If you missed part one listen to it here!

Watch the slide show of photographs from April 4, 2012

]]> http://www.mcphearsonreport.com/2012/04/podcast-remembering-king-and-martin-april-4th-2012-part-2-of-2/feed/ 0 http://www.mcphearsonreport.com/2012/04/why-we-are-outraged/ http://www.mcphearsonreport.com/2012/04/why-we-are-outraged/#comments Fri, 20 Apr 2012 03:30:38 +0000 Michael T. McPhearson http://www.mcphearsonreport.com/?p=4578539

Bill Bennett by Gage Skidmore

Over the past month as the circumstances of Trayvon Martin’s death have become common knowledge many commentators have called into question why Black people are so energized by this incident. They claim that Black leaders have made the incident into a racial issue and used the tragedy as a vehicle for their personal gain.

One such voice is that of Bill Bennett, a person who I usually think of as reasonable, but I find myself disappointed with his simple and one-sided piece on CNN’s website,  Rush to judgment in Trayvon Martin case. In it, Bennett voices fair skepticism to pronouncing Mr. Zimmerman guilty of murder. Obviously only Zimmerman and Trayvon know what really happened. Moreover, our system of justice demands innocence until proven guilty, so Bennett is right to call for people not to rush to judgment. But Mr. Bennett’s explanations for why we should not rush to judgment go far beyond the obvious reasons I have stated. Through his reasoning he reveals a deep misunderstanding of what drives the outrage and his own inability to be objective.

In his piece Bennett tries to set a stage where Zimmerman’s actions are understandable. He cites reports of Trayvon’s troubles at school and writes about the crime in the neighborhood over the past year, and how according to neighbors Zimmerman is passionate about security.

This suggests that Trayvon was a troublemaker and was possibly causing problems that could justify his killing. Somehow Bennett thinks it is important to point out that Zimmerman identifies as Hispanic and a Democrat. I guess he believes that Hispanic is synonymous with being a person of color and that as a member of the liberal political party friendly to Blacks; Zimmerman is insulated from charges of racism. Of the many people who have spoken out about Trayvon, Bennett chooses two names that incite anger from many of his conservative allies – Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton – , to provide examples of people rushing “….to judgment with little regard for fairness, due process, or respect for the terrible death of a young man.”

One offensive portion of the essay is his accusation that the reaction to Trayvon’s death is “selective outrage.” He explains that of all the Black homicides, about 93% are committed by other Black people and he actually asks, “Where are the marches and protests for these victims? Is it justice people seek or are they looking and even hoping for signs of white racism so they can exploit it?”

But the most offensive part of his essay is where hey quotes Dr. King’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail, “Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.”

He twists the meaning of King’s words by writting, “While we wait and respect due process of law, we should do our part to uplift human personality. We can do so by giving both Martin and Zimmerman a just weighing of the evidence, both in the court of law and public opinion. Let us not assume the worst of anybody but be guided by the facts.”

Bennett’s analysis disregards some important facts. Zimmerman followed and killed Trayvon, this is not in dispute. It is also true that for a time Zimmerman’s story about how and why it happened stood without official scrutiny and it looked to most observers who knew about the case that the investigation was over. It took public outrage to move it forward. The story probably would have gained some level of national attention if Zimmerman had been arrested and due process followed, but it attracted the reaction Bennett denigrates because of inaction by the justice system. This explains why Black people are so animated and outraged over the killing. It is clear to us that our lives mean little and that our children’s lives can be taken and dismissed based on the word of the person who did the killing. This reminds us of the days of Jim Crow or before when Black people had no equal protection under the law. Today, while our written laws may speak equality, our realities do not, as Trayvon’s killing demonstrates. It brings to mind for me the words of Vernon Johns, pastor of Dexter Baptist Church right before Dr. King, “A rabbit is better off than a Negro because in Alabama niggers are always in season.”

This may sound over the top, but how should I feel? When I first heard about the story from my wife we were in Costa Rica having dinner with another couple and she shared the story. I nearly began to cry. I thought of my son and my grandson. I had a flashback to the death of Amadou Diallo and the 41 shots hitting his body 11 times. I was not as outraged by Amadou’s killing as by the finding that the police officers acted within their rights to shoot an unarmed man, a man who like so many other times in the past was Black. Now it seems that a civilian can kill a Black person and the death can go uninvestigated. How are we supposed to react when it appears once again that a Black man can be killed with impunity? Could all of us be wrong as Black people to feel this way? We did not gather at a meeting or have a phone conference and agree to react with such outrage. It is a feeling that bubbles up from within us. Perhaps there has not been such a national outcry from Blacks about the murder of a stranger since Emmitt Till.

I am amazed by Bennett’s question about his perception of a lack of outrage in the Black community when Black people kill each other. He does not ask this question out of genuine concern or curiosity; rather, it is an accusation that a whole community is guilty of faulty thinking and more concerned about blaming “Whitey” than taking responsibility for ourselves.

We are well aware of this cancer of violence that plagues our communities and the gangbanger thug mentality that perpetuates it. We invest immeasurable energies into trying to stop this self-destructive behavior through programs, activism, dialogue and religious community. A prime example is the Newark Anti-violence Coalition. These are young people, many of whom have had their share of troubles, who have decided to make a difference through positive action. They have demonstrated by shutting down intersections at the site of murders in Newark and the surronding communties every Wednesday for nearly three years. They reach out to the demographic usually participating in and victimized by this violent behavior. No one is harder on Blacks about these issues than Blacks themselves. Both Jackson and Sharpton constantly raise these issues and challenge our community to take action to change. In fact, the New Black Panther Party in part exists because of this violence. They are individuals who band together to confront violence in the trenches. While I do not agree with all their rhetoric or tactics, I understand their frustration and anger. Has Bill Bennett ever marched in an anti-violence march in any Black community? I hope so. If so, he should know the pain felt by the community at the double tragedy of the death and another one of our babies turned killer going to prison.

Bennett asks what Jesse Jackson is talking about when he says that arresting, incarcerating and ultimately killing Blacks is big business? That’s easy, look who is in prison and why. Look who is on death row and why. It is well known that the incarceration rates for Blacks are dramatically higher than for Whites. What may not be so well known is that the high rate is driven by the drug war and that Blacks go to jail for behaviors in which Whites equally participate. The targeting of Black communities and bias criminal justice policies result in more Blacks in prison for drug crimes and facing harsher sentences. Once again, how should we react to these realities?

Bennett and others sermonize that this incident should not be racialized. He claims that outspoken Black leaders and their followers “are not on an impartial hunt for justice but are exploiting this crisis for personal or political gain and claiming that it is representative of larger societal problems.”

When Amadou was killed and the police found innocent of any responsibility for his death I wrote,

“Is there a proper perspective to see the ramifications of Mr. Amadou Diallo’s death? Can we set aside the concept of race and properly understand who must be held accountable for the tragedy? The answer is to look at Amadou’s death through the critical lens of human rights and the idea of a liberal democracy.”

I believe this is also the proper perspective to examine the death of Trayvon Martin and the circumstances that led to this tragedy. But Amadou’s death also led me to write this,

“The acquittal of the four police officers of any responsibility for the death of Amadou Diallo was a blow to my psyche. I felt as if something physically hit me in the chest. I was weighed down with my Blackness. This is a terrible statement to make, and an even more horrible way to feel. Sometimes one gets tired of being singled out, ignored, devalued, criminalized, marginalized, and targeted. Sometimes one can get a feeling of despair. This is what I felt for a moment when I heard the verdict of the Albany jury.”

Those feelings returned upon hearing about the circumstances of Trayvon’s death. This has happened too many times to too many Black people. Bennett is right that the answer to this is not about race, but the reality of it is about race.  If Trayvon had been White he would be alive or the shooter would have been arrested. Of course we do not know that for sure, but what Black people know is that it is more than likely true. How do we know this? Because we live the reality of what it means to be Black in America every day, and we have seen this before.

When Dr. King wrote his letter from the Birmingham jail he wrote it because he was outraged by the inaction of clergy to speak out against the obvious injustice of racism. There is no doubt that King would have marched today for Trayvon. Not to call for revenge or for Zimmerman’s head, but to call for justice. Justice had no chance if Mr. Zimmerman did not go to trial, no matter what the “stand your ground” law says. An unarmed boy walking home minding his own business cannot be killed by a man who followed him and there be no trial. The fact is that no matter Trayvon’s behavior before that day, or what happened between he and Zimmerman, had Zimmerman followed police orders and left Trayvon alone, Trayvon would have made it back to his dad with his Skittles and Zimmerman would be an unknown name.  No trial, no justice. No outrage, no trial.

To listen to part two click here!

Watch the slide show of photographs from April 4, 2012

John Derbyshire

Have you heard about The Talk: Nonblack Version? John Derbyshire a former National Review writer wrote a piece in response to a number of recent high profile stories by Black parents describing a generic talk many Black people have given their children, especially their boys about how to act to avoid being profiled. Things like don’t walk with your hands in your pocket, what to do if stopped by the police if walking or in a car; basically what to do to stay out of trouble and stay alive. I am not sure my mother had The Talk with me, but the lessons I learned one way or another come to mind at times today giving me pause before I do one thing or another. For example, I do not run out of my neighborhood corner store at night because I don’t want my haste to be misunderstood.

For some reason Derbyshire felt a need to share his version of The Talk from a non-Black perspective. He published his essay The Talk: Nonblack Version on Takimag.com, an online zine that states labels like conservative and liberal are outdated and claims no ideology. This is either true so just about anything well written can go on thier site or they really do have an ideology and a facet  of it is racism because Derbyshire’s piece is blatantly racist.

Derbyshire assembled in his essay 15 pieces of advice and direction he has given his two kids now 16 and 19 about Black people. The piece is so racist that it is silly and I found myself laughing and feeling sorry for him. It is so over the top that few Conservatives if any are defending him and the National Review, a bastion of Conservative thought fired him because of the piece. Please read it for yourself, but here are two examples: Avoid concentrations of blacks not all known to you personally; Do not attend events likely to draw a lot of blacks.

Derbyshire is married to a Chinese citizen and made it point in the essay to inform us that he told his children, “Your own ancestry is mixed north-European and northeast-Asian, but blacks will take you to be white.” He has been quoted as saying he is, “I am a homophobe, though a mild and tolerant one, and a racist, though an even more mild and tolerant one.” I applaud him for his candor.

When contacted by the Daily Caller to ask him his take on the controversy Derbyshire said he was surprised by the uproar and thought his advice was common sense. Either he is completely out of touch or an excellent showman. More people know his name today than in his whole career.

I wrote this because I think you need to know what people are writing and just how much racism the Trayvon Martin killing is surfacing. Trayvon’s death is a tragedy, but it is surfacing tensions that need to be uncovered in our society so that we can work on them. And that is a good thing.

Team Deborah Badger

This is a two part segment about a March 31^st New Jersey Coalition Against Sexual Assault (NJCASA) Walk in   Hamilton NJ to raise money and awareness about the national epidemic of sexual assault. Primarily using Facebook my wife Deborah Jacobs organized walk team Deborah Badger to raise money and recruit walkers. She and her team raised more than $3,400.

I am really amazed by the high number of sexual assaults and the lack of attention given this common occurrence. The pain and suffering alone should cause a national uproar, but it seems we want to pretend the assaults are not happening.

The basic statistics clearly state we have a serious problem that puts millions at risk, but especially children and women.    44% of victims are under age 18, 80% are under age 30, Every 2 minutes someone in the U.S. is sexually assaulted, There is an average of 207,754 victims (age 12 or older) of sexual assault each year, 54% of sexual assaults are not reported to the police, 97% of rapists will never spend a day in jail, Approximately 2/3 of assaults are committed by someone known to the victim, 38% of rapists are a friend or acquaintance (for more information follow this link http://www.rainn.org/statistics)

This is an issue we all must bring to light and push for action. What can we do? We must take action in in our personal and public lives? Contact your local anti-sexual assault organization and visit www.rainn.org to learn more about the problem. But the most important action to take is to talk about it.

Also visit the Southern Connecticut State University Women’s Center website . This site has some very good information about sexual assault.

Photos from the walk.

This is my first podcast. There are countless topics I could have used to kick off my show, but the People’s Organization for Progress daily protest was the obvious choice. POP is my connection to grassroots street activism and the ground truth of the impact of our socio economic system and government policy on working and poor people.

POP has been conducting a daily vigil for jobs, peace justice and equality. POP plans to at least match the 381 days of the December 5, 1955 to December 20, 1956 Montgomery bus boycott in tribute to their perseverance. Starting the process this past summer, POP has reached day 271. Having stood through heat, rain, wind and snow the next 100 days will be easy. I talked with POP Chairman Larry Hamm and Veterans For Peace Alan Reilly and Gene Glazer Chapter 21 President Ken Dalton who participated in a day of protest in solidarity.

I didn’t think that Santorum had enough time to do well in New Hampshire, but that he could pick up momentum to have a chance in South Carolina. But it turned out that Newt Gingrich’s combative and rousing debate performances appealed to the fighting mood of Conservatives in the state that started the civil war.

Click here for video of question and answer.

Gingrich surged ahead in South Carolina after the January 16 debate when Juan Williams brought  the issue of race to center stage by asking Gingrich if Americans in general, and Blacks in particular, would find his comments about food stamps and working as a janitors to learn how to work insulting. Gingrich’s answer, which a supporter later described as putting Juan (a Black man) in his place, catapulted Newt to the front of the race with Romney second followed by Santorum and Ron Paul. If you have been keeping up you know that the primary wars went on to Florida where Newt lost to Romney 46.4% to 31.9%. Santorum followed far behind with only 13.3%. Then came the big day for Rick. He won in Missouri, Minnesota and Colorado. Now his national numbers among likely Republican voters has surpassed Romney’s.

The next big test for Romney and Santorum was last Tuesday in Michigan. Arizona also voted, but with Michigan being Romney’s home state a loss there would bring into sharp focus his claim that he is the best candidate with the ability to win a general election. At one point polls showed him losing he was losing badly. Fortunately for him he beat Santorum if only by 3.2%. The slim margin does show weakness, but a win  is a win so now the pressure is fully on Santorum to have a good showing on Super Tuesday.

I believe that Santorum is the best candidate of the Republican field for the same reasons he has risen for the second time as a real obstacle to Mitt Romney. Unlike Romney, Santorum   excites his party. His consistent record and message of conservatism has enabled Santorum to make connections and inspire party members. Passion is the key to winning elections and candidates who inspire are the most electable. Romney does not inspire, and his claim to be the only candidate in the Republican field that can beat Obama is not enough. His inability to convince the average conservative Republican voter to believe in him and trust him as a leader and not just as the anti-Obama guy leaves him vulnerable.

The competition is good for the Republican Party, which needs excitement to have any shot at beating Obama. The ability to inspire is central to the ability to win an election. Think of Dole and McCain in 1996 and 2008, respectively. Both candidates were past their primes, relatively boring and ran against men who seemed born to inspire, Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama. Inspiration won. Applying  this line of thinking to the two presidential races George Bush Jr. won, certainly he was not the most inspiring orator or visionary, but candidate Al Gore was never able to excite loyal Democrats much less swing voters who needed inspiration to counter the enthusiasm the Right felt at the prospect of returning to the White House. Similarly, John Kerry never articulated a true alternate vision and inspiration to the September 11 inspired Bush. Gore has done much better at inspiration outside of political life, addressing one of the great questions of our time, climate change for which he has won a Nobel Peace Prize. Inspiration wins again.

With Dole and McCain, the Republicans   picked the establishment candidate whose turn it was to run as the Party’s nominee. It didn’t matter if their time had passed, the system did not allow room for that realization. This time, however, the unconventional Tea Party movement is bucking the system. They do not care who is supposed to be up to bat. They care about their principles and winning in that order. They don’t want to pick a loser, but they don’t want a winner they can’t believe in. They wear their beliefs and the emotions attached to those beliefs on their sleeves. So does Rick Santorum. Inspiration may win again.

But while candidates need inspiration to win, inspiration alone is not enough. Santorum still faces the same challenges he faced in Iowa: lack of funds and organization. Romney has that over him by far and is still the establishment’s choice. Perhaps most crippling obstacle for Santorum is the continuation of Gingrich’s failing candidacy. He and to a lesser extent Ron Paul continue to fracture the non-Romney vote. But nationally Santorum’s rise comes at the expense of Gingrich and Romney. If Santorum can continue to gain momentum and convince people to support him because they believe, he still won’t raise more money than Romney, but he may raise enough.

Santorum’s greatest strength is his consistent conservatism. A few days ago CNN personality Jack Cafferty commented “….if Mitt Romney wants to defeat Rick Santorum – who is the current flavor of the month in the polls – all he has to do is read some of this stuff aloud at campaign stops.” Then he went on to cite items that would hurt Santorum with moderate and liberal voters in a general election, but in fact help him with many social conservatives in the current primaries such as blaming radical feminist for forcing women to work and comparing homosexuality to polygamy and bestiality. Cafferty’s advice is the exact opposite of what would help Romney defeat Santorum. Santorum’s unabashed attitude about his conservative views, his appeal as a hard working blue collar guy who believes in free market capitalism and his over the top proselytizing of American exceptionalism is exactly why conservatives find him so appealing. Even as he finds himself explaining or justifying questionable comments surfacing from the past, he benefits from the focus on his conservative credentials.  On the other hand, Romney’s past reminds voters why they do not trust him. He cannot attack Santorum’s conservative values to gain the favor of Conservatives without stirring up this distrust. He does not have the ability to out- conservative Santorum and the idea that Romney is the only one who has a chance to beat President Obama is losing traction. This puts him in a tough spot. It will be interesting to see if his planned TV ad attack strategy will give Romney more traction.

So the question becomes, can Santorum stand strong as a frontrunner? After his lackluster performance in the February 22^nd Arizona debate, we have to wonder. Gingrich, Paul and Romney did a good job keeping him on the defensive. We have to see what the polls say over the next few weeks. But most importantly, we look forward to Super Tuesday. That day will reveal whether Santorum or Gingrich will be the last man standing against Romney. No matter what happens, Ron Paul will continue to be in the mix, but he does not threaten the nomination. I forecast Newt will fall to the wayside and the fight will remain between Romney and Santorum. Money and organization vs. inspiration and enthusiasm.

Perhaps the most telling statement from his speech was, “But America remains the one indispensable nation in world affairs, and as long as I am President, I intend to keep it that way.” This single sentence lays bare the President’s intentions to continue down the path of U.S. interventionism and push for global military and political and economic hegemony. So even in his attempt to claim America is back, and articulate a new direction, we really just heard more of the same: American imperialism at the expense of human needs and the principles of freedom and self-determination. The overwhelming applause by Democrats and Republicans to this sentiment made clear that our national political leadership is united with President Obama in a vision of the United States as the center of the world, telling the world what to do.

I agree with the President’s call for investment in the nation’s infrastructure and clean energy, to take care of veterans, to pay for many other human needs and for the rich to pay their fair share. But none of that will matter as long as our foreign policy is based on militarism instead of diplomacy and guided by the arrogant premise that America’s interest supersedes all other nation’s ambitions to chart their own course. Our nation will continue to be embroiled in wars of intervention and aggression as U.S. interference in regional conflicts will invite retaliation and resistance. Our nation’s limited resources will continue to be wasted on building a military capable of projecting global power to ensure U.S. dominance.

The President demonstrated the truth about these misplaced priorities when he referenced a $500 billion savings from the Pentagon budget. Upon closer examination, these so-called savings are not really cuts, but rather a reduction in previously projected increases in Pentagon spending. In fact the Pentagon budget will not be cut at all but will continue to grow even though at present the U.S. accounts for approximately 41% of global military expenditures. The U.S. budget is 6 times more than the next highest spender, China. Moreover, while $500 billion sounds like a lot, the number is over a 10 year period in which total Pentagon spending will top $700 trillion dollars. The “savings” amounts to less than 7%.

At a time of rising budget deficits, millions suffering from job loss, mortgage foreclosures, homelessness and a bleak economic future, our nation is at a crossroads. With the end of the Iraq War, the death of Osama bin Laden and the relative demise of al Qaeda, we must look back on the past ten years and ask ourselves what have we learned? Was war the answer to the problems we faced as a nation the morning of September 12, 2001? Did we lead ourselves into the conflict with blowback from years of a foreign policy based on exploiting Islamic violent jihad against the former Soviet Union? Did our friendly relationship with dictators like Saddam Hussein and Hosni Mubarak put us on the wrong side of history? As we look to the future will militarism and the pursuit of economic and political world dominance simply lead to more distrust and conflict as Arab nations emerge from their peoples’ movements for self-government and self-determination? Is it really possible for the U.S. to impose its will on the expanding economic powers of Brazil, Russia, India and China? Can the U.S. really claim to champion freedom while at the same time direct a global empire not that different from the one the founding generation decided they had to break free from?

The challenge lies before us. As peacemakers and justice seekers working with emerging and growing movements like the Occupations, and across the full spectrum of economic and social justice struggles, we must develop, communicate and live a new vision of human coexistence and international cooperation. With the world facing the Armageddon – like threats of climate change and nuclear war – the future of the world rests in our hands and in the urgency of our efforts. We must unite in our determination to change the priorities of our country. Most important, we must practice what we preach: tolerance, peace and justice providing a model of our vision to follow and not just empty words to be ignored. Now is the time. Let us think, let us plan and let us act.

Why were so many Democrats searching for someone else to support? I decided early on that I was going to vote for Obama.  I was upset with Hillary Clinton’s refusal to admit that the Iraq war was a mistake. Obama spoke out against it before he was a candidate and Edwards stated that going to war was a wrong decision. Clinton could not bring herself to say it. Her reluctance undermined trust with Democrat activists and ran counter to the anti-war sentiment in the general Left. This can be seen in 2008 exit polls where voters said the war and the economy were their top issues. The difference between Obama, Edwards and Clinton on economic policy was minimal with Edwards being the most aggressive with addressing poverty and economic equity. I have already outlined the difference in positions on Iraq. Similarly, trust is the obstacle facing Romney. He has been the front runner by keeping a steady poll number of 25% in a crowded field, but the most active conservative wing of the Republican Party, simply do not trust him. They do not believe he is a true Conservative, so they are shopping which gave Santorum the opening he exploited. The other similarity to Obama’s win in 2008 is that the activist wing of the Republican Party is pushing back on the establishment candidate and will continue to do so until they either win with an alternative candidate or lose and must rally around Romney.

The similarities end here. While going into Iowa in 2008 as an underdog, a significant number of supporters had already coalesced around Obama providing huge amounts of money second only to Clinton. Obama did not go into Iowa race weeks before in the bottom tier. As a result Obama was not underfunded and he had a very strong and organized ground game. This is almost the opposite of Santorum’s situation.

Though the Democrat field was crowded with six candidates in 2008, the top three received the vast number of votes with the next three posting a dismal 3%. This is in stark contrast to Tuesday 2012 where the bottom four of the seven Republicans received 29% of the vote. The packed race hurt Santorum. He might have received 9 of Herman Cain’s 58 votes or some of Buddy Roemer’s 31 (who is Buddy Roemer). If Michele Bachman had dropped out Monday instead of Wednesday I am sure he would have received 9 of her 6,073.

Perhaps the most important differences between Obama’s win and Santorum’s near win are money and organization. Santorum has these two enormous obstacles to overcome to beat Romney. He must rely on the dissatisfaction and energy of conservative Republicans to quickly fill his coffers and volunteer in mass to keep him competitive. This means that the Conservatives must agree to unite around Santorum and drop Perry and Gingrich. He may not have the time to affect the outcome of the January 10^th New Hampshire primary, but winning conservative South Carolina on January 21^st is definitely possible. So standby to see if Santorum can do what Obama did 2008, beat the establishment candidate of  his party to be its nominee for president. I don’t know if he would like the comparison, but it is what it is and it is in his interest to look to Obama for inspiration.

Sorry Rick, politics is a hell of a game.

 Links to status and more info about both races.

 Iowa 2012 Republican Caucus Results         Iowa 2008:  Rups and Dems Election Results  Exit Polls

Closes U.S. Election Races

The process to make the active ingredients was developed by Dr. John Huffman ,a chemistry professor while researching the effects of cannabinoids. In 1995 he wrote a research paper outlining the method to create the key compound. That method fell into the hands of people seeking to replicate Huffman’s work and to spray onto dried flowers, herbs and tobacco for recreational drug use.

While the full effects are unknown, there have been reports of people hallucinating for days while on the drug. But Dr. Huffman is quoted as saying “People who use it are idiots,” referring to K2 smokers.

Unfortunately it looks like a growing number of U.S. service members are turning to the drug for fun and self-medication.

The military is attempting to cut down on the expanding problem. A Washington Post article reports that two years ago 29 Marines were investigated for Spice, this year the number tops 700. Last year the Air Force punished 380 airmen for using the drug, this year the number climbed to 497. The Army has medically treated 119 soldiers for the synthetic drug in total. The service members have turned to this substance because until recently there was not a way to detect it. Now there are ways to test for it, but it is still not easy to catch people because Spice is made in different ways and designers are always changing it

States and the federal government are moving to make the substances illegal. But the concoction is widely available on the net selling as incenses and marked as not for human consumption.

Read the full story about U.S. service member use here.         Read story quoting Dr. Huffman here?