Sunday Poll: Opioids/Herion vs Marijuana — Are They Equally Dangerous Drugs?

In late April singer Prince died at age 57, the corner found he died due to an opioid overdose:

Toxicology tests for Prince concluded that the entertainer died from an accidental overdose of the opioid fentanyl, according to a report on his death by the Midwest Medical Examiner’s Office.
Fentanyl, prescribed by doctors for cancer treatment, can be made illicitly and is blamed for a spike in overdose deaths in the United States. It’s 25 to 50 times more potent than heroin and 50 to 100 times more potent than morphine, according to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. (CNN)

Heroin is an opioid:

Heroin is an opioid drug that is synthesized from morphine, a naturally occurring substance extracted from the seed pod of the Asian opium poppy plant. Heroin usually appears as a white or brown powder or as a black sticky substance, known as “black tar heroin.” (drugabuse.gov)

Prescription opioids include Vicodin & OxyContin. The government classifies drugs relative to each other in five levels, here are the descriptions of the two most dangerous as described by the DEA:

Schedule I

Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Schedule I drugs are the most dangerous drugs of all the drug schedules with potentially severe psychological or physical dependence. Some examples of Schedule I drugs are:

heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), marijuana (cannabis), 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy), methaqualone, and peyote.

Schedule II

Schedule II drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with a high potential for abuse, with use potentially leading to severe psychological or physical dependence. These drugs are also considered dangerous. Some examples of Schedule II drugs are: 

Combination products with less than 15 milligrams of hydrocodone per dosage unit (Vicodin), cocaine, methamphetamine, methadone, hydromorphone (Dilaudid), meperidine (Demerol), oxycodone (OxyContin), fentanyl, Dexedrine, Adderall, and Ritalin

For today’s poll I’m contrasting opioids/herion (Schedule 1 & 2) to marijuana (Schedule 1):

The term “dangerous” is how ever you define it.  The poll will close at 8pm tonight.

Wednesday I’ll share my thoughts with the non-scientific results of this poll.

— Steve Patterson

17th Street Connects Locust, Olive, Pine, Chestnut, and Market to Washington Ave

For years now I’ve tried to end the week on a positive note, but it’s becoming increasingly difficult for me to be optimistic about St. Louis’ future. Today is the final vote on BB64 to give public land to a developer, cutting off others from Washington Ave. The following image illustrates the potential problem.

Behind me is the massive Butler Brothers Warehouse, at left is 1701 Locust — both vacant and in need of rehab. At right is one of our two buildings at Printers Lofts, the 5,500 sq ft first floor is currently vacant and for sale. Cutting them off from access to Washington Ave will not help.

Voting yes on BB64 would be incredibly short-sighted sided.

— Steve Patterson

Architects Labeled 17th Street An Alley

When Ald Davis & Ald Hubbard visiting our condo association on June 8th they left behind developer’s plans intended to convince to stop fighting the city giving away an important piece of the street grid: 17th Street. See: Proposed 17th Street Closure Would Reduce Safety & Security For Existing Residents Around Monogram Project.

I looked through the materials — many of which are Google Street View screen captures. They couldn’t even come take photographs?  One page explained a lot about the view of the developer & architects:

The final vote on BB64 will likely take place tomorrow, hopefully the full board will reject it outright.  Many signatures have been collected on petitions opposing the vacation of 17th St, from numerous adjacent condo projects. The Downtown Neighborhood Association has also gone on record in opposition. We want to see the Monogram/CPI building occupied, but not at our expense. The public uses 17th Street daily.

Thankfully we’ll know how each alderman voted after the fact — votes are now listed online.

— Steve Patterson

St. Louis Hosted Numerous Presidential Nominating Conventions

One hundred years ago today the 1916 Democratic National Convention was happening at St. Louis’ new Coliseum, at Washington & Jefferson. Woodrow Wilson & Thomas R, Marshall were nominated for 2nd terms as President & Vice-President, respectively. As recently noted, the Jefferson [Arms] Hotel was the official host hotel, it opened in 1904.

The old coliseum, better known as St. Louis Exposition and Music Hall, had been located between 13th-14th on Olive — after just 24 years it was razed in 1907 to build our Central Library, which opened in 1912.

Three national nominating conventions were held in three separate buildings in or near the complex between 1888 and 1904 including the 1888 Democratic National Convention, 1896 Republican National Convention, and 1904 Democratic National Convention. In addition to the 1904 Democratic convention, it was used as a large venue for other conventions and congresses during the 1904 World’s Fair.

The 1896 Republican National Convention, held in St. Louis, began 120 years ago tomorrow.  My loft is just blocks from where all this took place, but mansions lined Locust St back then, known as Lucas Place at that time.

Back to the present day and the nominations for the conventions that start in July, not June as they used to.

There is a growing feeling among many of us that 1) the way the two major parties pick their nominee is flawed and 2) having a two-party system has failed the country. From a recent poll:

Some of the poll’s key findings are:

• Just 10 percent of Americans have a great deal of confidence in the country’s overall political system while 51 percent have only some confidence and 38 percent have hardly any confidence.
• Similarly, only 13 percent say the two-party system for presidential elections works, while 38 percent consider it seriously broken. About half (49 percent) say that although the two-party system has real problems, it could still work well with some improvements.
• Most Americans report feeling discouraged about this year’s presidential election. Seventy percent say they experience frustration and 55 percent report they feel helpless.
• Few Americans are feeling pride or excitement about the 2016 presidential campaign, but it is grabbing the public’s attention. Two-thirds (65 percent) of the public say they are interested in the election for president this year; only 31 percent say they are bored.
• The public has little confidence in the three branches of government. A quarter (24 percent) say they have a great deal of confidence in the Supreme Court and only 15 percent of Americans say the same of the executive branch. Merely 4 percent of Americans have much faith in Congress. However, more than half (56 percent) of Americans have a great deal of confidence in the military.
• Only 29 percent of Democrats and just 16 percent of Republicans have a great deal of confidence in their respective parties. Similarly, 31 percent of Democrats and 17 percent of Republicans have a lot of faith in the fairness of their party’s nominating process.
• Neither party is seen as particularly receptive to fresh ideas. Only 17 percent of the public say the Democratic Party is open to new ideas about dealing with the country’s problems; 10 percent say that about the Republican Party.
• The views of ordinary voters are not considered by either party, according to most Americans. Fourteen percent say the Democratic Party is responsive to the views of the rank-and-file; 8 percent say that about the Republican Party.
• Most Republicans (57 percent) say Trump’s candidacy has been good for the Republican Party, although only 15 percent of Democrats and 24 percent of independents agree.
• Nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of Democrats say Sanders’ bid for the nomination has been good for the Democratic Party, along with 43 percent of Republicans and 22 percent of independents (54 percent of independents report it is neither good nor bad).

What options exist?

In multi-candidate races, the winner is often the person with the most dedicated base, not the most widespread support. In many cases, the majority of voters backed another candidate, leaving much of the electorate dissatisfied with the outcome and the winner with a dubious mandate to govern.

Both Republicans and Democrats have attempted to address that in presidential primaries with complicated delegate allocation formulas. But some voters in Maine who have wrestled with a similar problem think they’ve hit on a simpler solution: let voters rank their favorite candidates.

In November, Maine voters will decide whether they want to become the first state in the U.S. to implement ranked-choice voting. If a ballot initiative is approved, future Maine voters in primaries and general elections will be allowed to rank their choices for governor, Congress and statehouse races instead of voting for just one. If no one gets a majority in a race, the candidate who came in last is eliminated and the second choices of their voters are redistributed, in much the same way that a runoff election works. That process continues through multiple rounds until a single candidate reaches a majority. (Time)

See a 1:11 minute video illustrating ranked-choice voting here. Though we haven’t hosted a nominating convention in decades, we do still play a roll in the election process. Once again, a general election debate will be held at Washington University in St. Louis. Back in September the non-profit Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) selected Washington University in St. Louis to host a debate on October 9, 2016.

Washington University has earned the distinction of hosting more debates than any other institution in history. This is the sixth time the university has been selected by the CPD to host a debate since 1992, and it will be the fifth debate to be held at the university. The presidential debate scheduled at the university in 1996 was canceled just two weeks prior. (Washington University)

Don’t expect to see Libertarian or Green candidates in these debates, the CPD reinforces the 2-party system. Which brings me to the recent non-scientific Sunday Poll:

Q: Agree or disagree: the presidential nominating process in both major parties should be revised

• Strongly agree 13 [40.63%]
• Agree 9 [28.13%]
• Somewhat agree 3 [9.38%]
• Neither agree or disagree 3 [9.38%]
• Somewhat disagree 0 [0%]
• Disagree 1 [3.13%]
• Strongly disagree 2 [6.25%]
• Unsure/No Answer 1 [3.13%]

Count me among the the 3/4 who think we need major changes to how we elect presidents to local officials.

— Steve Patterson

Poor/Inconsistent Pedestrian Experience: 18th Street & Olive Street

I thought I was done pointing out glaringly bad intersections for pedestrians, but on Saturday I went through one that was odd. Yesterday I returned to study.  Usually when I cross Olive Street at 18th I do so on the East side of 18th. Though I’ve lived nearby for over 8 years, I can’t think of one time I crossed Olive on the West side — until Saturday afternoon.

We were headed to the St. Louis Science Center, catching MetroLink and then a MetroBus. Knowing we’d need to be on on the West side of 18th I crossed at Locust and headed South. At Olive I pressed the button for a walk signal — something I shouldn’t need to do in a pedestrian-friendly city. The traffic light turned green but the pedestrian signal remained don’t walk. We were in a hurry to catch the train so we went based on the green traffic signal. Yesterday morning I went back to try to figure out why I didn’t get a walk signal after pressing the button. What I found is this intersection is one of the most inconsistent in the city.

Each crossing point in an intersection is called a leg, typical intersections have four legs. Intersections where are four are treated consistently is a challenge, but the is among the worst — if not the worst in the city. And it’s recent work!

At the NW corner of 18th & Olive I see the traffic light turn green and the pedestrian signal remain on don’t walk. I press the button at the next red and when the light turns green the pedestrian signal remains don’t walk. At the next red I press the other button marked for crossing 18th Street. This time when the light turns green the pedestrian signal gives a walk symbol. It should be noted, the pedestrian signal to cross 18th St always gives a walk sign when the traffic signal is green.

Pushing a button to cross Olive but not a side street is consistent with the other intersections redone along Olive at the same time. After posting about Olive & Leffingwell in April I was told by the City’s bike/ped coordinator, Jamie Wilson, that a button was necessary to cross Olive there because vehicle traffic on Leffingwell is infrequent and they didn’t want to stop traffic on Olive to cycle through stops when there were no pedestrians or vehicles to cross.  Makes sense…at Leffingwell.  Leffingwell is one of the many streets where the city gave away the public right-of-way to private interests a block South of Olive. PROW that doesn’t so through sees fewer vehicles & pedestrians.

Back to 18th & Olive — 18th Street is always a busy street. Recently many MetroBus routes were moved to 18th. So switch the buttons and it’s fine?  I decided to check every corner to see. So I pressed the button to cross 18th  so I’d get a walk signal to cross Olive.

At the SW corner I pressed the button to cross Olive. Like the NW corner, I didn’t get a walk sign. Thinking it must also be reversed like the NW corner, I pressed the button to cross 18th. Still nothing, neither button activates the walk signal for NB pedestrians wanting to cross Olive on the West side of 18th Street!

I crossed 18th to the SE corner — no button is necessary — these always give the walk signal when vehicles get a green light. Interestingly, the pedestrian signal gives a walk sign when the traffic light is green regardless of the button or not. It’s possible pressing the button adds additional crossing time. I crossed to the NE corner.

Southbound pedestrians don’t need to press the button to cross Olive on the East side of 18th. Same as those crossing NB. What’s different is those crossing SB get a countdown timer, those crossing NB do not.

So I have many questions for Jamie Wilson:

1. Why only one countdown timer?
2. Why do three legs automatically get a walk sign, while the forth doesn’t?
3.  Why don’t NB pedestrians on the West side of 18th ever get a walk sign?
4. For the legs where pedestrians do get a walk sign, does pressing the button give additional crossing time?
5. Why not have all four legs automatically get a walk sign?

It should be noted this work was done prior to Mr. Wilson starting his current position. It was done either by the Board of Public Service  (BPS) or the Streets Dept, not sure which. Hopefully I’ll know more soon, and the city will clean up this intersection’s bad pedestrian experience.

— Steve Patterson