

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Tony Newman 646-335-5384 or Jerry Otero 718-664-7420
The federal government's National Institute on Drug Abuse released its annual Monitoring the Future survey today. Monitoring the Future is now in its 40th year and is considered the 'gold standard' of teen drug use surveys. It surveys 40,000 to 50,000 students in 8th, 10th and 12th grade in schools nationwide about their use of alcohol, legal and illegal drugs and cigarettes.
Marijuana use in the past year by students in all three grades declined slightly, from 26% in 2013 to 24% in 2014. The survey also found that students in 8th and 10th grades reported that marijuana is less available than it once was. Also, daily marijuana use among 12th graders is down, from 6.5% in 2013 to 5.8% in 2014.
These declines in marijuana use among teens follow the implementation of the nation's first marijuana legalization laws in Colorado and Washington. Those laws were adopted in 2012, and retail sales of marijuana in those states began earlier this year. Each of the marijuana legalization laws clearly specify that legalization applies to adults 21 and over, and contain built-in safeguards that restrict sales to minors. Last month, voters in Alaska, Oregon and Washington, D.C. also decisively passed initiatives to legalize marijuana in those jurisdictions.
"The results from the Monitoring the Future survey showing a decline in teen marijuana use - even as legalization initiatives have passed - is very encouraging, though not surprising," said Marsha Rosenbaum, PhD, of the Drug Policy Alliance. "Now that the national conversation about marijuana is 'above ground,' parents and teachers are able have honest conversations with teens based on sound science, health, and safety. The declines in use revealed in MTF may well indicate that teens are listening, and choosing to make wise decisions."
Rosenbaum is the author of the influential publication Safety First: A Reality-Based Approach to Teens and Drugs. Earlier this month, DPA released a revised edition of Safety First with new sections addressing marijuana legalization and adolescent brain development.
Over half of teens (56%) say they would not try marijuana, even it were legal for adults. Some opponents of marijuana legalization have speculated that use will increase with the expansion of legally regulated marijuana. Rather, the findings from Monitoring the Future echo the results of other studies on marijuana laws and underage use.
Numerous researchers have looked at the extent of teen marijuana use in states where medical marijuana is legal. Their findings, published in prestigious journals such as the American Journal of Public Health and the Journal of Adolescent Health, generally show no association between changes in marijuana laws and rates of teenage marijuana use. A 2012 study published in the Annals of Epidemiology found that medical marijuana laws actually "decreased past-month use among adolescents...and had no discernible effect on the perceived riskiness of monthly use." Preliminary data from the 2013 Healthy Kids Colorado Survey, released by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) in August of 2014, found that high school marijuana use in the past month slightly decreased from 22 percent in 2011to 20 percent in 2013.
"States are legalizing marijuana, Congress is debating and enacting drug policy reform, and teen drug use rates are declining - this is not a coincidence," said Bill Piper, director of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance. "Young people respond well to frank, honest conversations about drugs and drug use. The less taboo talking about drugs becomes the more successful prevention efforts will be."
Cigarette and alcohol use also continued their long-term decline, reaching their lowest point since the survey began polling teenagers in 1975. Notably, this was the first year that the survey asked about use of e-cigarettes, and it found that more teens used e-cigarettes than traditional tobacco cigarettes or any other tobacco product.
"It's great news that teen tobacco use is continuing to decrease," said Jerry Otero, youth policy manager for the Drug Policy Alliance. "Let's remember, we have been able to drive down teen smoking rates from a peak of 28% in 1997 to just 8% in 2014. And we did this without criminalizing tobacco use or arresting and locking up people who smoke. We need to continue doing what works by giving young people honest and credible information about tobacco--the best choice for teens is not to use tobacco, but e-cigarettes pose less a risk to health than smoking."
The Drug Policy Alliance is the nation's leading organization promoting drug policies grounded in science, compassion, health and human rights.
(212) 613-8020"If the president declares Georgia's elections illegitimate, or if the president declares Georgia's sitting United States senators illegitimate, he is declaring Georgia voters illegitimate."
Sen. Jon Ossoff on Thursday delivered a preemptive rebuttal to President Donald Trump's planned Thursday night speech on election security in the United States.
While speaking with reporters, Ossoff (D-Ga.) predicted that Trump would use the speech to once again peddle lies about the 2020 presidential election, which he lost to former President Joe Biden.
"Here's what's going to happen tonight," Ossoff began. "The world's most famous sore loser will deliver a primetime presidential sour-grapes address to pursue his six-year-old grievances about the 2020 election, while his war in the Middle East spirals out of control, the cost of living continues to rise for Americans across the country."
Ossoff: "Here's what's going to happen tonight: the world's most famous sore loser will deliver a prime-time presidential sour grapes address to pursue his 6-year-old grievances about the 2020 election, while his war in the Middle East spirals out of control and the cost of… pic.twitter.com/isF9qqrLz0
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 16, 2026
The Georgia Democrat said he expected Trump to "reheat debunked conspiracy theories" about the 2020 election, while all but daring the president to declare the results in his home state illegitimate.
"Let me be very clear about this," said Ossoff, who was elected in 2020 and is up for reelection this year. "If the president declares Georgia's elections illegitimate, or if the president declares Georgia's sitting United States senators illegitimate, he is declaring Georgia voters illegitimate."
Ossoff then reminded reporters that it was Trump who attempted to steal the 2020 election when he called Republican Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and asked him to "find" the votes necessary to overturn Biden's victory in the state.
"It's Donald Trump who tried to defraud Georgia voters in that election," the senator said, "Donald Trump who tried to commit election fraud."
Ossoff's broadside against Trump's 2020 election lies came one day after he cornered Jay Clayton, Trump's nominee to be the next director of national intelligence, during a Senate confirmation hearing over his refusal to say who won the 2020 election.
"Isn’t it humiliating to be unable to answer this question?" Ossoff asked Clayton at one point. "To have to indulge the president’s delusions?"
“The next time your community is hit by a heatwave or flash flood, lay some blame with Big Oil. This report is yet another sign that we need to break away from this dangerous, polluting industry,” one scientist said.
A landmark report released by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine on Thursday concludes that the science of linking individual extreme weather events to fossil fuel-driven climate change has advanced considerably in the past decade, findings that bolster the efforts of communities to hold oil and gas companies accountable for climate damages.
The report follows on the heels of deadly heatwaves in Europe and the US that were both deemed to be "virtually impossible" without the climate emergency.
“The new report makes clear that the science linking ever-worsening extreme weather events to climate change is rigorous and sound,” John Fleming, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute, said in a statement. “The next time your community is hit by a heatwave or flash flood, lay some blame with Big Oil. This report is yet another sign that we need to break away from this dangerous, polluting industry.”
The report from the National Academies, or NASEM builds on a 2016 report on the same subject and tracks the progress made since then in linking specific extreme weather events such as hurricanes or heatwaves to human-caused global warming—a field known as extreme event attribution (EEA). It found that a combination of improvements in tools, datasets, and methods had made such attributions increasingly reliable, especially for events clearly related to rising average temperatures such as heatwaves, cold spells, and heavy rainfall.
“The science is clear: The extreme heat killing thousands of people in the Northern Hemisphere this summer is neither an unpredictable event nor an accident—it is the result of corporate crime."
“Significant progress has been made over the last decade, with major advancements in methods and modeling that allow for more robust assessments of extreme events,” James Hurrell, who chaired the report committee and serves as the Scott presidential chair of Environmental Science and Engineering at Colorado State University, said in a statement.
EEA could still improve when it comes to analyzing the climate footprint on smaller-scale weather events like thunderstorms and tornadoes, as well as attributing events in parts of the Global South where climate data is less available.
Hurrell continued: "The field still faces challenges, and addressing them is necessary to fully realize the value of attribution science. We hope our recommendations will guide those efforts.”
Unaffiliated climate scientists and environmental advocates welcomed the report's findings.
"The robust conclusions that have been reached by the mainstream climate research community betray the dismissive claims that continue to be made by fossil fuel industry groups, right-wing think tanks, and Republican operatives who feel threatened by the scientific progress in this particular area," wrote climate scientist and University of Pennsylvania professor Michael Mann. "They have long understood... that Americans will increasingly demand meaningful policy action on climate as they come to understand the profound role that fossil fuel burning is playing in the worsening climate crisis."
Mann continued: "Nothing connects the dots better that the increasingly dangerous, damaging, and deadly climate change-fueled extreme weather events. As an aside, I could see and smell the hazardous wildfire smoke that blanketed the northeastern US while on vacation with my family in New Hampshire this week. Increasingly, Americans are connecting the dots between our reliance on fossil fuels and the hazards we face, whether its costly and dangerous wars of choice in far-flung lands like Iran, or the threat of increasingly extreme weather events."
Carly Phillips, a senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) who has co-authored attribution studies, said in a statement: “Attribution science confirms what billions of people around the world have experienced firsthand—deadly events like extreme heatwaves are occurring more often and tropical cyclones are more intense due to climate change. Despite efforts by the fossil fuel industry and its cronies to intimidate panelists and misrepresent the research, the academies’ report affirms the scientific consensus: Attribution science is based on rigorous peer-reviewed methods and provides critical information about how climate change is driving increases in the frequency or severity of extreme events."
The report is notable not only for its findings but for their context. It's publication comes amid the Trump administration's aggressive climate denial, including the Environmental Protection Agency's repealing of the so-called "endangerment finding" connecting carbon dioxide emissions to climate and public health harms.
At the same time, the fossil fuel industry and its right-wing political allies are scrambling to find a way out of the increasing number of lawsuits attempting to hold them accountable for the harms caused by the climate crisis. This has included pushing bills in the House of Representatives and Senate that would grant the industry immunity from any lawsuits over damages caused by the use of their products.
Both the fossil fuel industry and climate justice advocates see the NASEM report as a potential weapon in the fight over climate liability. Argus Insight, an opposition research firm co-founded by former Trump staffers that has a history of working to undermine climate lawsuits, sent at least nine records requests to public universities where NASEM report authors work, as Politico reported ahead of its release.
Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University, advised that journalists covering the NASEM report "not frame any story as 'Can we believe extreme event attribution research?' The actual story is: Fossil fuel interests are wetting their pants about this and will do anything to try to stop it."
Yet climate justice advocates argue that the report gives the advantage to communities over the industry.
“For decades, Big Oil knowingly poisoned our atmosphere and deceived the public about the impacts of burning fossil fuels—all the while lining executives’ pockets as communities continue to suffer from extreme heat, floods, and fires," Stephanie Brancaforte, climate accountability campaign director with Public Citizen’s Climate Program, said in a statement.
Brancaforte added: “The science is clear: The extreme heat killing thousands of people in the Northern Hemisphere this summer is neither an unpredictable event nor an accident—it is the result of corporate crime. With the backing of the National Academies, survivors of climate catastrophes now have strong evidence to pursue justice against fossil fuel polluters to pay for the devastation they have unleashed.”
Cassidy DiPaola, communications director for the Make Polluters Pay campaign, said: "The National Academies just gave courts, cities, and communities something they've long needed: the full weight of the country's most authoritative scientific body behind attribution science. It affirms what researchers and international bodies like the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] have long recognized—that we can say, with real confidence, which extreme weather events were made worse by fossil fuel pollution, and how much damage that pollution caused."
DiPaola continued: "The fossil fuel industry understands exactly what this means. That's why they've spent years trying to discredit attribution science as a field, and why they and their allies in Congress and state legislatures are racing right now to pass liability shield laws. They can't out-argue hundreds of peer-reviewed studies backed by the country's most respected scientific institution, so instead they're trying to make the law immune to the science. They know this research doesn't just describe a hotter world, but draws a line from their products to specific floods, heatwaves, and deaths, and from there to who should pay for the damage."
"Attribution science now underpins how cities plan for disaster, how insurers price risk, how public health officials prepare for heat deaths, and how courts weigh accountability," she concluded. "The only people with an interest in pretending otherwise are the ones being asked to pay for the damage they caused."
"They are blaming the opposition for people being killed by their police."
As Democrats demand investigations and accountability after a pair of fatal shootings by immigration agents, the White House border czar, Tom Homan, issued an ominous warning on Wednesday: Shut your mouth or the "bloodshed" will continue.
Since July 7, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents have shot and killed two men—Lorenzo Salgado Araujo in Texas and Johan Sebastián Guerrero in Maine.
The killings, which are part of a broader rash of violent behavior by immigration agencies, briefly led DHS to suspend the use of traffic stops by agents, before President Donald Trump ordered them to continue.
Meanwhile, Democratic lawmakers have promised to launch investigations and congressional hearings. Some have threatened to withhold funding for the agency unless reforms, like body camera requirements, are enacted, while others have called for the agency to be defunded or abolished.
Homan, a senior adviser to Trump tasked with coordinating immigration enforcement across agencies, took to Fox News on Wednesday night to address this heightened scrutiny.
Just one day before, Homan had defended the decision to temporarily halt vehicle stops, saying there should be a "short-term review to make sure ICE agents are safe and doing the right thing.”
But following Trump's orders, he reversed course entirely the next day and rejected the idea that anything about the agency's tactics needed reevaluation.
He told host Laura Ingraham, "President Trump was clear, this policy is not going away."
Instead of trigger-happy agents, he said that anti-ICE "rhetoric" from Democrats was to blame for the recent killings.
"It all goes back to the Dems who want to continually attack ICE and tell people to evade them and tell people don't comply, tell people to resist, and tell people ICE isn't a real law enforcement agency," Homan said.
"You and I talked about this a year-and-a-half ago, Laura," he continued. "I said, if the hateful rhetoric didn't stop, there would be bloodshed."
"I'm saying it right now," Homan said. "There's still going to be more bloodshed unless they shut their mouth and let ICE enforce the laws that they enacted."
DHS has acknowledged that neither of the men who have been shot in recent weeks was the target of the ICE operations that led to their deaths.
A witness reported that Guerrero shouted, "I tried to stop" after being shot by an agent while his vehicle moved forward slowly.
ICE's use-of-force rules state that agents should only use deadly force if they believe an individual poses an imminent threat to an agent or someone else, not simply because they are fleeing arrest.
DHS claimed that Salgado attempted to "weaponize" his vehicle, but that claim has been undercut by video evidence and eyewitness accounts.
The agency said in a statement that Guerrero "attempted to flee the scene and, fearing for public safety, an officer discharged his weapon," a justification that has not been used for previous shootings.
Many Democratic lawmakers, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY), have provided information about individuals' rights when dealing with immigration agents—including the right not to answer the door without a judicial warrant, the right to decline a search or to sign documents, or the right to record law enforcement.
But Homan did not reference any particular case in which they encouraged those facing detention to "resist" by fleeing or attacking agents.
Several Democratic members of Congress, including Reps. Jimmy Gomez (Calif.), Jason Crow (Colo.), and Ilhan Omar (Minn.), among others, have published "Know Your Rights" documents explicitly warning people not to run away or resist arrest.
Agents have frequently faced criticism that they are not, in fact, "enforcing the law" as Homan claimed, but defying it by conducting indiscriminate arrests without warrants, using excessive violence, detaining legal residents and US citizens, and engaging in racial profiling.
Homan's remarks were widely seen as a deflection of blame from immigration agents and as a way to intimidate critics into silence.
"They are blaming the opposition for people being killed by their police," said Alex Nowrasteh, the senior vice president of policy at the libertarian Cato Institute.
USA Today columnist Chris Brennan said Homan was "threaten[ing] more governmental violence… unless Americans stop engaging in speech protected by the First Amendment."
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) called it "extremely irresponsible and dangerous language from the Trump administration's top immigration official."