Quote of the Day, Christine Dixon

Christine-Marie L. Dixon: “…when human ingenuity once again renders archaic everything I know.”

“Boys in the hood”? The Racist Drug Warriors at the Columbia Police Officers Association Speak Up

Today around 12:15pm, the Columbia (Missouri) Police Officers Association posted on their facebook page:

This got quite a bit of attention, including from Radley Balko at Huffington Post. I wanted to add some more perspective; I have mapped the 99 SWAT raids conducted by the CPD in the years 2007-2010 here:

View Larger Map

Here is what a raid on one of those “boys in the hood” really looks like:

It needs to be said that the language and the mentality demonstrated by the officers of the Columbia, Missouri Police Officers Union are racist and utterly inappropriate for people who have sworn an oath to the US Constitution and are pledged to protect and serve the citizens of Columbia, Missouri.

Good Samaritan Proposal in Missouri Legislature Will Save Lives, Reduce Law Enforcement Burden

I was pleasantly surprised to see then St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporting today about a proposed Good Samaritan law (HB 296) that’s been filed in the Missouri legislature:

Kathie Kane-Willis, director of the Illinois Consortium on Drug Policy at Roosevelt University, in Chicago, studies addiction-related legislation. Illinois adopted its good Samaritan drug law in 2009.

“We know from research that the biggest fear for calling 911 was fear of police involvement,” she explained.

Kane-Willis said the phenomenon of “body dumping,” with overdose victims dropped off at hospital doorsteps or abandoned in trash bins, “is a reaction of fear and disregard.”

“When someone dies, we cannot get them into treatment, and we can’t prosecute them,” she said. “… (I)t’s about redirecting people to the services they need and making sure people do not continue to die.”

She said the law would provide immunity only from a drug possession charge. “If there is a perception that this is going to be going easy on drug users or sellers, it only provides limited immunity for the one person who calls 911 and the one person who is experiencing the overdose, and that is it.”

McCulloch said he generally opposes granting immunity in any case, but he is open to exploring the legislation.

Missouri’s proposal, based on the Illinois model, is sponsored by Rep. Bryan Spencer, a Republican who represents parts of St. Charles and Warren counties. He did not return a call seeking comment.

Some states, including Illinois, allow doctors to provide a prescription to addicts, or those who are close to them, for naloxone. The injectable drug, commonly known by the trademark name Narcan, can quickly reverse life-threatening effects of an opiate overdose. The prescription option is not included in the Missouri proposal.

Excerpted from Christine Byars, “Proposed Missouri law aimed at saving lives after drug overdoses“, Stltoday.com, 05 March 2013.

Though I would like to see the issue of naxalone access addressed, HB 296 sounds like a great start.

The organization Students for Sensible Drug Policy has advocated for Good Samaritan policies and legislation for years. Here are their bullet points:

• Good Samaritan Policies have been proven to be effective at saving lives. A 2006 study in the International Journal of Drug Policy found that emergency calls increased after Cornell University’s Good Samaritan Policy was enacted in 2002, although alcohol abuse rates have remained relatively constant.

• Good Samaritan Policies are not a violation of federal law. The Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act explicitly states that “a disciplinary sanction may include the completion of an appropriate rehabilitation program.” Follow-up evaluations and counseling are fundamental components of any Good Samaritan Policy. The key is that these followups be nonpunitive so that they don’t serve as a deterrent to calling for help.

• Good Samaritan Policies shouldn’t be viewed as “get out of jail free cards” or rewards for binge drinking. Rather, they provide students with the clarity they need in order to make responsible, life-saving decisions during confusing and stressful party situations. Every minute spent worrying about judicial consequences is another minute it will take for help to arrive. That minute can very literally be the difference between life and death.

• Campus administrators are correct in wanting to send the right message. And a Good Samaritan Policy would send the message that campus officials care more about keeping students alive than punishing them. A message against the dangers of binge drinking or drug abuse should never have to come in the form of a student’s obituary.

• More than half of the schools with Good Samaritan Policies provide coverage for situations involving all drugs, not just alcohol. This is logical, since marijuana is often involved in party situations and can serve as a deterrent to calling for help, whether or not the drug was involved in the overdose. We should also remember that the abuse of other illegal drugs and prescription medications can have dire consequences, which we should seek to mitigate by enacting all-inclusive Good Samaritan Policies.

• The primary intention of a Good Samaritan Policy isn’t to reward those who make the decision to call for help when a friend is in trouble. Rather, the policy enables and empowers students to make that decision when they would otherwise hesitate. It is a preemptive policy that promotes responsible behavior rather than a reactive policy that rewards responsible behavior after the fact.

• Good Samaritan Policies are only effective if they guarantee amnesty in writing (usually in the student code of conduct) and the policy is widely publicized. If a school has the unwritten practice of excusing students from punitive consequences during emergency situations, but students don’t know about it, then it is like having no such policy at all.
• In 2008,  drug overdoses caused 36,450 deaths in the United States.  Drug overdose is now second only to motor vehicle crashes among the leading causes of unintentional injury deaths.
  Centers for Disease Control. (2011). Vital Signs: Overdoses of Prescription Opioid Pain Relievers – United States, 1999-2008. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 60, 1487-1492.
• Rates of hospitalizations for alcohol overdoses, drug overdoses, and their combination all increased from 1999 to 2008 among 18- to 24-year-olds.  More specifically, hospitalization rates for alcohol overdoses alone increased 25%, reaching 29,412 cases in 2008. Hospitalization rates for drug overdoses alone increased 55% (totaling 113,907 cases in 2008) and hospitalization rates for combined alcohol and drug overdoses increased 76% (with 29,202 cases in 2008).
  White, A. M., Hingson, R. W., Pan, I., & Yi, H. (2011). Hospitalizations for Alcohol and Drug Overdoses in Young Adults Ages 18-24 in the United States, 1999-2008: Results from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 72, 774–786.
• When someone in America overdoses, a call for help occurs less than 50% of the time.
  Tobin, K. E., Davey, M. A., & Latkin, C. A. (2005). Calling Emergency Medical Services During Drug Overdose: An Examination of Individual, Social, and Setting Correlates. Addiction, 100(3), 397-404; Baca, C. T., & Grant, K. J. (2007). What Heroin Users Tell Us About Overdose.  Journal of Addictive Diseases, 26(4), 63-68; Sherman, S. G., Gann, D. S., Scott, G., et al. (2008). A Qualitative Study of Overdose Responses Among Chicago IDUs. Harm Reduction Journal, 5(1), 2; Smart, A. T. & Porucznik, C. (n. d.). Drug Overdose Prevention and Education Study. Retrieved from http://www.dsamh.utah.gov/docs/dope_u_of_uschool_20060621.pdf; Tracy, M., Piper, T. M., Ompad, D., et al. (2005). Circumstances of Witnessed Drug Overdose in New York City: Implications for Intervention. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 79, 181-190.
• Fear of police involvement is the most common reason for not calling 911 during an overdose.  
  Seal, K. H., Downing, M., Kral, A. H., et al. (2003). Attitudes about prescribing take-home naloxone to injection drug users for the management of heroin overdose: A survey of street-recruited injectors in the San Francisco Bay Area. Journal of Urban Health, 80(2), 291-301; Tracy, M., Piper, T. M., Ompad, D., et al. (2005). Circumstances of witnessed drug overdose in New York City: Implications for intervention. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 79, 181-190; Baca, C. T., & Grant, K. J. (2007). What heroin users tell us about overdose.  Journal of Addictive Diseases, 26(4), 63-68; Sherman, S. G., Gann, D. S., Scott, G., et al. (2008). A qualitative study of overdose responses among Chicago IDUs. Harm Reduction Journal, 5(1), 2.
• Students who are aware that a medical amnesty policy is in effect are 2.5 times more likely than students who expect to face disciplinary actions to call for help when witnessing the signs of alcohol poisoning.
   Oster-Aaland, L., Thompson, K., & Eighmy, M. (2011). The Impact of an Online Educational Video and a Medical Amnesty Policy on College Students’ Intentions to Seek Help in the Presence of Alcohol Poisoning Symptoms. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 48(2), 147-164.
• After Cornell University implemented a Medical Amnesty Protocol, students were less likely to report fear of getting an intoxicated student in trouble as a barrier to calling for help and alcohol-related calls for assistance to emergency medical services increased.
  Lewis, D. K. & Marchell, T. C. (2006). Safety First: A Medical Amnesty Approach to Alcohol Poisoning at a U.S. University. International Journal of Drug Policy, 17, 329-338.
• A survey of 355 opiate users found that once they became aware of Washington’s Good Samaritan law, 88% indicated that they were more likely to call 911 during future overdoses.  
  Banta-Green, C. J., Kuszler, P. C., Coffin, P. O., Schoeppe, J. A. (2011). Washington’s 911 Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Law – Initial Evaluation Results.  Alcohol & Drug Abuse Institute, University of Washington. Available at http://adai.uw.edu/pubs/infobriefs/ADAI-IB-2011-05.pdf.

With Republican Sponsors for HB 296, Are the Political Winds Changing?

Interestingly, HB 296 is sponsored by Representatives Bryan Spencer (Republican, 63) and Mike Kelley (Republican, 126). Hopefully this session will allow their bill to advance to committee and perhaps beyond. Interested parties should contact their Missouri representative to express support for this legislation.

If you are interested in organizing further on drug policy issues in Missouri, follow Missourians for Drug Policy Reform.

Very Important Sentences (Inequality)

From the NYT:

“The social deprivation and draining of capital from these communities may well be the greatest contribution our state makes to income inequality,” Dr. Braman said. “There is no social institution I can think of that comes close to matching it.”

Thoughts on Marijuana Decriminalization in St. Louis

The recent introduction of a marijuana “decriminalization” ordinance by Alderman Shane Cohn is a move in the right direction for St. Louis. Advocates of sensible marijuana policy should support this move, but should be aware that this ordinance has several deficiencies that should be understood and addressed. Here is the relevant text of the ordinance:

SECTION ONE Unlawful Possession

It shall be unlawful for any person to possess marijuana as defined in Chapter 195.010 et. seq. of the Revised Statutes of Missouri as amended.

SECTION TWO Medical Marijuana Exception.

Patients for whom marijuana has been legally prescribed by a physician, shall not be in violation of this Ordinance for obtaining possessing or using marijuana pursuant to such prescription.

SECTION THREE Penalty Clause.

Any person violating this Ordinance shall be subject to a fine of not less than one hundred dollars and not more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than ninety days, or by both fine and imprisonment.

Here are the deficiencies in this proposition:

First, the law leaves it up to the police on where they’re going to charge someone, in state court under the old law or in city court under the new law.

 Second, it still allows 90 days in jail for a first offense – this is the maximum penalty in city court.

It doesn’t take away the power of arrest – the police can still use this law to arrest and hold for 20 hours people not committing any other offense.

And finally, the “medical marijuana exception” is not very good for two reasons, first of which is the police can circumvent it by charging medical users in state court, and second of which is that it requires a “prescription,” which you can’t get anywhere. It needs to say “recommendation” and be explicit that recommendations obtained in other states will be honored.

By comparison, the 2004 marijuana decriminalization ordinance that passed by initiative in Columbia, Missouri, is much better:

With about 60 percent support, voters last November approved a measure that prohibits Columbia police officers from arresting anyone for simple marijuana possession. That means anyone found with less than an ounce and a quarter of marijuana can only be given a summons to appear in the city’s municipal court. Police officers no longer have the discretion to refer the case to the district attorney for prosecution by the state. Once in municipal court, the maximum fine that can be levied is $250, regardless of whether the defendant is a first-time offender or has been arrested multiple times.

Supporters of sensible marijuana policy in St. Louis would do well to consider the Columbia ordinance as the standard for marijuana decriminalization as they press forward.

Full disclosure: I was ticketed for possession of marijuana paraphernalia in 2008 by Columbia police and paid about $150 in fines and court costs.

Many thanks to Missouri NORML attorneys Dan Viets and Joe Welch for their discussion of this ordinance proposal with me.

Steven Seagal for Secretary of Homeland Security?

So hopes America’s most ruthless and utterly insane sheriff:

Just as I’d given up hope, I found Arpaio. He was speaking at a rally, hosted by the Arizona Republican party, on a practice field at Mesa Community College, along with a slate of local candidates. Flanked by “Fire Obama” yard signs and a hundred or so supporters in handmade T-shirts with his face on the front above the phrase “True Grit,” Arpaio reflected on why his wife was so eager to keep him out of the house: “I have no hobbies!”

He cited his years as a young DEA agent, where he was called into Mexico to heal a relationship with a local power broker. Arpaio feted his counterpart with blueberry pie and whiskey. “It’s about personal relationships,” he concluded. “It’s not just the big stick.”

Afterwards, for $50, attendees could have their photo taken with Steven Seagal, the Under Siege star who has reinvented himself as a sheriff’s deputy in Maricopa County and far West Texas.

In March, Seagal and Arpaio were sued by a Phoenix man who alleged that the duo had killed his dog during a raid on a cockfighting ring in his house—in which Seagal drove through the front gate in a tank.

I asked Seagal if he was aware of the recent wrongful death lawsuit that had been filed against Arpaio, by the family of a mentally ill man who had died after being tasered in custody. He responded with a question: “Have you seen the film of that?” I told him I had not. “Well, neither have I. But I’d sure like to. And once I’ve seen the film, then I’ll have an opinion.” (Happy with his answer, Seagal turned once more to greet his fans.)

When I approached Arpaio, he’d just finished asking Matt Salmon, a former Republican congressman who’s running again in the state’s newly configured 5th District, to lobby for Seagal as the next Homeland Security secretary, provided he made it to Washington. (“He’d have that border cleaned up in one week,” Arpaio said.) He was much less enthusiastic to talk about his own political future.

 

MO State Rep. Mary Still: “My district isn’t up for sale but I’ll help with the auction of the 47th”

The Columbia Tribune reported last week:

In the recording, Copenhaver discusses conversations she says she had with state Rep. Mary Still, a Democratic candidate for the 19th Senate District. Copenhaver says Still contacted her multiple times between January and June asking whether Copenhaver would be interested in running in the Sixth House District instead, leaving Wright to run in the 47th.

In one of the calls, Copenhaver said, Still told her that Wright, a well-heeled investment professional who this year has donated more than $180,000 to his own campaign, would offer to pay for Copenhaver to run in the Sixth.

“She didn’t say ‘we,’ she said ‘he,’” Copenhaver told Richards.

While I don’t live in Mary’s district anymore, and am not going to take a stance on her race against Kurt Schaefer here, it is worth noting that Mary Still’s hypocrisy with respect to “special interests” is typical of the broken and dysfunctional politics that we have come to expect from mainstream Democrats, who have forgotten their principles.

Tangentially, I approached Mary last year asking her to take a stance on the Show-Me Cannabis Regulation initiative. Although she’d given me time in the past to present issues to her (even issues where we disagreed), she told me outright that she wasn’t interested in the subject. Poor way to treat a constituent in my opinion. And Mary’s unwillingness to even listen to the marijuana issue indicates that she is another Democrat who doesn’t really believe in taking care of the poor and politically weak, who are the people worst impacted by marijuana prohibition.

I remember being active for Democrats precisely because I once saw the party as an inclusive, honest institution that had principles and candidates with spine once. There are  few of those Democrats left and it is clear Mary is not one of them.

My Drug War Speech at the Gary Johnson Campaign Rally this Monday

If you liked my speech and want to support my nonprofit (and yes, I know that the banner in the video misspells “forfeiture”), you can visit Americans for Forfeiture Reform at www.ForfeitureReform.com or at www.facebook.com/ForfeitureReform

You should also make a donation through our Indiegogo fundraiser: http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/261393?a=294469

How Liberal SuperPACs are Winning the Battle for Equal Rights in Colorado

Today’s Denver Post:

When GOP House leadership in May killed a bill recognizing civil unions for same-sex couples, politically active gays and lesbians vowed they would fight back. Now, a network of nonprofits and political committees, partly or largely funded by pro-civil- union interests, are using super PACs to fill mailboxes and cable channels with ads aimed at giving Democrats control of both legislative chambers. If that happens, a civil-unions bill could go to Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper as early as January.

And if they succeed, Colorado — dubbed the “hate state” 20 years ago after voters backed a constitutional amendment prohibiting legal protections for gays and lesbians — could wind up with gay men in charge of both halls of the General Assembly: House Minority Leader Mark Ferrandino and Sen. Pat Steadman, both of whom are from Denver.

“How dare the people think for themselves!”, Aussie edition

“There seems to be this acceptance in the community with regard to cannabis use and this must change.”

-Melbourne Assistant Police Commissioner Stephen Fontana

Great Sentences from Tyler Cowen

 

Privilege-seeking through government is often most pernicious when it has a tidy front and a well-manicured green lawn.

(NYT)

Overcriminalization Kills Babies

Alternatively, the War on Drugs is a War on Babies. This is Chris Wildeman from the University of Michigan:

“Estimates suggest that had the American imprisonment rate remained at the 1973 level—the year generally considered the beginning of the prison boom—the 2003 infant mortality rate would have been 7.8% lower, absolute black-white inequality in the infant mortality rate 14.8% lower.”
 

Will Nixon, DBG, and Marijuana at Mizzou, with a little Ray Hartmann on Donnybrook

I’ve always thought it was an absurd proposition that we arrest and prosecute our young men for marijuana possession. Indeed, I remember in my formative years as a middle-schooler the dogs and law enforcement presence that was deployed to intimidate, harass, and arrest children in the public schools for possessing marijuana. I remember asking myself why society needed to act with such force against its youth; why marijuana and drug possession couldn’t be dealt with like any other misdeed, with parental discipline and community support.

Last year I was living at 10th and Cherry, down the street from Harpo’s. Late one summer night the police were called to a ruckus at the Brookside Apartments across the street; there were frequent loud parties featuring all manner of drunken and bellicose behavior, and I thought nothing of it. The next day the news broke…Governor Jay Nixon’s son, Will, had been arrested for marijuana possession, charges that would be later dropped by prosecutors citing lack of evidence.

And this week…news broke that three MU football players, including Doriel Green-Beckham (who is the no. 1 recruit in the nation) were arrested for marijuana possession. Again, I don’t understand…why harass these young men? Why put promising young lives and dreams in contact with the criminal justice system? I generally think that it is unjust for the government to intrude into our personal lives without a pressing societal need…and yes, I presume that neither Mr. Nixon nor Mr. Green-Beckham’s immediate or proximate relationship to marijuana justified the use of force to sanction and punish their behavior.

Tradeoffs Matter

During those minutes the police were citing and arresting Mizzou’s young men for marijuana, they could have been walking the beat, ensuring that innocent people had recourse in the case of assault. Indeed, anyone who’s ever partied in Greektown knows how drunk and rowdy the town can be at night. When I used to work at restaurants in downtown Columbia, it was common courtesy to walk the female staff to their cars late at night after closing. Clearly, this is a core desire of society for law enforcement: to make the streets safe when people are dangerous.

But instead of being able to guarantee their citizens that this maximum effort is expended on their behalf, our law enforcement chooses to fritter away their valuable time arresting and citing young men for marijuana. Hence we do not receive the full benefit of the law enforcement services paid for by our tax dollars. People are not as safe as they could be because police officers are sniffing for marijuana and not patrolling for safety.

Responsiveness matters in law enforcement. Bottom line.

Ray Hartmann Nails it on Donnybrook

My good friend David Johns pointed me to this recent episode of the St. Louis show Donnybrook (which makes me nostalgic for my old life in St. Louis). At about the 40th minute, CEO of St. Louis Magazine discusses the DGB marijuana arrest, advocates for the legalization of marijuana, and receives a round of applause from the audience.

Watch Donnybash – Live at the Sheldon, Oct. 4, 2012 on PBS. See more from Donnybrook.

I’ll leave you here. But remember…our participation in society brings with it a moral obligation to confront injustice and speak on behalf of those who are oppressed. We shouldn’t be arresting young men for marijuana. They deserve their liberty. The public deserves better choices from its law enforcement. To sustain the status quo harms us and maintains the manifest injustice of marijuana prohibition.

Honest Words from a Liberal

I thoroughly enjoy L’Hote, and today Freddie had a post up that resonated with me. Excerpt:

What I am looking for from people who take a hard, pro-Obama line, I guess, is a coherent theory of democracy. Because when I hear people insisting that everyone has got to get on board and let go of their unpopular criticisms, I wonder how they think long term change happens, how political evolution happens. Part of what’s frustrating is that people are so inconsistent in how they say we should proceed. Some say that the important thing is to engage in the process, so you should vote for a third party candidate. But many say that voting for a third party is to throw your vote away. Some say that the place to challenge Democrats to be more liberal (and less militaristic) is through the primary process, but again, during primary season, I read in many places that primarying Obama would be the height of left-wing absurdity. Many just speak vaguely of organizing and agitating, never being exactly clear what kinds of agitating are permitted, or why this theoretical kind is allowed but the kind undertaken by prominent critics Obama is not.

From 2002 through 2008, American liberals waged a campaign of resistance and criticism against American aggression in the Muslims world. And for good reason: our conduct since 9/11 has been a profound injustice, involving collective punishment, violation of international laws and egalitarian ethics, and the dehumanization of over a billion people. In response, an apparatus of refusal was created– blogs and documentaries and books and organizations and ideas. This apparatus has proven to be insufficient. But the attempt has meant everything; it has changed the landscape and expanded the boundaries of the possible. Just a few short years ago, this paragraph would be entirely uncontroversial on almost any liberal blog. I’m sorry to say that this appears to have changed.

The Democrats are my preferred political party, warts and all, and I have been a registered Democrat since I have been legally eligible. But I refuse to be held hostage by narrow partisan need, and I sincerely believe that both the moral interests of America and the long term political interests of the Democratic party are served by presenting an alternative to Republican militarism and anti-Muslim aggression. The only way to create that alternative is to press for it, vigorously and without apology. If Democrats prove unwilling to be moved, then the criticism will have to function as the endorsement of another way, of a politics without a party.

Kyle Blaeuer, the Racist Working for the Columbia Dinner Train

So I was invited to a dinner event of the Columbia, Missouri Dinner Train on Facebook. I remember the Dinner Train from a small protest that the Columbia Missourian reported on last year:

A line of 14 people formed at the opening of the Columbia Star Dinner Train Friday night – with no intention to ride.

The Columbia Star’s inaugural run was met by protesters from the disabilities community wielding signs with phrases such as “I would rather be on the dinner train” and “I have wheels, will you subsidize me?”

Protesters began arriving around 5 p.m. to protest the train’s first ride. At the demonstration, many protesters voiced their disapproval of the council’s use of public funding and resources to support the business coming to Columbia.

Last year, the Columbia Convention and Visitors Bureau approved $45,000 to help move the train to Columbia from Denver, Iowa. About $20,000 more in public money was used to upgrade the exisiting train station’s facilities and prepare them for use. The Columbia Star also uses the city’s rail line, which runs between Columbia and Centralia and the city-owned train station at 6501 Brown Station Road.

“Our biggest problem is that the government gave $65,000 to the business,” Allison Reinhart, one of the protesters, said. “The business being inaccessible is bad, but them giving the train tax dollars is what we’re mad about.”

Anyway, so when I received the unsolicited Facebook invite to the Dinner Train event I left a comment about how the Dinner Train shouldn’t be taking public money to support its business. That’s my view, and I don’t apologize for it, although I recognize that other people disagree with me, sometimes profoundly. I do respect other viewpoints and take them seriously and civilly in the public discourse. Anyway, my comments led an employee of the Columbia Dinner Train, Kyle Brandon Blaeuer, to send me a rather nasty private message:

Hey i just wanted to let you know i’m a Columbia resident and i personally work on this train. I am a college student and I make more money in one day on the train than I make working full time at my other job. You are a stupid fucking sand nigger from Colorado. why dont you waste your time trying to bitch on peoples sites that abuse unemployment or do other things instead of employing people in this town, bringing tax revenue, and helping college students get by. How pathetic are you? go back to your fucking country and stay out of ours! you are nothing but a brown worthless nigger. If our country had more people like you trying to ruin everyone else business then we would be more like your worthless sand-ridden mess of an area you and your worthless bloodline descended. Die and shut the fuck up. Give other people jobs because without this job i’d be in a much worse place. Your pathetic. enjoy ranting about something that happened 18 months ago, and cant be changed, and has helped our community since the first day. I hope you get to give the same for your community. A bunch of stoners and worthless fucks just like you. Enjoy.

Anyway, for the record:

I am a natural born citizen (Houston, Texas, 1984). I lived in Columbia for 9 years and put myself through school working in the wine and restaurant industries. I don’t care to disclose my income or charity but I have made substantial investments in the community during my time in Columbia. I now work in Denver as a political consultant though I hope to return to Columbia at some point in the next few years as it is a great place to raise a family. Anyway, I hope Mr. Blaeuer can learn how to disagree civilly over politics and economics and not stoop t0 calling me “sand-nigger” and spewing racist vitriol in the future; otherwise he will remain a discredit to his company and his community.