The Obama administration plans to allow more marijuana research, but the DEA reaffirmed today that it still sees pot as prone to abuse; 'The Reef' development in South LA has residents concerned about rising rents; and as pro football returns to Southern California Saturday, we preview the team and look at how they'll change the Southland's economy
Obama to allow more pot research, but DEA says it’s still a Schedule I drug
The DEA again refused to declassify marijuana’s status as a Schedule I drug today, which it defines as having “no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.”
This comes just a day after the New York Times said that the Obama administration plans to allow more universities to grow pot plants for research. Currently, only the University of Mississippi has that privilege.
While the DEA’s announcement disappointed marijuana advocates, the Obama administration’s decision to allow further research came as good news for those who hope that the federal government will loosen its stance on pot.
Until now, there’s been a bit of a catch-22.
The DEA won’t declassify marijuana until the FDA confirms its medicinal qualities, but the FDA won’t do that until there is more substantive research. Mississippi's monopoly on growing pot has limited research, but that could change soon.
While marijuana’s current classification in no way affects Prop 64 -- the ballot measure that could make recreational pot usage legal statewide -- many Californians are still following the DEA’s decision closely. Marijuana’s Schedule I classification imposes a steep tax burden on those in the cannabis industry. Some think that it could prevent the recreational marijuana industry from really taking off if Prop 64 passes in November.
Should be classified as a Schedule I drug? Do you think the federal government should allow increased pot research?
Tune in next Wednesday at noon for a broadcast of “CA Counts Town Hall: The pros and cons of legalizing recreational marijuana.” Larry Mantle and Capital Public Radio’s Beth Ruyak will moderate a panel of experts in Sacramento as they debate the merits of Prop. 64.
Find out more and RSVP here.
Guest:
Chris Ingraham, Washington Post reporter with a keen eye on marijuana news; he tweets from
Polling is volatile these days, why you should take it with lots of salt
Political polling can be unreliable every presidential election, but there are several unique factors making this year’s polling especially perilous.
There are historically two periods when polling has the potential for creating confusing scenarios: before conventions and August, because so many people are on vacation, away from internet access and not working. But this presidential election, conventions were earlier than usual and most polls are asking not about two but about four candidates.
Half of the country is also now unreachable via landline.
We talk with a polling expert about why we should all be wary while watching the horse race.
Guest:
Kathy Frankovic, former CBS polling director and analyst at YouGov, an international internet-based market research firm
Public opinion pendulum swings as rape bills counter Gov. Brown’s criminal reform
Two bills have been proposed in the California Legislature after a Stanford student convicted of raping an unconscious woman received only a six month sentence for his crime.
One bill, Assembly Bill 2888 would require mandatory minimum sentencing for anyone convicted of raping an unconscious and intoxicated person and removing probation as a sentencing option. The other, Assembly Bill 29, would require that anyone convicted of committing such a crime serve a full sentence without getting any time off for good behavior.
However, this measure appears to be in direct conflict with a measure on the November ballot, Proposition 57, which allows offenders convicted of a “nonviolent felony offense” to be up for parole after they’ve served the full term for the primary offense. Trouble is, there is contention about the definition of what a “nonviolent felony offense” is and should be, as Prop 57 does not consider the rape of an unconscious person to be violent.
After Brock Turner -- the student convicted of the crime -- was given what many perceived to be lenient sentence, public opinion has begun to shift around the controversial issues of mandatory minimums and sentence shortening.
In 2014, the public voted in favor of lighter sentences for nonviolent drug offenders, passing Proposition 47. Mandatory minimums have long been out of vogue, after tough-on-crime legislation like the “determinate sentencing” bill Gov. Jerry Brown signed in the 1970s led to prison overcrowding. Prop 57, spearheaded by Brown, is an effort to walk back on the same legislation he previously endorsed.
AirTalk asked two California lawyers to break down the bills -- Stephen Wagstaffe, the District Attorney for San Mateo County, and William Weinberg, a criminal defense attorney from Orange County.
Wagstaffe is the president of the California District Attorneys association. He supports AB 2888, as does his organization. The California District Attorney’s association has no official stance on AB 29, though Wagstaffe personally is not in favor.
Weinberg, who is based in Irvine, is suspect of both bills. He emphasized that sentencing discretion must remain with judges, and that public outcry can often lead to rushed -- and haphazard -- lawmaking.
Interview highlights
On mandatory minimums:
Stephen Wagstaffe: Nobody wants to [have mandatory minimums for everything]. Even prosecutors. We don’t want to go there. Because we do believe discretion is appropriate for a judge. But we’re talking about the rape of a person. That one is in what we view is in the higher level of crimes that should be dealt with the most harshly. We certainly don’t believe that we should be going back to minimums like that for the nonviolent lesser offenses.
William Weinberg: A probationary sentence on the rape of an unconscious person is very rare...You don’t want to overreact and take that discretion away from the parties. It’s not just taking the discretion away from the judge, by the way. It’s taking the discretion away from a prosecutor who’s sworn to uphold the law. Not to always seek the maximum, but to seek justice.
On legislating after public outcry:
SW: It’s always a concern. But it’s not new. I’ve been a prosecutor for 39 years, and this has been going on from the day I got into the business. So often the legislature reacts -- and the public reacts -- to an individual case. And that’s why we have the system of the legislature evaluating it and making sure it’s not just on that and then a governor who acts as a safety net to make sure that we are not simply overreacting due to one particular case.
WW: There’s a very old phrase. “Hard cases make bad law.” The idea behind that maxim is that in high profile cases like the Stanford case it lit up so many people with anger that they launched several bills in the Assembly to tighten up the law or increase the penalty. That’s obviously within the ambit of the legislature’s authority to do that, and that’s great after a careful debate and consideration. One thing I’ve learned after practicing law for almost a quarter of a century is that each case rises and falls on it’s own merits -- both from the prosecution’s side as well as the defense’s side -- and there are many many nuances that are lost in the shuffle. If you eliminate the ability of a judge to sentence somebody under very specific circumstances to probation, you’re taking the power away from the people who are closest from the set of facts, and essentially handcuffing them and preventing them from doing their job as they are sworn to do it.
These interviews have been edited for clarity.
Guests:
Stephen Wagstaffe, district attorney for San Mateo County and president of the California District Attorneys Association
William Weinberg, criminal defense attorney based in Irvine, CA
This story has been updated.
South LA residents fear planned mega-development brings displacement
There was a hearing at Los Angeles City Planning Commission today over the future of a proposed Mega-development in South Los Angeles. Earlier this week community members and activist groups from L.A.’s Historic South Central District protested outside 9th District Councilmember Curren Price’s office, opposing his support for the project.
Just South of downtown, the Reef development is planned for an empty parking lot at 1900 S. Broadway, only a few blocks from the Staples Center. Spreading across almost 10 acres, it would include a hotel, stores, restaurants and more than 14 hundred market rate units.
Residents and activists are upset the mega-development’s plans don’t include any affordable housing units. Clemente Franco from the South Central Neighborhood Council wants to know why at some of the new units can’t be for the community that already lives there.
Franco asks, “Why is the land good enough for them, but the people not good enough to be their neighbors?”
Mark Vallianatos, co-founder of Abundant Housing Los Angeles - a group that advocates for more housing in Los Angeles, says it’s unfortunate that profit-seeking developers of market-rate housing are the only way to alleviate the city’s growing housing crisis.
“Ironically putting in new housing is one of the best ways to shield existing residents from any inevitable, or upcoming, gentrification,” says Vallianatos. He suggests there’s a silver lining in this case: at least the Reef would be built on empty parking lots - a rare chance to add housing without directly displacing anyone.
The project developers continue to promote the roughly 600 new jobs it would bring to the area, plus all the construction work while they’re building. The Reef is also offering $15 million to the affordable housing fund and to supporte community organizations in the area.
Local activists aren’t impressed. In Franco’s opinion the money being offered is “chump change” compared the the billion dollar project and the looming shadow of displacement.
Franco thinks the gentrification of other neighborhoods, like Echo Park and Atwater Village, has made South Central a last bastion for low-income residents in L.A.
“So once you bring in these developments and you drive up the rent, where will they go?” he says. “We’re going to have a Manhattan. We’re going to have a San Francisco. And I don’t think that’s good for the city.”
Guests:
Clemente Franco, treasurer of the South Central Neighborhood Council, which opposes the Reef development; he joins us from outside the LA City Planning Commission meeting
Mark Vallianatos, Co-founder of the group Abundant Housing Los Angeles; he tweets
This story has been updated.
A conversation with the author of 'How Everything Became War and the Military Became Everything'
As generations progress, pinpointing the responsibilities of the United States military has become hazy and increasingly unclear.
In addition to the “defending and retaking territory,” Rosa Brooks delves into the ever-growing list of military duties. “How Everything Became War and the Military Became Everything: Tales from the Pentagon,” also reintroduces readers to the term “war” and clarifies what it means today, at a time when much of what we do is performed online.
From cyberattacks to drones, and ongoing wars in Afghanistan to the cultural divide between military and civilian agencies, Brooks sheds light on this new era by giving readers an inside look at her discoveries during her experience working as a high-level Pentagon official.
What are your questions surrounding the military and how it operates? Have you noticed an increase in military involvement?
Guest:
Rosa Brooks, Author of, “How Everything Became War and the Military Became Everything: Tales from the Pentagon (Simon & Schuster, 2016);” Associate dean and law professor, Georgetown University Law Center; and Senior Fellow at the New America Foundation
Football returns to Los Angeles as Rams, fans prepare for first preseason game
When the Dallas Cowboys come to the Los Angeles Coliseum this weekend to play the newly-minted Los Angeles Rams, it will be the first time the famed venue has hosted a professional football game in 22 years.
Formerly based in St. Louis, the Rams have returned to L.A. and revived a fan base that has long been told that the NFL would return to Southern California.
What are you most looking forward to seeing? How will the new Los Angeles football team affect the local economy?
Guests:
Jack Wang, reporter covering the Rams for the L.A Daily News; he tweets
Ben Bergman, KPCC senior reporter covering business and the Southern California economy who has been following the Rams’ return to L.A.; he tweets