Vodka price hike a shot to the wallet

Maybe you read about this: The Kremlin has doubled the price of vodka to discourage Russians from imbibing the national drink. They blame vodka for runaway alcoholism, shoddy work and early death.

What a joke. Not the problem, the solution.

Every time they try to keep vodka away from Russians, it fails miserably. Imagine banning wine in France, scotch in Scotland, or bourbon in Kentucky, and then multiply the reaction about tenfold.

When Mikhail Gorbachev tried it in the early 1980s, the comrades started making booze in their bathtubs. There was also a run on antifreeze, shaving lotion and rubbing alcohol. They had to finally give up when emergency rooms became overcrowded.

Now, as a New Year's present to his people, President Dmitry Medvedev has doubled the minimum price from the ruble equivalent of $1.60 to $3.25 for a half-liter. That might sound like peanuts, but the average Russian worker only earns $650 a month.

Why I am telling you this? Because vodka is by far the most popular hard liquor in this country, too. "No contest," said Edward "Buddy" Nejaime, owner of Nejaime's Spirit Shoppe in Torrington. "We sell about 30 brands and flavors." Other package stores in the area confirm that vodka easily outsells all other hooch.

But we treat vodka differently than the Russians do. We mix it with fruity fluids and other dilutants, and, sometimes pretend we don't even drink it. As one ad claimed, "It leaves you breathless" — meaning it's harder to detect on your breath.

Russians don't mix vodka with anything, including ice, and don't worry much about their breath. They drink it straight from a frozen shot glass. No sipping allowed. Food is the preferred chaser. Vodka is mostly consumed at the dinner table, not standing around clinking glasses. Seated is clearly the best position to be in.

The Russian reputation for loquaciousness seems to be directly related to the fine art of dinner toasts, which provide the best excuse for downing yet another shot.

Vodka is also one of the few inventions Russia can legitimately lay claim to, dating back to the 14th century, although the Poles were pretty close. The Slavic word is a derivative of "water," which gives you some idea of its importance.

The equivalent of 2.1 billion quarts of it are produced each year in the former Soviet Union, and the average Russian drinks 19 of them.

America, with more than twice the population, downs about 20 percent of that per capita, according to liquor industry statistics.

When I lived in Moscow in the 1970s, vodka was very cheap for foreigners because we paid hard-currency dollars that were coveted by the Soviets. In fact, it was so cheap that it made very good windshield wiper fluid, especially in the winter, because it never froze. The first time I ever saw a grown Russian man cry was when my neighbor watched me pour a bottle of Stoly under the hood.

Designer vodkas from such funny places as Sweden, Holland, Finland and America are a fairly recent development, but anathema to a true Russian. Because vodka is little more than watered down ethyl alcohol, with a few impurities to give it flavor, paying up to $40 a bottle is, well, a marketing achievement.

Mevedev's new price edict is actually aimed at the cheap bootleg stuff that black marketeers peddle without paying excise taxes. Ironically, the new law may help sell the higher-priced legal brands, the experts say, keeping only the poorest drinkers out of the market.

No one says alcohol consumption in Russia should be taken lightly. The country has one of the worst drunken-driving records in the world, even though their DUI laws are quite strict.

Men are overwhelmingly the big offenders, and if weren't for women assuming the role of designated drivers, the roads would be even more menacing.

One reason why the new price law is unrealistic is that the prudes in the Kremlin treat alcoholism solely as a cause, not a symptom, of Russia's problems. They don't want to admit that vodka helps the bear get through the day.

George Krimsky can be reached at gkrimsky@rep-am.com.
Resource: http://www.rep-am.com/articles/2010/01/25/news/local/463039.txt

Marijuana in the classroom? Sometimes it's legal

---

Medical marijuana legally prescribed to young people is showing up in classrooms. This is putting teachers and principals in a new and challenging position.

• 

Aimee Polacci, garden product manager, carries a tray of cannabis clones to be sold at the Peace in Medicine dispensary in Sebastopol, Calif. The lone medical marijuana dispensary in this Northern California enclave has become such a pot destination that it has more patients on its rolls than the town has people.

Russel A. Daniels/AP/file

By Brad Knickerbocker Staff writer / January 23, 2010

A high school student found to have marijuana in the classroom would seem to be a prime candidate for a little “talk” with the vice principal – and maybe a trip to the police station.

But around the country today, hundreds – perhaps thousands – of high schoolers are bringing pot to school, and they’re doing it legally. Not to get stoned, but as part of prescribed medical treatment. And they don’t have to tell school authorities about it.

This is putting teachers and principals in a new and challenging position. In many counties and school districts, there are no clear guidelines – for school officials, students, or parents.

“This is all just kind of starting to happen,” high school principal Jeff Schlecht told the Ashland Daily Tidings in Oregon. “It does place us in an awkward position.”

For many students, the issue comes as no surprise.

“I’ve known about this for four years,” Ashland senior Wesley Davis, 17, told the newspaper. “Some of them have it for medical reasons, but others are just trying to get free weed and sell it, turn it around.”

Ritalin used as a recreational drug too

A similar problem has been reported with the prescription drug Ritalin, a stimulant used to treat Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) – mostly among boys and young men. But as a recreational drug, Ritalin is known as “Vitamin R” or “R-Ball” – used to stay awake at exam time, to help lose weight, or together with alcohol and other drugs to prolong partying. It can produce effects similar to cocaine and amphetamines.

A study cited by the US Department of Education showed that of 6,000 high school students surveyed in Massachusetts, 13 percent were found to have abused Ritalin. The same study found that 4 percent of middle school students had also abused Ritalin.
The issue is very likely to spread around the country.

Earlier this month, New Jersey became the 14th state to legalize medical marijuana. And whereas the Bush administration had operated under the presumption that federal antidrug laws trumped state medical marijuana statutes, the Obama administration has reversed that position.

"It will not be a priority to use federal resources to prosecute patients with serious illnesses or their caregivers who are complying with state laws on medical marijuana," Attorney General Eric Holder said last October. "But we will not tolerate drug traffickers who hide behind claims of compliance with state law to mask activities that are clearly illegal."

Meanwhile, the California Supreme Court on Thursday rejected limits on medical marijuana imposed by state lawmakers, finding that people with prescriptions for pot can have and grow all they need for personal use.

Marijuana used to treat ADHD

At the same time, doctors have become more inclined to prescribe marijuana (as an alternative to Ritalin) for children diagnosed with ADHD.

It’s a controversial trend among medical practitioners.

“It’s safer than aspirin,” Dr. Jean Talleyrand told the New York Times. Dr. Talleyrand is a marijuana advocate who founded a network of 20 clinics in Oakland, Calif. which dispense medical marijuana – including to teenagers diagnosed with ADHD.

But Stephen Hinshaw, the chairman of the psychology department at the University of California, Berkeley, calls it “one of the worst ideas of all time.” He cites studies showing that the active ingredient in cannabis disrupts attention, memory and concentration – already issues for people diagnosed with attention-deficit disorder. In addition to being at the forefront of medical marijuana law, California now is considering legalizing and regulating the general use of marijuana.

A proposed bill would remove marijuana and derivatives from existing statutes defining them as controlled substances and make it legal to possess, sell, and cultivate marijuana by those 21 and older, reports the Monitor’s Daniel B. Wood. It sets up wholesale and retail sales regulation with special fees to fund drug abuse prevention programs. And it bans local and state assistance “in enforcing inconsistent federal and other laws.”

A recent poll in California shows overwhelming public support for the idea.

SF Might Beat California To The Pot-Approving Ballot Box: News

SFAppeal

City, Too, Could Legalize it, Regulate It, Tax the shit out of it
(it being the reefer)

Most California voters will have to wait until November to voice their pleasure or displeasure on legalizing and taxing marijuana for adult use.
But not San Francisco -- we're the city that knows how to use the June election. While it's neither binding nor does it actually, uh, DO anything, city voters could have the opportunity to say yea or nay this summer on a policy statement that would make it official city policy "to license, regulate and tax the cultivation and sale of cannabis" and to make adult-use OK for adult smokers 21 and over, whether or not they have an ailment for which marijuana can be recommended.


Keep in mind marijuana cultivation is already perfectly legal for some people; under Proposition 215 an approved medical marijuana patient can grow pot. But there's no rules or regulations controlling grow operations big or small, and the result is sometimes messy: growhouses can catch fire and burn down, pointed out Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, who introduced the measure on Tuesday.


Any local push to legalize will of course have to wait until legalization doesn't violate state law. But taxation can happen now -- last year, Oakland passed a law allowing taxation on medical marijuana proceeds.
Mirkarimi said he's not yet sure how big an operation will have to be to be taxed, but that "We don't need the state to regulate (medical grows).... and regulation needs to happen. And then once we do that, we should capitalize on the obvious through taxation."

A likely scenario would be as follows, surmises Dale Gieringer, director of California's National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (CALNORML): a cannabis collective would apply for a permit and pay a fee, city officials would investigate to make sure all is proper, and then grow operations could enjoy protection from both drug enforcement busts AND thievery.


Imagine: being able to call the cops to report a break-in at your marijuana farm?
Not all medical patients will enjoy being taxed, of course. "The devil's in the details," Gieringer said. "Medical patients don't take kindly to paying tax on their medicine."

However, for larger, collective or cooperative-style grows, city regulation could mean saving money. "City approval means grows could no longer be burdened" with secrecy and operating under the radar, "and costs of pot could go down."

San Jose, CA: Pot Clubs Popping Up Like Weeds

San Jose Mercury News -San Jose is yanking the welcome mat for medical marijuana dispensaries that have proliferated across the city in recent months — from just a handful last fall to as many as 30, according to one online directory.

With San Jose, which had no known dispensaries a year ago, now home to perhaps as many as San Francisco — and more than four times as many as Santa Cruz — code enforcement officials have begun telling owners their operations are illegal under city law.

"We've started to receive some complaints, and we're currently doing investigations on a number of these," said Mike Hannon, the city's code enforcement official. "If it looks as though they're operating as dispensaries, we're going to advise the owners to shut the dispensaries."

Pot clubs have proliferated in San Jose since City Councilman Pierluigi Oliverio, alarmed by their rapid spread in other places, last fall suggested legalizing and taxing a limited number of them.

Some fledgling clubs have filed business-tax paperwork with the city that makes no mention of marijuana — describing the operations vaguely as counseling, retail or health services.

Hannon is sending letters to the dispensaries he and his staff have confirmed are operating, notifying them they must close within 30 days. The dispensaries' landlords could face fines up to $2,500 a day if the outlets remain open after that deadline.

Health Center dispensary off De Anza Boulevard, says he's optimistic the nonprofit cooperative can work things out with the city and avoid litigation.

Though Hannon told him during a recent inspection that the dispensary is illegal, Schwaderer believes state law is on his side.

"We're eager to work with the city and establish a good relationship," said Schwaderer, who opened his doors last month. "We will wait and respond accordingly to whatever the city has to say."

Voters in 1996 made California the first state in the nation to legalize medicinal use of marijuana for those with a doctor's recommendation, but the move has been mired in legal uncertainty ever since.

Superseding federal law continues to outlaw the drug as a dangerous narcotic, although the U.S. attorney general last year stated that federal drug agents won't bust those who comply with state medical marijuana laws.

Dispensaries have proliferated in California since then. That in turn has sparked a backlash among local officials seeking to limit their number or ban them outright.

Three dozen cities, including Santa Clara, have joined in support of Anaheim's court battle in a closely watched case over the right to ban medical marijuana dispensaries. A patients' group had challenged the Anaheim ban as a violation of state law, and an appellate court is expected to rule sometime in the spring.

Gilroy, Los Gatos, Saratoga and Los Altos also have recently passed dispensary moratoriums.

Oliverio in October proposed an ordinance that would allow a limited number of dispensaries in industrial areas with restrictions, and an additional tax to ease the city's chronic money shortages. A combination of winter holidays, open-government noticing rules and the need to analyze some legal issues has delayed efforts to get the proposal before the council.

The city's Rules and Open Government Committee, which sets agendas for the full council, is scheduled to consider the measure again Jan. 27.

Oliverio said the city's dithering is inviting chaos as medical marijuana providers rush to stake a claim on the local market.

"We've gone from a couple of places that have opened to several," Oliverio said. "The council needs to have a discussion."

Already there are signs of a budding backlash as more residents and businesses find themselves neighbors to new dispensaries.

Lisa Roberts, whose law firm on the Alameda is near a proposed new dispensary, told the rules committee this week that the city should enact a moratorium.

"I'm not personally against the concept" of medical marijuana, Roberts said. "It's just the location. Just the fact that a proposal has been made is viewed as a welcome mat."

San Jose approved zoning for medical marijuana providers in 1998, but the city dropped the provision while updating its zoning laws in 2001. City Attorney Rick Doyle said that makes any dispensaries operating in San Jose today illegal.

Even so, the city has collected the $150 business license tax from a third of the dispensaries said to be operating here. In some cases, those dispensaries were quite clear about their intentions: San Jose Dispensary on West Hedding Street described itself on its business tax forms as a "medical marijuana delivery srvc."

Others were less explicit on the city documents, though quite clear in their advertisements. Plant Providers Plus described its operation on the tax paperwork only as "plant materials." But online, it advertises as "San Jose Area Medical Marijuana Delivery," with products described as "green crack" and "big bang brownie."

The South Bay Cannabis Buyers Collective on Monroe Street listed its operation on city tax paperwork under "SJCBC Inc." as "retail/internet." But its Web site offers a "free joint for new members."

Deputy Finance Director Julia Cooper, whose department handles the business license taxes, noted that acceptance of payment doesn't mean the city confers any legal status to a business — a matter left to code enforcement.

"It means they've paid a tax," Cooper said. "It doesn't mean they've complied with all regulations."

How to Avoid a DUI - Buy a Portable Breathalyzer

by max http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seoul .....In the city Seoul, Korea where I am from, they have routine alcohol checkpoints at various different points in the city.  Basically, the cops stop everyone before permitting to pass through the alcohol checkpoints.

In San Francisco here where I live now, we don’t have checkpoints but patrol cars will pull you over on individual-basis.  We have it very lucky indeed that at least we are not forced to blow into police breathalyzers at random times when we could have had one drink too much over the limit.


I think DUI laws are sound yet they can be rather harsh to those who’ve had just one drink too many.
Believe me, there’s a big difference between a guy who’s barely standing and the guy who’s a bit buzzed.
Since our DUI laws in California state that anything over BAC 0.08% is illegal, you simply need to keep it below that level before driving.


But how do we know exactly?  That’s the problem because DMV has been giving you a stupid CHART that shows you how many drinks you can drink in given number of hours.
Not only is that not scientific, if that CHART is wrong, you could end up jail, pay fines, and end up with a DUI that will haunt you for the rest of your life.


I blame this partly on DMV because they don’t tell you that there’s cheap breathalyzers you can buy.
For example, all my friends who drink a lot over in Korea carry a portable breathalyzer with them at all times due to the random and too-frequent alcohol checkpoints.


Now, I am telling you, if you ever drink even 1 glass of beer and drive, you should always check your BAC before driving.


This isn’t an advice to avoid a DUI, it’s COMMON SENSE.

I wish DMV re-wrote their 50-year driving educational books to tell people that they can buy a breathalyzer for under 10 dollars.

Why not?
DMV and the government makes a lot of money giving DUIs to people on holidays such as New Years, Independence Day, and your celebration could abruptly end as the worst day in your life in jail because of DMV’s failure to educate people right.

We gotta change the driving educational books, classes, because a $10 breathalyzer is certainly cheaper than thousands of dollars in DUI fees.

One more thing, if you do carry portable breathalyzer with you, at least you know the breathalyzer that cops are carrying are working correctly.  Sometimes you never know, machines are prone to break or error.
You can find various different breathalyzers on Amazon and this one for $8.95.
Some more tips on basic rights of every driver in the U.S.:

• You must be first pulled over for a reason such as a traffic violation, meaning you have ran a red light, didn’t stop fully at a stop sign, etc…etc… Simply pulling you over because cops want to randomly do a breathalyzer test on you is ILLEGAL.  I have seen this happen recently on New Year’s where my friend was pulled over without a reason.First thing you need to ask the cop, “Is there a problem Officer?”.  That is what I say everytime I get pulled over, even on speeding tickets Traffic ticket .
• Second, don’t ever self-incriminate yourself when you get pulled over.  For example, if they ask you, “Do you know how fast you were going?”, you don’t want to say, “I was going 85MPH, going 20 miles over the speed limit.”
  Cops are trained to make you self-incriminate yourself, a practice that’s not going to help the drivers. Remember your rights, “you have the right to be silent”, you can always tell the cop that you don’t want to answer any of his questions because you have to right to be silent.
  
• Third, cops cannot legally search your car without your permission.  Don’t ever let them search your car because you feel like a nice guy.  Screw that, remember your rights, they cannot search your car without a good reason.   Just tell the officer that you would be happy if he/she respected your privacy and private items. However, know that cops can bring a dog to smell your car for drugs even if you refuse.  If the dog smells drugs in your car, they can search your car.  But if you have no drugs, you have nothing to worry about.  For people with guns in their car, this could be a good knowledge to have just in case you left a gun in your car by accident or whatever.  Whatever the case, you never know what you left in your car by accident and even your friends could have dropped something while you gave them a ride couple months ago.  Just say no because it’s your right.

Whatever you do, remember your rights, you have the right to be silent and right to have privacy.  Police officers must respect that and a lot of times they will use creative languages to get around it but just say “NO!”.
One more thing, cops also cannot enter your house without your permission, they need a warrant, get a “Come Back With A Warrant” doormat, that should help a lot.














Product Description
The AlcoHAWK Slim, a newly-released digital breath alcohol screener, is a compact unit with a sleek design. Operating on a single button, simply blow into the folding mouthpiece for an accurate BAC reading in seconds.The AlcoHAWK Slim includes removable mouthpiece covers that allow you to test multiple individuals in a sanitary fashion. The sleek design also makes the AlcoHAWK Slim very compact and easy to carry for personal use. It is the ideal solution for someone looking for a portable tester with professional quality with a consumer design and feel. Meets DOT/NHTSA Model Specifications for Breath Alcohol Screeners and passed FDA 510k Pre-marketing clearance.

41 of 43 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars Works as Described, March 21, 2008
By C. Sanders - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
Easy to use. Works as described. I bought it as a lark - just to see exactly how "drunk" I was. It's been fun at parties & drinking w/friends. However, having a measuring stick for alcohol has really slowed down my consumption - which no doubt is a good thing. I'd compare this benefit to counting calories. When counting calories, one tends to eat less & eat healthier. This breathylizer has the same effect. I'd love to find a breath tester for calories! By the way, one of this products greatest advantages is that it is SLIM & you can easily slip it into a pocket, or purse, and carry it with you anywhere. You don't have to leave it in your car! (keeping in mind that most of us with a blood alcohol level over .08 would find it difficult to go back into the party & call for a cab, after we've already ventured out & warmed-up the car. THIS IS A TOOL THAT YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO CARRY WITH YOU AT ALL TIMES).

Do Zero Tolerance DUI Laws for Minors Work?

Nobody wants minors to drink and drive and Washington’s law regarding this is known as a “zero tolerance” law. Washington’s law prohibits a minor from driving after consuming alcohol. The law is commonly known as a “minor DUI” but it a violation does not require proof that the minor drove under the influence of alcohol. All that is required is that the minor drive after drinking, as evidenced with a breath test reading of .02 or higher. Here is the text the pertinent part of Washington’s “zero tolerance” law:

RCW 46.61.503 Driver under twenty-one consuming alcohol — Penalties.

(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, a person is guilty of driving or being in physical control of a motor vehicle after consuming alcohol if the person operates or is in physical control of a motor vehicle within this state and the person:

(a) Is under the age of twenty-one;

(b) Has, within two hours after operating or being in physical control of the motor vehicle, an alcohol concentration of at least 0.02 but less than the concentration specified in RCW 46.61.502, as shown by analysis of the person’s breath or blood made under RCW 46.61.506.

Everyone would agree with the intent of this law and it is hoped that the existence of this law would deter teen drinking and driving. However, Science Daly reports that a study by a Sam Houston State University economist found that these laws have no effect. The economist analyzed data from 30,000 fatalities in nighttime accidents involving drivers under age 21 and concluded that “zero tolerance” laws did not modify the behavior of drivers under age 21. This conclusion was based upon his statistical analysis of blood alcohol concentrations involved in drivers two years before zero-tolerance laws were enacted in a particular state, and again two years after enactment.

This is not to say, however, that these laws should be repealed. These laws should be viewed as part of an overall program intended to reduce teen tragedies related to drinking and driving. Concurrent alcohol education and changing the attitudes of drivers under 21 about drinking and driving, in conjunction with “zero tolerance” laws is bound to have a positive impact in the future. The mere existence of a “zero tolerance’ law by itself is simply not enough.
resource: foxbrowmandurate.com

What Is Zero Tolerance for Alcohol? -- powered by eHow.com

2010: The Year of the Ignition Interlock Device

MAduiblog.com - Numerous states are considering or have enacted tough DUI laws requiring all those convicted of DUI to use the ignition interlock device.

In California, for example, AB 91, the New "Ignition Interlock Device" Law requires first-time DUI offenders to install a device in their vehicles in a test program in Alameda, Los Angeles, Sacramento and Tulare counties. For DUI first offenses not involving personal injury, this device must be used for 5 months. In DUI cases involving injuries, the device must be used for a full year.

On Dec. 21, 2009, United States Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) introduced S. 2920 (Drunk Driving Repeat Offender Prevention Act of 2009), to require all states to pass laws requiring mandatory use of ignition interlock devices for anyone convicted of DUI, whether a first or repeat offense. Using a familiar “carrot and stick approach,” the bill would penalize states which do not enact the mandatory ignition interlock law by reducing their federal highway funding. The bill was just referred to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

Here in Massachusetts, this federal proposed legislation would likely be used as support for Massachusetts Senate Bill 1925, which would require all Mass. DUI first offenders to use the ignition interlock device. The Massachusetts interlock law currently requires all second and subsequent Mass. OUI offenders to use the device.

Wisconsin’s new Ignition Interlock Device Law requires all repeat drunk driving offenders and first-time DUI offenders who registered a breathalyzer reading of.15 percent or greater to use the ignition interlock devices. The new Wisconsin law provides for fines of up to $600 and jail time of up to six months for those who “fail” interlock breath tests or tamper with the device.


Beginning in August of 2010, a bill entitled Leandra’s Law will require all those convicted of any DUI in New York, whether felony or misdemeanor, to have ignition interlock devices installed in their vehicles. The ignition interlock devices to be used in New York will prevent a DUI offender from starting his or her vehicle if the devices registers a blood alcohol level in excess of.045. This is more than double the limit in Massachusetts, which is .020. The New York interlock devices will require rolling re-tests and they are supposedly capable of sending a photograph of the driver and the driver’s local authorities, in the event of a rolling re-test violation. Leandra’s Law also will result in mandatory reports being filed with the Center of Child Abuse and Maltreatment against those who have been convicted of DUI with a child in the vehicle.


In Massachusetts, the mandatory ignition interlock device requirement for DUI first offenders may encourage drivers to take their first offense OUI cases to trial, instead of pleading out. Those who are found not guilty of OUI would, of course, be able to avoid the expense, inconvenience, and risk of false positive alcohol readings which is associated with the controversial devices.