THURSDAY, JULY 6, 2017 AT 8:03 A.M.
BY MARY CARREON
Although cultivation is a big issue, perhaps the larger obstacle the licensed and unlicensed shops face is related to Weedmaps. Known as the "Yelp for weed," the Irvine-based advertising company provides ads for both the BB and rogue dispensaries. This not only contributes to the licensed shops losing business to the rogue stores, but it also essentially keeps the unlicensed shops open. "I've used most of my savings on getting [New Generation] built; that's why I don't spend $10,000 on a billboard and pay Weedmaps $30,000 in advertising," says Shivley. "I give them $420 a month because I literally have to in order for us to stay on the map, but I won't give them any more than that. It's wrong what they're doing. They're promoting all these other rogue guys at insanely low costs—way lower than what they offer [the licensed shops]. . . . It's bullshit."
Of course, Yelp, Google, Leafly, the Yellow Pages and even the Weekly also offer dispensary listings for licensed and unlicensed shops. That said, when your business is backed by millions (and millions) of dollars—like Weedmaps—your platform automatically becomes the most effective of the lot.
Longwith asserts that Weedmaps shouldn't advertise rogue shops in cities such as Santa Ana that have opened up their borders to licensed shops. "Advertise all you want with regard to dispensaries in cities that do not have ordinances on their books to allow for licensed dispensaries," says Longwith. "But with regard to those cities that do have ordinances, they should respect that and not advertise for businesses that don't have licenses. . . . Weedmaps has an obligation to respect cities that have allowed dispensaries to operate legally."
Those on the rogue side who participated in the lottery feel backstabbed by Weedmaps. Kandice Hawes-Lopez, an Orange County cannabis activist and founder of the Orange County chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) told the Weekly last year that when NORML started working on an initiative to get a measure passed, they initially failed. So Hawes-Lopez and the NORML team talked to the dispensaries—all of which were rogue at the time—and got a group together to approach Weedmaps. They asked them if they wanted to be a part of the group, but Weedmaps said no because they didn't want to get political.
Not long after, Weedmaps allowed OC NORML to hold its meetings at the company's office, saying it supported the initiative Hawes-Lopez and NORML were driving. But several months later, Hawes-Lopez discovered that Weedmaps had actually contributed cash to gather support for the rival, city-supported initiative, Measure BB. "Weedmaps paid $30,000 to the city's campaign instead of ours, which was shocking because we thought they were supporting us the whole time when, in fact, they jumped ship and went behind our backs, on top of still letting us have meetings there," she says. "We felt spied on."
That experience soured many medical-marijuana activists about Weedmaps, Hawes-Lopez explains. "I think that's what first ignited the passion and distrust that revolves around Weedmaps and why groups of people in the medical-marijuana industry and community believe that it's all some kind of conspiracy."
Read more here.
By C. Moon Reed
JUNE 30, 2017
Nearly 43 million tourists visit Las Vegas every year, and they’re all looking to experience freedoms they don’t get back home. For some people, that means outdoing the most clichéd Hollywood version of Sin City excess. But even a staid conventioneer can find excitement here — like, say, a ludicrously expensive steak at one of the many fancy restaurants.
On July 1, when recreational marijuana goes on sale in Nevada, one more thrill will be on offer.
Fremont Street gift shops already are profiting. Shelves of green ceramic ashtrays with the phrase “High from Las Vegas” now compete with the usual gambling-themed tchotchkes.
Visitors should have no problem purchasing marijuana at dispensaries near the Strip. But where will they consume it? Nevada allows for consumption only in private residences with the owner’s permission. Even if you could make the dubious argument that your hotel room is a “residence,” guess who won’t give their permission? Casino owners.
As of now, that means tourists can put their new pot-leaf shaped ashtrays to use exactly nowhere on the Strip. According to the Las Vegas Sun, “Smoking outside dispensaries, at casinos or even in a parked car could result in a $600 fine.” The Nevada Gaming Commission has come out strong against marijuana. And a bill to create consumption lounges went nowhere. Or, put more cutely, it went up in smoke.
Cynical locals suspect that casinos want to ban marijuana because it doesn’t create the right kind of high. Alcohol produces a devil-may-care insouciance that’s conducive to gambling. Marijuana, on the other hand, will only help the bottom line of all-you-can-eat buffets. A paranoid stoner won’t dare to gamble — he’ll think the face cards are watching him.
While there might be some truth to the theory that casinos are reluctant to embrace a drug that causes giggles and sedation, the industry has a bigger reason to steer clear. Even though the American public views marijuana as (more or less) benign, the feds still classify it as a Schedule I drug. As long as it’s in any way illegal, casinos won’t hazard the ire of Big Brother. There’s too much money in the long-established vices — gaming, alcohol and tobacco — to risk everything on upstart entertainment.
The grand resort chains don’t want to risk losing their gaming licenses. That would destroy this town. And if that sounds like hypocrisy from an industry that encourages risk-taking, just remember that it’s the gamblers, not the house, who take on all the risk. (It’s perfectly true that the house always wins.)
But the Vegas mythology has always been about personal freedom, and my guess is that the casinos eventually will fall in line (even if only after the feds indicate they’ll turn a blind eye).
This isn’t the first time our state has defied federal prohibition. In 1923, Nevada repealed its alcohol ban, and Las Vegas saloons openly served booze. Every so often, feds would come up from Los Angeles to roust the lawbreakers, but that wasn’t much of a deterrent.
And so long as casino owners won’t, tourists surely will protect Nevada’s free-spirited values by breaking the rules. Many will get away with it. A suspicious skunky smell already wafts through Strip parking garages. Discrete and odorless edibles likely will be the most ubiquitous, followed by nearly odorless vape pens. Joints will pass anonymously through concert crowds, as they always have.
For visitors from Colorado and Washington — and let’s face it, California, even though full legalization won’t come into effect until January — the Strip’s continued prohibition might enhance the thrill-seeking experience. They’ll come to Vegas to remember how fun it was to smoke pot when it was still illicit.
Read more here.
Senate Bill 162 by state Sen. Ben Allen of Santa Monica would "prohibit medical cannabis and nonmedical marijuana licensees from advertising [or] using branded merchandise," according to the bill. "A licensee shall not advertise medical cannabis or medical cannabis products through the use of branded merchandise, including, but not limited to, clothing, hats, or other merchandise with the name or logo of the product."
The legislation — it makes clear it would not apply to nonprofit or "noncommercial" speech — is part of a wave of bills intended to smooth out any rough edges included in Proposition 64, the November initiative that legalizes recreational weed in the Golden State. But the proposal would also apply to medical marijuana.
Allen's law intends to ensure that advertisers don't target folks younger than 21. It would limit television ads to times when "71.6 percent of the audience is reasonably expected to be 21 years of age or older," according to the language. This would apply to publications and websites, too. Direct advertisers would have to verify recipients are at least 21.
"At a time, when we are aggressively working to combat the misinformation and damage caused by the outdated Reefer Madness mentality, it would be a misguided mistake to ban cannabis small business owners from advertising and branding," Ryan Jennemann, co-founder of California cultivator THC Design, said via email.
"The proposed legislation would irreversibly harm the responsible efforts being made to re-educate and arm the public with the facts about cannabis, a plant less harmful than alcohol and tobacco," he said. "This concrete roadblock would only make it nearly impossible to arm patients with truth and must be stopped."
The Southern California Coalition, the largest trade group of marijuana businesses in Los Angeles, is also opposed to the proposal. "To ban small businesses from advertising, marketing and branding is ridiculous," the organization's executive director, Adam Spiker, said via email.
"The bill would materially hamstring small business owners' ability to grow in the land of opportunity," he said. "We are firmly against it, and will work to ensure lawmakers are aware of the harmful ramifications it would have."
Read more here.
By Joe Tacopino
June 6, 2017 | 6:52pm
Attorney General Jeff Sessions reportedly had offered to resign amid ongoing friction over his decision to recuse himself from the Justice Department’s investigation into ties between aides of President Trump’s campaign and Russia.
Trump has berated Sessions in private meetings, blaming the Attorney General for the eventual appointment of a special counsel in the investigation which prompted Sessions to offer to resign, ABC News reported, citing multiple sources close to the president.
A spokesman for the Justice Department declined to comment about the offered resignation.
The report came just hours after White House press secretary Sean Spicer refused to say if the president still had confidence in his attorney general.
“I have not had a discussion with him on the question,” Spicer said.
Sessions recused himself from the Russian inquiry in March after it was revealed that he misled Congress on his meeting with the Russian ambassador.
The attorney general’s recusal left the investigation in the hands of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed a special counsel in May.
By Steven Nelson, Staff Writer | June 6, 2017, at 4:09 p.m.
Led by an outspoken legalization opponent, Jeff Sessions' Justice Department is reviewing federal marijuana policy, with significant changes possible soon. Almost nothing about the review process is publicly known and key players in the policy debate have not been contacted.
The outcome of the review could devastate a multibillion-dollar industry and countermand the will of voters in eight states if the Obama administration's permissive stance on non-medical sales is reversed.
What is known: The review is being conducted by a subcommittee of a larger crime-reduction task force that will issue recommendations by July 27. The subcommittee was announced in April alongside other subcommittees reviewing charging and sentencing.
The task force is co-chaired by Steve Cook, an assistant U.S. attorney in Tennessee who like Sessions advocates harsh criminal penalties and a traditional view of drug prohibition. The other co-chair is Robyn Thiemann, a longtime department official who works as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Policy.
The marijuana subcommittee is led by Michael Murray, counsel to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, U.S. News has learned.
After graduating from Yale Law School in 2009, Murray ricocheted between law firms and public-sector jobs. He served less than a year as an assistant U.S. attorney in Virginia in 2013 before clerking for Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, according to his LinkedIn page. He worked at the Jones Day law firm before joining the Trump Justice Department.
Murray could not be reached for comment and Justice Department spokesman Ian Prior declined to comment on the “deliberative processes within the department“ when asked to discuss Murray’s role.
The department declined to identify other members of the subcommittee, the scope of its policy review or name outside groups that are being consulted.
The lack of information provided and the seemingly secretive nature of the review has proponents of a more lenient marijuana policy concerned.
“It’s difficult to ascertain any clear information about the subcommittee and how they’re working,” says Taylor West, deputy director of the National Cannabis Industry Association, a trade group representing marijuana businesses.
Read more here.
DPA and ACLU of CA Sue City of Fontana to Uphold Rights Granted by California's Marijuana Legalization Law
June 6, 2017 - By Joy Haviland
Yesterday, the Drug Policy Alliance and the ACLU of California filed a lawsuit against the City of Fontana challenging a city ordinance that is intended to effectively prevent residents to enjoy the rights granted to them by Proposition 64 (also known as the “Adult Use of Marijuana Act” or “AUMA”). The Fontana ordinance makes it unreasonably difficult and expensive for residents to cultivate marijuana at their private residence as Prop. 64 allows.
On November 8, 2016, the people of California voted in favor of Prop. 64, which allows adults 21 and older to possess up to one ounce of marijuana and cultivate up to six marijuana plants inside their private residence away from public view. While the new law allows cities to regulate indoor personal cultivation, they must do so reasonably and cannot prohibit anyone outright from cultivating.
Shortly after the law took effect, several cities acted against the will of the voters and adopted ordinances that are so restrictive they operate as a de facto ban on cultivation. And for some groups of people, such as people with a prior felony drug conviction, it is an outright ban. In Fontana—where Prop. 64 passed with 53.5 percent of the vote and with 52.5 percent in the surrounding San Bernardino County—the Mayor and City Councilmembers even boasted that they wanted this ordinance to be the most restrictive in the state and they hoped it would to deter people from cultivating marijuana.
In addition to being unreasonable and in conflict with Prop. 64, the ordinance violates several state constitutional rights. Among other problematic provisions, the ordinance requires residents to register with the city, undergo a criminal background check, open their home to city officials for an inspection, and pay an expensive fee before obtaining a permit that would allow them to grow marijuana plants in their private home. If someone cultivates marijuana but fails to obtain the city permit they are subject to a misdemeanor even though the conduct is legal under state law.
The Drug Policy Alliance’s affiliated organization, Drug Policy Action, served as a co-chair of the Prop. 64 campaign committee. DPA is committed to making sure the measure is implemented the way that the voters of California intended.
The primary purpose of legalization is to reduce the criminalization of adults for using, possessing, and cultivating marijuana. The overwhelming majority of states that have legalized the adult use of marijuana have also legalized the personal cultivation of marijuana plants at a private residence. Personal cultivation also gives consumers a legal alternative to retail marijuana, which cannot be purchased in the state until 2018, and to marijuana in places where local governments legally choose to ban marijuana businesses. (Medical patients, however, may continue to purchase medical marijuana at dispensaries.)
Read more here.
Trump’s Pick For Drug Czar Hauled In Thousands Of Dollars From Drug Distributors He Wrote Bill To Protect
B JOSH KEEFE @THEJOSHKEEFE ON 04/14/17 AT 5:00 AM
President Donald Trump recently launched a high-profile White House initiative to combat the growing problem of opioid drug abuse in America. Yet his expected selection to oversee the nation’s drug laws is a congressman from an opioid-ravaged district whose signature legislative accomplishment is a bill that shielded prescription opioid distributors from law enforcement scrutiny.
The White House is expected to name Rep. Tom Marino, R-Pa, to be the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) — a position often referred to as the nation’s “drug czar.” Marino is a former prosecutor who has represented a rural district in northeastern Pennsylvania since 2011. The ONDCP declined to comment for this story and Marino’s office did not respond to multiple requests for comment as well.
If appointed, Marino would be the first member of Congress to become drug czar. He would come to the job after pulling in big money from an industry that is producing and distributing the nation’s most deadly legal drugs. Marino has received more than $150,000 in donations from the pharmaceutical industry in his political career, including $71,000 for the 2016 election, according to records at Maplight.org and Opensecrets.org. The data show Marino has received more money from the pharmaceutical industry than any other sector.
As the nation faces an opioid crisis fueled by the mass production and marketing of addictive prescription drugs, some physicians fighting the epidemic view Marino’s possible ascent to drug czar as a betrayal of rural communities ravaged by opioids — many of which voted overwhelmingly for Donald Trump.
“This is the opposite of draining the swamp,” Dr. Andrew Kolodny, the co-director of Opioid Policy Research at Brandeis University and co-founder of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP), told International Business Times. “In the midst of a public health crisis [Trump] is putting at the helm of the ONDCP someone who has worked for the opioid lobby against efforts to bring the epidemic under control.”
It’s hard to overstate how deadly the opioid epidemic has been for Americans. Since 1999, the number of overdose deaths from opioids has quadrupled, as did deaths from prescription opioids like oxycontin, fentanyl and hydrocodone, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Many experts blame this rise on the makers of opioid prescription drugs, like Purdue Pharma, the creator of oxycontin, which pled guilty to misleading doctors about the drug’s addictiveness and agreed to pay $600 million in fines in 2007. Three Purdue executives also agreed to pay a total of $34.5 million in fines.
“This epidemic was created by pharmaceutical companies,” Georgetown University’s Dr. Adrian Fugh-Berman told IBT. He is the director of PharmedOut, a group that advocates for responsible prescribing practices. “That’s not too strong to say.”
The epidemic has only intensified since Purdue’s guilty plea in 2007, and now cities and counties are bringing lawsuits against drug distributors — the companies that sell drugs wholesale. The three largest distributors — McKesson Corp., Cardinal Health and AmerisourceBergen, which together generated $430 billion in 2015 and account for 85 percent of the drug distribution market — have agreed to pay $230 million in fines to the federal government and opioid-plagued West Virginia since late December. The fines were connected to charges that the companies failed to report suspicious orders of pharmaceuticals.
According to Maplight.org, all three companies have given multiple campaign donations, totaling between $13,000 and $15,000, each to Marino who wrote legislation that made it harder for the DEA to take companies off a registry that allows them to distribute controlled substances. If the companies were dealt this penalty, they could potentially incur a far greater financial hit than fines.
Marino introduced three versions of the Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act between 2014 and 2015 before H.R. 471 passed the House. In the Senate, Orrin Hatch, R-Ut, who received more money from the pharmaceutical industry than anyone in Congress between 2010 and 2016, introduced a companion bill. The legislation was eventually signed by President Barack Obama last year, but not before DEA Deputy Assistant Administrator Joseph Rannazzisi had a conversation with congressional staffers that provoked the ire of Marino, who said Rannazzisi told staffers the bill’s sponsors were “supporting criminals.” (Rannazzisi told the Washington Post he said the bill would “protect defendants in our cases.”)
During a congressional hearing, Marino told Rannazzisi’s boss the comments offended him “immensely,” and the congressman even asked the Justice Department to investigate whether Rannazzisi had tried to “intimidate” members of Congress. Rannazzisi was eventually replaced at the DEA in 2015 and retired shortly after. He did not reply to multiple requests for comment for this story.
“Rep. Marino has made it very clear he is on the side of opioid manufacturers,” PharmedOut’s Fugh-Berman told IBT. “The bill he supported made it hard for the DEA to go after distributors and wholesalers of drugs. The DEA was having its hands tied even before Trump got into office but this appointment will make things much worse.”
Read more here.
by Adam Tschorn
Fashion brands have a long history of leveraging the party scene around the Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival (which this year runs April 14-16 and 21-23) into brand-building buzz, but this year, the likes of Jeremy Scott, Levi Strauss & Co., Sephora and Hudson Jeans will find themselves in the company of upscale California cannabis brands trying to reach a coveted consumer base.
Because festival rules forbid drugs (including, according to the event’s website, cannabis use by medical marijuana cardholders), most of the canna-branding is set to take place at private (and undisclosed-to-the-public) events taking place within 20 miles of the Empire Polo Club grounds in Indio, where Coachella takes place. However, at least one company has hinted that it might engage in a guerrilla-style giveaway of pre-rolled joints to over-21 festival-goers. (E-mails to festival organizers seeking confirmation of the policy and comment on the presence of cannabis brands at and around the festival were unanswered as of this morning.)
One such event is Green Oasis, a cannabis gifting experience organized by Susan Soares. “My audience is the Town & Country audience, the Vanity Fair audience,” Soares said, explaining that she works directly with band managers and agents to get cannabis-related brands face-time with some of the festival’s top talent. According to Soares, one of the bands that stopped by in 2015 came right from the festival’s main stage and, in 2016, British band the 1975 were in the house to learn about product and policy.
The AnnaBís Lady G bag ($245) will be part of the marijuana-related merchandise filling the gift bags at the Green Oasis taking place during Coachella's second weekend. (Mark Leet)
This year’s Green Oasis is scheduled for the second week of the festival (the past two years, it’s taken place on the first weekend), and Soares expects to be at capacity, gifting 300 C.A.R.E. (Cannabis Awareness Research and Events) packages filled with about $2,500 worth of merchandise, including marijuana in its various forms (flower, vapes and edibles) and accouterments. One of the SoCal brands on board is AnnaBís, a handbag line aimed at the upscale female cannabis consumer, which is gifting its $245 Lady G festival-appropriate bag.
Read more here.
APRIL 10, 2017 BY DOUG PORTER 2 COMMENTS
By Doug Porter
It turns out that Making America Great Again involves rolling back drug policy and enforcement to the 1960s.
The first step in such a reversal involves denying science. The second step involves ginning up the racism. The final step involves reviving mass incarceration.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions made it clear in a speech in Richmond, Va on March 15, that enforcement is now the primary tool in responding to drug abuse, and, apparently, casual use.
I realize this may be an unfashionable belief in a time of growing tolerance of drug use. But too many lives are at stake to worry about being fashionable. I reject the idea that America will be a better place if marijuana is sold in every corner store. And I am astonished to hear people suggest that we can solve our heroin crisis by legalizing marijuana – so people can trade one life-wrecking dependency for another that’s only slightly less awful. Our nation needs to say clearly once again that using drugs will destroy your life.
While nobody I’m aware of is advocating for selling pot in corner stores, there is evidence, via a UCSD study suggesting medical marijuana legalization can reduce opioid-related hospitalizations. A 2014 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that states with medical marijuana laws have lower death rates from opiate overdose.
The Trump administration’s approach to this sort of research–and research in general–has been proposals to cut funding.
He wants to cut NIH funding by $1.2 billion this year. Next year, under his proposed budget, the agency’s budget would be slashed by another $5.8 billion. Trump’s aides have defended the cuts, and Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price said the government has long been wasting money on overhead for universities and other institutions that receive NIH grants. But researchers across the country have warned of devastating consequences if Trump’s proposed cuts were actually enacted.
A Bi-Polar Approach
As the Atlantic’s City Lab points out, the Trump administration appears to have a “split personality” where it comes to drug policy.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has been appointed to head up a commission on combating drug addiction. For all his other faults, Christie does have a track record for a humane approach toward dealing with drug addiction.
This contrasts with the tough guy attitude embodied in Sessions’ pronouncements.
City Lab quotes the Wall Street Journal:
The tug of war in the new administration reflects its two different constituencies: traditional conservatives, who favor a crackdown on crime that the president frequently links to illegal immigration and urban areas, and the white, working-class and rural communities who welcome a compassionate focus on the opioid epidemic that has ravaged their neighborhoods.
…And goes on to say:
Translation: White people will get rehabilitation. Black and Latino people will get incarceration.
Or, as the Drug Policy Alliance deputy director Michael Collins said in the WSJ article: “We’re seeing the beginning of a new war on drugs.”
While origins of the “other” narrative in drug disparagement go all the way back to the middle ages, it is bound up in US history with responses to immigration and racial subjugation.
Read more here.
By Sari Horwitz April 8 at 8:32 PM
When the Obama administration launched a sweeping policy to reduce harsh prison sentences for nonviolent drug offenders, rave reviews came from across the political spectrum. Civil rights groups and the Koch brothers praised Obama for his efforts, saying he was making the criminal justice system more humane.
But there was one person who watched these developments with some horror. Steven H. Cook, a former street cop who became a federal prosecutor based in Knoxville, Tenn., saw nothing wrong with how the system worked — not the life sentences for drug charges, not the huge growth of the prison population. And he went everywhere — Bill O’Reilly’s show on Fox News, congressional hearings, public panels — to spread a different gospel.
“The federal criminal justice system simply is not broken. In fact, it’s working exactly as designed,” Cook said at a criminal justice panel at The Washington Post last year.
The Obama administration largely ignored Cook, who was then president of the National Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys. But he won’t be overlooked anymore.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions has brought Cook into his inner circle at the Justice Department, appointing him to be one of his top lieutenants to help undo the criminal justice policies of Obama and former attorney general Eric H. Holder Jr. As Sessions has traveled to different cities to preach his tough-on-crime philosophy, Cook has been at his side.
Sessions has yet to announce specific policy changes, but Cook’s new perch speaks volumes about where the Justice Department is headed.
Law enforcement officials say that Sessions and Cook are preparing a plan to prosecute more drug and gun cases and pursue mandatory minimum sentences. The two men are eager to bring back the national crime strategy of the 1980s and ’90s from the peak of the drug war, an approach that had fallen out of favor in recent years as minority communities grappled with the effects of mass incarceration.
Crime is near historic lows in the United States, but Sessions says that the spike in homicides in several cities, including Chicago, is a harbinger of a “dangerous new trend” in America that requires a tough response.
“If there was a flickering candle of hope that remained for sentencing reform, Cook’s appointment was a fire hose,” said Ring, of FAMM. “There simply aren’t enough backhoes to build all the prisons it would take to realize Steve Cook’s vision for America.”
Sessions is also expected to take a harder line on the punishment for using and distributing marijuana, a drug he has long abhorred. His crime task force will review existing marijuana policy, according to a memo he wrote prosecutors last week. Using or distributing marijuana is illegal under federal law, which classifies it as a Schedule 1 drug, the same category as heroin, and considered more dangerous than cocaine and methamphetamine.
In his effort to resurrect the practices of the drug war, it is still unclear what Sessions will do about the wave of states that have legalized marijuana in recent years. Eight states and the District of Columbia now permit the recreational use of marijuana, and 28 states and the District have legalized the use of medical marijuana.
But his rhetoric against weed seems to get stronger with each speech. In Richmond, he cast doubt on the use of medical marijuana and said it “has been hyped, maybe too much.”
Read more here.
Susan Soares has written for Cannabis Now Magazine, Alternet, and Sensi Magazine.