China tightens controls on fentanyl precursors bound for US, Canada and Mexico
Effective immediately, Beijing requires a permit for exporting 13 chemicals, including those used to make the deadly synthetic opioid
Excerpt:
Beijing has tightened controls over fentanyl precursors destined for countries in North America following the recent summit in South Korea between the US and Chinese presidents.
The Ministry of Commerce announced on Monday that China would make adjustments to the catalogue of drug-related precursor chemicals and require licences for the export of certain chemicals to the United States, Canada and Mexico.
Specifically, exports of 13 chemicals to the three countries now require a permit, according to the new rule, effective immediately.
The chemicals include key precursors used to make the deadly synthetic opioid and variants related to the drug’s synthesis.
Before Monday’s announcement, the catalogue consisted of controls on fentanyl flows to Myanmar, Laos and Afghanistan – all major hubs for production and trafficking of traditional illicit drugs – with 41 chemicals on China’s regulation list.
The development came weeks after the summit between Chinese President Xi Jinping and his US counterpart, Donald Trump. After the meeting, the two hailed their “consensus” on fentanyl, the leading cause of American overdose deaths.
Xi would work “very hard to stop the flow” of fentanyl, Trump told reporters on a flight home after the summit.
Here’s What The Media Aren’t Telling You About That ‘Gay Marriage’ Case SCOTUS Just Rejected
Excerpt:
.....While it’s true that Davis’ petition to SCOTUS asked the justices to consider whether Obergefell should be overturned, there were many more prominent factors central to her case that made it highly unlikely the court would use it as a vehicle to revisit its ill-fated 2015 decision.
The most notable is that Davis’ case primarily dealt with legal questions surrounding the First Amendment and tort liability.
As described by Cornell Law School, “tort” is an “act or omission that gives rise to injury or harm to another and amounts to a civil wrong for which courts impose liability.” “The primary aims of tort law,” the school noted, “are to provide relief to injured parties for harms caused by others, to impose liability on parties responsible for the harm, and to deter others from committing harmful acts.”
With respect to Davis’ case, the gay couple who sued Davis after she declined to grant them a marriage license “sought damages for the emotional distress caused by [her] actions,” according to Justia. When the matter went to court, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky sided with the plaintiffs “on liability, and a jury awarded them compensatory damages.”
......Davis’ attorneys asked the court to address whether “the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause provides an affirmative defense to tort liability based solely on emotional distress damages with no actual damages in the same manner as the Free Speech Clause under” existing SCOTUS precedent, the petition reads.
Davis’ legal team does go on to explain the problems with the court’s Obergefell decision in its petition — and there are many of them. The question of overturning so-called “gay marriage,” however, was never the central issue at play. Rather, it was the tort liability issue.
It’s entirely possible a more direct legal challenge to the Supreme Court’s horrific Obergefell ruling could make its way before the justices in the years to come. But to portray the high court’s rejection of Davis’ case as massive win for “gay marriage” and “LGBT rights,” as the media have done, is totally dishonest.