OFF THE WIRE
By Nick Leghorn on November 25, 2015
Springfield 1911A1, c Nick Leghorn
The Civilian Marksmanship Program is a program through which the U.S. Government has been selling off their stock of aging firearms to the American public in an effort to promote the shooting sports and marksmanship training. They are best known as the prime source for M1 Garand rifles and M1 Carbines, but thanks to a bill signed today by President Obama the CMP may shortly begin to sell off the U.S. Government’s huge stock of 1911 handguns. These firearms saw duty from WWI through Desert Storm, and you can bet your butt I’ll be waiting in line to snap one up.
From the NRA press release:
Rounding out the list of pro-gun provisions is section 1087, which restores authorization to the Secretary of Defense to transfer to the Civilian Marksmanship Program surplus M1911 and M1911A1 .45 ACP pistols for sale to the public. The component of the CMP that dispenses the pistols would be required to obtain a federal firearms license and abide by all requirements of the Gun Control Act pertaining to licensed sales and transfers. Currently, the military has some 100,000 such pistols that it no longer needs and that are being stored as taxpayer expense. These historically-significant firearms can now be transferred to law-abiding owners at a net gain to the government’s heavily-indebted balance sheet.
This is a great thing … like an early Christmas present from Barack Obama himself, the greatest firearms salesman of all time.
Friday, November 27, 2015
Victims Of Abuse In The Australian Defence Force
OFF THE WIRE
We've been quietly working on something for a few years and we where going to close them down and publish very soon.
Then this arrives outta the blue. Everyone, please go to this page. It fits exactly with a entire different mob we've been working on. So exactly, I pinched myself when I read the page.
These people need our support..
Trigger Warning
---------------------
This article or section, or pages it links to, contains information which may be triggering to survivors.
Please consider this before reading it.
If you are encountering any problems please contact one of the listed services for assistance.
• Lifeline—13 11 14
• 24-hour crisis support and suicide prevention.
• beyondblue—1300 224 636
• Mental health support.
• Suicide Call Back Service—1300 659 467
• Veterans and Veterans Families Counselling Service – 1800 011 046
********************************************************************
Dear All,
Recently someone forwarded our email on Defence holding up claims from DVA for victims at Balcombe, Leeuwin and Nirimba.
One member forwarded it to one Allen Petersen who quite properly circulated as justification for a Royal Commission into abuse in the Australian Defence Force.
Unfortunately one person took affront and abused Allen Petersen and ourselves.
I think it is important from time to time to let you know what we have to put up with.
Also our response reflects the view of the committee.
Whilst views such as John Neenan’s exist within in and without Defence the abuse will continue!
I would like to ask you as fellow electors to raise this issue with your local Federal Members Of Parliament and ask for their help in quashing abuse by stamping out such views in Defence as displayed by Elector Neenan.
Yours Aye
Jennifer Jacomb
Ms Jennifer Jacomb
Secretary and Public Officer Victims Of Abuse In The Australian Defence Force Association Inc. A0059257W
jennifer@adfabuse.com
Disclaimer:
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender.
It is your responsibility to scan this communication and any files attached for computer viruses and other defects.
The sender does not accept liability for any loss or damage (whether direct, indirect, consequential or economic) however caused, and whether by negligence or otherwise, which may result directly or indirectly from this communication or any files attached. In any event, our liability is limited to the cost of re-supplying this communication.
Begin forwarded message:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jennifer Jacomb <jennifer@adfabuse.com>
Date: 22 November 2015 at 4:28:50 PM AEDT
To: JOHN NEENAN
Cc: Allen Petersen , Harry Cole, president@austarmyapprentice.org, secretary@austarmyapprentice.org, execdir@ada.asn.au, committee@adfabuse.com
Subject: Your Self Serving Email Re Child Abuse In The ADF
Dear Mr Neenan,
1. I did not have your email address until you sent your self serving email drivel.
2. I found your email most offensive, as Secretary and Public Officer for the Association for the Victims of Abuse In The Australian Defence Force I get to hear all of the stories including Balcombe.
3. This includes:-
a. The raping of minors with dogs
b. Gang Rape
c. Breaking of bones
d. Many other forms of abuse that if a natural parent did, they would be swooped on by Child Services, the Children removed and the “Parent" charged.
e. Abuse that Army lied to both Federal and State Parliaments saying it was “just boys being boys”!
Raping a minor with a dog is not playful boyish behaviour.
It was not the dog that was the animal in that incident but rather those who did it to the minor!
Yes they were convicted but only given 14 days in cells.
Do you really feel that this was appropriate for such a heinous crime, a crime that in civvy street would get you:-
i. 10 years,
ii. A listing on the Sex Offenders Register and
iii. An Extended Supervision Order to the Village of the Dammed at Ararat?
4. I can assure you that the victims of torture and abuse, be it at Balcombe or elsewhere do not have fond memories.
5. Nor are they few in number.
6. You say you “witnessed injustice and harsh treatment”.
What you fail to say is what you did about it.
By the lack of comment I can only assume that you did nothing!
By keeping quiet you made it easier for the abuse to continue. Your silence and conduct helped promote it. In many ways your lack of action makes you just as guilty as the abusers.
7. The legal case quoted was Geyer v Downs [1977] HCA 64; (1977) 138 CLR 91 (9 December 1977).
8. This judgement from the High Court lays down the liability and responsibility of a School Master or in this case Army for minors in their care.
If you have a problem with it, I suggest you take it up with the High Court Of Australia. I sure that will appreciate your input!
Their address is Parkes Place, Parkes ACT 2600.
9. You seem to have a disdain for lawyers and the law.
That is why the abuse in the ADF has been so bad and gone on for so long.
10. You and your self serving arrogant attitude is part of the problem – not the solution.
11. This disdain and contempt for the law, be it the Navy, Army or Airforce Acts as well as the various discipline Acts is why the abuse has got so bad and gone on for so long.
12. I remind you that as a member of the Armed forces:-
a. You were a servant of the Crown and
b. You served the Crown best by upholding the Constitutions and the Laws of the Parliaments of Australia.
c. Clearly by your attitude you have served the Crown very poorly!
13. As an Australian Taxpayer and Elector looking at your email, all I can say is “I want my money back!”
14. Finally if you want to engage in polite debate, we will always welcome that.
15. However, bombastic self serving, hallucinatory drivel as displayed in your email will not serve you or the debate well.
16. The Victims are not going away or giving up as much as you clearly desire it.
17. They cannot sue, for the most part, because of the cover up of the abuse by members of the ADF.
18. However, as a former member of the Senior Service, let me give you the response of another Sailor:-
“Surrender – I have not yet begun to fight!”
19. You should be ashamed of yourself for your contempt of the law and the plight of victims, especially those who were abused as minors.
Shame On You!
20. Also for the record, the word “subtended” refers to issues in Geometry or Botany. I suggest in future you might wish to consult the Oxford Dictionary before using a word – it will save you much embarrassment.
21. Better yet, before condemning victims and their supporters perhaps you would benefit from finding out the facts rather than shooting your mouth off.
22. To assist you in this I have attached the handbook on Abuse.
You will find in it a section on Defensive Reasoning.
You clearly have this dread social disease and you can use the handbook to rid yourself of it.
Your disgraceful email and this response will be put up on our Facebook Page for public comment and debate amongst Australian Electors.
Our Facebook Address is https://www.facebook.com/Victims-Of-Abuse-In-The-Australi…/…
Our Website is www.adfabuse.com
Have A Nice Day
Jennifer Jacomb
Secretary And Public officer
Ms Jennifer Jacomb
Secretary and Public Officer Victims Of Abuse In The Australian Defence Force Association Inc. A0059257W
jennifer@adfabuse.com
Disclaimer:
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender.
It is your responsibility to scan this communication and any files attached for computer viruses and other defects.
The sender does not accept liability for any loss or damage (whether direct, indirect, consequential or economic) however caused, and whether by negligence or otherwise, which may result directly or indirectly from this communication or any files attached. In any event, our liability is limited to the cost of re-supplying this communication.
On 19 Nov 2015, at 1:23 AM, JOHN NEENAN <j> wrote:
G’day,
I was a soldier and officer for 33 years, starting as an Army Apprentice at Balcombe between February 1950 and December 1952. In those three years I witnessed some injustices and harsh treatment from some individuals. Most of the staff and the Apprentice NCOs, however, were fine soldiers whose only “abuse” was directed towards making us good soldiers and proficient tradesmen. Soldiering can sometimes be a hard occupation, and the training has to be similarly hard to prepare for those hard times.
I can aver that of the over 7500 Army Apprentices turned out between 1948 and 1995, there are very few who are not proud to have been “Appies”. Almost without exception among the graduates, and even among the ones that failed to graduate, there remains an unshakeable esprit de corps.
The legalistic diatribe in the subtended email has the dead hand of a lawyer all over it. Now there’s a profession that has been guilty of abuse since time immemorial. As someone once said, there is more stolen by lawyers with brief cases than by bandits with guns.
Specify the abuses you claim, take them to court, or stop your incessant calumny and detraction of a Defence Force whose reputation is without peer in the modern world. Most of us who have served in it are very proud to have done so, and take exception to your constant attempts to denigrate that reputation.
How did my email address get into your address book? Please remove it; I don’t want any further association with you disgusting people.
John Neenan
From: Allen Petersen []
Sent: Wednesday, 18 November 2015 11:31 AM
To: Allen Petersen
Subject: PLEA FOR YOUR HELP! < DEMAND A ROYAL COMMISSION INTO ADF NOW. >
Importance: High
From:
Sent: Wednesday, 18 November 2015 7:58 AM
To: DefenceAndParliamentaryReps@aph.gov.au
Subject: PLEA FOR YOUR HELP
Importance: High
Please find below a copy of an email that has been sent to the Parliament and also to the Chiefs Of Defence, Secretary of Defence and Chiefs of Service today:
You talk about Defence and Service Values,
Is it about time you paid those values more than lip service.
These victims were children in Defence’s care.
Under the High Court Decision - Geyer v Downs [1977] HCA 64; (1977) 138 CLR 91 (9 December 1977):-
Stephen J
“5 The duty which a schoolmaster owes to his pupil arises from the relationship between them
and its temporal ambit will be determined by the circumstances of the relationship on the
particular occasion in question. Children stand in need of care and supervision and this their
parents cannot effectively provide when their children are attending school; instead it is those
then in charge of them, their teachers, who must provide it. So it was that Winneke C.J., in
Richards' Case (1969) VR, at pp 138-139 said of a schoolmaster that:
"The reason underlying the imposition of the duty would
appear to be the need of a child of immature age for
protection against the conduct of others, or indeed of himself,
which may cause him injury coupled with the fact that,
during school hours the child is beyond the control and
protection of his parent and is placed under the control of the
schoolmaster who is in a position to exercise authority over
him and afford him, in the exercise of reasonable care,
protection from injury."
6. It is for schoolmasters and for those who employ them, whether government or private
institutions, to provide facilities whereby the schoolmasterly duty can adequately be
discharged during the period for which it is assumed. A schoolmaster's ability or inability to
discharge it will determine neither the existence of the duty nor its temporal ambit but only
whether or not the duty has been adequately performed. The temporal ambit of the duty will,
Geyer v Downs [1977] HCA 64; (1977) 138 CLR 91 (9 Dec... http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/... 2 of 11 24/08/2015 5:58 pm
therefore, depend not at all upon the schoolmaster's ability, however derived, effectively to
perform the duty but, rather, upon whether the particular circumstances of the occasion in
question reveal that the relationship of schoolmaster and pupil was or was not then in
existence. If it was, the duty will apply. It will be for the schoolmaster and those standing
behind him to cut their coats according to the cloth, not assuming the relationship when unable
to perform the duty which goes with it. (at p94).”
Why do you see the need to continue the abuse?
Problems are for solving, why don’t you stop harming victims further and just fix it!.... Jennifer Jacomb
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Senator,
As we all know, Defence is not sorry about the abuse it has perpetuated but rather sorry that it has been caught out.
It continues to be recalcitrant and unrepentant!
1. HMAS Leeuwin, HMAS Nirimba and Apprentice School Balcombe have been identified as centres of child abuse and other abuse against children over the years through the many inquiries and the DART.
2. Defence’s Victims have been putting claims into the DVA to get the medical help they need.
3. Their files are now permanently on hold i.e. “in abeyance” because the DVA is waiting for Defence admitting blanket liability – as it should!
4. But Defence, like any child abuser, won’t fess up!
5. Defence had the responsibility of standing in as loco parentis. It did such an appalling job and failed in its legal responsibilities, that had it been a normal parent, the children would have been taken away from it for the safety of the children.
6. Unlike other institutions, Defence doesn’t have the integrity of meeting its obligations to its child victims.
These victims need your help.
I would like to respectfully ask that you contact Minister Payne and Chief Of The Defence and ask Defence to do the right thing, especially given the abundant evidence that it did the wrong thing.
Ask them to have Defence to fess up so that these claims can proceed.
That is the best Christmas gift for these victims.
Yours Respectfully
Jennifer Jacomb
Ms Jennifer Jacomb
Secretary and Public Officer Victims Of Abuse In The Australian Defence Force Association Inc. A0059257W
jennifer@adfabuse.com
This has been mass-distributed to ALL Aust Fed Politicians, 90% of Major Media, Some State Politicians, Foreign Embassies, Overseas Media, and Veterans and others within Australia and Overseas, AND ON TWITTER and other Social Media. DEMAND A ROYAL COMMISSION INTO ADF NOW. JW
We've been quietly working on something for a few years and we where going to close them down and publish very soon.
Then this arrives outta the blue. Everyone, please go to this page. It fits exactly with a entire different mob we've been working on. So exactly, I pinched myself when I read the page.
These people need our support..
Trigger Warning
---------------------
This article or section, or pages it links to, contains information which may be triggering to survivors.
Please consider this before reading it.
If you are encountering any problems please contact one of the listed services for assistance.
• Lifeline—13 11 14
• 24-hour crisis support and suicide prevention.
• beyondblue—1300 224 636
• Mental health support.
• Suicide Call Back Service—1300 659 467
• Veterans and Veterans Families Counselling Service – 1800 011 046
********************************************************************
Dear All,
Recently someone forwarded our email on Defence holding up claims from DVA for victims at Balcombe, Leeuwin and Nirimba.
One member forwarded it to one Allen Petersen who quite properly circulated as justification for a Royal Commission into abuse in the Australian Defence Force.
Unfortunately one person took affront and abused Allen Petersen and ourselves.
I think it is important from time to time to let you know what we have to put up with.
Also our response reflects the view of the committee.
Whilst views such as John Neenan’s exist within in and without Defence the abuse will continue!
I would like to ask you as fellow electors to raise this issue with your local Federal Members Of Parliament and ask for their help in quashing abuse by stamping out such views in Defence as displayed by Elector Neenan.
Yours Aye
Jennifer Jacomb
Ms Jennifer Jacomb
Secretary and Public Officer Victims Of Abuse In The Australian Defence Force Association Inc. A0059257W
jennifer@adfabuse.com
Disclaimer:
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender.
It is your responsibility to scan this communication and any files attached for computer viruses and other defects.
The sender does not accept liability for any loss or damage (whether direct, indirect, consequential or economic) however caused, and whether by negligence or otherwise, which may result directly or indirectly from this communication or any files attached. In any event, our liability is limited to the cost of re-supplying this communication.
Begin forwarded message:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jennifer Jacomb <jennifer@adfabuse.com>
Date: 22 November 2015 at 4:28:50 PM AEDT
To: JOHN NEENAN
Cc: Allen Petersen , Harry Cole, president@austarmyapprentice.org, secretary@austarmyapprentice.org, execdir@ada.asn.au, committee@adfabuse.com
Subject: Your Self Serving Email Re Child Abuse In The ADF
Dear Mr Neenan,
1. I did not have your email address until you sent your self serving email drivel.
2. I found your email most offensive, as Secretary and Public Officer for the Association for the Victims of Abuse In The Australian Defence Force I get to hear all of the stories including Balcombe.
3. This includes:-
a. The raping of minors with dogs
b. Gang Rape
c. Breaking of bones
d. Many other forms of abuse that if a natural parent did, they would be swooped on by Child Services, the Children removed and the “Parent" charged.
e. Abuse that Army lied to both Federal and State Parliaments saying it was “just boys being boys”!
Raping a minor with a dog is not playful boyish behaviour.
It was not the dog that was the animal in that incident but rather those who did it to the minor!
Yes they were convicted but only given 14 days in cells.
Do you really feel that this was appropriate for such a heinous crime, a crime that in civvy street would get you:-
i. 10 years,
ii. A listing on the Sex Offenders Register and
iii. An Extended Supervision Order to the Village of the Dammed at Ararat?
4. I can assure you that the victims of torture and abuse, be it at Balcombe or elsewhere do not have fond memories.
5. Nor are they few in number.
6. You say you “witnessed injustice and harsh treatment”.
What you fail to say is what you did about it.
By the lack of comment I can only assume that you did nothing!
By keeping quiet you made it easier for the abuse to continue. Your silence and conduct helped promote it. In many ways your lack of action makes you just as guilty as the abusers.
7. The legal case quoted was Geyer v Downs [1977] HCA 64; (1977) 138 CLR 91 (9 December 1977).
8. This judgement from the High Court lays down the liability and responsibility of a School Master or in this case Army for minors in their care.
If you have a problem with it, I suggest you take it up with the High Court Of Australia. I sure that will appreciate your input!
Their address is Parkes Place, Parkes ACT 2600.
9. You seem to have a disdain for lawyers and the law.
That is why the abuse in the ADF has been so bad and gone on for so long.
10. You and your self serving arrogant attitude is part of the problem – not the solution.
11. This disdain and contempt for the law, be it the Navy, Army or Airforce Acts as well as the various discipline Acts is why the abuse has got so bad and gone on for so long.
12. I remind you that as a member of the Armed forces:-
a. You were a servant of the Crown and
b. You served the Crown best by upholding the Constitutions and the Laws of the Parliaments of Australia.
c. Clearly by your attitude you have served the Crown very poorly!
13. As an Australian Taxpayer and Elector looking at your email, all I can say is “I want my money back!”
14. Finally if you want to engage in polite debate, we will always welcome that.
15. However, bombastic self serving, hallucinatory drivel as displayed in your email will not serve you or the debate well.
16. The Victims are not going away or giving up as much as you clearly desire it.
17. They cannot sue, for the most part, because of the cover up of the abuse by members of the ADF.
18. However, as a former member of the Senior Service, let me give you the response of another Sailor:-
“Surrender – I have not yet begun to fight!”
19. You should be ashamed of yourself for your contempt of the law and the plight of victims, especially those who were abused as minors.
Shame On You!
20. Also for the record, the word “subtended” refers to issues in Geometry or Botany. I suggest in future you might wish to consult the Oxford Dictionary before using a word – it will save you much embarrassment.
21. Better yet, before condemning victims and their supporters perhaps you would benefit from finding out the facts rather than shooting your mouth off.
22. To assist you in this I have attached the handbook on Abuse.
You will find in it a section on Defensive Reasoning.
You clearly have this dread social disease and you can use the handbook to rid yourself of it.
Your disgraceful email and this response will be put up on our Facebook Page for public comment and debate amongst Australian Electors.
Our Facebook Address is https://www.facebook.com/Victims-Of-Abuse-In-The-Australi…/…
Our Website is www.adfabuse.com
Have A Nice Day
Jennifer Jacomb
Secretary And Public officer
Ms Jennifer Jacomb
Secretary and Public Officer Victims Of Abuse In The Australian Defence Force Association Inc. A0059257W
jennifer@adfabuse.com
Disclaimer:
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender.
It is your responsibility to scan this communication and any files attached for computer viruses and other defects.
The sender does not accept liability for any loss or damage (whether direct, indirect, consequential or economic) however caused, and whether by negligence or otherwise, which may result directly or indirectly from this communication or any files attached. In any event, our liability is limited to the cost of re-supplying this communication.
On 19 Nov 2015, at 1:23 AM, JOHN NEENAN <j> wrote:
G’day,
I was a soldier and officer for 33 years, starting as an Army Apprentice at Balcombe between February 1950 and December 1952. In those three years I witnessed some injustices and harsh treatment from some individuals. Most of the staff and the Apprentice NCOs, however, were fine soldiers whose only “abuse” was directed towards making us good soldiers and proficient tradesmen. Soldiering can sometimes be a hard occupation, and the training has to be similarly hard to prepare for those hard times.
I can aver that of the over 7500 Army Apprentices turned out between 1948 and 1995, there are very few who are not proud to have been “Appies”. Almost without exception among the graduates, and even among the ones that failed to graduate, there remains an unshakeable esprit de corps.
The legalistic diatribe in the subtended email has the dead hand of a lawyer all over it. Now there’s a profession that has been guilty of abuse since time immemorial. As someone once said, there is more stolen by lawyers with brief cases than by bandits with guns.
Specify the abuses you claim, take them to court, or stop your incessant calumny and detraction of a Defence Force whose reputation is without peer in the modern world. Most of us who have served in it are very proud to have done so, and take exception to your constant attempts to denigrate that reputation.
How did my email address get into your address book? Please remove it; I don’t want any further association with you disgusting people.
John Neenan
From: Allen Petersen []
Sent: Wednesday, 18 November 2015 11:31 AM
To: Allen Petersen
Subject: PLEA FOR YOUR HELP! < DEMAND A ROYAL COMMISSION INTO ADF NOW. >
Importance: High
From:
Sent: Wednesday, 18 November 2015 7:58 AM
To: DefenceAndParliamentaryReps@aph.gov.au
Subject: PLEA FOR YOUR HELP
Importance: High
Please find below a copy of an email that has been sent to the Parliament and also to the Chiefs Of Defence, Secretary of Defence and Chiefs of Service today:
You talk about Defence and Service Values,
Is it about time you paid those values more than lip service.
These victims were children in Defence’s care.
Under the High Court Decision - Geyer v Downs [1977] HCA 64; (1977) 138 CLR 91 (9 December 1977):-
Stephen J
“5 The duty which a schoolmaster owes to his pupil arises from the relationship between them
and its temporal ambit will be determined by the circumstances of the relationship on the
particular occasion in question. Children stand in need of care and supervision and this their
parents cannot effectively provide when their children are attending school; instead it is those
then in charge of them, their teachers, who must provide it. So it was that Winneke C.J., in
Richards' Case (1969) VR, at pp 138-139 said of a schoolmaster that:
"The reason underlying the imposition of the duty would
appear to be the need of a child of immature age for
protection against the conduct of others, or indeed of himself,
which may cause him injury coupled with the fact that,
during school hours the child is beyond the control and
protection of his parent and is placed under the control of the
schoolmaster who is in a position to exercise authority over
him and afford him, in the exercise of reasonable care,
protection from injury."
6. It is for schoolmasters and for those who employ them, whether government or private
institutions, to provide facilities whereby the schoolmasterly duty can adequately be
discharged during the period for which it is assumed. A schoolmaster's ability or inability to
discharge it will determine neither the existence of the duty nor its temporal ambit but only
whether or not the duty has been adequately performed. The temporal ambit of the duty will,
Geyer v Downs [1977] HCA 64; (1977) 138 CLR 91 (9 Dec... http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/... 2 of 11 24/08/2015 5:58 pm
therefore, depend not at all upon the schoolmaster's ability, however derived, effectively to
perform the duty but, rather, upon whether the particular circumstances of the occasion in
question reveal that the relationship of schoolmaster and pupil was or was not then in
existence. If it was, the duty will apply. It will be for the schoolmaster and those standing
behind him to cut their coats according to the cloth, not assuming the relationship when unable
to perform the duty which goes with it. (at p94).”
Why do you see the need to continue the abuse?
Problems are for solving, why don’t you stop harming victims further and just fix it!.... Jennifer Jacomb
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Senator,
As we all know, Defence is not sorry about the abuse it has perpetuated but rather sorry that it has been caught out.
It continues to be recalcitrant and unrepentant!
1. HMAS Leeuwin, HMAS Nirimba and Apprentice School Balcombe have been identified as centres of child abuse and other abuse against children over the years through the many inquiries and the DART.
2. Defence’s Victims have been putting claims into the DVA to get the medical help they need.
3. Their files are now permanently on hold i.e. “in abeyance” because the DVA is waiting for Defence admitting blanket liability – as it should!
4. But Defence, like any child abuser, won’t fess up!
5. Defence had the responsibility of standing in as loco parentis. It did such an appalling job and failed in its legal responsibilities, that had it been a normal parent, the children would have been taken away from it for the safety of the children.
6. Unlike other institutions, Defence doesn’t have the integrity of meeting its obligations to its child victims.
These victims need your help.
I would like to respectfully ask that you contact Minister Payne and Chief Of The Defence and ask Defence to do the right thing, especially given the abundant evidence that it did the wrong thing.
Ask them to have Defence to fess up so that these claims can proceed.
That is the best Christmas gift for these victims.
Yours Respectfully
Jennifer Jacomb
Ms Jennifer Jacomb
Secretary and Public Officer Victims Of Abuse In The Australian Defence Force Association Inc. A0059257W
jennifer@adfabuse.com
This has been mass-distributed to ALL Aust Fed Politicians, 90% of Major Media, Some State Politicians, Foreign Embassies, Overseas Media, and Veterans and others within Australia and Overseas, AND ON TWITTER and other Social Media. DEMAND A ROYAL COMMISSION INTO ADF NOW. JW
Thursday, November 26, 2015
CA - ON TRIAL FOR MURDER...
OFF THE WIRE
Darla Jackson hit Zach, after "..driving in the fast lane,
in the right section of the lane, Jackson sped past Zach
on his left side (same lane), getting really close to him.
Then a witness stated he shook his head & took after
the car. Got next to the car & shook his pointer finger
at her, shaking his head. That was when she swerved
her car to the right toward him. Then Zach kicked her
car to avoid getting hit. She then swerved to the left &
back to the right. Zach took off. He headed off toward
Highway 54 East. That was when she started chasing
him till she killed him."
Darla Jackson hit Zach, after "..driving in the fast lane,
in the right section of the lane, Jackson sped past Zach
on his left side (same lane), getting really close to him.
Then a witness stated he shook his head & took after
the car. Got next to the car & shook his pointer finger
at her, shaking his head. That was when she swerved
her car to the right toward him. Then Zach kicked her
car to avoid getting hit. She then swerved to the left &
back to the right. Zach took off. He headed off toward
Highway 54 East. That was when she started chasing
him till she killed him."
"This woman has no basis to be in society anymore. I
will a lot of faith in humanity if she isn't convicted for a
very, very long time in jail. Further, I do believe she
should get the death sentence. She has become an
absolute waste of a human, and a waste to society."
RIP Zack Buob
will a lot of faith in humanity if she isn't convicted for a
very, very long time in jail. Further, I do believe she
should get the death sentence. She has become an
absolute waste of a human, and a waste to society."
RIP Zack Buob
CA - New shit from @UnknownIndustries
OFF THE WIRE
New shit from @UnknownIndustries just in time for the holidays! New shirts, Hoodies, Sweat Shirts and more added to www.UnknownIndustries.com
#UnknownIndustries #UnknownFamily #HarleyWheelies
New shit from @UnknownIndustries just in time for the holidays! New shirts, Hoodies, Sweat Shirts and more added to www.UnknownIndustries.com
#UnknownIndustries #UnknownFamily #HarleyWheelies
An Appeal To American Journalists
OFF THE WIRE
agingrebel.com
The first words in the supreme law of this nation are “We the people.” Power in our country resides with the people and not with the administrators of our public affairs.
In order to ensure that the people’s power continued to reside with the people our founders broke our government into three parts called the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches. Their intention was that no one person or part of government should be able to steal the people’s power.
Integral to the preservation of our freedom is the right of the people to know what our politicians and our police are doing and have done. So a fourth, diverse, unofficial branch of governance – the ruling elite’s court jester, our free press – has been recognized since our beginnings. Saying what we damn please is a joyous expression of our most basic, human rights. So is saying what we damn please on behalf of everybody else. In the words of H. L. Mencken, late of The Baltimore Sun: “As I look back over a misspent life, I find myself more and more convinced that I had more fun doing news reporting than in any other enterprise. It is really the life of kings.”
The press’s only obligation in return for all this fun – for getting to write celebrity gossip, and political gossip and restaurant reviews and movie reviews and sports and so on – is our duty to be the people’s witnesses of what the official branches of government are up to. It is in service to that necessary chore that the First Amendment forbids our official government from “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”
Thomas Jefferson, one of our founders whose memory may have recently been vilified more than it deserves, said, “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them.”
James Russell Wiggins, formerly of The Washington Post, observed that freedom of the press implies five more specific rights: “(1) the right to get information from the government, (2) the right to print it without prior restraint, (3) the right to print without fear of reprisal for publication that does not offend the laws, (4) the right to have access to printing materials, and (5) the right to distribute.”
The words of these esteemed men must be mentioned because right now in Waco, Texas there is a situation controlled by local scoundrels that insults the free press’s right and obligation to witness the people’s public affairs. Local politicians and police have arbitrarily and illegally trampled on the rights of almost two hundred citizens in an obvious attempt to protect themselves from the embarrassment and liability that might result if their own stupidity, cruelty and contempt for our Constitution were exposed.
Politicians and police in Waco appear to have arranged, encouraged and anticipated a confrontation between two antagonistic motorcycle clubs at a restaurant last May 17. Their intention was to catch red handed some members of those clubs committing various crimes of violence. It is a matter of irrefutable fact that violence did result from this prearranged affray. Autopsy reports and statements by witnesses imply that police using military weapons fatally wounded at least six people. Local police and politicians have deliberately lied about and obfuscated the basic facts of this tragic encounter since it occurred and as a result the people of this nation have been lied to and misinformed.
The press, most notably and recently CNN, has been manipulated and bullied into sensationalizing and misrepresenting the truth about this grotesque tragedy. Just last week, defense attorneys representing more than 100 indicted defendants in the case revealed that the prosecutor has refused to release certain key evidence to them unless they agree to hide that evidence from the press and the public.
A unilateral demand by Waco public officials, disingenuously titled “Agreement on Discovery and Nondisclosure of Evidence,” states in part: “The attorney representing the defendant and any investigator, expert, consulting legal counsel or authorized agent for the attorney will not disseminate any discovery provided for any reason to any media outlet or any person or agency not specifically authorized in this Agreement.” Defense attorneys have been further advised that Texas Department of Public Safety “pole cam video and (police officer’s) Michael Bucher in car video” will not be released to them until they promise to abet local police and politicians in frustrating the peoples’ right to know what this hidden evidence reveals.
Enough is enough.
I appeal to my fellow journalists to unabashedly pursue the truth about what happened in Waco last May 17; to scrupulously review the official actions that preceded that tragic encounter; to skeptically report official conduct regarding the tragedy after the fact; and to courageously and self-critically examine the press’s own coverage of this event.
This is an important story. Please pay attention to it. Demanding to know the truth will not imperil our national security. It will not very much distract the people from their fascination with the adventures of Caitlyn Marie Jenner. But, it may in fact buttress the people’s freedom to be informed. J.R. Wiggins was right. The press does have a right to get information from the government by any reasonable means necessary including leaks from confidential sources. The people have a right to know what happened and they are not well served by expurgated police propaganda.
The pen is mightier than the sword.
-30-
Rebel
Wednesday, November 25, 2015
SAN DIEGO CA - Woman in road rage case to be tried for murder
OFF THE WIRE
Judge: Defendant drove ‘dangerously and recklessly in pursuit’ of motorcyclist.
Judge: Defendant drove ‘dangerously and recklessly in pursuit’ of motorcyclist.
Idaho Police Chief Conducts Outrageous Motorcycle Profiling Stop
OFF THE WIRE
The motorcycle profiling epidemic in America is particularly evident in certain states. Idaho is irrefutably one of those states as evidenced by recent military-style blockades in Pocatello, unconstitutional raids on clubhouses in Boise, and traffic stops at gunpoint outside Shoshone. The pattern of evidence continues to mount. The necessity for legislation addressing the issue motorcycle profiling is self-evident when a police chief is conducting traffic stops on motorcycles gunpoint without cause.
The MPP received the following incident report from an individual on his way to a COC regional meeting in Boise. According to the victim, the police chief from a small town in Idaho decided that it was appropriate to pull his van, James Bond style, across both lanes of a 2 lane highway to stop traffic, jump out with his gun drawn, all in order to conduct a simple traffic stop. Three Sheriffs Deputies joined the stop.
Is it a coincidence that the ticket was dismissed or did inquiring about use of force policies cause them to back down? Do the officers involved even realize that the initial act of calling for backup to conduct a simple traffic stop is based on the discriminatory presupposition that motorcyclists are inherently dangerous? This was a single motorcyclists that had done nothing to justify the belief that he was dangerous.
This incidence demonstrates that the motorcycle profiling epidemic is alive in Idaho. Dangerous traffic maneuvers, excessive backup and felony stop tactics should only be reserved for situations where there is reasonable suspicion of actual crime or violence, not a simple traffic infraction like speeding. It is clear that law enforcement in Idaho must adopt policies and simple training to prevent and condemn the practice of motorcycle profiling. These incidents are not only civil rights violations they are potential powder kegs of discriminatory deadly force based purely on appearance as opposed to behavior.
The motorcycle profiling epidemic in America is particularly evident in certain states. Idaho is irrefutably one of those states as evidenced by recent military-style blockades in Pocatello, unconstitutional raids on clubhouses in Boise, and traffic stops at gunpoint outside Shoshone. The pattern of evidence continues to mount. The necessity for legislation addressing the issue motorcycle profiling is self-evident when a police chief is conducting traffic stops on motorcycles gunpoint without cause.
The MPP received the following incident report from an individual on his way to a COC regional meeting in Boise. According to the victim, the police chief from a small town in Idaho decided that it was appropriate to pull his van, James Bond style, across both lanes of a 2 lane highway to stop traffic, jump out with his gun drawn, all in order to conduct a simple traffic stop. Three Sheriffs Deputies joined the stop.
To the MPP,
“On the 15th of September I was heading for a Confederation of Clubs meeting in Boise, which was on the 17th. I was on a two lane highway and doing about 90mph when a van pulled across the road to block traffic in both lanes. The driver runs to the back of van and points a pistol at me and yells at me in a very excited tone. He handcuffed me, was all in all a jerk, and the Chief of Police of the upcoming town of Shoshone.
Three Sheriffs deputies arrived on scene soon after the van pulled across the roadway. They were following me and had called for help.
One of them wrote the ticket. $155 for doing 89mph in a 65mph zone. After running my paperwork they turned me loose and gave all my knives back. I gave them one of my books and told them they needed to read it and I would be back and give them a quiz.
Upon returning home, [wife’s name omitted for privacy] sent them the $155. A few days later I called the county Clerk and ask for a copy of their “Use of force policy”. She said a officer would be calling me, no call. Two days later my check was returned with a letter saying the officer never turned in the ticket so it was Dismissed! What the hell just happened? Never happened to me before.”
Is it a coincidence that the ticket was dismissed or did inquiring about use of force policies cause them to back down? Do the officers involved even realize that the initial act of calling for backup to conduct a simple traffic stop is based on the discriminatory presupposition that motorcyclists are inherently dangerous? This was a single motorcyclists that had done nothing to justify the belief that he was dangerous.
This incidence demonstrates that the motorcycle profiling epidemic is alive in Idaho. Dangerous traffic maneuvers, excessive backup and felony stop tactics should only be reserved for situations where there is reasonable suspicion of actual crime or violence, not a simple traffic infraction like speeding. It is clear that law enforcement in Idaho must adopt policies and simple training to prevent and condemn the practice of motorcycle profiling. These incidents are not only civil rights violations they are potential powder kegs of discriminatory deadly force based purely on appearance as opposed to behavior.
Tuesday, November 24, 2015
VA gets Shorted $2.6 Billion while Obama Admin Budgets $4.5 Billion on Syrians Migrants
OFF THE WIRE
Yes, it could get bigger.
It also could mean furloughs, hiring freezes and program cancellations if a solution can’t be found.
“We are going to do the right thing for veterans and be good stewards of taxpayer dollars,” VA Deputy Secretary Sloan Gibson told members of the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee on Thursday. “But to succeed, we need the flexibility to use funds to meet veterans needs as they arise.”
Without that, he said, “we get to dire circumstances before August. We will have to start denying care to some veterans.”
Lawmakers were enraged that the department is only now informing them of significant shortfalls in this year’s budget, with the fiscal year ending Sept. 30.
So, the Veterans face a $2.6 Billion shortfall in their health care, but the While House and Congress have found a whopping $4.5 Billion to ship over to help Syrians who are overrunning Europe.
Priorities are definitely in order at the White House and in the halls of Congress.
Yes, it could get bigger.
It also could mean furloughs, hiring freezes and program cancellations if a solution can’t be found.
“We are going to do the right thing for veterans and be good stewards of taxpayer dollars,” VA Deputy Secretary Sloan Gibson told members of the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee on Thursday. “But to succeed, we need the flexibility to use funds to meet veterans needs as they arise.”
Without that, he said, “we get to dire circumstances before August. We will have to start denying care to some veterans.”
Lawmakers were enraged that the department is only now informing them of significant shortfalls in this year’s budget, with the fiscal year ending Sept. 30.
“I have come to expect a startling lack of transparency and accountability from VA over the last years,” said committee chairman Rep. Jeff Miller, R-Fla. “But failing to inform Congress of a multibillion-dollar funding deficit until this late in the fiscal year … is disturbing on an entirely different level.”The money will come through the U.S. Agency for International Development and Congress will not have to approve the additional spending.
Source: Military Times
Meanwhile, back at the White House, spokesman Josh Earnest says the United States will direct $4.5 billion to help address the dire conditions inside Syria and in refugee camps scattered across the region.
Source: Breitbart
So, the Veterans face a $2.6 Billion shortfall in their health care, but the While House and Congress have found a whopping $4.5 Billion to ship over to help Syrians who are overrunning Europe.
Priorities are definitely in order at the White House and in the halls of Congress.
Now the Truth Emerges - How the US fuelled the rise of Isis in Syria and Iraq
OFF THE WIRE
By Seumas Milne
The Guardian
The sectarian terror group won’t be defeated by the western states that incubated it in the first place
The war on terror, that campaign without end launched 14 years ago by George Bush, is tying itself up in ever more grotesque contortions. On Monday the trial in London of a Swedish man, Bherlin Gildo, accused of terrorism in Syria, collapsed after it became clear British intelligence had been arming the same rebel groups the defendant was charged with supporting.
The prosecution abandoned the case, apparently to avoid embarrassing the intelligence services. The defence argued that going ahead with the trial would have been an “affront to justice” when there was plenty of evidence the British state was itself providing “extensive support” to the armed Syrian opposition.
That didn’t only include the “non-lethal assistance” boasted of by the government (including body armour and military vehicles), but training, logistical support and the secret supply of “arms on a massive scale”. Reports were cited that MI6 had cooperated with the CIA on a “rat line” of arms transfers from Libyan stockpiles to the Syrian rebels in 2012 after the fall of the Gaddafi regime.
Clearly, the absurdity of sending someone to prison for doing what ministers and their security officials were up to themselves became too much. But it’s only the latest of a string of such cases. Less fortunate was a London cab driver Anis Sardar, who was given a life sentence a fortnight earlier for taking part in 2007 in resistance to the occupation of Iraq by US and British forces. Armed opposition to illegal invasion and occupation clearly doesn’t constitute terrorism or murder on most definitions, including the Geneva convention.
But terrorism is now squarely in the eye of the beholder. And nowhere is that more so than in the Middle East, where today’s terrorists are tomorrow’s fighters against tyranny – and allies are enemies – often at the bewildering whim of a western policymaker’s conference call.
For the past year, US, British and other western forces have been back in Iraq, supposedly in the cause of destroying the hyper-sectarian terror group Islamic State (formerly known as al-Qaida in Iraq). This was after Isis overran huge chunks of Iraqi and Syrian territory and proclaimed a self-styled Islamic caliphate.
The campaign isn’t going well. Last month, Isis rolled into the Iraqi city of Ramadi, while on the other side of the now nonexistent border its forces conquered the Syrian town of Palmyra. Al-Qaida’s official franchise, the Nusra Front, has also been making gains in Syria.
Some Iraqis complain that the US sat on its hands while all this was going on. The Americans insist they are trying to avoid civilian casualties, and claim significant successes. Privately, officials say they don’t want to be seen hammering Sunni strongholds in a sectarian war and risk upsetting their Sunni allies in the Gulf.
A revealing light on how we got here has now been shone by a recently declassified secret US intelligence report, written in August 2012, which uncannily predicts – and effectively welcomes – the prospect of a “Salafist principality” in eastern Syria and an al-Qaida-controlled Islamic state in Syria and Iraq. In stark contrast to western claims at the time, the Defense Intelligence Agency document identifies al-Qaida in Iraq (which became Isis) and fellow Salafists as the “major forces driving the insurgency in Syria” – and states that “western countries, the Gulf states and Turkey” were supporting the opposition’s efforts to take control of eastern Syria.
Raising the “possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality”, the Pentagon report goes on, “this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)”.
Which is pretty well exactly what happened two years later. The report isn’t a policy document. It’s heavily redacted and there are ambiguities in the language. But the implications are clear enough. A year into the Syrian rebellion, the US and its allies weren’t only supporting and arming an opposition they knew to be dominated by extreme sectarian groups; they were prepared to countenance the creation of some sort of “Islamic state” – despite the “grave danger” to Iraq’s unity – as a Sunni buffer to weaken Syria.
That doesn’t mean the US created Isis, of course, though some of its Gulf allies certainly played a role in it – as the US vice-president, Joe Biden, acknowledged last year. But there was no al-Qaida in Iraq until the US and Britain invaded. And the US has certainly exploited the existence of Isis against other forces in the region as part of a wider drive to maintain western control.
The calculus changed when Isis started beheading westerners and posting atrocities online, and the Gulf states are now backing other groups in the Syrian war, such as the Nusra Front. But this US and western habit of playing with jihadi groups, which then come back to bite them, goes back at least to the 1980s war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, which fostered the original al-Qaida under CIA tutelage.
It was recalibrated during the occupation of Iraq, when US forces led by General Petraeus sponsored an El Salvador-style dirty war of sectarian death squads to weaken the Iraqi resistance. And it was reprised in 2011 in the Nato-orchestrated war in Libya, where Isis last week took control of Gaddafi’s home town of Sirte.
In reality, US and western policy in the conflagration that is now the Middle East is in the classic mould of imperial divide-and-rule. American forces bomb one set of rebels while backing another in Syria, and mount what are effectively joint military operations with Iran against Isis in Iraq while supporting Saudi Arabia’s military campaign against Iranian-backed Houthi forces in Yemen. However confused US policy may often be, a weak, partitioned Iraq and Syria fit such an approach perfectly.
What’s clear is that Isis and its monstrosities won’t be defeated by the same powers that brought it to Iraq and Syria in the first place, or whose open and covert war-making has fostered it in the years since. Endless western military interventions in the Middle East have brought only destruction and division. It’s the people of the region who can cure this disease – not those who incubated the virus.
By Seumas Milne
The Guardian
The sectarian terror group won’t be defeated by the western states that incubated it in the first place
The war on terror, that campaign without end launched 14 years ago by George Bush, is tying itself up in ever more grotesque contortions. On Monday the trial in London of a Swedish man, Bherlin Gildo, accused of terrorism in Syria, collapsed after it became clear British intelligence had been arming the same rebel groups the defendant was charged with supporting.
The prosecution abandoned the case, apparently to avoid embarrassing the intelligence services. The defence argued that going ahead with the trial would have been an “affront to justice” when there was plenty of evidence the British state was itself providing “extensive support” to the armed Syrian opposition.
That didn’t only include the “non-lethal assistance” boasted of by the government (including body armour and military vehicles), but training, logistical support and the secret supply of “arms on a massive scale”. Reports were cited that MI6 had cooperated with the CIA on a “rat line” of arms transfers from Libyan stockpiles to the Syrian rebels in 2012 after the fall of the Gaddafi regime.
Clearly, the absurdity of sending someone to prison for doing what ministers and their security officials were up to themselves became too much. But it’s only the latest of a string of such cases. Less fortunate was a London cab driver Anis Sardar, who was given a life sentence a fortnight earlier for taking part in 2007 in resistance to the occupation of Iraq by US and British forces. Armed opposition to illegal invasion and occupation clearly doesn’t constitute terrorism or murder on most definitions, including the Geneva convention.
But terrorism is now squarely in the eye of the beholder. And nowhere is that more so than in the Middle East, where today’s terrorists are tomorrow’s fighters against tyranny – and allies are enemies – often at the bewildering whim of a western policymaker’s conference call.
For the past year, US, British and other western forces have been back in Iraq, supposedly in the cause of destroying the hyper-sectarian terror group Islamic State (formerly known as al-Qaida in Iraq). This was after Isis overran huge chunks of Iraqi and Syrian territory and proclaimed a self-styled Islamic caliphate.
The campaign isn’t going well. Last month, Isis rolled into the Iraqi city of Ramadi, while on the other side of the now nonexistent border its forces conquered the Syrian town of Palmyra. Al-Qaida’s official franchise, the Nusra Front, has also been making gains in Syria.
Some Iraqis complain that the US sat on its hands while all this was going on. The Americans insist they are trying to avoid civilian casualties, and claim significant successes. Privately, officials say they don’t want to be seen hammering Sunni strongholds in a sectarian war and risk upsetting their Sunni allies in the Gulf.
A revealing light on how we got here has now been shone by a recently declassified secret US intelligence report, written in August 2012, which uncannily predicts – and effectively welcomes – the prospect of a “Salafist principality” in eastern Syria and an al-Qaida-controlled Islamic state in Syria and Iraq. In stark contrast to western claims at the time, the Defense Intelligence Agency document identifies al-Qaida in Iraq (which became Isis) and fellow Salafists as the “major forces driving the insurgency in Syria” – and states that “western countries, the Gulf states and Turkey” were supporting the opposition’s efforts to take control of eastern Syria.
Raising the “possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality”, the Pentagon report goes on, “this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)”.
Which is pretty well exactly what happened two years later. The report isn’t a policy document. It’s heavily redacted and there are ambiguities in the language. But the implications are clear enough. A year into the Syrian rebellion, the US and its allies weren’t only supporting and arming an opposition they knew to be dominated by extreme sectarian groups; they were prepared to countenance the creation of some sort of “Islamic state” – despite the “grave danger” to Iraq’s unity – as a Sunni buffer to weaken Syria.
That doesn’t mean the US created Isis, of course, though some of its Gulf allies certainly played a role in it – as the US vice-president, Joe Biden, acknowledged last year. But there was no al-Qaida in Iraq until the US and Britain invaded. And the US has certainly exploited the existence of Isis against other forces in the region as part of a wider drive to maintain western control.
The calculus changed when Isis started beheading westerners and posting atrocities online, and the Gulf states are now backing other groups in the Syrian war, such as the Nusra Front. But this US and western habit of playing with jihadi groups, which then come back to bite them, goes back at least to the 1980s war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, which fostered the original al-Qaida under CIA tutelage.
It was recalibrated during the occupation of Iraq, when US forces led by General Petraeus sponsored an El Salvador-style dirty war of sectarian death squads to weaken the Iraqi resistance. And it was reprised in 2011 in the Nato-orchestrated war in Libya, where Isis last week took control of Gaddafi’s home town of Sirte.
In reality, US and western policy in the conflagration that is now the Middle East is in the classic mould of imperial divide-and-rule. American forces bomb one set of rebels while backing another in Syria, and mount what are effectively joint military operations with Iran against Isis in Iraq while supporting Saudi Arabia’s military campaign against Iranian-backed Houthi forces in Yemen. However confused US policy may often be, a weak, partitioned Iraq and Syria fit such an approach perfectly.
What’s clear is that Isis and its monstrosities won’t be defeated by the same powers that brought it to Iraq and Syria in the first place, or whose open and covert war-making has fostered it in the years since. Endless western military interventions in the Middle East have brought only destruction and division. It’s the people of the region who can cure this disease – not those who incubated the virus.
First of its Kind Study Finds Virtually No Driving Impairment Under the Influence of Marijuana
OFF THE WIRE
Some would argue that weed makes them drive safer & slower
As cannabis prohibition laws crumble seemingly by the day, it’s allowing more research to be performed on this psychoactive substance that has long been a part of the human experience.
The first study to analyze the effects of cannabis on driving performance found that it caused almost no impairment. The impairment that it did cause was similar to that observed under the influence of a legal alcohol limit.
Researchers at the University of Iowa’s National Advanced Driving Simulator carried out the study, sponsored by National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, National Institute of Drug Abuse, and the Office of National Drug Control Policy
“Once in the simulator—a 1996 Malibu sedan mounted in a 24-feet diameter dome—the drivers were assessed on weaving within the lane, how often the car left the lane, and the speed of the weaving. Drivers with only alcohol in their systems showed impairment in all three areas while those strictly under the influence of vaporized cannabis only demonstrated problems weaving within the lane.
Drivers with blood concentrations of 13.1 ug/L THC, or delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, the active ingredient in marijuana, showed increased weaving that was similar to those with a .08 breath alcohol concentration, the legal limit in most states. The legal limit for THC in Washington and Colorado is 5 ug/L, the same amount other states have considered.”
As expected, there was impairment in all areas when alcohol and cannabis were mixed. But cannabis itself, when taken in moderate amounts, seems to cause no significant driving impairment.
In fact, some would argue that it makes them drive safer or slower.
The study’s findings further illuminate the fact that alcohol is a much more dangerous drug than cannabis, and somehow the former is legal while the latter is not.
With cannabis being decriminalized across the country, law enforcement will be getting their “rules and regulations” in place for the driving masses. They should be based on science and not Reefer Madness mentalities.
Another important finding should deter any attempts to deploy instant roadside tests for THC-blood levels.
“The study also found that analyzing a driver’s oral fluids can detect recent use of marijuana but is not a reliable measure of impairment.
“Everyone wants a Breathalyzer which works for alcohol because alcohol is metabolized in the lungs,” says Andrew Spurgin, a postdoctoral research fellow with the UI College of Pharmacy. “But for cannabis this isn’t as simple due to THC’s metabolic and chemical properties.”
Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/kind-study-finds-virtually-driving-impairment-influence-marijuana/#l0WwXATU1xoPm56F.99
Some would argue that weed makes them drive safer & slower
As cannabis prohibition laws crumble seemingly by the day, it’s allowing more research to be performed on this psychoactive substance that has long been a part of the human experience.
The first study to analyze the effects of cannabis on driving performance found that it caused almost no impairment. The impairment that it did cause was similar to that observed under the influence of a legal alcohol limit.
Researchers at the University of Iowa’s National Advanced Driving Simulator carried out the study, sponsored by National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, National Institute of Drug Abuse, and the Office of National Drug Control Policy
“Once in the simulator—a 1996 Malibu sedan mounted in a 24-feet diameter dome—the drivers were assessed on weaving within the lane, how often the car left the lane, and the speed of the weaving. Drivers with only alcohol in their systems showed impairment in all three areas while those strictly under the influence of vaporized cannabis only demonstrated problems weaving within the lane.
Drivers with blood concentrations of 13.1 ug/L THC, or delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, the active ingredient in marijuana, showed increased weaving that was similar to those with a .08 breath alcohol concentration, the legal limit in most states. The legal limit for THC in Washington and Colorado is 5 ug/L, the same amount other states have considered.”
As expected, there was impairment in all areas when alcohol and cannabis were mixed. But cannabis itself, when taken in moderate amounts, seems to cause no significant driving impairment.
In fact, some would argue that it makes them drive safer or slower.
The study’s findings further illuminate the fact that alcohol is a much more dangerous drug than cannabis, and somehow the former is legal while the latter is not.
With cannabis being decriminalized across the country, law enforcement will be getting their “rules and regulations” in place for the driving masses. They should be based on science and not Reefer Madness mentalities.
Another important finding should deter any attempts to deploy instant roadside tests for THC-blood levels.
“The study also found that analyzing a driver’s oral fluids can detect recent use of marijuana but is not a reliable measure of impairment.
“Everyone wants a Breathalyzer which works for alcohol because alcohol is metabolized in the lungs,” says Andrew Spurgin, a postdoctoral research fellow with the UI College of Pharmacy. “But for cannabis this isn’t as simple due to THC’s metabolic and chemical properties.”
Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/kind-study-finds-virtually-driving-impairment-influence-marijuana/#l0WwXATU1xoPm56F.99
Monday, November 23, 2015
CA - Berdoo Toy Run T-Shirt. Available at our 23 Annual Toy Run. Saturday December 12.
Berdoo Toy Run T-Shirt. Available at our 23 Annual Toy Run. Saturday
December 12. Come on out and lets help give some kids a better
Christmas. Toys go to help several charities in the San Bernardino
community. It is the time of year that we all can get together and make
a difference. See you there. Thanks for the support and stay strong !
Saturday, November 21, 2015
Friday, November 20, 2015
Thursday, November 19, 2015
USA - Mandatory Vaccines for Veterans
OFF THE WIRE
THANK`S ART
Thanks Rick. I was reading that the other day and have had a while to think about it. If the VA starts to do it I think it will be time to change my medical provider and to raise a stink (loudly) to make it a very public issue. But I have not been ask about weapons in the home yet, so it maybe just a load somebody put out to piss off the Vets.
Art
Veterans are now the new guinea pigs for Pharmaceutical company's. In order to increase pharmaceutical profits, the congress has decided to make vaccinations mandatory for Veterans. Vets may be denied benefits if they refuse the mandatory vaccinations. Congress thought that it felt so good to screw the Vets over in the past, so they want to do it again
Of course, it is because the Congress is "only concerned for our Vets welfare".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
http://www.activistpost.com/
THANK`S ART
Thanks Rick. I was reading that the other day and have had a while to think about it. If the VA starts to do it I think it will be time to change my medical provider and to raise a stink (loudly) to make it a very public issue. But I have not been ask about weapons in the home yet, so it maybe just a load somebody put out to piss off the Vets.
Art
Veterans are now the new guinea pigs for Pharmaceutical company's. In order to increase pharmaceutical profits, the congress has decided to make vaccinations mandatory for Veterans. Vets may be denied benefits if they refuse the mandatory vaccinations. Congress thought that it felt so good to screw the Vets over in the past, so they want to do it again
Of course, it is because the Congress is "only concerned for our Vets welfare".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
http://www.activistpost.com/
Police are Creating Fake Accounts on Facebook So They Can Monitor You, How to Identify a Fake Account
OFF THE WIRE
by
Police departments around the nation have taken predictive crime prevention to a new level by building fake user accounts, as well as posing as genuine people to gather information about local events, Tech.Mic reports.
Local agents put on a “digital mask” and pose as “members of the community,” allowing them to gather personal information about suspects they consider a high risk of being involved in a future crime or have existing charges.
In a social media guide for law enforcement officials published by the Justice Department, the document details, officers create fraudulent profiles even though Facebook officially bans the practice.
Departments are also beginning to use predictive analytical policing software, allowing authorities to patrol local neighborhoods based on social networking posts. If people are emotionally upset and publish it on social media networks, the software program labels the neighborhood high risk alerting law enforcement to occupy those area’s.
In a recent article published by Business Insider one police officer answered a LexisNexis survey that he “was looking for a suspect related to drug charges for over a month. When I looked him up on Facebook and requested him as a friend from a fictitious profile, he accepted,” and “he kept ‘checking in’ everywhere he went, so I was able to track him down very easily.”
Another respondent wrote, “Social media is a valuable tool because you are able to see the activities of a target in his comfortable stage. Targets brag and post … information in reference to travel, hobbies, places visited, appointments, circle of friends, family members, relationships, actions, etc.”
Out of 1,221 federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies that use social media today, more than 80% of the responding officials said social media was a powerful tool for crime-fighting and that “creating personas or profiles on social media outlets for use in law enforcement activities is ethical.”
The NYPD has even gone to the extreme to use photos of young attractive women on Facebook to spy on gang members, the New York Times reported.
No one seems to know if agencies use these photos with or without the consent of the person photographed.
Bradley Shear, an attorney and expert in social media and the law is not quite sure how the justice system will handle challenges made to this style of policing, however noting that “police often pose as prostitutes or drug dealers to catch criminals.”
We also know the government hires agents to sway political opinion under its notorious Operation Mocking Bird Program.
by
Police Create Fake Profiles on Facebook and Attempt to Build Relationships Along With Monitor Your Friends and Events
The Rundown LivePolice departments around the nation have taken predictive crime prevention to a new level by building fake user accounts, as well as posing as genuine people to gather information about local events, Tech.Mic reports.
Local agents put on a “digital mask” and pose as “members of the community,” allowing them to gather personal information about suspects they consider a high risk of being involved in a future crime or have existing charges.
In a social media guide for law enforcement officials published by the Justice Department, the document details, officers create fraudulent profiles even though Facebook officially bans the practice.
Departments are also beginning to use predictive analytical policing software, allowing authorities to patrol local neighborhoods based on social networking posts. If people are emotionally upset and publish it on social media networks, the software program labels the neighborhood high risk alerting law enforcement to occupy those area’s.
In a recent article published by Business Insider one police officer answered a LexisNexis survey that he “was looking for a suspect related to drug charges for over a month. When I looked him up on Facebook and requested him as a friend from a fictitious profile, he accepted,” and “he kept ‘checking in’ everywhere he went, so I was able to track him down very easily.”
Another respondent wrote, “Social media is a valuable tool because you are able to see the activities of a target in his comfortable stage. Targets brag and post … information in reference to travel, hobbies, places visited, appointments, circle of friends, family members, relationships, actions, etc.”
Out of 1,221 federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies that use social media today, more than 80% of the responding officials said social media was a powerful tool for crime-fighting and that “creating personas or profiles on social media outlets for use in law enforcement activities is ethical.”
The NYPD has even gone to the extreme to use photos of young attractive women on Facebook to spy on gang members, the New York Times reported.
No one seems to know if agencies use these photos with or without the consent of the person photographed.
Bradley Shear, an attorney and expert in social media and the law is not quite sure how the justice system will handle challenges made to this style of policing, however noting that “police often pose as prostitutes or drug dealers to catch criminals.”
We also know the government hires agents to sway political opinion under its notorious Operation Mocking Bird Program.
How to identify a fake user account on Facebook.
- Account was made recently 2014, 2015.
- Account has no history published for earlier years, but Facebook says they have been a member since 2009, etc.
- Most fake accounts have 1 image or no real profile photo of the person. Some may only have a select few photos over a long span of time. A well seasoned user would have more photos posted over a long period of time. A fake account may have 7-10 photos posted on the same day.
- User has very few friends in common and or friends in general.
- There is little to no interaction on their page with friends, no comments, likes or responses over their long time line.
- Profile picture seems to good to be true, that hot model added you today! They even messaged you and are interested in you!
- When in doubt use reverse image search. Take their image and see if it is a real person or not.
- When in doubt deny, deny, deny.
Wednesday, November 18, 2015
RETRACTION: Big Victory For Bikers – Minnesota Wins No Colors Lawsuit
OFF THE WIRE
The TRUTH behind this story is as follows:
We received what we thought to be credible information from a plaintiff in this case. This plaintiff was under the impression that the plaintiffs (bikers) had been awarded a judgement. This was followed by numerous emails verifying this information solely with the plaintiff, not from others involved, such as the attorneys in the case. This individual was under the impression that the judgement was in favor of those being denied access.
We had the following exchange:
MN COC Member: WE WON THE ROCHESTER CASE!
MN COC Member: First access denial we took to trial. We have 7 more bars that we documented the same way work video and the intention is to move down the line and hit them all. The lawyer is doing it for free.
Double D: Judgement amount or any copy?
MN COC Member:
Double D: Nice. Thanks! Is that $327 a piece?
MN COC Member: Yup!
After it was brought to our attention on Facebook, that the Debtors in the case are in fact the plaintiffs (bikers), which we SHOULD have noticed, it prompted communication with the Plaintiff’s Counsel Robert V. Jones. It was determined that in fact the case was dismissed based on insufficient discovery provided by plaintiffs. Legends bar and grill was awarded $327 in court fees.
Though the MPP has historically made every attempt to verify all sources regarding information before it is considered “credible” it appears we have failed in this instance. We deeply regret any misleading information we may have put out due to trust levels with our sources. Rest assured, our efforts towards verification will double and we will always be straight-forward and humble in terms of responsibly retracting information that is discovered to be inaccurate.
Thank you all for your valuable time and consideration.
Double D- MPP Founder
Colt – MPP Co-Founder
The TRUTH behind this story is as follows:
We received what we thought to be credible information from a plaintiff in this case. This plaintiff was under the impression that the plaintiffs (bikers) had been awarded a judgement. This was followed by numerous emails verifying this information solely with the plaintiff, not from others involved, such as the attorneys in the case. This individual was under the impression that the judgement was in favor of those being denied access.
We had the following exchange:
MN COC Member: WE WON THE ROCHESTER CASE!
MN COC Member: First access denial we took to trial. We have 7 more bars that we documented the same way work video and the intention is to move down the line and hit them all. The lawyer is doing it for free.
Double D: Judgement amount or any copy?
MN COC Member:
Double D: Nice. Thanks! Is that $327 a piece?
MN COC Member: Yup!
After it was brought to our attention on Facebook, that the Debtors in the case are in fact the plaintiffs (bikers), which we SHOULD have noticed, it prompted communication with the Plaintiff’s Counsel Robert V. Jones. It was determined that in fact the case was dismissed based on insufficient discovery provided by plaintiffs. Legends bar and grill was awarded $327 in court fees.
Though the MPP has historically made every attempt to verify all sources regarding information before it is considered “credible” it appears we have failed in this instance. We deeply regret any misleading information we may have put out due to trust levels with our sources. Rest assured, our efforts towards verification will double and we will always be straight-forward and humble in terms of responsibly retracting information that is discovered to be inaccurate.
Thank you all for your valuable time and consideration.
Double D- MPP Founder
Colt – MPP Co-Founder
Should a Worker Be Fired for Using Medical Marijuana at Home?
OFF THE WIRE
Written by R. Sam Barclay
A case in Colorado sparks a debate over whether employees are impaired the morning after they use cannabis and if that should be grounds for dismissal.
For Hoot Gibson of Aurora, Colorado, using medical marijuana came at the end of a long journey.
Gibson, 44, lives with multiple sclerosis and degenerative disk disease. He experiences pain, tremors, and seizures, among other symptoms.
Over the years, he tried a whole slew of pharmaceutical remedies, including opiate painkillers, anticonvulsants, muscle relaxants, and antidepressants.
“These drugs created addictions, lethargy, loss of interest in daily life and activities while providing no positive results for the symptoms they were supposed to be helping,” Gibson told Healthline.
Cannabis Impairment
Finally, disabled, unable to work, and out of other options, Gibson moved to Colorado and began using cannabis products to manage his symptoms.
“I am a ‘medical refugee,’” he said. “I had to move 2,000 miles to be able to have access to medicine that could help me where countless pharmaceuticals had failed.”
While Colorado has offered Gibson a safe haven, it didn’t provide Brandon Coats with the legal protection he said he needs.
Left quadriplegic after a car accident, Coats began using medical cannabis to control leg spasms. He obtained his prescription for the drug in accordance with state law and only used it when he wasn’t at work.
However, when his employer, Dish Network, learned that Coats tested positive on a random drug test, he was promptly fired.
Coats’ defense?
Colorado’s lawful activities statute, which states that employees cannot be terminated for “engaging in any lawful activity off the premises of the employer during nonworking hours.”
This was the best-case scenario and if Brandon couldn’t win this kind of a case, then who else would?
Michael D. Evans, attorney for Brandon Coats
Five years of litigation later, the case appeared before the Colorado Supreme Court last month. The justices ruled, in a 6-0 decision, that Coats’ termination was legal.
“Nothing in the language of the statute limits the term ‘lawful’ to state law,” wrote the court. “Instead, the term is used in its general, unrestricted sense, indicating that a ‘lawful’ activity is that which complies with applicable ‘law,’ including state and federal law. We therefore decline Coats's invitation to engraft a state law limitation onto the statutory language.”
“I was disappointed, I was devastated,” said Michael D. Evans, attorney for Coats, in an interview with Healthline. “So was Mr. Coats. We’ve been working on this case five years; we’ve spent thousands of hours working on it. We thought if there was ever a case to win, this would be [it]. This was the best-case scenario and if Brandon couldn’t win this kind of a case, then who else would?”
A Legal Gray Area
The Colorado case brings up concerns for medical cannabis users in other states as well. Even if they’re complying with their own state’s laws and regulations, are they still at risk of losing their jobs?
A 34-year-old San Francisco resident whom we will refer to as “Bob” uses medical cannabis to treat bipolar disorder. He has been following the Colorado case closely.
“It makes me worry about whether I can just get fired, despite the fact [of] whether [or not] I can do my job … I can be fired for trying to make my life better,” he told Healthline.
Every U.S. state except Montana has at-will employment practices, meaning that employers are free to terminate an employee and employees are free to leave their job at any time and for no reason.
However, a number of restrictions apply. For example, you can’t fire someone on the basis of their having a disability or for being a certain race or religion.
But while the American Disabilities Act protects disabled employees from being fired for lawfully using medication to treat their disability, it specifically excludes state-authorized medical cannabis. If other states follow Colorado’s example, then any employee in Bob’s position could be fired.
A few other legal restrictions on the federal level exist already.
For example, the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) requires employers to provide a safe working environment for their employees. If an employee in a safety-related position is under the influence at work, they could present a danger to their co-workers.
There are also tighter restrictions when taxpayer dollars get involved. The Drug Free Workplace Act of 1988 mandates that employers who wish to be federal contractors or receive federal funding supply drug-free workplace policies.
Outside of those concerns, employers looking to terminate an employee for using medical cannabis might face a number of obstacles.
Employees should not feel that they are entitled to special accommodations at work just because they’re legally authorized to use medical marijuana.
Jonathan R. Sigel, partner at Mirick O’Connell
“One of the key problems for employers if they take adverse action against employees who use medical marijuana which they are authorized to use, is that they’re inviting potential claims,” warned Jonathan R. Sigel, partner in the Labor, Employment and Employee Benefits Group at Massachusetts-based Mirick O’Connell. “Even though they may not be viable claims at this point, they can still cost employers money to defend, since employees and their attorneys will likely find other ways to ‘skin the cat’ — for example, a claim for disability discrimination regarding the underlying medical condition.”
Sigel adds a note of caution: “Be aware that, at this point, the use of medical marijuana is still illegal under federal law, even if it’s legal under certain states’ laws. Therefore, generally, employees should not feel that they are entitled to special accommodations at work just because they’re legally authorized to use medical marijuana.”
Bob doesn’t want his employers to know about his cannabis use, so as long as it remains illegal on a federal level, he’s going to keep it that way.
But change may not be too far in the future.
“Like anything else, the more things get discussed and debated and exposed to media, the more educated and comfortable people can become,” said Evans. “I think that the United States Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage is a good example of that. Ten years ago, that decision never would have happened. I think it’s a matter of time.”
Related Reading: If Marijuana Is Medicine, Why Can’t We Buy It in Pharmacies? »
But Where to Draw the Line?
If cannabis does eventually become legalized for medical use, then it raises a whole new round of questions.
How can states strike a balance between protecting the right of employees to access necessary medications, and the rights of employers to have unimpaired workers?
Evans points to other, currently legal mind-altering medications that employees might take at work.
Cannabis Impairment
“Look, how many [chief financial officers] or controllers or accountants have some type of elective surgery, like a bariatric surgery, and then go to work taking Percocet or oxycodone because of the pain?” he said. “All of us have probably had a surgery where we’ve taken one of those drugs because there’s pain right afterward. But we go to work, we do our job, we know that it kind of messes with us, but we go anyway and we’re not fired. In Brandon’s case, he wasn’t even using marijuana at work.”
It comes down to the definition of reasonable accommodations and undue hardship, says Chicago-based employment lawyer Eugene K. Hollander.
“Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, if an employee has a disability, he or she can request that the employer make a reasonable accommodation so that the employee can perform [his or] her job,” he told Healthline. “Generally, if an employee makes such a request, the employer must enter into a meaningful dialogue to see if it can reasonably accommodate the request. The employer does not have to grant the request if the accommodation would pose an undue hardship upon it. Thus, if the employer claims that an employee’s use of medical marijuana would impair his [or her] ability to perform [their] job, [the company] may not be liable if it declines to accommodate.”
Measuring Impairment
There lies the real question: How do we tell if an employee’s cannabis use at home is causing impairment at work?
To start with, “cannabis” refers to a whole plant, which contains hundreds of different compounds called cannabinoids. The most famous such cannabinoid is tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). In the body, THC metabolizes into 11-OH-THC, the psychoactive compound that produces cannabis’ characteristic “high.”
But other cannabinoids, such as cannabidiol (CBD), don’t have psychoactive properties at any point during their metabolism, even though they can still provide symptom relief for many patients.
And the picture gets even more complicated after taking into account that CBD, when combined with THC, amplifies THC’s therapeutic effects while reducing its psychoactive ones. A drug test that simply looked for the presence of any cannabinoids (THC, CBD, or others) could provide an inaccurate assessment of whether the employee had experienced any actual impairment.
Whether an employee is using cannabis during the workweek or on their time off, the issue for me is the same. Are they getting the job done?
Nancy Whiteman, Wana Brands
“The persistence and intensity of the effects will vary widely depending on potency of the marijuana, history of past/recent use, form of administration, and many other individual factors,” explained Ruben Baler, Ph.D., health scientist at the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), in an interview with Healthline. “Marijuana produces behavioral and physiological effects. The behavioral effects include feelings of euphoria, relaxation, altered time perception, lack of concentration, and impaired learning. Memory and mood changes such as panic and paranoid reactions have also been reported.”
He added that detectable THC levels usually drop a day or so after use, but in some people — especially habitual or heavy users — they can remain measurable for up to a month. This means that if someone uses cannabis heavily at home, the drug may still be in their body the following day at work.
Which isn’t necessarily a problem, points out Nancy Whiteman, co-founder and co-owner of Wana Brands. Her company manufactures a range of cannabis products. These include an extended-release formulation that provides a slow release of cannabinoids over 12 hours, preventing cannabinoid levels from spiking or crashing. Different products come in different CBD:THC ratios, some as high as 10:1.
Presumably, using the primarily CBD mixture could result in no mind-altering effects at all.
“Whether an employee is using cannabis during the workweek or on their time off, the issue for me is the same,” she told Healthline. “Are they getting the job done? Is their performance where it needs to be? If it isn’t, is there any indication that their lack of performance is related to cannabis? If the cannabis is causing performance problems, the employer certainly has the right and the need to address that. If it is not, I say be grateful that your employee has found a medicine that is helping their condition.”
So is there any way to compare the actual effects of medical cannabis on performance with the effects of other mind-altering drugs that employees might take at work, such as opiate painkillers or tranquilizers? Ruben doesn’t think so.
“This is impossible to answer because it will vary tremendously among different people,” he said.
Anthony Campbell, R.Ph., D.O., clinical specialty consultant with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), was willing to hazard a guess.
“The impairments associated with marijuana may mimic the impairments of any other substance known for abuse simply because of commonly shared pathways,” he told Healthline.
As for the nature of those impairments?
“Some studies suggest impairments in memory and attention after lengthy, heavy marijuana use persist and worsen with increasing years of regular use or with initiation during adolescence; other evidence suggests long-term cognitive deficits could be reversible or remain subtle and not disabling if chronic users discontinue their marijuana use,” Campbell said.
Learn More: Secondhand Marijuana Smoke May Be as Bad for the Heart as Secondhand Tobacco Smoke »
More Use May Mean Less Impairment
One study does shed some light on the issue of impairment for habitual medical cannabis users. The researchers found that while cannabis caused substantial impairments for occasional cannabis users, heavy cannabis users showed far fewer impairments.
“The more frequently someone uses cannabis, the less impaired they are after consuming because they adjust and learn how to function with it in their system,” explained Amanda Reiman, manager of marijuana law and policy for the Drug Policy Alliance, in an interview with Healthline.
Bob of San Francisco says this has been his experience.
“I don’t see it as something that impairs my ability to do much of anything,” he said. “I can’t speak for everyone’s experience, but I think after some level of experience with marijuana use, you can generally do most things that you would normally do. I think that there’s this idea that it makes people very much nonresponsive or unable to do something that they might normally be able to do, and I find that very untrue. In some ways, I find that it allows me to accomplish things I might not otherwise be able to do.”
And Impairment Isn’t the Point
And if the drug is causing impairment, then it’s probably not the right drug for the patient.
“Any approach to managing a patient using any [therapy] is to use the therapy to the extent that it achieves the necessary therapeutic objectives but also preserves functional ability, or ideally, improves functional outcomes,” explained Mark Ware, associate professor in family medicine and anesthesia at McGill University and director of Clinical Research at the Alan Edwards Pain Management Unit at the McGill University Health Center, in an interview with Healthline. “For somebody using any drug, cannabis being one of many options, the key issue is to determine that the symptom is being well-managed with the drug, but that it is not being managed at the expense of functional outcomes.”
Ware doesn’t see cannabis as any different from other mind-altering medications in his work treating chronic pain.
These are not questions that are unique with cannabis. They come up with the use of opioids and other strong centrally-acting medications.
Mark Ware, McGill University Health Center
“Probably, the most important thing for us to try to do is to treat cannabis and cannabinoids like any other medication,” he said. “These are not questions that are unique with cannabis. They come up with the use of opioids and other strong centrally-acting medications, such as anticonvulsants [or] antidepressants. Risks of impairment related to driving, operating machinery, short-term memory effects, concentration, cognitive function, and so on are all concerns of a wide range of other medicines. One would hope that these considerations are applied equally to cannabis as they are to other therapies.”
A common theme among many of the experts is that it’s not just the employee’s level of impairment to worry about. It’s also the demands of the job at hand.
Losing 50 milliseconds of reaction time might not mean a lot to an administrator, but it could mean the difference between life and death for a pilot, heavy equipment operator, or other high-risk professionals.
Paula Brantner, executive director of Workplace Fairness, proposes a compromise.
“If habitual users could transition to jobs which have no public safety implications, either temporarily while they are engaged in medical cannabis use, or permanently in states where cannabis use has been legalized or decriminalized and the employee has no intention of quitting, then we have a win-win situation conducive to transforming both drug policy and workplace policy,” she suggested.
Brantner thinks blanket drug testing is cumbersome and ineffective compared to individual performance evaluation.
“Company-wide drug testing programs are very expensive and are over-inclusive and under-inclusive at the same time: between false positives and detecting one-time use, they ensnare employees who do not have a problem or present workplace impairment, and detect legitimate medical use, but may not detect those with substance abuse problems who go to great lengths to evade testing,” she said.
She added an employee in the acute stages of untreated depression or who has recently experienced a loss such as death of a loved one may be more impaired than someone who is a habitual cannabis user.
These comparisons — like the comparison of taking painkillers after surgery — look more at short-term impairments than long-term, which would be the case for many medical cannabis users. The accommodation required for long-term cannabis use could require a different approach.
Still, research into medical cannabis is continuing forward, and with it, legislative change.
Brantner concluded, “Many states are rejecting the historical prohibitions and passing marijuana laws consistent with scientific research and social reality. We can shap[e] workplace policies rooted in actual experience and which respect employees’ time off-duty and decisions they and their doctors make about appropriate medical care.”
The Science of Medical Marijuana: What’s the Latest? »
Written by R. Sam Barclay
A case in Colorado sparks a debate over whether employees are impaired the morning after they use cannabis and if that should be grounds for dismissal.
For Hoot Gibson of Aurora, Colorado, using medical marijuana came at the end of a long journey.
Gibson, 44, lives with multiple sclerosis and degenerative disk disease. He experiences pain, tremors, and seizures, among other symptoms.
Over the years, he tried a whole slew of pharmaceutical remedies, including opiate painkillers, anticonvulsants, muscle relaxants, and antidepressants.
“These drugs created addictions, lethargy, loss of interest in daily life and activities while providing no positive results for the symptoms they were supposed to be helping,” Gibson told Healthline.
Cannabis Impairment
Finally, disabled, unable to work, and out of other options, Gibson moved to Colorado and began using cannabis products to manage his symptoms.
“I am a ‘medical refugee,’” he said. “I had to move 2,000 miles to be able to have access to medicine that could help me where countless pharmaceuticals had failed.”
While Colorado has offered Gibson a safe haven, it didn’t provide Brandon Coats with the legal protection he said he needs.
Left quadriplegic after a car accident, Coats began using medical cannabis to control leg spasms. He obtained his prescription for the drug in accordance with state law and only used it when he wasn’t at work.
However, when his employer, Dish Network, learned that Coats tested positive on a random drug test, he was promptly fired.
Coats’ defense?
Colorado’s lawful activities statute, which states that employees cannot be terminated for “engaging in any lawful activity off the premises of the employer during nonworking hours.”
This was the best-case scenario and if Brandon couldn’t win this kind of a case, then who else would?
Michael D. Evans, attorney for Brandon Coats
Five years of litigation later, the case appeared before the Colorado Supreme Court last month. The justices ruled, in a 6-0 decision, that Coats’ termination was legal.
“Nothing in the language of the statute limits the term ‘lawful’ to state law,” wrote the court. “Instead, the term is used in its general, unrestricted sense, indicating that a ‘lawful’ activity is that which complies with applicable ‘law,’ including state and federal law. We therefore decline Coats's invitation to engraft a state law limitation onto the statutory language.”
“I was disappointed, I was devastated,” said Michael D. Evans, attorney for Coats, in an interview with Healthline. “So was Mr. Coats. We’ve been working on this case five years; we’ve spent thousands of hours working on it. We thought if there was ever a case to win, this would be [it]. This was the best-case scenario and if Brandon couldn’t win this kind of a case, then who else would?”
A Legal Gray Area
The Colorado case brings up concerns for medical cannabis users in other states as well. Even if they’re complying with their own state’s laws and regulations, are they still at risk of losing their jobs?
A 34-year-old San Francisco resident whom we will refer to as “Bob” uses medical cannabis to treat bipolar disorder. He has been following the Colorado case closely.
“It makes me worry about whether I can just get fired, despite the fact [of] whether [or not] I can do my job … I can be fired for trying to make my life better,” he told Healthline.
Every U.S. state except Montana has at-will employment practices, meaning that employers are free to terminate an employee and employees are free to leave their job at any time and for no reason.
However, a number of restrictions apply. For example, you can’t fire someone on the basis of their having a disability or for being a certain race or religion.
But while the American Disabilities Act protects disabled employees from being fired for lawfully using medication to treat their disability, it specifically excludes state-authorized medical cannabis. If other states follow Colorado’s example, then any employee in Bob’s position could be fired.
A few other legal restrictions on the federal level exist already.
For example, the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) requires employers to provide a safe working environment for their employees. If an employee in a safety-related position is under the influence at work, they could present a danger to their co-workers.
There are also tighter restrictions when taxpayer dollars get involved. The Drug Free Workplace Act of 1988 mandates that employers who wish to be federal contractors or receive federal funding supply drug-free workplace policies.
Outside of those concerns, employers looking to terminate an employee for using medical cannabis might face a number of obstacles.
Employees should not feel that they are entitled to special accommodations at work just because they’re legally authorized to use medical marijuana.
Jonathan R. Sigel, partner at Mirick O’Connell
“One of the key problems for employers if they take adverse action against employees who use medical marijuana which they are authorized to use, is that they’re inviting potential claims,” warned Jonathan R. Sigel, partner in the Labor, Employment and Employee Benefits Group at Massachusetts-based Mirick O’Connell. “Even though they may not be viable claims at this point, they can still cost employers money to defend, since employees and their attorneys will likely find other ways to ‘skin the cat’ — for example, a claim for disability discrimination regarding the underlying medical condition.”
Sigel adds a note of caution: “Be aware that, at this point, the use of medical marijuana is still illegal under federal law, even if it’s legal under certain states’ laws. Therefore, generally, employees should not feel that they are entitled to special accommodations at work just because they’re legally authorized to use medical marijuana.”
Bob doesn’t want his employers to know about his cannabis use, so as long as it remains illegal on a federal level, he’s going to keep it that way.
But change may not be too far in the future.
“Like anything else, the more things get discussed and debated and exposed to media, the more educated and comfortable people can become,” said Evans. “I think that the United States Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage is a good example of that. Ten years ago, that decision never would have happened. I think it’s a matter of time.”
Related Reading: If Marijuana Is Medicine, Why Can’t We Buy It in Pharmacies? »
But Where to Draw the Line?
If cannabis does eventually become legalized for medical use, then it raises a whole new round of questions.
How can states strike a balance between protecting the right of employees to access necessary medications, and the rights of employers to have unimpaired workers?
Evans points to other, currently legal mind-altering medications that employees might take at work.
Cannabis Impairment
“Look, how many [chief financial officers] or controllers or accountants have some type of elective surgery, like a bariatric surgery, and then go to work taking Percocet or oxycodone because of the pain?” he said. “All of us have probably had a surgery where we’ve taken one of those drugs because there’s pain right afterward. But we go to work, we do our job, we know that it kind of messes with us, but we go anyway and we’re not fired. In Brandon’s case, he wasn’t even using marijuana at work.”
It comes down to the definition of reasonable accommodations and undue hardship, says Chicago-based employment lawyer Eugene K. Hollander.
“Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, if an employee has a disability, he or she can request that the employer make a reasonable accommodation so that the employee can perform [his or] her job,” he told Healthline. “Generally, if an employee makes such a request, the employer must enter into a meaningful dialogue to see if it can reasonably accommodate the request. The employer does not have to grant the request if the accommodation would pose an undue hardship upon it. Thus, if the employer claims that an employee’s use of medical marijuana would impair his [or her] ability to perform [their] job, [the company] may not be liable if it declines to accommodate.”
Measuring Impairment
There lies the real question: How do we tell if an employee’s cannabis use at home is causing impairment at work?
To start with, “cannabis” refers to a whole plant, which contains hundreds of different compounds called cannabinoids. The most famous such cannabinoid is tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). In the body, THC metabolizes into 11-OH-THC, the psychoactive compound that produces cannabis’ characteristic “high.”
But other cannabinoids, such as cannabidiol (CBD), don’t have psychoactive properties at any point during their metabolism, even though they can still provide symptom relief for many patients.
And the picture gets even more complicated after taking into account that CBD, when combined with THC, amplifies THC’s therapeutic effects while reducing its psychoactive ones. A drug test that simply looked for the presence of any cannabinoids (THC, CBD, or others) could provide an inaccurate assessment of whether the employee had experienced any actual impairment.
Whether an employee is using cannabis during the workweek or on their time off, the issue for me is the same. Are they getting the job done?
Nancy Whiteman, Wana Brands
“The persistence and intensity of the effects will vary widely depending on potency of the marijuana, history of past/recent use, form of administration, and many other individual factors,” explained Ruben Baler, Ph.D., health scientist at the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), in an interview with Healthline. “Marijuana produces behavioral and physiological effects. The behavioral effects include feelings of euphoria, relaxation, altered time perception, lack of concentration, and impaired learning. Memory and mood changes such as panic and paranoid reactions have also been reported.”
He added that detectable THC levels usually drop a day or so after use, but in some people — especially habitual or heavy users — they can remain measurable for up to a month. This means that if someone uses cannabis heavily at home, the drug may still be in their body the following day at work.
Which isn’t necessarily a problem, points out Nancy Whiteman, co-founder and co-owner of Wana Brands. Her company manufactures a range of cannabis products. These include an extended-release formulation that provides a slow release of cannabinoids over 12 hours, preventing cannabinoid levels from spiking or crashing. Different products come in different CBD:THC ratios, some as high as 10:1.
Presumably, using the primarily CBD mixture could result in no mind-altering effects at all.
“Whether an employee is using cannabis during the workweek or on their time off, the issue for me is the same,” she told Healthline. “Are they getting the job done? Is their performance where it needs to be? If it isn’t, is there any indication that their lack of performance is related to cannabis? If the cannabis is causing performance problems, the employer certainly has the right and the need to address that. If it is not, I say be grateful that your employee has found a medicine that is helping their condition.”
So is there any way to compare the actual effects of medical cannabis on performance with the effects of other mind-altering drugs that employees might take at work, such as opiate painkillers or tranquilizers? Ruben doesn’t think so.
“This is impossible to answer because it will vary tremendously among different people,” he said.
Anthony Campbell, R.Ph., D.O., clinical specialty consultant with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), was willing to hazard a guess.
“The impairments associated with marijuana may mimic the impairments of any other substance known for abuse simply because of commonly shared pathways,” he told Healthline.
As for the nature of those impairments?
“Some studies suggest impairments in memory and attention after lengthy, heavy marijuana use persist and worsen with increasing years of regular use or with initiation during adolescence; other evidence suggests long-term cognitive deficits could be reversible or remain subtle and not disabling if chronic users discontinue their marijuana use,” Campbell said.
Learn More: Secondhand Marijuana Smoke May Be as Bad for the Heart as Secondhand Tobacco Smoke »
More Use May Mean Less Impairment
One study does shed some light on the issue of impairment for habitual medical cannabis users. The researchers found that while cannabis caused substantial impairments for occasional cannabis users, heavy cannabis users showed far fewer impairments.
“The more frequently someone uses cannabis, the less impaired they are after consuming because they adjust and learn how to function with it in their system,” explained Amanda Reiman, manager of marijuana law and policy for the Drug Policy Alliance, in an interview with Healthline.
Bob of San Francisco says this has been his experience.
“I don’t see it as something that impairs my ability to do much of anything,” he said. “I can’t speak for everyone’s experience, but I think after some level of experience with marijuana use, you can generally do most things that you would normally do. I think that there’s this idea that it makes people very much nonresponsive or unable to do something that they might normally be able to do, and I find that very untrue. In some ways, I find that it allows me to accomplish things I might not otherwise be able to do.”
And Impairment Isn’t the Point
And if the drug is causing impairment, then it’s probably not the right drug for the patient.
“Any approach to managing a patient using any [therapy] is to use the therapy to the extent that it achieves the necessary therapeutic objectives but also preserves functional ability, or ideally, improves functional outcomes,” explained Mark Ware, associate professor in family medicine and anesthesia at McGill University and director of Clinical Research at the Alan Edwards Pain Management Unit at the McGill University Health Center, in an interview with Healthline. “For somebody using any drug, cannabis being one of many options, the key issue is to determine that the symptom is being well-managed with the drug, but that it is not being managed at the expense of functional outcomes.”
Ware doesn’t see cannabis as any different from other mind-altering medications in his work treating chronic pain.
These are not questions that are unique with cannabis. They come up with the use of opioids and other strong centrally-acting medications.
Mark Ware, McGill University Health Center
“Probably, the most important thing for us to try to do is to treat cannabis and cannabinoids like any other medication,” he said. “These are not questions that are unique with cannabis. They come up with the use of opioids and other strong centrally-acting medications, such as anticonvulsants [or] antidepressants. Risks of impairment related to driving, operating machinery, short-term memory effects, concentration, cognitive function, and so on are all concerns of a wide range of other medicines. One would hope that these considerations are applied equally to cannabis as they are to other therapies.”
A common theme among many of the experts is that it’s not just the employee’s level of impairment to worry about. It’s also the demands of the job at hand.
Losing 50 milliseconds of reaction time might not mean a lot to an administrator, but it could mean the difference between life and death for a pilot, heavy equipment operator, or other high-risk professionals.
Paula Brantner, executive director of Workplace Fairness, proposes a compromise.
“If habitual users could transition to jobs which have no public safety implications, either temporarily while they are engaged in medical cannabis use, or permanently in states where cannabis use has been legalized or decriminalized and the employee has no intention of quitting, then we have a win-win situation conducive to transforming both drug policy and workplace policy,” she suggested.
Brantner thinks blanket drug testing is cumbersome and ineffective compared to individual performance evaluation.
“Company-wide drug testing programs are very expensive and are over-inclusive and under-inclusive at the same time: between false positives and detecting one-time use, they ensnare employees who do not have a problem or present workplace impairment, and detect legitimate medical use, but may not detect those with substance abuse problems who go to great lengths to evade testing,” she said.
She added an employee in the acute stages of untreated depression or who has recently experienced a loss such as death of a loved one may be more impaired than someone who is a habitual cannabis user.
These comparisons — like the comparison of taking painkillers after surgery — look more at short-term impairments than long-term, which would be the case for many medical cannabis users. The accommodation required for long-term cannabis use could require a different approach.
Still, research into medical cannabis is continuing forward, and with it, legislative change.
Brantner concluded, “Many states are rejecting the historical prohibitions and passing marijuana laws consistent with scientific research and social reality. We can shap[e] workplace policies rooted in actual experience and which respect employees’ time off-duty and decisions they and their doctors make about appropriate medical care.”
The Science of Medical Marijuana: What’s the Latest? »