans are the first people to shout, “It’s not a gun problem, it’s a mental health problem!” So naturally their healthcare plan would allow insurance companies to drop mental health coverage.

Third, and also just as disgusting: Trump campaigned on the opiate epidemic. Remember that? He talked about how it’s a tragedy and he feels their pain. So of course now they can just take the whole substance abuse treatment part out of your plan.

So how does this save you money? Well, let’s say your insurance company says, “Sure, we can provide all ten of those benefits for $500/month. But what if we lobbied the state, and now your plan looks like this…”

  1. Ambulatory services
  2. Emergency services
  3. Hospitalization
  4. Maternity and newborn care
  5. Mental health and substance use disorder services
  6. Prescription drugs
  7. Rehabilitative services
  8. Laboratory services
  9. Preventive services and chronic disease management
  10. Pediatric care, including oral and vision screening

“There. We’ll just provide you with those 4 benefits. You won’t need to visit the hospital, right? And you didn’t want drug coverage, did you? And forget preventive care–you don’t need to waste your money on avoiding illness. If we take all of those things out, we can give you a plan for $50/month.”

The problem with this amendment is that it allows states and insurance companies to decide what’s essential, and let’s them pare down the plans they offer to the point that you aren’t even really receiving healthcare anymore. Of course healthcare will be cheaper if nobody is actually offering you healthcare.

It saves you money in the same way that selling a car without windows, doors,  mirrors, seat belts, airbags, a back seat, and brakes would save you money on a vehicle.

Of course none of this is an issue if you’re rich. If you’re wealthy, you can afford everything that’s essential. But if you’re poor? Screw you, you have to pick and choose from bare-minimum plans that don’t cover everything necessary to keep you healthy.

If you’re middle or lower class, here’s your GOP healthcare plan:

libertarian-healthcare-plan-i-part-1-of-3-accepting-your-19537818

What happened to those bootstraps?

Does anyone else find it supremely ironic that republican and conservative voters elected Donald Trump on the promise that his government would bring jobs back? Because I certainly find this sentiment to be the epitome of hypocrisy.

For decades now, all we’ve heard from the GOP and other conservatives is that the government is horrible and meddlesome, and everything would be better if there was less government interference and everyone took more personal responsibility for their lives.

Conservatives 2008/2012: “The government just makes things worse. Get rid of the government and everything will be fine–it’s not the function of government to create jobs, you libtards.”

Conservatives 2016: “PLEASE BRING BACK MY JOB, GOVERNMENT!”

It’s galling to me that the party of moxie and rugged individualism is now the party that applauds a government that directly gets involved in business and trade negotiations–the very things conservatives were crying the government should stay out of for the past 30 years.

How many times have we seen conservative politicians and voters say the following about welfare or the minimum wage: “We don’t believe in handouts. If you want to make more money, improve your situation, work harder, etc. Pull yourself up by your bootstraps like a real American.”

Well apparently conservatives in 2016 have thrown out their old bootstraps.

This article on CNN interviews people in a Kentucky town, “the poorest city in America,” that overwhelmingly voted for Donald Trump. Here are some snippets:

Beattyville residents want jobs, especially ones that pay more than the minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. They think if anyone can bring jobs back, it’s Trump.

Yeah, of course. The guy whose Trump brand suits and ties are made in Chinese factories is going to bring your job back. The same guy who immediately nominated the CEO of a fast food company who hates the minimum wage, Andy Puzder, as labor secretary.

Here’s what one of the men Kentucky elected to the senate, Mitch McConnell, had to say about the minimum wage: He cited a Congressional Budget Office study that he claimed said raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour would “destroy half a million to 1 million jobs. […] That’s not the way to grow our economy,” he added.

And here’s what Kentucky’s other senator, Rand Paul, had to say about raising the minimum wage: ‘The minimum wage is a temporary’ thing, Paul said. ‘It’s a chance to get started. I see my son come home with his tips. And he’s got cash in his hand and he’s proud of himself. I don’t want him to stop there. But he’s working and he’s understanding the value of work. We shouldn’t disparage that.’”

Good luck getting jobs that pay beyond the minimum wage, Beattyville. You elected people who propose the very opposite of that, who think, in Paul’s case, that trying to raise a family on a minimum wage job is great because it’ll build your character and teach you the value of hard work!

“If you got a job here in Beattyville, you’re lucky,” says Amber Hayes, a bubbly 25-year-old mom of two, who also voted for Trump. She works at the county courthouse, but is paid by the Kentucky Transitional Assistance Program (K-TAP), a form of welfare.
The vast majority of Beattyville residents get some form of government aid — 57% of households receive food stamps and 58% get disability payments from Social Security.

But I thought that welfare was just for the takers? Isn’t that what all the conservative politicians campaign on? Haven’t we all heard some iteration of that from conservative friends and relatives? Isn’t that what Mitt Romney said just 4 years ago, that 47% of the country votes to just get free stuff?

Here’s what Kentucky’s own Mitch McConnell said about food stamps as recently as last September: Asked about the improving economy, McConnell scoffed: Business leaders tell him they have “a hard time finding people to do the work because they’re doing too good with food stamps, Social Security and all the rest.”

600785_639262559435670_1350167341_n_zps33877657

Residents of Beatyville would apparently beg to differ with Mr. McConnell.

From the outside, it’s easy to wonder why people in Beattyville don’t just move somewhere else. But out of all the people CNNMoney met in Beattyville, only one wanted to leave. The rest are drawn to the beauty of the place and the friendly community. “I’m country to the core,” laughs Puckett. He husband of 39 years nods beside her. Judge executive Mays puts it this way: “We’re perceived as a hillbilly, backwoods, all this and that. But we’re a good people.”

Again, whatever happened to those bootstraps, hmm? That’s what Paul Ryan or Rand Paul would tell you to do–work to improve your own situation and don’t depend on the government to save you. If you lose your job, find another, even if it means moving. Retrain yourself. Oh, you can’t pay for that? Well, you just need more gumption and definitely less of that darned government in your life, always making things worse.

Look, I have lots of sympathy for the people of Beatyville. They’re certainly in a bad place. Yet at the same time, they and the rest of their state have repeatedly voted for people who have told them that the government will make their life worse. That getting rid of food stamps will create an incentive for people to get a real job. That social security and medicaid should be cut or outright privatized. That the problem with America in general is too much reliance on the government.

In the end, Beatyville and other red cities in red states that are suffering are the victims of their own voting. It’s particularly tragic that they now expect the same government that believes that the government shouldn’t be engaged in safety net programs or other forms of public assistance to save them. If the democrats were smart, they’d get out grassroots campaigns to go to towns like Beatyville and help explain this to residents.

00006

I guess we’ll see what happens in 2018.

The protest condundrum

Well, over a million people marched in protest of President Donald Trump yesterday. And while I definitely agree with the protesters and their messages, I couldn’t help but think of one thing as I watched the coverage on the news:

Where the hell was all of this during the election?

If all of those protesters has poured as much energy and organization into the election, I would bet that we wouldn’t be talking about president Donald Trump right now. So while I think the protests were totally awesome on one level, on another level it seems like it’s too late. Trump has already been sworn in and he’s sitting in the oval office right now.

Trump, Pence, and the republicans in congress probably don’t give a rat’s ass about the protests because they already won and protests aren’t going to change that.

But that kind of activity probably could have changed the outcome of the election. Of that I have very little doubt. This past election suffered from pretty low voter turnout. People just weren’t excited about Donald and Hillary, so they stayed home.

voter-turnout-graph

But imagine if all of these people who protested had mobilized in a similar way before the election. Imagine if they worked that hard to drum up more excitement for voting. The outcome probably would have been different. Imagine if they’d all worked that hard to ensure that he didn’t get elected in the first place. These protests should have started the moment Trump won his party’s nomination, not after he took office.

There’s always 2020.

Litigation nation

Liability. It’s fancy legal talk for “Whose at fault?” Blame is big in our culture when something goes wrong, and we’ve taken to using the legal system as a way of obtaining closure.

Case in point: I recently came across this story about a family in Texas who is suing Apple because a driver who struck their car, killing their daughter, was using FaceTime at the time of the accident. In their lawsuit, the couple alleges that it was incumbent upon Apple to warn everyone that their app could be dangerous when misused, and that they should have designed a safer app.

Folks who read this blog know that I’m not usually a fan of corporations, but I have to side with Apple here. It’s unreasonable, both in legal terms and in common sense, to expect a company to clairvoyantly predict all the ways in which a product can be misused or abused. And speaking of common sense, it should be painfully obvious to everyone that a video chatting app shouldn’t be used while driving.

There is definitely someone at fault here, but it isn’t Apple. It’s the man who was driving the car that hit them. He’s the one at fault because he’s the one who made the decision to use the app while driving. It was his actions that lead to the accident, not Apple’s.

What this appears to be is simply a grab for money. Why else sue Apple instead of, you know, the man who killed your daughter? Probably because the guy who hit your car isn’t worth billions of dollars. But more importantly, suing Apple doesn’t speak to justice–turning tragedy into financial gain is not justice.

But this case brings to light several important questions.

First, should companies be held responsible when their products are used incorrectly or abused? The answer to that, I should think, is a resounding NO. There was a similar debate about this issue during the democratic primary. Hillary Clinton supported a law that held gun manufacturers liable for incidents involving their products. Bernie Sanders did not support such legislation. I have to side with Bernie on this one (shocking, I know, me agreeing with Bernie). The fact that someone used a gun to commit a murder isn’t the manufacturers fault; that individual chose to use a gun for murder instead of self-defense or sport.

Where would this sort of thing end, holding manufacturer’s liable for the actions of individuals who use their products? Suing the brewery for a drunk driving accident? Suing the waitress who served the alcohol? Charging the gun shop owner who sold the weapon used in a crime as an accomplice or an accessory? Holding manufacturers liable is a very, very dangerous precedent.

Second, are companies obligated to warn people about the potential dangers of their products? This is a slippery slope. How much hand-holding do we expect these companies to do? This is why we have labels that say things like, “Do not stick hand in while lawnmower is running” or “caution: this hot drink is hot.” At some point, individuals have to exercise common sense and personal responsibility.

1642-fig01
The fact that we have to tell people this is sad

Third, is litigation the best way to get closure? Suing Apple isn’t going to bring the family’s daughter back. Even if they did win, say, a billion dollars, that still isn’t going to change the fact that their daughter died. But I think more importantly, we as a culture have to realize that getting money isn’t the same thing as grieving. We have a tendency in this country to throw money at problems.

But sometimes that simply doesn’t work. In the case of losing a loved one this is particularly true. Money does not replace loved ones and it isn’t a substitute for grief. Sorry. But I expect that our cultural solution to intense emotional angst would involve money somehow, because everything in this country revolves around money.

Perhaps what disturbs me the most about cases that seek to hold a manufacturer liable is that they absolve individuals of the need or expectation that they use common sense, critical thinking, and have a little personal responsibility for their actions. We’re becoming a nation where everything is always someone else’s fault, we’re never the ones in the wrong. We always try to point the finger at others when we screw up. “How was I supposed to know that my child could choke on tiny toy parts if he wasn’t supervised?! Give me money!” Maybe you could try, I don’t know, parenting your child. I don’t think it’s too much to expect people to know that hot coffee is hot or that you shouldn’t stick your hand in a lawnmower while it’s running. It’s dangerous to me to allow people to use the law to obviate their own lack of foresight, responsibility, or common sense.

Now, all of this doesn’t mean that people who experience what the family in that article went through don’t deserve closure. After all, the accident was not due to a lack of vigilance on their part; someone else’s poor choices directly affected them. But that person wasn’t Apple. It was the man driving the car. Who can and will be prosecuted for his crime–manslaughter. That’s where the legal system is supposed to provide closure to grieving people. In the fact that the person was caught, held responsible for their actions, and won’t be allowed to do it again. That they’ll be punished for their poor choices. That’s justice.

Facebook, fake news, and free speech

The issue of fake news on social media has suddenly become a hot button issue, and Facebook has found itself square in the cross-hairs of public ire. The issue recently came to a head after an armed man invaded a local pizza parlor because a “news” article he read online said that Hillary Clinton has a secret child slavery ring based there.

At first glance, any rational person would hear or read something like that and say, “Sure, whatever. That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. How could anyone fall for something like that?”

Well, there are several reason why someone would believe something that outlandish. First and foremost, there are a lot of people out there who simply aren’t rational. Second, there is now a whole industry of trolls out there dedicated to creating fake news, and they’ve gotten quite good at it, to the point where fake news, by all outward appearances, resembles actual news. And finally, there is such a huge distrust of mainstream media, that increasingly people are turning to alternative and, shall we say, less vetted news sources.

All of this is creating a perfect storm wherein people are reading things on the internet that simply aren’t true, but are nonetheless being presented as fact. After public outcry, Facebook is taking some steps to trying and help crack down on fake news. In short, the plan is to create a feature whereby people can flag an article as “disputed.” People can still read the article, but they’ll be able to see a message saying the there are others who dispute the “facts” in it.

Cue people crying foul.

Immediately there was a backlash that Facebook was trying to “control” the news. The new measures, although sent to third-party fact checkers once flagged, are user generated. And they still don’t prevent you from viewing a disputed article. In reality, Facebook isn’t taking any false content off their site; they’re simply giving people a warning that what they’re about to read might not be entirely factual.

Despite this, there are still cries that this violates freedom of speech. Like this article, which warns that such measures limit the public from hearing “different points of view.”

Frankly, such arguments are bullshit, because anything that isn’t a fact really isn’t “a different point of view.” That’s a false equivalency. Saying that the earth is flat and gravity isn’t real isn’t “an alternate point of view”–it’s just plain wrong and not rooted in fact or reality.

Now, that isn’t to say that people shouldn’t be allowed to believe whatever they want. If you want to believe that the earth is flat or hollow or that vaccines cause autism or that lizard people run the government, fine. I can’t stop you. But there’s a difference between voicing your opinion and trying to represent your opinion as fact. One is clearly protected by freedom of speech while the other is not. Freedom of speech gives you license to say and believe whatever crazy thing you want without fear of imprisonment, but it doesn’t give you the right to proclaim it as fact.

An example. Person A posts something on their own Facebook feed that says, “I don’t believe vaccines work. I think that they cause autism, and I think parents shouldn’t vaccinate their children.” This is clearly someone’s personal opinion. Then there’s person B who creates a Facebook group with a title like, “Vaccine Research Group” and creates an article called “Vaccinating your children gives them autism,” which is filled with personal opinion organized in a journalistic format, but contains no factual information or citations.

There is a clear difference between what person A has done and what person B has done. Person A has expressed his or her own thoughts on a public forum. That, to me, is clearly protected by freedom of speech. Person B, however, has dressed their opinion up as journalism and represented it as fact. The latter is much more likely to influence someone to not vaccinate their children because they view it as a credible source–it’s news. This could lead to very real, physical harm in children. Which is what the difference is. Deliberately misleading people in a way that causes them harm goes beyond freedom of speech. 

There’s a clear difference between being able to freely voice your opinions–which everyone has the right to do–and trying to represent your opinion as fact. The former is a critical part of a free society, while the latter is incredibly dangerous to society as a whole. The latter can get you in a whole heap of trouble, as Andrew Wakefield found out if we’re sticking with the vaccine example. He falsified research. That isn’t protected as ‘free speech.’ That’s fraud. And that’s what fake news is essentially–fraud.

As far as I’m concerned, the steps that Facebook is taking don’t go nearly far enough. I’d like to see Facebook create an algorithm that scans an article and looks at 1) how many citations there are, and 2) where those citations are from. Fake news has the potential to lead to great harm: further denial of climate change, dropping vaccination rates, increased use of “alternative” medicine that doesn’t work. And, as we’ve seen already, armed people invading pizza parlors. It’ll lead to further polarized politics, less discourse, and a greater misunderstanding of political and governmental processes.

In short, fake news is bad news for us all.

fake-news-invasion

The marijuana condundrum

Well, election night wasn’t all bad news. More states legalized either recreational or medicinal marijuana! Woo-hoo! Take a look at the map now:

screen_shot_2016-03-29_at_11.56.09_am.png

However, no sooner than all this new legislation was passed did I read an article on Medscape about the dangers of marijuana use by a Dr. Melissa Walton-Shirley. The article is here if you’d like to read it, but I’ll be pulling out bits and pieces for the remainder of this post.

The crux of the article is this: there is some evidence that links marijuana to increased risk of certain cardiovascular diseases. The doctor who wrote the article cites a presentation that, “described an association between cannabis use and a twofold increase in the diagnosis of takotsubo cardiomyopathy.”

First of all, association isn’t causation. Walton-Shirley goes on to say,

“Seeing this uptick in apical ballooning in the young (and males to boot) is proof that manipulating the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems is probably not a good thing for any age or gender unless those systems are producing pathology. Surely it’s predictable that inhaling substances never meant for human consumption doesn’t bode well for us, but it’s not the first time we’ve heard of pot’s potentially deleterious cardiovascular effects.”

There are a lot of things wrong here. First of all, a trend is not proof of anything. Second of all, and more importantly, the sample sizes of some of these studies are atrocious. Walton-Shirley even says in the article, “This article was lampooned due to its small sample size, but one must admit, where there is smoke, there can be fire (pun intended).” Hardy har, but you can’t just ignore the flaws and limitations of research to make a point or a pun.

I also find it very suspect that we’re never really given solid numbers about this “uptick.” Dr. Walton-Shirley gives some clues about it, saying that the rate of this cardiomyopathy is increased twofold by smoking pot. Well that’s all well and fine, but what does that mean in terms of naturally occurring cases? In other words, how many people are we talking about if we double the rate?

Well, we’ll have to do some detective work. Surfing the internet, I found an article from Circulation that states: “On the basis of recent analyses reported from several countries, this condition probably accounts for ≈1% to 2% of all cases of suspected acute myocardial infarction.” I think it’s also worth noting that the subtitle of the article is A New Form of Acute, Reversible Heart Failure. Turns out most people make a COMPLETE recovery. Anyway, the math.

 According to the American College of Cardiology, about 785,000 Americans have an MI every year. So we can say that in an average year, about 7,850-15,700 people suffer from TCM. But we also know what the prognosis for someone with TCM is: very good.  According to another Medscape article: “The prognosis in takotsubo cardiomyopathy (TCM) is typically excellent, with nearly 95% of patients experiencing complete recovery within 4-8 weeks.”

Well, let’s take those figures an apply them to our math above. We’re looking at a baseline mortality rate of 78.5-502.4 people per year. That’s it, folks. So let’s go with the worst case scenario, and say that smoking pot really does double the number of people who develop this. We’re talking about 1004 deaths per year due to marijuana. 

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

Alcohol use kills 88,000 people per year.

Tobacco products kill 480,000 people per year.

Both perfectly legal. But heaven forbid we legalize pot, or 1000 people might get a rare form of cardiomyopathy. Do the people who make these arguments against pot not realize how insanely inconsistent their logic is? I mean, are we going to put people in jail because they use tobacco? Consumption of sugary drinks leads to diabetes, which affects 29 MILLION people in America. Should we jail anyone who drinks a big gulp?

And really, that’s what I think pisses me off the most about all this uproar over legalization. It’s not about health. Health is important, but legalizing pot isn’t a referendum on whether or not it’s bad for you, or whether or not you should use it. legalizing pot is about one thing:

NOT SENDING PEOPLE TO JAIL FOR USING IT.

That’s what decriminalization is about. It’s saying hey, maybe you shouldn’t go to jail for using a substance that’s less harmful than alcohol and tobacco, two perfectly legal products. 8.2 million people are arrested every year for pot-related offenses. Sure seems like we’re ruining more lives than we’re saving with anti-pot laws and policy. And we’re disproportionately ruining the lives of minorities, too, considering that white people use pot at the same rates of blacks and Latinos, yet are far less likely to be arrested for it. Not to mention the billions of dollars wasted every year enforcing these stupid laws:

8938235530_9bb9eceec7_o.jpg

There’s no sensible reason to keep marijuana use illegal. There’s very poor evidence that it adversely affects health, at least compared to other perfectly legal substances. Anti-pot laws just waste everyone’s time and money. And people like Dr. Walton-Shirley are cherry picking data with very poor sample sizes to paint marijuana as some health menace, when there’s really no compelling body of evidence to support the stance.

Just make it legal everywhere and put those resources to better use.