As cannabis legalization spreads across the country, the cry from activists to review past marijuana convictions has never been higher. Cities like San Francisco and Seattle have answered the call, moving to erase past marijuana convictions in a move that has been labeled as “restorative justice.”
When Californians moved to legalize recreational cannabis with Prop 64 two years ago, it also opened the door for individuals to petition past marijuana-related misdemeanors and have them either dismissed or reduced. San Francisco’s act was radical because the city took ownership of its checkered history with marijuana-related arrests, and dismissed cases without those affected sinking any resources into the effort.
Now the entire state of California looks to follow that examples. This week, the California Senate passed legislation that would require its Justice Department to comb past marijuana convictions from 1975 to 2016 and examine whether they should be expunged or reduced. The bill, AB-1793, passed in a 22-8 bipartisan vote, though it still needs Gov. Jerry Brown’s signature.
Once the state’s Department of Justice releases its findings, it’s up to county prosecutors who make the final call if dismissing or downgrading a conviction is appropriate. Their decision has a deadline of July 1, 2020. However, prosecutors can also challenge the DOJ’s conclusions, contesting if a past convict “does not meet the eligibility requirements or presents an unreasonable risk to public safety.”
This will require a lot of work, undoubtedly. According to estimates, there are a possible 218,000 convictions that will be eligible to be erased or demoted from felony to misdemeanor. Scott Wiener, a co-sponsor of the bill, said during the floor debate that this legislation “creates a simpler pathway for Californians to turn the page,” according to the Los Angeles Times.
One of the main arguments the anti-dope movement often interjects against the legalization of marijuana is it will increase crime. These people are firmly convinced that allowing weed to be sold in state-licensed dispensaries in a manner similar to beer will bring around a fate somewhere between Thunderdome and the apocalypse and set fire to their friendly neighborhoods with on onslaught of rape, murder and thievery. But a new study’s data shows no crime increase in legal marijuana states. The Mormon-esque naysayers of the leaf are simply perpetuating false fear.
Researchers at the Victoria University of Wellington and Harvard University recently banded together to explore the question: “Do crime rates really increase after marijuana prohibition laws are brought down?” It turns out, other than some modest drops in violent crime and theft in some areas, legalization really doesn’t have an impact on state and national crimes rates. So while marijuana might not be making the world a safer place, it doesn’t appear to be causing an uprising in social delinquency either.
One of the states to show a decrease in crime was California. The state legalized medical marijuana back in 1996, giving way to one of the most liberal therapeutic pot programs the nation has ever seen. It allows state residents with conditions ranging from debilitating diseases to sore pinky toes to gain access to medicinal bud. Although California has since gone fully legal, the study only examined its pre-recreational period.
Lead researcher Dr. Luke Chu says “there’s no definitive answer as to why” the Golden State experienced a 20 percent drop in violent and property crime, but it is possible that legal herb just chilled the population out. Of course, this theory is only speculation.
Unlike other studies of this kind, which exclusively use national crime data provided by the FBI, researchers say they also employed stats from police departments all across the nation in cities with a population of at least 50,000. The study found that “these decisions matter,” and “the specification of the city-specific trend changes the estimated effects on violent crime.”
Researchers also utilized a tertiary method for getting to the bottom of this debate.
“In addition to traditional regression analysis, we used a technique called synthetic control method to analyze the data,” Dr. Chu told Psy.org. “This allows us to take into account pre-law differences in crime trends without making extra assumptions.”
In the end, science found “no strong causal relationship between medical marijuana laws and criminality.” The results were published in the Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization.
Falsehoods regarding the health and make up of our bodies have existed since the beginning of time. Some of these myths become so popular that we consider them facts despite science and technology informing us that they’re not true. We hold them close. Want to stir up conversation at the next gathering? Here are 10 human body myths debunked.
Biochemist and author Matt Brown has made it his mission to debunk these myths, writing a book on the matter called Everything You Know About Your BodyIs Wrong. The Daily Mail compiled a brief list of some of the strangest things that most people consider to be truthful.
While it does impair the communication between your brain cells, alcohol doesn’t actively destroy them. This stalled communication leads to your typical drunk behavior, such as slurred speech and dizziness.
Vitamin C doesn’t prevent colds
A study conducted in 2013 on 11,000 subjects found no link between Vitamin C and the common cold. The study did find that those who are undergoing some sort of stressful situation or pushing themselves physically might benefit from ingesting Vitamin C.
According to Brown, the appendix is a reservoir of healthy bacteria, helping us fight off diseases that target our gut area. When we’re babies and toddlers, the appendix also helped us form white blood cells and fight off infections.
Sugar doesn’t make kids hyper
Over a dozen trials have looked for a connection between sugar and kids’ level of excitement and none have found a strong link.
This myth is so elaborate that it even goes so far as to say that gum can’t be digested and that it’ll stay inside your body for seven years. While it’s true that the body can’t digest most of it, the gum will probably leave your system the next time you use the bathroom.
You use most of your brain
Sadly, we’re all not secret geniuses who haven’t discovered their full potential. CAT scans prove that we use all areas of our brain at one point or another, and it’s impossible to monitor every cell in our brain since there are over a billion of them. There’s no way to prove that 10 percent of them are the only ones we use either.
While digestion does get your blood flowing towards your gut, it won’t lead to cramps that’ll leave you crippled with pain and about to drown in the water. You might feel a little sick if you start to swim vigorously, but it’ll be just like working out after a big meal.
Knuckle cracking won’t give you arthritis
While it does make sense that if you strain joints over time they’ll be more likely to develop problems, studies have found no link between knuckle cracking and arthritis.
Neither hair nor nails are capable of growing after death. For this to happen, the cells would need to divide, and that’s not possible when you’re body is dead and decomposing. The fact that, when dug out of the grave, bodies look like they have longer hair and nails is probably due to the skin contracting and breaking down.
How she lost 20 lbs: “I work out about an hour-and-a-half every single day, heavy weights. I don’t do a lot of cardio. But honestly, like even my mom pulled me aside maybe a week ago and pulls me in a closet and is like, ‘What are you doing?’ She says, ‘I don’t care what, I just need to know.’ I’ve been working out really hardcore with a bodybuilder for one year. September is our one-year anniversary. I’ve lost 20 pounds and I’m really proud of that. I was almost 140 forever and now I’m like 116 and it just feels good. I didn’t see results right away, but when you stick with something and you’re consistent, you will. So, I love it.”
How she changed her diet: “I don’t really eat sugar the way that I used to. It doesn’t really do it for me. I’ve kind of been trained to just eat a lot healthier than I used to. I used to just eat anything and everything and I loved it. And so I really do control that now. … I don’t want to ruin it by just stuffing my face.”
Her one sweet indulgence: “I love Häagen-Dazs ice cream. That’s like my one go-to.”
Looks like Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are still far from amicable. Despite recently reaching an interim custody agreement, a source tells ET that the actor is “sickened” by his estranged wife and her legal team for letting their child custody battle play out in public.
“He wants this settled out of sight,” the source says of Pitt, who is currently in Los Angeles with their six children — Maddox, 16, Pax, 14, Zahara, 13, Shiloh, 12 and twins Knox and Vivienne, 10. “He knows this isn’t fair to the children. He’s saddened that they have to be a part of this [public fight].”
The source adds that even with their latest legal agreement, this is just the beginning for Pitt and Jolie as they continue the divorce process.
“There’s a long road ahead,” the source says. “There is still a lot of sorting out to do.”
It happens fast. You crack open a bottle of your favorite drink and put it to your lips. The delicious flavor is nearly overwhelming. But a minute later, you’re barely noticing the taste as you drink it.
Or you buy a new car and think it will make you smile every time you drive it for years. But a month later, that sensation is gone. Now it’s just a car.
This satiation, known as hedonic adaptation, occurs for nearly everything that makes us happy. Look around and think of how much you initially enjoyed the things that surround you. Then think about how much you enjoy them today.
Wouldn’t it be great to get some of that initial enjoyment back?
Some restaurants allow customers to eat food in bed. Monkey Business Images/Shutterstock.com
The art of paying attention
In one study, we asked 68 participants to eat some popcorn. While half were told to eat the normal way, one kernel at a time, the rest used chopsticks. We found that those who ate with chopsticks enjoyed the popcorn a lot more than the others, even though both groups were told to eat at the same slow pace.
This is because of something well-known to psychologists: When something seems new, people pay more attention to it. And when people pay more attention to something enjoyable, they tend to enjoy it more.
This is why many people seek so much variety in what they consume. We buy something and use it for a while until it becomes familiar and mundane, then we buy something else thinking it will make us happy. Unfortunately, this replacement is costly, and, in cases such as houses and spouses, sometimes a very extreme option in response to unavoidable familiarity.
Our research suggests another option: Instead of replacing something once you get sick of it, try consuming it or interacting with it in unconventional ways.
Drinking water out of a wine or martini glass could be a way to make it more enjoyable. Satheesh Nair/Shutterstock.com
Make each sip count
In another experiment, we studied 300 people as they consumed water.
First, we asked participants to come up with their own unconventional ways to consume water. Their responses ranged from drinking out of a martini glass or travel mug to lapping it up like a cat. One even suggested drinking water out of a shipping envelope.
They were then told to take five sips of water and rate their enjoyment after each drink. A third did so in the normal way, another third sipped using one of their own randomly chosen unconventional methods over and over and the rest used a different unconventional method for each sip.
We found that people who drank water in a different way every time enjoyed their water the most – with even bigger boosts toward the end of the taste test. In other words, their enjoyment did not decline over time. While everyone else enjoyed the water less for each sip, those who drank it in different ways did not show this usual pattern of declining enjoyment.
This presents a rare solution to the nearly universal phenomenon of satiation, or the declining enjoyment that comes with familiarity. As long as you can find new and interesting ways to interact with something, you may never grow tired of it.
Some restaurants try to spice things up by having diners eat in the dark or blindfolded. iofoto/Shutterstock.com
Business opportunities
This idea isn’t entirely novel, of course. Many companies are already taking advantage of this concept to provide more enjoyable experiences for customers.
While there is no limit to the different ways to present the same old thing, at some point the novelty usually wears off. Our research suggests this is a missed opportunity for businesses to offer more variety in how a single food is consumed.
For example, when people eat a few slices of pizza at a restaurant, they typically consume them all in the same way. It’s a problem if people enjoy their last slice less because of satiation, because our memory for experiences is shaped heavily by what happened at the end.
Rather than turning off all the lights to make dining more enjoyable, as in the dark-dining trend, pizza parlors could encourage their customers to eat each slice in a different way, such as normally, folded in half, backwards, with a fork and knife, with chopsticks or while blindfolded. If they did, we believe they would likely find that their customers enjoy their last slice as much as the first.
The bottom line is that variety is the spice of life, not just in what we do but also how we do it. Knowing this can help both businesses and customers maximize enjoyment.
Perhaps the greatest cannabis product to hit the market this century is the marijuana oil vape pen. No matter which brand, strain or viscosity you got, a vape pen looks like an e-cig. (Unless, of course, you’re still using a box, in which case, it’s time for an upgrade.)
E-cigs are ubiquitous in current culture, seen as the healthy alternative to cigarettes that still provides the hand to mouth sensation and the nicotine buzz craved by former cigarette smokers. God bless ‘em, let’s hope that e-cigs really aren’t as dangerous as cigarettes are. But also bless ‘em because they brought cannabis oil vape pens on their heels.
Pot pens have little to no odor, unless they’re flavored, in which case they just smell like a sweetly flavored e-cig. As long as you’re discreet in your passing of the torch, so to speak, you should be able to get away with vaping your cannabis anywhere that the nicotine vape pen can go.
Sometimes vapes can even be used in locations where they’re technically not allowed. Sneaking a toke while your kid goes on Space Mountain for the third time has never been easier or come with less paranoia. Even if security asks you to put your pen away, that’s all you need to do. As far as they’re concerned, you’re just getting your nicotine fix.
Walking down the streets of NYC watching joints being passed will always be a thing, and a fragrant one at that. And with looser laws on the horizon, it’s not likely to be going anywhere anytime soon. But there’s a new breed of stoner, and they value their discretion over a lively open air smoke sesh.
The other nice thing about vape pens is that if you use them indoors, the vapor dissipates very quickly and, again, with little odor. It makes parental elevation easier and more discreet so that you don’t have to have the “pot talk” until the tots are ready to learn about the real history of the failed War on Drugs — and also, of course, how to approach each potential substance that might come into their precious lives.
Vape pens are all the rage for a good many reasons, but remember that in some cases you’re going to get what you pay for. It’s a good idea to invest in a good pen with a good battery that you can swap cartridges off-and-on easily and efficiently. That way, you can carry a strain for different occasions and keep your cannabis connoisseur ways under wraps at dinner parties and even the train station.
If you are a regular daily consumer of cannabis, you probably have noticed that your tolerance to marijuana has changed. You’ve tried different types of cannabis with higher THC levels. You’ve upped your dose. But no matter what you have tried, that old feeling of euphoria is difficult to capture. It’s time for you to take a “Tolerance Holiday.”
Tolerance Holidays, also known as T-breaks, are recommended for many reasons. Most long-term consumers of cannabis report that refraining from reefer for an extended period of time allows your body and mind to re-calibrate.
Do you know people who give up booze for a few weeks after New Year’s Eve? Or for Lent? It’s kind of like that. In fact, we are almost halfway through the Lent (it started this year on March 1 and ends on April 15). If you haven’t given up weed for Lent yet, think about starting now.
Here’s what you should know about taking a Tolerance Holiday.
Do I Really Need To Take One?
It’s your body and it’s your brain. Listen to what they are saying to you. But most experienced consumers will tell you that your relationship with the herb will benefit from a break.
If you have been using cannabis for a prolonged period of time, your system becomes desensitized to its psychoactive effects. When you constantly put THC in your body, the receptors that bind to it become compromised.
Think of it as giving your receptors a chance to recuperate. Why overtax them?
Taking a T-break will also to reflect on why you consume in the first place. Is it a mindful, positive experience? Does it provide a new perspective? Does it make music sound better? Food taste better? If you find that your experiences are no longer as positive or euphoric, it’s time to put the bong down.
Can’t I Just Cut Back On My Consumption?
This method certainly will help, but your receptors are still being activated on a semi-regular basis. Many marijuana enthusiasts prefer this halfway approach and it works for some.
If you spark one up multiple times a day, you opt to limit it to just at the end of the evening. Of if you use it as a sleep aid, consider opting for melatonin for a few weeks as a replacement.
How Long Should I Refrain From Using?
Once again, everybody is different. But taking a break for one or two days just won’t cut it. Most experienced T-breakers will tell you that two weeks is a wise minimum. A month is preferred. If you seriously give it up for the entire Lenten season (40+ days), your receptors will certainly be well rested.
THC can remain in your system for 30 days. Allowing the cannabinoid to flush through your system will do your body good. And your next session should be memorable.
What About Medical Marijuana Patients?
This is a bit tricky. If you are using cannabis as medicine, it is smart to consult with the physician who recommended it. If you are currently using it as an aid in chemotherapy, PTSD, pain relief or any other serious ailment, it is paramount that you balance the desire to medicate with the desire to lower your tolerance.
If you are more of a recreational user (and you know who you are), it’s smart to take a T-break. If you need cannabis for physical or emotional relief, it is recommended you have a talk with a doctor.
Will It Have Negative Effects?
Some taking a tolerance holiday may show symptoms of irritability, moodiness of other signs of withdrawal. Have you ever been around someone who quit smoking tobacco? It’s similar to that, but usually less severe. And remember: The reason you are taking the T-break is to keep your mind and body in balance.
The best advice is to stay active. Go for long walks or to the gym. Releasing endorphins may assist in preventing or lessening the negative effects.
Added Bonus!
If you find this to be a difficult task, it may be a warning sign that you are becoming dependent on the drug. But try to focus on this silver lining: If you take a protracted break from cannabis, you’ll be saving yourself a chunk of change. And who couldn’t use a few extra bucks in the bank account?
You can add Hooters to the ever growing list of things that millennials have ruined because apparently they’re single handedly responsible for the stagnation of the restaurant’s sales. Why are they blaming millennials, you may ask? Because for some reason, “breastaurants” are becoming less popular among young people.
Hooters isn’t the only business that’s been affected; all sorts of family friendly restaurants where waitresses wear tiny outfits are reporting less sales.
Business Insider reports that Hooters has been focused on pleasing members of Gen X and that now they’re scrambling to satisfy other demographics, looking for different ways of luring more customers. Hooters has switched up their menu, emphasized their catering, and has even opened up locations where the waitresses are fully dressed — all with the purpose of rebranding themselves.
A study published on Pornhub reports that this boob aversion not only affects real businesses but also porn searches. Young adults between the ages of 18 to 24 are 19 percent less likely to look for breast oriented videos than other demographics.
Maybe the problem here isn’t the boobs. Maybe, since the novelty has worn off, it’s just not trendy anymore to eat chicken wings at a place where waitresses wear really tight shirts. Maybe it makes you feel a little exploitative and pervy. Young adults are well aware that Hooters doesn’t have the monopoly on chicken wings, so why not eat someplace else?
Next time you find yourself experiencing one of those lazy Sundays where you don’t leave the couch for hours, order delivery, and binge seasons of mindless television, remind yourself that you are merely exhibiting survival skills. Wait, what? Let’s backtrack a second here.
Species that maintain a lower expenditure of energy have a longer chance of surviving extinction, a new study suggests. Those species that exert more energy on a daily basis actually increase their chances of extinction, researchers found.
Bruce Lieberman, who serves as an evolutionary biologist at the University of Kansas and was a co-author on the study, suggested that “survival of the fittest” isn’t the most apt metaphor after all.
“Maybe in the long term the best evolutionary strategy for animals is to be lassitudinous and sluggish — the lower the metabolic rate, the more likely the species you belong to will survive,” Lieberman said in a statement. “Instead of ‘survival of the fittest,’ maybe a better metaphor for the history of life is ‘survival of the laziest’ or at least ‘survival of the sluggish.’”
The study, which was published in Proceedings of The Royal Society B, could help scientists accurately predict what species could be facing extinction before it’s too late in the wake of changing climates. Though researchers did admit there are a lot of factors at play when a species goes extinct, metabolic rates could play an even larger role moving forward said Luke Strotz, who was the lead author on the paper and serves as a postdoctoral researcher at Kansas University’s Biodiversity Institute and Natural History Museum.
“Both maximum life span and metabolic rate scale with temperature,” Strotz told CNN. “Any change in global temperatures associated with climate change is thus going to affect organisms on a physiological level.”
However, Strotz emphasized that “survival of the laziest” applied to the human species in general. In other words, “you can’t just decide to be lazy as an individual and expect to live longer,” he added.
In that spirit, I propose that we all decide to be lazy together. That way we humans have the strongest possibility of surviving deep into the future. I’ll see you on the couch next weekend.
No longer is the cannabis industry the biggest critic of Jeff Sessions. That honor now goes to Sessions’ former supporters — Donald Trump and the Senate. Much of Trump’s consternation revolves around the Attorney General’s decision to recuse himself from the ongoing investigation into Russia’s possible interference in the 2016 election and what, if any, involvement Russians had with Trump’s campaign team. So is Attorney General Jeff Sessions in the hot seat?
Instead, Sessions should have protected the President, Trump has suggested, questioning his decision to assign Sessions head of the Justice Department.
“I put in an attorney general that never took control of the Justice Department,” Trump said during a “Fox & Friends” interview that aired Thursday morning. “Jeff Sessions never took control of the Justice Department and it’s sort of an incredible thing.
“Even my enemies say that Jeff Sessions should have told you that he was going to recuse himself, and then you wouldn’t have put him in. He took the job and then he said I’m going to recuse myself. I said, ‘What kind of a man is this?’,” Trump added.
Sessions previously held support through the Republican-led Senate. In July of last year, Sen. Lindsey Graham told reporters that Sessions was a “rock-solid conservative” and that if Trump attempted to fire the Attorney General, there “will be holy hell to play,” as Rolling Stone first reported.
A year can change anyone’s opinions, however. In an interview with Bloomberg News Thursday, Graham suggested that Sessions’ time as Attorney General was nearing its end.
“The president’s entitled to an attorney general he has faith in, somebody that’s qualified for the job, and I think there will come a time, sooner rather than later, where it will be time to have a new face and a fresh voice at the Department of Justice,” Graham said. “Clearly, Attorney General Sessions doesn’t have the confidence of the president.”
Because Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation, it has allowed Special Counsel Robert Mueller to conduct his examinations freely and without interference. Should Trump wish to put an end to Mueller’s investigation, the first step would involve firing Sessions. Like Sessions, whomever would replace him would not be recused from the investigation, and could therefore direct the efforts as they see fit.
Sessions has not backed down from Trump or the Senate in the wake of these comments. He insisted that the Department of Justice will not buckle its operations to political pressures like those exerted by Trump and Graham.
“I took control of the Department of Justice the day I was sworn in, which is why we have had unprecedented success at effectuating the President’s agenda,” Sessions said in a statement, rebuking Trump’s claims.
“While I am Attorney General, the actions of the Department of Justice will not be improperly influenced by political considerations. I demand the highest standards, and where they are not met, I take action,” Sessions also added.
Graham, however, clarified that no action should be taken against Session until at least after the midterms. To fire Sessions now would “create havoc,” as the Senate already has his hands full until then.
Looks like Attorney General Jeff Sessions in the hot seat!
