A condition of probation is that the offender not commit any violations of state or federal law. So what happens when a person is put on probation and they are a state licensed medical marijuana user?

Boulder, Colorado has created new guidelines for probationers, allowing them to continue using the drug. The guidelines treat medical marijuana like any other prescribed drug.

Medical-marijuana cardholders who are sentenced to probation will be allowed to continue using the drug medicinally while serving their sentence as long as they meet several conditions and allow a probation officer to view their medical records, according to the new guidelines.

More....

Kristen Diane Parker, the hospital surgical tech who stole vials of the painkiller fentanyl intended for patients from the operating room of a Denver hospital, injected them and then filled and replaced the vials with saline solution, infecting some patients with the Hepatitis C virus, was sentenced today in federal court in Denver to 30 years in prison.

Last month, the judge rejected the 20 year plea agreement between Parker and the Government because he didn't think 20 years was enough, and offered to allow her to withdraw her guilty plea. She decided to stick with her plea.

Via Kevin Drum, I took this Millenials Quiz. My score was 11, which apparently just barely keeps me out of being a Greatest Generational. In reality, I am barely a Baby Boomer, on the other side.

I think it is because I don't Facebook, Twitter or IM and I don't have tattoos. But I haven't figured it out yet.

This is an Open Thread.

mcjoan addresses the Stupak Problem I wrote about yesterday. I think both mcjoan and her commenters misunderstand the reconciliation process and Stupak's position. First, it is important to remember that Stupak voted FOR the House health bill, once his amendment was adopted. So clearly Stupak's issue was a discrete one - public subsidies for private insurance policies that cover abortion services. Those subsidies are offered for individuals who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid (in the House bill, that was 150% of FPL, in the Senate bill 133% of FPL) but no more than 80K/year for a family of 4 (with the subsidies reduced on a sliding scale.)

Since a new bill can not be passed through regular order, I proposed a fix of the Senate bill (Stupak has stated the Senate bill is unacceptable) that could address Stupak's concerns while still complying with the Byrd Rule for reconciliation. In essence, my proposal is an elimination of the federal subsidies for the purchase of private insurance and a transfer of those funds to expanding Medicaid eligibility as much as possible. I think the de facto effect of this is to render the state based exchanges meaningless (which they pretty much are anyway imo), but it does not require actually eliminating them. Keep them in place. No harm done. More . . .

24:

Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) has signed Sen. Michael Bennet's (D-CO) letter calling on the leadership to pass a health care public option via reconciliation.

Reid says he is for it as well, but obviously since the letter is addressed to him, he is not signing it. Surely that is sufficient critical mass for offering an amendment including a public option to a reconciliation bill that must be enacted for passage of the health bills.

An up or down vote on the public option might produce a 75-25 loss (it also might produce passage), but at least then we'll know where we stand.

Speaking for me only

Remember HOLC? Via Atrios, Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC) is talking about it again:

If the government could purchase, either by voluntary sale or by eminent domain, distressed mortgages for 30 to 50 cents on the dollar, there would be ample room to reduce the principal to make the mortgage affordable. In other cases, the government could buy the home in exchange for cancelling the mortgage and enter into a long-term lease with the former homeowner.

[. . .] The Obama administration can establish a new HOLC without any additional action by Congress. The Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) legislation already gives the Treasury Department the power to acquire financial assets, specifically mortgages, and Treasury could fund the program with the $75 billion of the TARP appropriation allocated for HAMP.

The time for a new HOLC was last year. But better late than never.

Speaking for me only

It's not just California. Think Progress reports Wellpoint (Blue Cross Blue Shield) is going to impose double-digit rate increases in 11 of the 14 states it does business. In addiition to California, the states are: Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Maine, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Virginia, and Wisconsin.”

The findings are based on a new survey by the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Here's a sample:

Colorado: Average rates are expected to increase 19.9 percent in 2010, with increases of up to 24.5 percent for some policyholders.

Indiana: Rates are expected to increase 21 percent in 2010.

[More...]

mcjoan writes:

We're going to be hearing a lot from the White House and Dem Senators that, to quote Dan Pfieffer, "the American people deserve and up or down vote" on healthcare reform. So here's the message to Harry Reid: "the American people deserve and up or down vote on the piece of reform they want," the public option.

Show us whether or not it can pass the Senate in a reconciliation vote, Senator Reid. Put it on the floor and see if it gets 50 votes. You'll at least get points from the base for making people go on the record. Give us an up or down vote on public option.

Indeed. And it can be done by allowing an amendment to the base reconciliation bill for those concerned it will gum up the works. What's wrong with this approach? Nothing of course, except that pols will have to go on the record against a proposal very popular with the Dem base.

Speaking for me only

The Village Dems are now furiously trying to recast the use of reconciliation for the health bills as a normal process. See, e.g., Kevin Drum, Steve Benen and Ezra Klein. The problem for them is they spent a year pooh poohing reconciliation and the Schumer Plan when public option advocates argued for splitting the health care bills in a regular order bill and a reconciliation bill. (Notable exception - David Waldman.) There disdain for this has come back to bite them. Here's Drum:

There's nothing wrong with the media reporting that Republicans oppose the use of reconciliation to amend the healthcare bill. Of course they do. But they owe it to their audience to explain that reconciliation does nothing more than allow a simple majority vote to pass budgetary issues and that it's been used routinely by both parties for decades. That's just the simple truth.

Indeed, it was always a simple truth. But for a year, the Village Dems did not like that simple truth. Now they reap what they sowed.

Speaking for me only

The "pragmatic" Kevin Drum writes:

If Democrats want to pass a healthcare bill, there's only one way to do it: the House needs to pass the existing Senate bill and then the two sides need to agree to a few limited changes. These changes would be passed through both House and Senate via "reconciliation," which allows budget-related measures to be passed with a simple majority.

(Emphasis supplied.) Kevin apparently has not been listening - the House Dems will not play the "and then" game. They do not trust the Senate, and with good reason. Exhibit A is Kent Conrad. here is the political reality Village Dems - the House will not pass the Stand Alone Senate Bill "and then" wait for the Senate to agree to a reconciliation fix. They must happen at the same time. That's just the way it is. Deal with it.

Speaking for me only

Miranda warnings are required to be given when a suspect is in a custodial setting. If the suspect invokes his right to refuse to answer questions without a lawyer, no questioning can take place. If he starts to answer questions and then asks for a lawyer, questioning must cease. If these rules aren't followed, Edwards v. Arizona allows a subsequent confession to be suppressed. Under Edwards, any subsequent waiver of Miranda rights is presumed involuntary unless the suspect, rather than the police, reinitiated questioning. The

The Supreme Court today ruled in Maryland v. Schatzer that if the suspect asks for a lawyer and is released without questioning taking place, that request is only valid for two weeks. Scotus Blog reports here and has the opinion here. The opinion is written by Justice Scalia. No one dissented, including Sotomayor, but Justices Stevens and Thomas filed their own opinions concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. [More....]

Nothing demonstrates the cluelessness of the Village Dems more than their obsessiive love of the excise tax. Instead of recognizing that it is not worth the destruction of health care reform, they continue to tout it. Ezra Klein cites Jon Chait writing:

Democrats could have stiffed the unions if a few Republicans stepped forward to support the bill in exchange for tough cost control measures that Obama clearly wanted. But none would do that. It's impossible to pass health care reform without the support of labor unions or any Republican member of Congress.

Yep, that would make political sense for Democrats - "stiff the unions." Honestly, what is it with these Village Dems and their strange obsessive love for the excise tax? Are they really willing to let health care reform go down in flames over it? Apparently.

Speaking for me only