AKA: AI Angie | Investigative Writer, AI Enthusiast | GenX Okie Red #MAGA šŗšø TRUMPš š | If you are not winning, you are losing. NO Weird DMs!
Oklahoma
- Tweets 23,021
- Following 4,488
- Followers 4,907
- Likes 39,987
āļø A METEOR HIT OKLAHOMA 370 MILLION YEARS AGO. THEN, MUCH LATER, WE DRILLED IT FOR OIL.
Only in Oklahoma could a meteor crater eventually become part of the oil business.
Scientists have just dramatically rewritten the history of the Ames impact structure, a massive buried meteor crater beneath northwestern Oklahoma.
For decades, researchers believed the meteor struck about 467 million years ago.
New research from the University of Texas at Austin says that was off by nearly 100 million years.
Using uranium-lead dating of zircon crystals altered by the impact, researchers dated the crater to approximately 370 million years ago.
But hereās the Oklahoma part of this story that caught my attention:
The crater became an oil and natural gas reservoir.
When the meteor slammed into the Earth, the impact fractured, shattered and rearranged rock deep underground.
Over hundreds of millions of years, those damaged and displaced rock formations became part of a geological structure capable of trapping hydrocarbons.
Fast-forward a few hundred million years and humans started drilling into it.
In fact, oil exploration played an important role in our understanding of the Ames structure in the first place.
The crater is completely buried beneath younger sediment, so there isnāt a giant hole in the Oklahoma landscape announcing:
METEOR LANDED HERE.
Instead, geologists studying subsurface formations encountered something unusual beneath Ames. Drilling and seismic information eventually helped reveal the enormous circular structure hidden underground.
And then came another twist.
Scientists originally dated the impact partly using ancient fossils found in crater material.
Those fossils were about 467 million years old.
But apparently the meteor hit much later and blasted through rock that already contained those ancient fossils.
The fossils were older than the crater.
Now microscopic zircon crystals have helped straighten out the timeline.
The revised age also places the Ames impact surprisingly close in time to the Late Devonian mass-extinction period, although researchers are NOT claiming this relatively small impact caused that extinction.
Still, think about the timeline:
āļø A meteor strikes roughly 370 million years ago.
š„ The impact violently fractures Oklahomaās ancient rock.
šŖØ The crater is eventually buried beneath layers of sediment.
š¢ļø Geological processes turn portions of that battered underground structure into traps for oil and natural gas.
āļø Hundreds of millions of years later, people drilling for petroleum help reveal what happened.
š¬ And in 2026, tiny zircon crystals tell scientists weāve had the craterās age wrong for decades.
Oklahomaās oil history apparently has a chapter that began before Oklahoma existed.
Way before.
Made with AI
6
2
21
575
šØ OKLAHOMA HAS FIRE CODES. BUT WHO IS MAKING SURE THEYāRE STILL BEING FOLLOWED?
A deadly explosion at an Oklahoma marijuana processing facility is raising a much larger question about how the state inspects potentially dangerous businesses.
On August 27, an explosion ripped through Solos Extracts in Sand Springs.
Two employees, Michael Newman and Stephen Scott, died.
But what happened before the explosion is where this story gets troubling.
A Sand Springs fire marshal had inspected the facility in January.
According to court records, he found an outdated fire-suppression system and an extraction booth used in marijuana manufacturing.
The business was reportedly told to disconnect the extraction booth until the problems were corrected and the facility could be reinspected.
Then, months later, the building exploded.
When investigators returned after the blast, they reportedly found large quantities of liquid propane and additional equipment that had not been there during the earlier inspection.
The owner now faces two first-degree murder charges. Those charges are allegations, and the criminal case will ultimately be decided in court.
But the explosion has exposed another issue that goes far beyond one business.
Oklahomaās fire-safety inspection system has some surprising gaps.
State fire officials say that once a facility passes its initial fire and life-safety inspection and receives approval, fire marshals generally arenāt required to routinely return unless something changes that triggers another inspection.
In other words, a facility can pass inspection.
Then the building, equipment or operation can change.
And there isnāt necessarily a mandatory recurring fire-safety inspection that catches those changes.
Thereās another wrinkle.
In Oklahoma communities with fewer than 10,000 residents, a certified inspector isnāt necessarily required to perform local fire-safety inspections.
State Fire Marshal Chief Agent Darryl Beebe described just how broad that can be, explaining that in a small town the person inspecting a facility could potentially be another municipal employee without specialized fire-code certification.
Meanwhile, Oklahomaās State Fire Marshalās Office has only 13 officers responsible for inspections across areas under its jurisdiction.
And marijuana processing isnāt exactly a low-risk business.
Hazardous extraction can involve gases such as propane and butane. Proper ventilation, gas detection, fire suppression and specialized equipment arenāt bureaucratic niceties when combustible gases are involved.
Theyāre life-safety systems.
Oklahoma does have statewide building and fire codes, and municipalities that assume inspection authority are required to enforce standards at least as stringent as the stateās.
The question emerging from this investigation isnāt whether Oklahoma has rules.
Itās whether the inspection and enforcement system is strong enough to make sure those rules are still being followed after the inspector leaves.
Because a certificate hanging on a wall only tells us what an inspector found on the day it was issued.
It doesnāt tell us what is happening inside that building six months later.
Two Oklahoma workers are dead.
That makes this more than a paperwork problem.
Made with AI
3
1
11
483
šØ WHEN A COURT ORDERS āSUPERVISED VISITATION,ā WHAT DOES SUPERVISED ACTUALLY MEAN?
Oklahoma lawmakers are asking that question after the death of a 6-year-old girl who was killed during what was supposed to be court-ordered supervised visitation.
In June 2025, 6-year-old Elizibeth āLizzyā Feaster was killed by her father, Billy Feaster, during a supervised overnight visit. He then killed himself.
Court records showed there had already been serious concerns. Lizzyās father had been restricted to supervised visitation.
Yet Lizzy still died during one of those visits.
Her grandmother, Jill Walsh, recently testified before Oklahoma lawmakers:
āLizzy had no safe haven from her abuser.ā
Now the Oklahoma Legislature is examining whether the word āsupervisedā actually provides the protection families and courts assume it does.
On September 21, the Senate Judiciary Committee held an interim study specifically examining Supervised Visitation Safety and Accountability.
And what lawmakers heard exposed an important distinction:
Oklahoma already has laws and policies governing supervised visitation.
The problem may be what happens after the judge signs the order.
Sen. Carri Hicks, who requested the study, said there can be a difference between having standards written into law and having consistent standards in practice.
Among the issues now being examined:
š¹ Who is qualified to supervise a visit?
š¹ Should supervisors have mandatory training and background checks?
š¹ Should high-risk cases have additional safety protocols?
š¹ What must be documented and reported?
š¹ What happens when someone violates the rules?
š¹ Who has the authority to immediately terminate an unsafe visit?
š¹ And are the same protections realistically available in rural Oklahoma, where supervised-visitation services may be limited?
Hicks says she plans to introduce legislation in the 2027 session called the Supervised Visitation Safety and Accountability Act, or āLizzyās Law.ā
The proposal is expected to look at statewide minimum standards, training and background screening, documentation, reporting, oversight, procedures for stopping unsafe visits and special consideration for domestic violence and child abuse cases.
There is an important balance here.
Courts frequently have to preserve a parentās right to maintain a relationship with a child while also protecting that child from potential harm.
Supervised visitation is supposed to help accomplish both.
But once a court has determined that a parent should not be alone with a child, the supervision cannot simply exist on paper.
Because the word āsupervisedā carries an enormous promise:
Someone is watching.
Someone is responsible.
And someone will act if that child is in danger.
Lizzyās case is forcing Oklahoma to ask whether its current system consistently keeps that promise.
And that is a question worth answering before another family has to ask it afterward.
Made with AI
3
4
13
403
šØ OKLAHOMAāS PROPERTY TAX QUESTION WONāT MAKE IT TO THE VOTERS
Oklahomans will not get to vote on State Question 843.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court has ruled the proposed property-tax measure unconstitutional in a very close 5-4 decision.
And the split itself may be just as interesting as the ruling.
SQ 843 proposed gradually eliminating ad valorem property taxes on owner-occupied homes that qualify for the homestead exemption.
The phaseout would have happened over three years, reaching a 100% exemption in 2029.
But before supporters could even begin collecting signatures to put the question before voters, the proposal was challenged in court.
Now the Oklahoma Supreme Court has stopped it.
The majority focused on a provision of the Oklahoma Constitution requiring real property to be assessed for ad valorem taxation at no less than 11% of its fair cash value.
Their reasoning was fairly straightforward:
If a homestead ultimately becomes completely exempt under SQ 843, its taxable assessment effectively falls to zero.
The majority concluded that conflicts with the Constitution.
Because that issue alone was enough to invalidate the proposal, the Court said it did not need to resolve the other constitutional arguments raised against it.
But four justices disagreed.
And thatās where this becomes more than a property-tax story.
Chief Justice Dustin Rowe argued in dissent that the Court should not be deciding the constitutionality of the proposal before voters have even had an opportunity to consider it.
His concern was the Court becoming what he called a āpre-election gatekeeper.ā
That creates an interesting constitutional debate.
On one side:
A voter initiative is still subject to the Oklahoma Constitution. If the proposed statute clearly conflicts with the Constitution, the majority concluded it cannot proceed simply because voters might approve it.
On the other:
The initiative process is itself a constitutional right reserved to the people, and the dissent questioned whether the Court should prevent voters from exercising that right before an election ever occurs.
And then there is the practical issue behind all of this.
Property taxes provide significant funding for Oklahoma schools, counties, public safety and other local government services. Opponents argued that eliminating homestead property taxes would remove more than $1 billion annually from that system.
Supporters argued homeowners deserve substantial property-tax relief and that Oklahomaās Constitution already permits homestead exemptions.
But neither argument will be settled at the ballot box through SQ 843.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court settled this version of the question first.
And by only one vote.
5-4.
That may leave Oklahoma with a bigger question than whether property taxes should be reduced:
How far should courts go in deciding what Oklahomans are allowed to vote on before they ever enter the voting booth?
Made with AI
24
24
74
2,843
Winning in America retweeted
āI am announcing the formation of the Super Intelligence Force (SIF).Ā The Super Intelligence Force is tasked with coordinating the effort of the Federal Government to ensure that America continues to lead the World in Super Intelligence, which many say is bigger than the Industrial Revolution, and the Internet, and will protect the interests, and improve the lives, of all Americans.ā - President DONALD J. TRUMP šŗšø
4,336
7,848
33,003
1,705,228
āļø OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT: THE LAW NEVER ALLOWED IT
For years, some Oklahomans obtained court orders allowing the sex designation on their birth certificates to be changed.
But according to a new 6-3 Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling, there was a fundamental problem:
The state law being used never actually authorized those changes.
The case, Fowler v. Stitt, involves three transgender Oklahomans who sought birth certificates reflecting their gender identities. They obtained state court orders directing the changes, but the Oklahoma State Department of Health refused to make them.
That eventually produced a federal lawsuit and a complicated trip through the courts.
Now the Oklahoma Supreme Court has answered three specific questions sent to it by the federal 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.
And the majorityās answers were unusually definitive:
Does Oklahoma law prohibit changing the sex designation on a birth certificate?
Yes.
Has Oklahoma law ever permitted changing the sex designation?
No.
Has the law ever authorized changing it based on gender identity?
No.
Hereās where the history gets interesting.
The court acknowledged that beginning around 2007, some people obtained Oklahoma court orders directing the Health Department to change their birth certificates to correspond with their gender identities.
That practice continued for years.
But the Supreme Court majority concluded that neither those court orders nor the Health Departmentās past practices could create authority that wasnāt contained in the statute.
Oklahoma lawmakers subsequently made the language much more explicit.
A 2022 amendment required the biological-sex designation on an amended birth certificate to be male or female rather than nonbinary. Then, in May 2026, lawmakers amended the statute again to say an amended birth certificate must contain the biological sex identified at birth and cannot be changed to display gender identity or a nonbinary designation.
The plaintiffs argued that previous law allowed the changes and challenged the stateās refusal on constitutional grounds.
The majority disagreed with their interpretation of Oklahoma law.
Three justices dissented. Justice James Winchester joined Justice Richard Darby Combsā separate dissent, which argued that the Oklahoma Supreme Court should not have answered the federal courtās certified questions because the statutory language was sufficiently clear for the federal court to interpret itself. Justice Noma Gurich also dissented.
And thereās an important distinction here:
The Oklahoma Supreme Court was answering questions about what Oklahomaās statute means. It was not issuing the final decision on all of the plaintiffsā federal constitutional claims.
The case now returns to the federal courts, where the Oklahoma Supreme Courtās interpretation of state law becomes highly significant to what remains of the litigation.
So this ruling is about more than what Oklahoma law says today.
The majority effectively looked backward at years of state practice and said:
The authority to make those changes wasnāt there to begin with.
That may turn out to be the most consequential sentence in the entire case.
Made with AI
7
31
91
1,508
š„ āJUST $23.88 MORE A MONTH.ā UNTIL YOU DO THE MATH.
OG&E is asking Oklahoma regulators for another rate increase.
And this one isnāt pocket change.
According to documents filed with the Oklahoma Corporation Commission on September 30, OG&E says the average residential customer would pay approximately $23.88 more every month, although the actual increase would vary by usage and rate class. KOCO reports that represents about a 17.5% increase compared with current rates.
That sounds different when you stop talking monthly.
$23.88 a month = $286.56 a year.
OG&Eās overall request reportedly seeks approximately $395 million in additional annual revenue.
Why?
In its filing, OG&E says its existing rates arenāt producing enough operating income to provide what it considers a fair and reasonable return on its capital, property and other assets. The company also says the rate review is needed to support investments in electric reliability.
But hereās where this gets interesting.
Oklahoma regulators rejected a separate OG&E request earlier this year that would have allowed the utility to begin charging customers for construction of new natural-gas generating units intended in part to serve growing data-center demand.
Now OG&E is back before the Corporation Commission with a broader rate case.
And thereās another recent comparison worth watching.
Earlier this year, PSO sought a rate increase that would have added more than $25 to the average residential customerās monthly bill. Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummondās office negotiated a settlement reducing that proposed increase to approximately $2.45 per month, subject to Corporation Commission approval.
So OG&Eās requested $23.88 isnāt necessarily what customers will ultimately pay.
Thatās what the regulatory process is for.
The Oklahoma Corporation Commission will examine the companyās request and determine what increase, if any, should ultimately be approved.
But for roughly $286.56 a year per average residential customer, Oklahomans may want to pay attention to this rate case before the number quietly becomes another line on the electric bill.
ā” Would another $23.88 a month make a noticeable difference in your household budget?
Made with AI
58
87
170
6,792
Winning in America retweeted
šØ Trump just posted!
Thank you, Oklahoma.
5,000 people stood in the rain for hours just to pack the Choctaw Event Center in Durant and welcome President Trump back to the stage.
Thatās not a focus group. Thatās not a donor dinner. Thatās the base.
33 days. America First energy.
Republicans who actually fight.
Oklahoma showed up. Now the rest of the country needs to.
66
646
2,709
32,598
Excellent rundown on the debate!
Cyndi Munson opened the only governor debate with a smear. She called Mike Mazzei a ācorrupt establishment politicianā before the first question was asked.
Mazzei has not held office in a decade. No seat. No gavel. No election. She reached for the oldest attack in the book and aimed it at a man who has been out of office for ten years.
That was not a contrast. That was the first false charge of the night.
Debate Highlights:
AI. Mike Mazzei said America has to win the AI race, and that takes processing power. He would allow centers only with four guardrails: no taxpayer money, the companies supply their own electricity so household rates do not rise, construction only on locally approved industrial sites, and closed-loop cooling so water use stays closer to a mid-size hotel. Cyndi Munson said on day one she would sign an executive order freezing new data-center projects until the state has one set of rules. Big tech wants Oklahomaās land and loose regulations. Make companies pay for their own infrastructure, electricity, and utilities.
Education. Munson said Oklahoma is last because it underpays teachers and has nearly 4,000 emergency-certified teachers. She wants higher pay and more money for mental health and special education. Mazzei backed school choice and a literacy director in week one, copying Mississippi: phonics, coaches, and a third-grade reading standard. He said she would pour more money into a broken system, opposes choice, and voted against bans on boys in girlsā sports and bathrooms.
Inola smelter. Mazzei, not in office when it was approved, said Munson voted for the funding bill, SB 1000. He backed the plant for jobs ā he cited 10,000 jobs and $940 million a year ā and for military aluminum, with outside air and water checks. Munson said she voted against a $255 million package for a foreign corporation.
Abortion. Asked why she opposes a ban that includes rape and incest, and what limits she would accept, Munson shifted to maternity care: 52% of counties lack an OB-GYN. She accused Mazzei of wanting to jail women and doctors, and named no gestational limits.
Rural hospitals. Of 73 rural hospitals, 45 are financially vulnerable and 18 could close soon. Mazzei pointed to waste in SoonerCare and five years of no state income tax for new doctors. Munson said protect Medicaid expansion, and asked why he did not fix waste as Senate finance chair and budget secretary.
OETA and tribes. Munson would keep funding OETA. Mazzei would not commit. Both want to repair state-tribal relations after McGirt. She would make a secretary of Native American affairs permanent.
Insurance, housing, taxes. Munson would justify and cap rate hikes, raise the minimum wage, and cited an 80,000-unit housing shortage. Mazzei would copy Florida insurance reforms he said cut premiums about 14%, cut the income tax from 4.5% to 3% in year one by ending about $2 billion in breaks, and move 7,500 people off career-tech wait lists into trades. He also wants no property tax for seniors and veterans. She opposes eliminating the income tax.
Beef and immigration. Both opposed Trumpās temporary foreign-beef tariff waiver. On ICE arrests and cattlemenās warnings that legal workers are afraid to show up, Mazzei backed enforcement, deporting criminal immigrants, and a terrorist designation for the Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR. He said Munson has supported CAIR. She called that extremist and did not answer the charge.
Energy and closings. Mazzei would speed drilling permits and drop subsidies that compete with oil and gas. Munson wants all-of-the-above energy, including wind and solar, and said companies leave because schools and hospitals are weak. His close was a list: no income tax, no property tax for seniors and veterans, lower insurance, literacy, skilled trades. Hers was a warning that he would cut schools, healthcare, and pensions.
Opening statements
6
21
78
2,334
šØ 73 DAYS, A POLITICAL FIRESTORMā¦ AND NOW TWO MORE FELONIES?
Sara Polston is back behind bars.
If that name sounds familiar, it should.
Polston was sentenced to eight years in prison after a 2023 drunk-driving crash that left Micaela Borrego with life-altering injuries.
But Polston served just 73 days before the Oklahoma Department of Corrections transferred her to GPS monitoring at home.
That decision exploded into one of Oklahomaās biggest criminal-justice controversies of the year.
A multicounty grand jury investigated and concluded that Polston had received preferential treatment. The grand jury criticized what it described as political favoritism surrounding her case, although investigators said they did not find sufficient evidence of criminal wrongdoing by Gov. Kevin Stitt or his administration. Stitt has denied doing favors for Polston.
The controversy became so significant that Oklahoma lawmakers changed state law to prohibit people convicted of DUI causing great bodily injury from participating in the GPS program.
Polston then went to federal court challenging the application of the new law to her.
And now thereās another chapter.
Polston has been returned to prison.
According to KOCO, the Cleveland County District Attorneyās Office says it plans to charge her with two felony counts of voting while ineligible.
The Oklahoma State Election Board says Polston voted in the June 16 primary and again in the August 25 primary runoff while she was serving her felony sentence.
Under Oklahoma law, a person can commit a felony by willfully voting while knowing they are ineligible. The district attorney says Polston was ineligible because of her felony conviction.
So consider the timeline:
š“ Convicted in the DUI crash.
š“ Sentenced to eight years in prison.
š“ Released to GPS monitoring after 73 days.
š“ Early release becomes the subject of a grand jury investigation.
š“ Grand jury criticizes preferential treatment and political favoritism.
š“ Oklahoma Legislature changes the law.
š“ Polston files a federal lawsuit challenging the change.
š“ Authorities say she voted in two elections while serving her felony sentence.
š“ Now sheās back at Mabel Bassett Correctional Center and prosecutors say two new felony charges are coming.
And perhaps the most remarkable part?
Both votes allegedly happened after she had already been given the extraordinary opportunity to serve her prison sentence outside prison.
Polston has not been convicted of these new allegations. That will be determined through the criminal justice system.
But after everything that has already surrounded this case, Oklahoma now has another Sara Polston chapter.
And this one involves the ballot box.
Made with AI
12
17
58
1,617
āGet your asses in that car. Weāre going to Oklahoma.ā
President Trump recounts the moment severe weather threatens his Oklahoma trip and aides tell him both the helicopter and plane are off the table.
His alternative? Find out how fast the Beast can go and hit the road from Texas. The motorcade was reportedly traveling at speeds approaching 100 miles per hour.
209
904
8,249
485,986
š„© WHEN āAMERICA FIRSTā MEETS OKLAHOMA BEEF
Mike Mazzei has President Donald Trumpās endorsement.
But apparently, that doesnāt mean automatic agreement.
Mazzei is publicly breaking with Trump over the administrationās push to bring more foreign beef into the United States in an effort to lower prices for consumers.
And in Oklahoma, that is not exactly a small disagreement.
Trumpās argument is fairly straightforward: increase the supply of lean beef coming into the country and potentially bring down the price Americans are paying for ground beef.
Mazzeiās position is also straightforward: he doesnāt want cheaper foreign beef undercutting American cattle producers.
And Oklahoma has a whole lot of cattle producers.
This debate has actually created an unusual fault line inside the Republican Party.
Republican lawmakers from several cattle-producing states have pushed back against the administrationās import policy, while ranchers have warned that depressing cattle prices could make it harder for producers to rebuild the nationās depleted cattle herd.
That creates a strange economic puzzle.
Consumers want cheaper hamburger.
Ranchers need cattle prices high enough to remain profitable.
Washington wants more beef supply.
And importing more beef may help one side of that equation while putting pressure on the other.
Mazzei is choosing the rancher side of that argument.
What makes this politically interesting is who he is disagreeing with.
Trump endorsed Mazzei in the Oklahoma governorās race and played a highly visible role in his Republican primary runoff victory.
Now Mazzei is essentially saying:
I appreciate the endorsement, but on Oklahoma beef, I disagree.
That may be the more interesting story than the price of hamburger itself.
Because eventually every governor faces the same question:
When the interests of your state collide with the policies of a president from your own party, which one comes first?
In Oklahoma, we may be getting an early answer.
š„© So what do you think?
Should Washington increase foreign beef imports if it can lower grocery prices for consumers?
Or should protecting American ranchers and rebuilding the domestic cattle herd take priority?
Made with AI
34
25
121
2,747
š¤ SILICON VALLEY PROMISES TO BE GOOD. MORALLY.
I admit, I had to read this one twice.
President Trump met with some of the biggest names in technology Tuesday, and they emerged with an agreement concerning the development and safety of artificial intelligence.
Is it legally binding?
No.
Trump described it as āmorally binding.ā
That phrase alone deserves a moment. š
We are talking about some of the largest and most powerful technology companies in the world essentially agreeing:
We promise to police ourselves.
To be fair, there is more substance to the agreement than that description suggests.
The one-page āJoint Commitment on Frontier Responsibilitiesā calls for four layers of oversight. Companies would maintain internal safety controls, have another internal team monitor those controls, use independent outside auditors to evaluate them, and designate an independent board committee to review the findings. The companies also agreed to meet regularly to establish safety standards and best practices.
The agreement even acknowledges that these safeguards could eventually be written into laws or regulations.
But for now?
They are voluntary.
There are no government regulators built into these four layers, and the agreement itself does not establish a legal enforcement mechanism if a company fails to follow through.
Trump said he believes the companies have strong incentives to keep one another in check because their businesses and reputations are at stake. He described what he is seeing from the industry as ātremendous self-policing.ā
And thatās where this gets interesting.
AI is becoming more capable by the month. These companies are developing technology that is entering our workplaces, schools, government, healthcare, finance and everyday lives.
So who should ultimately be responsible for making sure increasingly powerful AI systems are safe?
Government regulators?
Independent auditors?
The companies building them?
Some combination of all three?
Because asking Silicon Valley to regulate Silicon Valley under a morally binding agreement may turn out to be a perfectly workable first step.
But I have to admitā¦
āTrust us. We signed something morally binding.ā is a pretty fascinating regulatory strategy. š
Made with AI
2
1
3
324
šØ MANY CLAIM WEED HAS BEEN RESCHEDULED. IT HAS NOT.
There has been a lot of confusion about marijuanaās federal status, particularly after several major changes and announcements this year.
But the broader question of federally rescheduling marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III is still being decided. In fact, that proceeding has just hit another roadblock. The DEAās own website still describes it as the āProposed Rescheduling of Marijuanaā and now lists a new Stay and Briefing Order.
On September 29, the DEA administrative law judge overseeing the case stayed the proceeding while considering whether to add a newly released Government Accountability Office report to the official record. DEA has been directed to respond by October 13.
And that GAO report raises some interesting questions about how the federal government decides where drugs belong in the first place.
The GAO found that DEA does not have comprehensive policies and procedures identifying roles, responsibilities and procedures for evaluating and scheduling controlled substances. It also found gaps in FDA procedures for conducting evaluations and developing scheduling recommendations, including criteria surrounding a drugās āpotential for abuse.ā
The watchdog also examined the longstanding agreement governing how FDA and the National Institute on Drug Abuse share information during the scheduling process and recommended that it be updated to reflect current agencies and procedures. DEA, FDA and NIH agreed with the GAO recommendations applicable to them.
Here is an important distinction, because this is where things get confusing:
Earlier this year, the Justice Department did place FDA-approved marijuana products and certain state-regulated medical marijuana products into Schedule III. But the government simultaneously continued a separate formal proceeding over the much broader proposal to move marijuana itself from Schedule I to Schedule III.
So when someone says, āWeed has already been rescheduled,ā that statement leaves out a very important part of the story.
The broader federal rescheduling proceeding is not finished.
And now, before that decision moves forward, a federal watchdog report questioning parts of the governmentās drug-scheduling procedures has landed squarely in the middle of the case.
Whatever side of the marijuana debate someone falls on, that makes the next question worth watching:
If the government is going to make a decision this consequential, shouldnāt we know exactly what standards it is using to make it?
Made with AI
4
3
12
613
šØ ONE HOUR BEFORE HER EXECUTION, A FEDERAL COURT STEPPED IN
Christa Gail Pike was supposed to die by lethal injection at 10 a.m. Wednesday at Tennesseeās Riverbend Maximum Security Institution.
It would have been historic.
Pike, now 50, would have become the first woman executed by Tennessee in more than 200 years.
Instead, approximately one hour before the scheduled execution, a federal appeals court halted it.
And the story behind this execution is one of the most disturbing death penalty cases in the country.
Pike was just 18 years old when 19-year-old Colleen Slemmer was murdered on January 12, 1995.
The two were students at the Knoxville Job Corps. Prosecutors said Pike believed Slemmer was interested in Pikeās boyfriend, 17-year-old Tadaryl Shipp.
According to court records, Pike, Shipp and another teenager, Shadolla Peterson, took Slemmer to an isolated area near the University of Tennessee agricultural campus.
There, Slemmer was tortured and killed.
The details were horrific.
She was beaten, cut and struck with a meat cleaver, and her skull was crushed with a piece of asphalt. A pentagram was carved into her body.
Pike also removed a piece of Slemmerās skull and kept it, later showing it to another person while describing the murder.
Pike was convicted of first-degree murder and conspiracy and sentenced to death.
But the sentences of the three teenagers involved were dramatically different.
Pike received death.
Shipp, who was 17 and therefore could not receive the death penalty, received life with the possibility of parole.
Peterson testified against Pike and Shipp and ultimately received probation after pleading guilty to being an accessory after the fact.
And that disparity has become part of the controversy surrounding Pikeās execution.
There is another unusual factor.
Pike was only 18 when the murder occurred. According to her attorneys, the other Tennessee defendants sentenced to death for crimes committed at 18 have since had their death sentences vacated. If Pike were executed, she would stand alone in Tennesseeās modern death-penalty era as someone executed for a crime committed at that age.
Her attorneys have not argued that Pike was innocent.
Instead, they asked Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee to commute her sentence to life without parole, pointing to what they describe as an extraordinarily abusive childhood involving repeated sexual assaults, neglect, mental illness and later diagnoses including PTSD and bipolar disorder. More than 100 organizations and experts urged Lee to commute the sentence.
Pike has also acknowledged responsibility for Slemmerās death and expressed remorse.
But Slemmerās mother, May Martinez, has supported carrying out the death sentence. She has spoken publicly about her daughterās suffering and planned to attend the execution.
Until this morning, virtually every remaining door appeared closed.
Gov. Bill Lee declined clemency.
The Tennessee Supreme Court had declined to stop the execution.
And on Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Pikeās application for a stay and denied her petition for review.
Then, this morning, another door opened.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the execution shortly before it was scheduled to begin. The court wants further review of issues surrounding whether Pikeās history of childhood sexual abuse, rape and mental-health evidence received adequate consideration in connection with her death sentence.
So, for now, Christa Pike remains alive.
8
2
14
1,916
RT @WVOK1973: @WinningintheUSA @FreedomBrigade
When Inclusion Became the Goal: What Happened to the Continuum of Special Education?
httpsā¦
1
69