How ‘equity’ ruined cannabis legalization in New York

 New York’s legal weed experiment is going about as poorly as possible.

Earlier this week, the state finally signed off on a handful of new dispensary licenses, a full two years after legalization.

Illegal pot shops, meanwhile, have gotten so common — and so attractive to criminals — that Gov. Hochul has asked Albany to approve five-figure fines and tough enforcement powers to help shut them down.

It remains to be seen whether any state can legalize marijuana without serious downsides.

But New York’s attempt has been particularly disastrous.

This is in large part because rather than prioritizing tax revenue or public health in the legalization process, Albany put progressive-tinged “social justice” strategies front and center in its policy design.

They admit as much.

Hochul has emphasized that New York State’s marijuana industry will benefit those who committed crimes under prohibition.

The state’s Office of Cannabis Management has said that “social and economic equity” is a “major focus” of legalization.

And the New York City Mayor’s Office promised to put equity “at the center” of the budding industry. You get the idea.

Gov. Hochul’s office is helping to implement five-figure fines for illicit operations — along with the enforcement might make those penalties stick.

Matthew McDermott

One of the thousands of illegal pot shops is now up and running in New York.

AFP via Getty Images

Amid all of this woke-speak, one message becomes clear: Cannabis legalization prioritized progressive interest groups over legality and common sense.

And indeed, “equity” has suffused every aspect of legalization — to catastrophic results.

First, the numbers: There are just seven licensed dispensaries in all of New York State, three of which are within half a mile of each other.

Why so slow? A federal injunction – now lifted – delayed dispensary roll-out in parts of Upstate New York. Far worse, however, is the state’s entire approach to licensing.

The number of approved cannabis outposts is expected to soon rise, with new operators (yet again) likely selected on the basis of race and gender.

Helayne Seidman

The first 150 licenses must, by law, be issued to people who had previously been convicted of a marijuana-related offense, or whose family member had been convicted. 

Finding, approving, and setting up businesses for such folks takes time — lots of it.

Nobly intentioned? Sure.

But if we want businesses to run smoothly, the state should have prioritized applicants with a history of entrepreneurship and business acumen, not breaking the law – even if those laws demanded a rethink.

Instead, it’s doubling the number of licenses open only to former criminals. 

The state has also said it will aim to award “50% of all adult-use licenses to social and economic equity applicants,” including minority- and women-owned businesses.

Yet again, applicants will continue to be selected based on their sex or skin color, not on who can best run a business.

Thousands of non-licensed cannabis shops are now up and running in New York City with scant legal oversight and beyond the reach of the authorities charged with both regulating them — and shutting them down.

Helayne Seidman

With marijuana legal but virtually no legal retailers operating, New York has unsurprisingly seen a wave of unlicensed pot shops pop up.

Not only are these outlets polluting eyesores; but they’re also magnets for crime.

The NYPD has said that last year pot shops were robbed nearly 600 times. That they sell freely to kids isn’t helping either.

New York State’s Office of Cannabis Management is tasked with doling out legal pot licenses.

New York State Office of Cannabis Management

Why have the shops grown unchecked?

Because the consequences for running them – a paltry $250 fine — are essentially nonexistent.

Raided shops keep reopening, including one right across from City Hall. Hochul and Adams are now seeking tougher tools to shut them down.

But it’s unlikely that the legislature, which just rebuked the governor’s chief judge pick for not being left-wing enough, will endorse a crackdown on pot.

Beyond the faulty focus on equity, enforcement agencies need the ability to give more than just a wrist slap to illegal pot shops.

Gov. Hochul’s proposal to dramatically increase fines and expand inspection powers is a good start.

New York City should also clarify the Sheriff’s authority to inspect pot shops, as some deputies have raised questions about their ability to do so.

New Yorkers themselves also need to consider why they tolerate such flagrant law-breaking when it comes to pot, but almost no other businesses. 

Unlicensed shops aren’t unique to New York; they pop up everywhere pot has been legalized, contributing to anemic legal industry sales.

The reason is simple economics: Without the need to comply with costly regulations, the illegal shops are just cheaper — savings they pass on to their customers.

One of the biggest consequences of so much unregulated pot is the proliferation of colorful cannabis-infused candies that could easily fall into the hands of children and young people.

Shutterstock

And under the current legalization scheme, unlicensed shops are insulated from the enforcement efforts pro-pot advocates inevitably decry as evil and racist.

A well-designed marijuana market — insofar as there is such a thing — minimizes criminal activity and maximizes tax revenue, which the state then reinvests in public health.

But New York’s attempt to center “equity” in its legalization agenda has produced the opposite effect, maximizing criminal activity and minimizing legitimate revenue generation.

Members of New York’s Office of Cannabis Management enforcement team say a lack of clarity around their ability to fine and close illegal pot shops is hampering their effectiveness.

Paul Martinka

Some marijuana market regulations are essential: no selling (or advertising) to kids, clear supply chains, controls on potency, etc. True, the costs of these regulations will be passed on to customers, making the gray market cheaper and more attractive.

But the more the state attempts to regulate the industry for “social justice,” the higher these regulatory costs will be in the long run.

This is why the state needs to stop handing out licenses to people as a form of “reparations” and start looking for licensees who can run a real business.

That will ultimately deliver meaningful — and lasting — cannabis reform.

Charles Fain Lehman is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute and contributing editor at City Journal.

https://nypost.com/2023/04/08/how-equity-ruined-cannabis-legalization-in-new-york/

Son of George Soros scoring easy White House access, records show

 A son of billionaire George Soros has quietly become a de-facto White House “ambassador,” making at least 14 visits there on behalf of the far-left kingmaker since President Joe Biden took office, records reviewed by The Post show.

Alexander Soros — a prolific Democratic fundraiser in his own right who likes to boast about his relationships with world leaders on social media — scored at least a dozen meetings with White House officials in 2022, according to recently updated White House visitor logs. Soros, 37, also participated in two other confabs there in late 2021, the records show.

His latest trips include visiting Dec. 1 with then-White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain’s advisor Nina Srivastava, who also worked on Biden’s presidential campaign, the logs show.

Later that evening. the younger Soros was one of 330 people who attended a lavish state dinner on the White House South Lawn hosted by the president and First Lady Jill Biden honoring French President Emmanuel Macron and Macron’s wife, Brigitte.

A day later, Alexander Soros — who chairs the powerful, liberal grant-making network Open Society Foundations founded by his dad — met with both Advisor to the Counselor of President Mariana Adame and Deputy National Security Advisor Jonathan Finer, records show.

Alexander Soros attended a state dinner on the White House South Lawn honoring French President Emmanuel Macron.

Alexander Soros

His previous White House meetings included earlier sitdowns with Adame on October 14; Srivastava on September 14; Finer on Dec. 15, 2021, and October 6 and September 15 of last year, according to records.

Soros also had meetings with Kimberly Lang, then a National Security Advisor executive assistant, on October 6; and former Klain advisor Madeline Strasser on Oct. 29, 2021, and April 22, 2022.

It’s unclear what was discussed at the meetings, and the White House did not return messages.

Mike Howell, director of the Oversight Project at the Conservative Heritage Foundation, said the younger Soros’ easy White House access is troubling considering the Soros family has already “done tremendous damage to our country.”

Alexander Soros chairs the liberal grant-making network Open Society Foundations founded by his father.

Anthony J. Causi

“The Soros agenda is one of death and destruction in the name of open borders and ending Western Civilization,” he said. “The Biden administration and rogue prosecutor movement may be [its] most damaging purchase in America to date.”

The Soros family’s influence over White House policy has never been stronger, according to Matt Palumbo, author of “The Man Behind the Curtain: Inside the Secret Network of George Soros.”

“All throughout the White House, there is a Soros hold somewhere, and his son is his father’s new ambassador,” Palumbo told The Post.

White House records show an expansive list of Soros’ meetings with top officials:

• 12/2/2022: Mariana Adame, Advisor to the Counselor Steve Ricchetti
• 12/2/2022: Jon Finer, Deputy National Security Advisor
• 12/1/2022: State Dinner on South Lawn for French President Emmanuel Macron attended by President Biden
• 12/1/2022: Nina Srivastava, adviser to then-Chief of Staff Ron Klain
• 10/14/2022: Mariana Adame, Advisor to the Counselor Steve Ricchetti (x2)
• 10/6/2022: Jon Finer, Deputy National Security Advisor
• 10/6/2022: Kimberly Lang, Executive Assistant to the National Security Advisor
• 9/15/2022: Jon Finer, Deputy National Security Advisor
• 9/14/2022: Nina Srivastava, adviser to then-Chief of Staff Ron Klain (x2)
• 4/22/2022: Madeline Strasser, adviser to then-Chief of Staff Ron Klain
• 12/15/2021: Jon Finer, Deputy National Security Advisor
• 10/29/2021: Madeline Strasser, adviser to then-Chief of Staff Ron Klain

Following the 2020 presidential election, Biden’s transition team was filled with liberals connected to Soros’ network, and Biden’s cabinet was also armed with Soros loyalists, Palumbo said.

Alexander Soros, seen here with former President Barack Obama, scored 14 White House meetings in a little over a year.

They included Klain, a board member of the lobbying wing of the Soros-funded Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank that pushes abortion rights, climate-change policies, and other causes.

George Soros typically tries to keep a lower profile, exerting influence by donating under the radar to lefty candidates and funneling money to liberal causes through his Open Society Foundations and related nonprofits he founded, which have doled out more than $32 billion worldwide since 1984, according to its website.

The Hungarian-born, 92-year-old has recently come under renewed fire from conservatives linking him to former President Donald Trump’s legal woes.

They point to the elder Soros donating $1 million in 2021 to the left-wing Color of Change political action committee that backed Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney who convened the grand jury that indicted Trump late last month on criminal charges over an alleged hush-money payment.

Soros — whose payment to Color of Change was part of a larger effort to finance a criminal justice revolution aimed at abolishing bail and defunding police — has denied supporting Bragg’s campaign directly or even knowing the soft-on-crime DA.

Alexander Soros’ politicking is much more of an open book than his father’s.

The younger Soros has individually donated more than $11 million to lefty political action committees since 2010 – including $2 million in 2018 to the Senate Majority PAC that Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has major influence over, records show.

A review of his Instagram page shows him visiting with Schumer at least nine times since 2018, and posing with former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) eight times.

Alexander Soros boasts about his relationships with world leaders and other elected officials on social media, including former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The account also highlights photos of him with his dad, as well as with former President Barack Obama, Vice President Kamala Harris, and other prominent Dems at fundraisers he hosted or other events.

Scoring 14 White House meetings in a little over a year suggests the younger Soros has “an outsize policy influence in the Biden administration” rivaling the easy access only a select few as American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten has, said Tom Fitton, president of the conservative legal watchdog group Judicial Watch.

George Soros is pursuing an “aggressive environmental agenda,” open-border initiatives, and other far-left causes dear to him, Fitton added.

The younger Soros has individually donated more than $11 million to lefty political action committees since 2010.

“Don’t be distracted by Alex’s name in the visitor log; it’s a George Soros rep they’re looking to meet with at the Biden White House…He’s still calling the shots, it’s his money, his foundations,” Fitton insisted.

But it is Alexander who is most poised of the elder Soros’ five kids to eventually lead his family’s multibillion-dollar political and philanthropic network, said Scott Walter, president of conservative think tank Capital Research Center.

“Like his father, he cozies up to White House and congressional leaders willing to do the family’s bidding on such issues as crime, immigration, election policy, and more, as the Soroses exploit every type of giving: money to parties, independent expenditure groups, and so-called charities,” Walter told the Washington Examiner, which first documented the White House jaunts.

“No wonder former staffers and grantees of their foundations, donor groups, and lobbying shops are found throughout the Biden administration, from the State Department to the Domestic Policy Council.”

A Soros spokesman declined to comment.

https://nypost.com/2023/04/08/george-soros-son-has-easy-access-to-white-house-honchos/

I asked ChatGPT and New Bing if I can copyright their text; this is how they responded

 Before satisfying your curiosity about what the two largest “generative AI” machines have to say about copyrighting their texts, it’s worth understanding why this is an important question. Copyright protection for human creators is one of the few government responsibilities specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, right up there with “collect taxes” and “provide for the common defense” (for brevity, I am ignoring other, equally-important intellectual property, IP, such as patents and trademarks). Article I provides federal responsibility “To promote the Progress … by securing for limited Times to Authors … the exclusive Right to their respective Writings” — in effect stating that copyright protection for people is a human right. 

During the Enlightenment, protecting the ownership rights of human authors was considered a major public good because it respected individual rights and encouraged more authorship. It’s sometimes forgotten that, previously, almost anyone’s creations could simply be taken away from them and used or destroyed by a king or lord. The important principle was ‘If you, a human person, write it, it belongs to you’ — and this has logically been extended to all sorts of creative works from art to computer software and from individuals to groups of individuals, such as corporations. In some part, as a result of this protection for creative people, copyright advocacy groups estimate that over 10 percent of the U.S. economy — or over $1.5 trillion of our Gross National Product (GNP) — is related to copyright.

So, copyright protection is, by almost any measure, a pretty big deal.

And yet, no one could suppose that in 1787 anyone was thinking about a spinning jenny or a steam engine or any of their descendants, being an “author” with its own “writings.” Through “generative artificial intelligence” (meaning it “generates” written or spoken text, hereafter GAI) computer machines like ChatGPT, New Bing and many others are now generating text. No less than Bill Gates has recently described this technology as revolutionary, and it is generating important questions for the future of copyright.

Immediate and complex copyright questions have already arisen. For example, if a GAI machine creates a text very similar to a copyrighted text, does the owner of the machine — or even the machine itself — own their text and can they hold its copyright? How similar does the GAI’s text have to be in order to be infringing? This is particularly significant because — unlike human copycats — it’s not difficult to program GAI to go right up to the border of infringement but not cross it … thousands of times.

More widespread and immediate questions have arisen over AI-generated art and music that looks or sounds very similar to existing copyrighted creations. And these questions do not even include the complex question of what is called the “fair use” of copyrighted material, which may include such things as scholarship and non-profit uses.

For years, the UN’s World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) and other groups have been studying the emerging impact of AI on the world of copyright. The recent advent of consumer-facing, generative AI has thrust all of this into a sense of urgency. 

In 2017, the USCO wrote that a U.S. copyright can only be issued to a work “created by a human being” and that it will reject a copyright application “if a human being did not create the work.” In February of this year, the USCO revoked a previously-issued copyright for images that it concluded had actually been created by GAI without human involvement; then in March,  USCO issued a Federal Register Notice on GAI and copyright reiterating and amplifying its position that human involvement is essential for a copyright to exist. In April, the Office will launch a major initiative to further examine how copyright and AI-generated content fit together.

Meanwhile, WIPO created what it calls “a conversation” on the global impact of AI on all types of IP, including copyright, in 2019 which has included scholars, industry representatives, civil society and government agencies from around the world. As might be expected from such a multi-national, multi-topical, multi-stakeholder effort, the result has been creative and far-ranging — and it points to many unanswered questions, such as whether an AI-creation can be copyrighted.

The USCO and WIPO efforts are obviously quite different, although they both suggest at least three different perplexing policy debates that are rapidly emerging: (1) trying to define and enforce infringement in an interconnected, multinational world in which machines can generate thousands or even millions of look-alike materials that are carefully calculated to lie just outside of infringing; (2) trying to define when there is sufficient human involvement in AI-generated material to justify the USCO’s classification of it as copyrightable and, separately, which humans played the creative role and thus hold the copyright to the AI-generated materials; and, perhaps most important, (3) is there a case in which a machine could or should actually own the copyright for something that it created on its own without significant human involvement?

This last question, examined in some of WIPO’s wide-ranging discussions, has obvious and enormous implications for all of copyright and much more: If a machine has a right to own a copyright on material that it alone created, what other rights should/could that machine hold?  

So, what do the machines have to say?

My queries were made on March 19, 2023, and both replied “yes” when asked if I could use their replies in this editorial.

ChatGPT replied “As an AI language model, I do not hold any copyright over the content I generate. The copyright … belongs to the person or entity who owns the software or platform that is running me.”

New Bing replied “According to the USCO, only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to authorize someone else … Accordingly, you cannot claim copyright … unless you have the owner’s consent. So, you cannot claim copyright to the text that I write for you … you cannot … use it for commercial purposes without my consent.”   

Now it begins.

Roger Cochetti provides consulting and advisory services in Washington, D.C. He was a senior executive with Communications Satellite Corporation (COMSAT) from 1981 through 1994. He also directed internet public policy for IBM from 1994 through 2000 and later served as Senior Vice-President & Chief Policy Officer for VeriSign and Group Policy Director for CompTIA. He served on the State Department’s Advisory Committee on International Communications and Information Policy during the Bush and Obama administrations, has testified on internet policy issues numerous times and served on advisory committees to the FTC and various UN agencies. He is the author of the Mobile Satellite Communications Handbook.

https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/3940482-i-asked-chatgpt-and-new-bing-if-i-can-copyright-their-texts-and-this-is-how-they-responded/

Jordan probes hiring of top Manhattan Trump prosecutor

 House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) expanded his probe into the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office Friday, asking to speak with one of the leading prosecutors in the inquiry into former President Trump’s hush money dealings.

The letter to Matthew Colangelo, a former Justice Department attorney, asks for his correspondence with the DA’s Office prior to joining the probe now led by District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D). 

“You had previously served in senior positions in the U.S. Department of Justice and the New York Attorney General’s Office, both of which had competing investigations related to President Trump. Given your history of working for law-enforcement entities that are pursuing President Trump and the public reporting surrounding your decision to work for the New York County District Attorney’s Office, we request your cooperation with our oversight in your personal capacity,” Jordan wrote.

The letter asks Colangelo to supply any documents detailing “that Office’s motivation for or interest in hiring you” and his “personal motivation for or interest in working for that Office.”

The request comes the day after Jordan issued a subpoena to Mark Pomerantz, who resigned from the DA’s office about a year ago over disagreements with Bragg over the Trump case, writing in a resignation letter published by the New York Times that he believed Trump was “guilty of numerous felony violations.” He said Bragg’s reluctance to pursue charges against Trump was “misguided and completely contrary to the public interest.”

Bragg yesterday again reprimanded Jordan for “interfering in an ongoing criminal matter in state court.”

“The House GOP continues to attempt to undermine an active investigation and ongoing New York criminal case with an unprecedented campaign of harassment and intimidation,” Bragg tweeted. “Repeated efforts to weaken state and local law enforcement actions are an abuse of power and will not deter us from our duty to uphold the law.”

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/3939665-jordan-probes-hiring-of-top-manhattan-trump-prosecutor/

DOJ investigating leak of apparent classified Pentagon documents

 The Justice Department (DOJ) is investigating the apparent leak of classified documents on multiple social media websites that potentially detail information about U.S. and NATO aid to Ukraine. 

The Defense Department is also reviewing the documents after they were shared by Russian sources online on sites like Twitter. The documents, which are dated March or earlier this year, do not appear to include any major plans for the expected Ukrainian counteroffensive this spring, but they do seem to discuss Ukrainian training, munition expenditures and estimated casualties from both sides of the war. 

“The Department of Defense is actively reviewing the matter, and has made a formal referral to the Department of Justice for investigation,” Sabrina Singh, Pentagon deputy press secretary, said in a statement on Friday.

A DOJ spokesperson told multiple outlets that the department has been in touch with the Pentagon about the situation and has started a probe, but they declined to comment further. 

The documents resemble updates that the Joint Staff for the U.S. military would create daily but not publicly release.

But several inaccuracies in the documents have raised questions about their authenticity and whether they were manipulated for a disinformation campaign. The estimated number of Russian soldier deaths is significantly lower than the number that U.S. officials have said. 

“It is very important to remember that in recent decades, the Russian special services’ most successful operations have been taking place in Photoshop,” Andriy Yusov, a spokesman for Ukraine’s military intelligence directorate, said on Ukrainian television. “From a preliminary analysis of these materials, we see false, distorted figures on losses on both sides, with part of the information collected from open sources.” 

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said in a statement that he had a meeting with his senior staff on Friday, and those present discussed ways to prevent any leaks on Ukraine’s defense plans. 

A U.S. official told the Associated Press on condition of anonymity that they believe the intelligence value from the documents is minimal even if they are real because Russia would already know much of the information included.

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/3940428-doj-investigating-leak-of-apparent-classified-pentagon-documents/