Archive for March 2017
Kevin Drum is on a roll. His new post includes a chart:
Very interesting. I also have seen this. Wonder how common it is. This is another place where I want a good government: an email to the state attorney general and Bob’s your uncle, if the state is well run and not corrupt (which is not nearly so common as you might think).
Excellent column. Read it now. Good take.
UPDATE: And read this one too, which begins:
It’s laughable watching President Trump whine endlessly this afternoon about how his health care bill didn’t get any Democratic votes. Not one! The Democrats just wouldn’t work with him to craft a bill! Boy, that sure makes things tough.
Needless to say, neither Trump nor Paul Ryan ever tried to bring Democrats into this bill. It was purely a Republican plan from the start, and neither of them wanted any Democratic input. That’s just the opposite of Obamacare, where Democrats tried mightily to get Republican buy-in, and still ended up getting no Republican votes in the end. Not one!
Anyway, Trump’s plan now is to wait for Obamacare to implode and then Democrats will have to do a deal. I guess it hasn’t occurred to him that he could do a deal with Democrats right now if he were really serious about fixing health care. But no. Trump says he intends to move on to tax reform, because that’s something he actually cares about.
In the meantime, it’s very unclear what will happen to Obamacare. With so much uncertainty surrounding it, it’s hard to say how insurance companies will respond. They might give up and pull out. Or they might stick it out and wait. It’s pretty close to a profitable business now, so there’s probably no urgency one way or the other for most of them. . .
Read the whole thing.
A pharma company that spent $500,000 trying to keep pot illegal just got DEA approval for synthetic marijuana
:sigh: One grows tired of this stuff. Christopher Ingraham reports in the Washington Post:
Insys Therapeutics, a pharmaceutical company that was one of the chief financial backers of the opposition to marijuana legalization in Arizona last year, received preliminary approval from the Drug Enforcement Administration this week for Syndros, a synthetic marijuana drug.
Insys gave $500,000 last summer to Arizonans for Responsible Drug Policy, the group opposing marijuana legalization in Arizona. The donation amounted to roughly 10 percent of all money raised by the group in an ultimately successful campaign against legalization. Insys was the only pharmaceutical company known to be giving money to oppose legalization last year, according to a Washington Post analysis of campaign finance records.
Syndros is a synthetic formulation of THC, the main psychoactive component in the cannabis plant. It was approved by the FDA last summer to treat nausea, vomiting and weight loss in cancer and AIDS patients. The DEA approval places Syndros and its generic formulations in Schedule II of the Controlled Substances Act, indicating a “high potential for abuse.” Other Schedule II drugs include cocaine, morphine, and many prescription painkillers.
Whole-plant marijuana remains in Schedule I of the CSA, an even stricter regulatory category that designates a lack of medically-accepted use in addition to a high abuse potential.
Insys has been active marijuana policy for several years. In 2011 it wrote to the DEA to express opposition to loosening restrictions on naturally-derived THC, citing “the abuse potential in terms of the need to grow and cultivate substantial crops of marijuana in the United States.”
Last year it petitioned the DEA to loosen restrictions on synthetic versions of CBD, another compound in the cannabis plant. The company is currently developing a CBD-based drug to treat pediatric epilepsy.
“It appears they are trying to kill a non-pharmaceutical market for marijuana in order to line their own pockets,” a spokesman for Arizona’s marijuana legalization campaign said of Insys last year. . .
Apparently leaks and anonymous sources are absolutely terrible… unless the leak and the anonymous sources are advantageous to Republicans, in which case they are perfectly okay. Matthew Balin reports at Mediaite:
NBC’s Peter Alexander confronted White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer on Thursday over an apparent double standard that President Donald Trump and his administration has regarding anonymous sources.
Alexander highlighted that “at CPAC, President Trump said people — quote, ‘shouldn’t be allowed to use sources unless they use someone’s name.’ You said it does — quote, ‘a tremendous disservice.’”
The NBC correspondent continued that Rep. Devin Nunes “noted sources that he couldn’t create and provide publicly. So why when it’s politically advantageous is that use of sourcing okay; but when it’s politically damaging, it’s not okay?”
Spicer retorted by pointing out that Rep. Nunes “came out and briefed people on what he knew at the time, and said he was literally going to give further briefs and and would have further updates.”
The press secretary also emphasized that House Intelligence chairman was “vindicating the president, in saying there is something you need to know about the substance of the allegations that are being made against you.”
Alexander followed up by wondering, “If it had not had vindicated him, wouldn’t it have been just as important for the president to learn?”
Spicer shot back, “Sure, and I think maybe he would have. And then, you probably wouldn’t have had any concern with that, would you?”
Watch the entire exchange, … here]..