It’s worth nothing that the strain making all the headlines isn’t properly called swine flu, but is in fact a “reassortment” of human and swine flu strains designated H1N1.  These types of reassortant and recombinant strains of flu virus are an increased risk with “confined animal feeding operations,” or CAFOs, which most people know as “factory farms.”

Last year, the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production published a report on CAFOs which contains this little gem:

The continual cycling of swine influenza viruses and other animal pathogens in large herds or flocks provides increased opportunity for the generation of novel viruses through mutation or recombinant events that could result in more efficient human-to-human transmission of these viruses. In addition, agricultural workers serve as a bridging population between their communities and the animals in large confinement facilities. This bridging increases the risk of novel virus generation in that human viruses may enter the herds or flocks and adapt to the animals.

Reassortant influenza viruses with human components have ravaged the modern swine industry. Such novel viruses not only put the workers and animals at risk of infections, but also potentially increase zoonotic disease transmission risk to the communities where the workers live. For instance, 64% of 63 persons exposed to humans infected with H7N7 avian influenza virus had serological evidence of H7N7 infection following the 2003 Netherlands avian influenza outbreak in poultry. Similarly, the spouses of swine workers who had no direct contact with pigs had increased odds of antibodies against swine influenza virus. Recent modeling work has shown that among communities where a large number of CAFO workers live, there is great potential for these workers to accelerate pandemic influenza virus transmission.

Pew Commission researchers met with counterparts from the University of Iowa where were studying avian flu, and their discussions created a concern about a nightmare scenario of an avian-swine-human superflu that could be a repeat of the 1918 flu pandemic, believed by some to be an avian-swine flu spread worldwide by farm workers traveling to WWI training camps.

Mexican Health Secretary Jose Angel Cordova said on Monday that they have identified what they believe was the earliest known case of this current outbreak.  The 4-year-old boy was from the village of La Gloria, Veracruz – not far from the Granjas Carroll de Mexico plant, co-owned by Smithfield Foods.  The local community had been protesting pollution at the plant when the child contracted the virus.  Local citizens believe they were being made sick by air and water contamination from pig waste, following widespread outbreak of a “particularly powerful respiratory disease” in early April, according to the Associated Press.

The Mexican government is currently testing hogs from Smithfield’s farms throughout Mexico, and Smithfield and Granjas Carroll have agreed to adopt government recommendations to “begin reinforcing its biosecurity measures to prevent workers and animals from being infected,” according to Mexican newspaper Reforma - which is also reporting that people in La Gloria have been threatened, harassed and even arrested for demonstrating against the huge company.

David Kirby at Huffington Post has more, here and here.

It’s tempting to believe that the president has been consistently giving short “no” answers every time this question comes up simply because it is a political minefield to tread across.  For a first term president, openly seeking to reverse a drug policy that has been virtually unchanged in over 70 years is a risky move.  He seems to be a man who understands that lasting changes take patience and hard work to accomplish.

As noted recently, Obama’s approach to the war on drugs is appearing to show signs of a gentle path towards decriminalization or at least tolerance of marijuana.  The nomination of Gil Kerlikowske as “drug czar,” and Eric Holder’s statements about allowing states to determine medicial marijuana policy seem to be moves in the right direction, while not expressly advocating legalization.

Unfortunately, it is unclear which marijuana policy we will actually get; the one where individual states are allowed to set their own drug policies that has spurred movements in California and Oregon, or the one where the president glibly belittles the online audience – whose interaction he encouraged – for believing this is an important issue that needs a more nuanced discussion in Washington than “just say no.”

In spite of Attorney General Holder’s recent statements, DEA agents raided a licensed medical marijuana dispensary in San Francisco this week, confusing those of us who have been watching this story with some modicum of hope.  It remains to be seen how much the federal approach to marijuana will actually change.

With over 20 million arrests for marijuana in the last 45 years, and an estimated $77 billion in lost taxes and wasted spending every year on an endless “war,” the time has come to have some serious debate and find a reasonable middle ground on this issue.

Arizona’s attorney general is talking potential legalization, and living in a border state he recognizes that this is not just an American problem.  He says that over 75% of the money that Mexican drug cartels take in comes from marijuana, most of that from the United States.  Secretary of State Clinton acknowledged U.S. complicity in the recent violence in Mexico this week, citing our “insatiable demand” for illegal drugs.  Yet in the face of all of this, President Obama laughs at the idea of eliminating the major source of funding for these criminal organizations.

“Make the most you can of the Indian Hemp seed and sow it everywhere.”
-President George Washington, on cannabis

“Hemp is of first necessity to the wealth & protection of the country.”
-President Thomas Jefferson, on cannabis

“When I was a kid I inhaled frequently. That was the point.”
-President Barack Obama, on cannabis

“I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it.”
-President Franklin D. Roosevelt, on public political pressure

CNN is reporting that NORML’s fundraising has quadrupled in the 24 hours following the president’s dismissive response.  If there’s ever going to be a serious debate, much less a change in policy, it will only come as a result of We, The People making them do it.

This can’t really be called a “new baby boom” by anyone besides hyperbolic headline writers seeking your attention.  While it’s a new high, numbers have been slowly rising for decades, nothing like the massive spike of the post-WWII era, and we’ve been barely hanging on to a roughly 1% per year rate of population increase.

This tiny margin of growth makes the U.S. the world’s fastest growing industrialized country, but the upward trend is not expected to last.  Birth rates crashed during the Great Depression, and many believe the recent economic downturn will negatively impact American birth rates in the years to come.

We’re a long way from needing to worry about the kind of catastrophic population decrease that Russia is currently experiencing, with an expected 22% drop in population over the next 45 years, and the idea that we need to dramatically increase our birth rate is really only espoused by religious zealots and people with thinly-veiled xenophobia.

While developed nations fret over the possibility of more and more retirees demanding benefits and over-taxing a shrinking workforce, the developing world faces a population explosion. Unfortunately those who might have the most ability to reverse this trend choose to ignore the problem.  This week the Pope visited Africa, and regardless of some of the world’s highest birth rates (not to mention HIV infection rates), the Vatican still condemns the use of condoms and insists Catholics should go forth and multiply.  The African continent’s population is expected to double to nearly 2 billion by the year 2050.

China has the world’s largest population at 1.3 billion, and the government has established a strict 1 child per couple policy in order to fight overpopulation.  Even with one of the lowest population growth rates in the developing world (.006% per year) as a result of these harsh measures, the population is expected to continue growing for another 25 years before peaking at 1.5 billion.

200 years ago, there were 1 billion people alive on the surface of the planet, today there are over 6.75 billion, and by 2050 the global population will be around 9 billion according to most estimates.

I’d hate to be perceived as a doomsayer, but inevitably at this rate we will eventually reach the carrying capacity of the Earth.  With growing concerns of climate change as a result of human activity and scarcity of resources, it’s hard to believe we aren’t getting very close to that limit.  The present system simply cannot handle a substantial portion of the developing world demanding the consumption rate or quality of life that Americans currently enjoy.

What are we to do?  Americans refuse to apologize for our quality of life, and we’re generally loathe to reduce our consumption or change our habits.  Lowering birthrates admittedly creates economic concerns, and obviously draconian and inhumane methods of population control/reduction are strictly off the table.

Certainly, investing in family planning education and distribution of birth control in the 3rd world will do wonders, but it’s still only a band-aid.  Perhaps, barring the invention of free or nearly-free energy, the only option available to us now is to finally get serious about space exploration and colonization.

The one thing we undoubtedly cannot afford is to continue business as usual.

President Richard Nixon announced the “War on Drugs” in 1969, coining a phrase likely inspired by LBJ’s “War on Poverty,”  and we’ve been locked in a bloody and expensive fight ever since.  Leaving aside the insane notion of declaring war on everything we intend to eliminate for another article (soon the pacifists will declare the War on War), it’s hard to see the benefits of criminalization of an arbitrary set of untaxed, non-patented  psychoactive substances.

To those who had eyes to see, the benefits of prohibition were a myth even in 1969 when the long and unsuccessful crusade earned it’s fancy new moniker courtesy of Nixon.  We just passed the 100 year anniversary of the formation of the International Opium Commission, which made the recommendations that eventually led to global prohibition of opium in 1929 via the Treaty of Versailles.  International bans on cannabis and cocaine quickly followed.

Since then, as the attempts to stop or even reduce production and consumption of illegal drugs have faltered and failed, the U.N. has picked up the cause.  Over 10 years ago, the proclamation of the United Nations’ member countries was “A drug free world – we can do it.”  This was after 90 years of evidence to the contrary, and this week in Vienna U.N. member nations have signed a declaration extending the failed policies of the War on Drugs for another tragic decade.

However, after a year of debate, it appears there is not yet a consensus over how to move forward.  Antonio Maria Costa, the director of the United Nations Office of Drugs Crime, whose office crafted the declaration, makes the case for continuing global prohibition:

“The crime and corruption associated with the drug trade are providing strong evidence to a vocal minority of pro-drug lobbyists to argue that the cure is worse than the disease.

This would be an historical mistake, one which United Nations member states are not willing to make.

Because drug trafficking enriches criminals, destroys communities and even threatens nations, it has to be dealt with urgently and forcefully. Policy change is required against crime, not in favor of drugs.”

In the face of these assertions, some countries have indicated they will be interpreting the policies as they see fit.

Notably, President Barack Obama has sent strong signals through his words and his appointments that American policies will be shifting.  As noted by the Guardian, Obama’s nomination of Gil Kerlikowske to be the nation’s “drug czar” could hint at a shift in drug policy, given Kerlikowske’s emphasis on treatment and rehabilitation over prosecution during his 8 years as Seattle’s police chief.  Attorney General Eric Holder recently announced that the Justice Department will cease raiding medical marijuana providers that are established legally under state law, fulfilling Obama’s campaign promise.

In the face of a White House that respects the 9th and 10th amendments to the Constitution, California’s assembly is debating AB 390, which would essentially legalize marijuana in the state – a short step from the current prescription system which in reality is essentially a licensing program.

No one can deny that total legalization of drugs – an end to the War on Drugs – would bring new and interesting problems for consumer nations like the U.S. and Europe, but as The Economist argues, legalization is the “least bad” solution.

The AP is reporting that some doctors are now asking their patients to sign what is essentially a gag order, agreeing not to post negative reviews or comments about their performance on consumer rating websites.

The North Carolina neurosurgeon, Jeffrey Segal, who is pushing these agreements also provides the service of monitoring online reviews.  If a negative review is found, and the author can be proven to have been a patient who signed the waiver, doctors can use the documents as leverage to get the reviews removed.

While Segal denies knowledge of any “longtime patients” having been denied care or treatment for not signing the agreement, his wording leaves open the possibility that new patients may be rejected, and it seems unlikely that a doctor who has been convinced this is a good idea would accept a patient who outright refuses to sign.

What’s more, given the flurry of paperwork snapped onto clipboards and thrust in front of our faces in the doctor’s office, this raises a question of informed consent.  Much like the multi-page End-User License Agreements common in consumer software, we tend to simply agree, sign our names, and push through the red tape to get the service we need.