Marijuana Legalization Gains Support, Confounding Policymakers

WASHINGTON — It took 50 years for American attitudes about marijuana to zigzag from the paranoia of "Reefer Madness" to the excesses of Woodstock back to the hard line of "Just Say No."
The next 25 years took the nation from Bill Clinton, who famously "didn't inhale," to Barack Obama, who most emphatically did.
And now, in just a few short years, public opinion has moved so dramatically toward general acceptance that even those who champion legalization are surprised at how quickly attitudes are changing and states are moving to approve the drug – for medical use and just for fun.
It is a moment in America that is rife with contradictions:
_People are looking more kindly on marijuana even as science reveals more about the drug's potential dangers, particularly for young people.
_States are giving the green light to the drug in direct defiance of a federal prohibition on its use.
_Exploration of the potential medical benefit is limited by high federal hurdles to research.
Washington policymakers seem reluctant to deal with any of it.
Richard Bonnie, a University of Virginia law professor who worked for a national commission that recommended decriminalizing marijuana in 1972, sees the public taking a big leap from prohibition to a more laissez-faire approach without full deliberation.

"It's a remarkable story historically," he says. "But as a matter of public policy, it's a little worrisome. It's intriguing, it's interesting, it's good that liberalization is occurring, but it is a little worrisome."
More than a little worrisome to those in the anti-drug movement.
"We're on this hundred-mile-an-hour freight train to legalizing a third addictive substance," says Kevin Sabet, a former drug policy adviser in the Obama administration, lumping marijuana with tobacco and alcohol.
Legalization strategist Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, likes the direction the marijuana smoke is wafting. But he knows his side has considerable work yet to do.
"I'm constantly reminding my allies that marijuana is not going to legalize itself," he says.
___
By the numbers:
Eighteen states and the District of Columbia have legalized the use of marijuana for medical purposes since California voters made the first move in 1996. Voters in Colorado and Washington state took the next step last year and approved pot for recreational use. Alaska is likely to vote on the same question in 2014, and a few other states are expected to put recreational use on the ballot in 2016.
Nearly half of adults have tried marijuana, 12 percent of them in the past year, according to a survey by the Pew Research Center. More teenagers now say they smoke marijuana than ordinary cigarettes.
Fifty-two percent of adults favor legalizing marijuana, up 11 percentage points just since 2010, according to Pew. Sixty percent think Washington shouldn't enforce federal laws against marijuana in states that have approved its use. Seventy-two percent think government efforts to enforce marijuana laws cost more than they're worth.
"By Election Day 2016, we expect to see at least seven states where marijuana is legal and being regulated like alcohol," says Mason Tvert, a spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project, a national legalization group.
___
Where California led the charge on medical marijuana, the next chapter in this story is being written in Colorado and Washington state.
Policymakers there are struggling with all sorts of sticky issues revolving around one central question: How do you legally regulate the production, distribution, sale and use of marijuana for recreational purposes when federal law bans all of the above?
How do you tax it? What quality control standards do you set? How do you protect children while giving grown-ups the go-ahead to light up? What about driving under the influence? Can growers take business tax deductions? Who can grow pot, and how much? Where can you use it? Can cities opt out? Can workers be fired for smoking marijuana when they're off duty? What about taking pot out of state? The list goes on.
The overarching question has big national implications. How do you do all of this without inviting the wrath of the federal government, which has been largely silent so far on how it will respond to a gaping conflict between U.S. and state law?
The Justice Department began reviewing the matter after last November's election and repeatedly has promised to respond soon. But seven months later, states still are on their own, left to parse every passing comment from the department and President Obama.
In December, Obama said in an interview that "it does not make sense, from a prioritization point of view, for us to focus on recreational drug users in a state that has already said that under state law that's legal."
In April, Attorney General Eric Holder said to Congress, "We are certainly going to enforce federal law. ... When it comes to these marijuana initiatives, I think among the kinds of things we will have to consider is the impact on children." He also mentioned violence related to drug trafficking and organized crime.
In May, Obama told reporters: "I honestly do not believe that legalizing drugs is the answer. But I do believe that a comprehensive approach – not just law enforcement, but prevention and education and treatment – that's what we have to do."
Rep. Jared Polis, a Colorado Democrat who favors legalization, predicts Washington will take a hands-off approach, based on Obama's comments about setting law enforcement priorities.
"We would like to see that in writing," Polis says. "But we believe, given the verbal assurances of the president, that we are moving forward in Colorado and Washington in implementing the will of the voters."
The federal government has taken a similar approach toward users in states that have approved marijuana for medical use. It doesn't go after pot-smoking cancer patients or grandmas with glaucoma. But it also has warned that people who are in the business of growing, selling and distributing marijuana on a large scale are subject to potential prosecution for violations of the Controlled Substances Act – even in states that have legalized medical use.
Federal agents in recent years have raided storefront dispensaries in California and Washington, seizing cash and pot. In April, the Justice Department targeted 63 dispensaries in Santa Ana, Calif., and filed three asset forfeiture lawsuits against properties housing seven pot shops. Prosecutors also sent letters to property owners and operators of 56 other marijuana dispensaries warning that they could face similar lawsuits.
University of Denver law professor Sam Kamin says if the administration doesn't act soon to sort out the federal-state conflict, it may be too late to do much.
"At some point, it becomes so prevalent and so many citizens will be engaged in it that it's hard to recriminalize something that's become commonplace," he says.
___
There's a political calculus for the president, or any other politician, in all of this.
Younger people, who tend to vote more Democratic, are more supportive of legalizing marijuana, as are people in the West, where the libertarian streak runs strong. In Colorado, for example, last November more people voted for legalized pot (55 percent) than voted for Obama (51 percent), which could help explain why the president was silent on marijuana before the election.
"We're going to get a cultural divide here pretty quickly," says Greg Strimple, a Republican pollster based in Boise, Idaho, who predicts Obama will duck the issue as long as possible.
Despite increasing public acceptance of marijuana, and growing interest in its potential therapeutic uses, politicians know there are complications that could come with commercializing an addictive substance, some of them already evident in medical marijuana states. Opponents of pot are particularly worried that legalization will result in increased adolescent use as young people's estimations of the drug's dangers decline.
"There's no real win on this from a political perspective," says Sabet. "Do you want to be the president that stops a popular cause, especially a cause that's popular within your own party? Or do you want to be the president that enables youth drug use that will have ramifications down the road?"
Marijuana legalization advocates offer politicians a rosier scenario, in which legitimate pot businesses eager to keep their operating licenses make sure not to sell to minors.
"Having a regulated system is the only way to ensure that we're not ceding control of this popular substance to the criminal market and to black marketeers," says Aaron Smith, executive director of the National Cannabis Industry Association, a trade group for legal pot businesses in the U.S.
See Change Research, which analyzes the marijuana business, has estimated the national market for medical marijuana alone at $1.7 billion for 2011 and has projected it could reach $8.9 billion in five years. Overall, marijuana users spend tens of billions of dollars a year on pot, experts believe.
Ultimately, marijuana advocates say, it's Congress that needs to budge, aligning federal laws with those of states moving to legalization. But that doesn't appear likely anytime soon.
The administration appears uncertain how to proceed.
"The executive branch is in a pickle," Rep. Ed Perlmutter, D-Colo., said at a recent news conference outside the Capitol with pot growers visiting town to lobby for changes. "Twenty-one states have a different view of the use of marijuana than the laws on the books for the federal government."
___
While the federal government hunkers down, Colorado and Washington state are moving forward on their own.
Colorado's governor in May signed a set of bills to regulate legal use of the drug, and the state's November ballot will ask voters to approve special sales and excise taxes on pot. In Washington state, the Liquor Control Board is drawing up rules covering everything from how plants will be grown to how many stores will be allowed. It expects to issue licenses for growers and processors in December, and impose 25 percent taxes three times over – when pot is grown, processed and sold to consumers.
"What we're beginning to see is the unraveling of the criminal approach to marijuana policy," says Tim Lynch, director of the libertarian Cato Institute's Project on Criminal Justice. But, Lynch adds, "the next few years are going to be messy. There are going to be policy battles" as states work to bring a black market industry into the sunshine, and Washington wrestles with how to respond.
Already, a federal judge has struck down a Colorado requirement that pot magazines such as High Times be kept behind store counters, like pornography.
Marijuana advocates in Washington state, where officials have projected the legal pot market could bring the state a half-billion a year in revenue, are complaining that state regulators are still banning sales of hash or hash oil, a marijuana extract.
Pot growers in medical marijuana states are chafing at federal laws that deny them access to the banking system, tax deductions and other opportunities that other businesses take for granted. Many dispensaries are forced to operate on a cash-only basis, which can be an invitation to organized crime.
It's already legal for adults in Colorado and Washington to light up at will, as long as they do so in private.
That creates all kinds of new challenges for law enforcement.
Pat Slack, a commander with the Snohomish County Regional Drug Taskforce in Washington state, said local police are receiving calls about smokers flouting regulations against lighting up in public. In at least one instance, Slack said, that included a complaint about a smoker whose haze was wafting over a backyard fence and into the middle of a child's birthday party. But with many other problems confronting local officers, scofflaws are largely being ignored.
"There's not much we can do to help," Slack says. "A lot of people have to get accustomed to what the change is."
In Colorado, Tom Gorman, director of the federal Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Taskforce, takes a tougher stance on his state's decision to legalize pot.
"This is against the law, I don't care what Colorado says," Gorman said. "It puts us in a position, where you book a guy or gal and they have marijuana, do you give it back? Do you destroy it? What in effect I am doing by giving it back is I am committing a felony. If the court orders me to return it, the court is giving me an illegal order."
More than 30 pot growers and distributors, going all-out to present a buttoned-down image in suits and sensible pumps rather than ponytails and weed T-shirts, spent two days on Capitol Hill in June lobbying for equal treatment under tax and banking laws and seeking an end to federal property seizures.
"It's truly unfortunate that the Justice Department can't find a way to respect the will of the people," says Sean Luse of the 13-year-old Berkeley Patients Group in California, a multimillion-dollar pot collective whose landlord is facing the threat of property forfeiture.
___
As Colorado and Washington state press on, California's experience with medical marijuana offers a window into potential pitfalls that can come with wider availability of pot.
Dispensaries for medical marijuana have proliferated in the state. Regulation has been lax, leading some overwhelmed communities to complain about too-easy access from illegal storefront pot shops and related problems such as loitering and unsavory characters. That prompted cities around the state to say enough already and ban dispensaries. Pot advocates sued.
In May, the California Supreme Court ruled unanimously that cities and counties can ban medical marijuana dispensaries. A few weeks later, Los Angeles voters approved a ballot measure that limits the number of pot shops in the city to 135, down from an estimated high of about 1,000. By contrast, whitepages.com lists 112 Starbucks in the city.
This isn't full-scale buyer's remorse, but more a course correction before the inevitable next push to full-on legalization in the state.
Baker Montgomery, a member of the Eagle Rock neighborhood council in Los Angeles, where pot shops were prevalent, said May's vote to limit the number of shops was all about ridding the city of illicit dispensaries.
"They're just not following what small amounts of rules there are on the books," Montgomery said.
In 2010, California voters opted against legalizing marijuana for recreational use, drawing the line at medical use.
But Jeffrey Dunn, a Southern California attorney who represented cities in the Supreme Court case, says that in reality the state's dispensaries have been operating so loosely that already "it's really all-access."
At the Venice Beach Care Center, one of the dispensaries that will be allowed to stay open in Los Angeles, founding director Brennan Thicke believes there still is widespread support for medical marijuana in California. But he says the state isn't ready for more just yet.
"We have to get (medical) right first," Thicke said.
Dunn doubts that's possible.
"What we've learned is, it is very difficult if not impossible to regulate these facilities," he said.
___
Other states, Colorado among them, have had their own bumps in the road with medical marijuana.
A Denver-area hospital, for example, saw children getting sick after eating treats and other foods made with marijuana in the two years after a 2009 federal policy change led to a surge in medical marijuana use, according to a study in JAMA Pediatrics in May. In the preceding four years, the hospital had no such cases.
The Colorado Education Department reported a sharp rise in drug-related suspensions and expulsions after medical marijuana took off. An audit of the state's medical marijuana system found the state had failed to adequately track the growth and distribution of pot or to fully check out the backgrounds of pot dealers.
"What we're doing is not working," says Dr. Christian Thurstone, a psychiatrist whose Denver youth substance abuse treatment center has seen referrals for marijuana double since September. In addition, he sees young people becoming increasingly reluctant to be treated, arguing that it can't be bad for them if it's legal.
Yet Daniel Rees, a researcher at the University of Colorado Denver, analyzed data from 16 states that have approved medical marijuana and found no evidence that legalization had increased pot use among high school students.
In looking at young people, Rees concludes: "Should we be worried that marijuana use nationally is going up? Yes. Is legalization of medical marijuana the culprit? No."
___
Growing support for legalization doesn't mean everybody wants to light up: Barely one in 10 Americans used pot in the past year.
Those who do want to see marijuana legalized range from libertarians who oppose much government intervention to people who want to see an activist government aggressively regulate marijuana production and sales.
Safer-than-alcohol was "the message that won the day" with voters in Colorado, says Tvert.
For others, money talks: Why let drug cartels rake in untaxed profits when a cut of that money could go into government coffers?
There are other threads in the growing acceptance of pot.
People think it's not as dangerous as once believed; some reflect back on what they see as their own harmless experience in their youth. They worry about high school kids getting an arrest record that will haunt them for life. They see racial inequity in the way marijuana laws are enforced. They're weary of the "war on drugs," and want law enforcement to focus on other areas.
"I don't plan to use marijuana, but it just seemed we waste a lot of time and energy trying to enforce something when there are other things we should be focused on," says Sherri Georges, who works at a Colorado Springs, Colo., saddle shop. "I think that alcohol is a way bigger problem than marijuana, especially for kids."
Opponents have retorts at the ready.
They point to a 2012 study finding that regular use of marijuana during teen years can lead to a long-term drop in IQ, and a different study indicating marijuana use can induce and exacerbate psychotic illness in susceptible people. They question the idea that regulating pot will bring in big money, saying revenue estimates are grossly exaggerated.
They counter the claim that prisons are bulging with people convicted of simple possession by citing federal statistics showing only a small percentage of federal and state inmates are behind bars for that alone. Slack said the vast majority of people jailed for marijuana possession were originally charged with dealing drugs and accepted plea bargains for possession. The average possession charge for those in jail is 115 pounds, Slack says, which he calls enough for "personal use for a small city."
Over and over, marijuana opponents warn that baby boomers who are drawing on their own innocuous experiences with pot are overlooking the much higher potency of the marijuana now in circulation.
In 2009, concentrations of THC, the psychoactive ingredient in pot, averaged close to 10 percent in marijuana, compared with about 4 percent in the 1980s, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse. An estimated 9 percent of people who try marijuana eventually become addicted, and the numbers are higher for those who start using pot when they are young. That's less than the addiction rates for nicotine or alcohol, but still significant.
"If marijuana legalization was about my old buddies at Berkeley smoking in People's Park once a week I don't think many of us would care that much," says Sabet, who helped to found Smart Approaches to Marijuana, a group that opposes legalization. "But it's not about that. It's really about creating a new industry that's going to target kids and target minorities and our vulnerable populations just like our legal industries do today."
___
So how bad, or good, is pot?
There are studies that set off medical alarm bells but also studies that support the safer-than-alcohol crowd and suggest promising therapeutic uses.
J. Michael Bostwick, a psychiatrist at the Mayo Clinic, set out to sort through more than 100 sometimes conflicting studies after his teenage son became addicted to pot. In a 22-page article for Mayo Clinic Proceedings in 2012, he laid out the contradictions in U.S. policy and declared that "little about cannabis is straightforward."
"Anybody can find data to support almost any position," Bostwick says now.
For all of the talk that smoking pot is no big deal, Bostwick says, he determined that "it was a very big deal. There were addiction issues. There were psychosis issues. But there was also this very large body of literature suggesting that it could potentially have very valuable pharmaceutical applications but the research was stymied" by federal barriers.
Marijuana is a Schedule I drug under 1970 law, meaning the government deems it to have "no currently accepted medical use" and a "high potential for abuse." The only federally authorized source of marijuana for research is grown at the University of Mississippi, and the government tightly regulates its use. The National Institute on Drug Abuse says plenty of work with cannabis is ongoing, but Bostwick says federal restrictions have caused a "near-cessation of scientific research."
The American Medical Association opposes legalizing pot, calling it a "dangerous drug" and a public health concern. But it also is urging the government to review marijuana's status as a Schedule 1 drug in the interest of promoting more research.
"The evidence is pretty clear that in 1970 the decision to make the drug illegal, or put it on Schedule I, was a political decision," says Bostwick. "And it seems pretty obvious in 2013 that states, making their decisions the way they are, are making political decisions. Science is not present in either situation to the degree that it needs to be."
The National Institute on Drug Abuse's director, Dr. Nora Volkow, says that for all the potential dangers of marijuana, "cannabinoids are just amazing compounds, and understanding how to use them properly could be actually very beneficial therapeutically." But she worries that legalizing pot will result in increased use of marijuana by young people, and impair their brain development.
"You cannot mess around with the cognitive capacity of your young people because you are going to rely on them," she says. "Think about it: Do you want a nation where your young people are stoned?"
___
As state after state moves toward a more liberal approach to marijuana, the turnaround is drawing comparisons to shifting attitudes on gay marriage, for which polls find rapidly growing acceptance, especially among younger voters. That could point toward durable majority support as this population ages. Gay marriage is now legal in 12 states and Washington, D.C.
On marijuana, "we're having a hard time almost believing how fast public opinion is changing in our direction," says Nadelmann of the Drug Policy Alliance.
But William Galston and E.J. Dionne, who co-wrote a paper on the new politics of marijuana for the Brookings Institution, believe marijuana legalization hasn't achieved a deep enough level of support to suggest a tipping point, with attitudes toward legalization marked by ambivalence and uncertainty.
"Compared with attitudes toward same-sex marriage, support for marijuana legalization is much less driven by moral conviction and much more by the belief that it is not a moral issue at all," they wrote.
No one expects Congress to change federal law anytime soon.
Partisans on both sides think people in other states will keep a close eye on the precedent-setting experiment underway in Colorado and Washington as they decide whether to give the green light to marijuana elsewhere.
"It will happen very suddenly," predicts the Cato Institute's Lynch. "In 10-15 years, it will be hard to find a politician who will say they were ever against legalization."
Sabet worries that things will move so fast that the negative effects of legalization won't yet be fully apparent when other states start giving the go-ahead to pot. He's hoping for a different outcome.
"I actually think that this is going to wake a lot of people up who might have looked the other way during the medical marijuana debate," he says. "In many ways, it actually might be the catalyst to turn things around."
Past predictions on pot have been wildly off-base, in both directions.
The 1972 commission that recommended decriminalizing marijuana speculated pot might be nothing more than a fad.
Then there's "Reefer Madness," the 1936 propaganda movie that pot fans rediscovered and turned into a cult classic in the 1970s. It labeled pot "The Real Public Enemy Number One!"
The movie spins a tale of dire consequences "leading finally to acts of shocking violence ... ending often in incurable insanity."

You’ll never believe where these waterfalls are hidden (hint: it’s not Hawaii)

If you want scratch this spot off your bucket list, start planning now

One mile past the Supai Village, you will get your first glimpse of the breathtaking Upper Navajo Falls, which tumble over a 50-foot sheer cliff. Photo by Travis Burke

Although the Grand Canyon is cleaved by the Colorado River, it’s not the kind of place that conjures up images of tropical waterfalls and effervescent pools. While parts of the canyon do see snowfall and extreme cold, it’s known as a desiccate place. Dry—the kind of place that’s soul-stirring and awe-inspiring but that nonetheless leaves you with dirt on your teeth and red in your eyes.

The GrindTV crew could have easily spent weeks in Havasu Canyon capturing the smaller waterfalls that are often overlooked by visitors. Photo by David Hatfield

The great canyon’s desert clime makes the waterfalls of Havasu Canyon—which sits on the edge of the Grand Canyon National Park on land overseen by the Havasupai Tribe—all the more alluring. These waterfalls are perhaps the only attraction in the Southwest that are reminiscent of the filming locations used in “Jurassic Park.” In fact, if you visit them, you’ll likely never believe you’re looking at one of Arizona’s—and not Hawaii’s—natural wonders.
The canyon features five major falls—Upper and Lower Navajo Falls, Havasu Falls, Beaver Falls, and Mooney Falls, which rises 190 feet—and hundreds of tiny falls and turquoise pools interwoven by the spring-fed Havasu Creek and festooned with giant water ferns and other vegetation. People camp near the large falls and spend their days swimming in the 70-degree pools, relaxing under shaded cottonwoods, and playing behind the sonorous falls, where soft water droplets splash against their faces.
If a trip to these falls is now on your bucket list, start planning today. Because summer temperatures rise to the 100s, the fall and spring are the best times to visit Havasu Canyon. To visit, however, you’ll need to make reservations to stay at the nearby lodge or campground, and this process can take several months.
You’ll also need to plan your mode of transportation to the falls, which are located 10 miles from the nearest trailhead. Many people backpack the 8 miles to the Supai Village and stay at the lodge there, or they make the extra 2-mile trek the campgrounds located closer to the biggest waterfalls.
If you want to bring more than what you can carry in a backpack to your campground, the Supai Village offers transportation via horse and mule, and you can even take a helicopter into the canyon, if that’s more your style. To get the full experience, we recommend that you hike in, spend a few days exploring, and then rent horses to ride out of the canyon. It will likely be one of the most beautiful—if not the most beautiful—hikes and rides you’ll ever experience, and an adventure you’ll never forget.

Photographer David Hatfield stands before the Havasu Canyon rim on the trailhead before he and Travis Burke begin the 10-mile trek to the waterfalls. It is highly recommended that you begin this trek before sunrise, as temperatures can soar no matter what time of year you tackle it. Photo by Travis Burke

Mule trains and helicopters are the only way that the Supai Village, which features a lodge, small general store, café, and stalls for horses and mules, can get supplies. Photo by David Hatfield

After 8 miles of hiking you will reach Supai Village, which is surrounded by sheer rock walls. Photo by David Hatfield

Some of the local kids enjoying a ride through the village; photo by David Hatfield

A major flood swept through the canyon in 2008, permanently altering much of the landscape and creating Upper and Lower Navajo Falls. The canyon’s face is ever changing, in fact, thanks to floods and the creek’s high calcium carbonate content. Photo by Travis Burke

A short distance past Upper and Lower Navajo Falls you’ll find Havasu Falls, which drops 100 feet into a foamy green pool. High volumes of calcium carbonate in the pools and creek create the vivid coloring. Photo by David Hatfield

The view from below Havasu Falls is just as amazing as above. Photo by Travis Burke

Another reason to visit Arizona’s Havasu Canyon: the trillions of stars that light the night sky. Photo by David Hatfield

The canyon features many small water crossings as the trail weaves back and forth over the creek, which is a tributary to the Colorado River. Photo by Travis Burke

The trail down to Mooney Falls is unforgettable but requires more of an adventurous spirit, as you must make your way through multiple caves and up and down wood and chain ladders. Photo by Travis Burke

Being able to stand in front of the 190-foot Mooney Falls is definitely worth the hike, however. Photo by Travis Burke

The landscape surprises with every turn. Photo by Travis Burke

If you set aside a day to go on a 6-mile round-trip hike to Beaver Falls you will be rewarded with unique landscape that isn’t found anywhere else in the canyon. Here, the trail takes you to an area of the canyon the locals call “The Garden,” which features grape vines and dense vegetation that canvases the entire floor. Photo by Travis Burke

Gina, 71, right, and Peter, 72, from Florida on the hike to Beaver Falls that requires multiple creek crossings and climbs up and down several ladders. Photo by Travis Burke

A few of the hundreds of smaller waterfalls that trundle through the canyon; photo by Travis Burke

Travis and David make their way out of the canyon. “I’ve been riding horses my entire life, and this is the most beautiful ride I have ever been on,” David remarked. Photo by Travis Burke

Miss USA 2013 Contestants Too Skinny, Former Pageant Winners Say

Has the pageant stage become just another fashion runway filled with scary-skinny physiques? According to several former Miss USA and Miss America competitors, the answer is a resounding "Yes!" -- at least when it comes to the bikini bodies on display during Sunday night's Miss USA 2013 competition. (Miss Connecticut Erin Brady was crowned the winner.)

PHOTOS: Miss USA 2013 bikini bodies
Speaking to HuffPost Live, Miss America 2008 Kirsten Haglund said, "The girls, I thought, were much too thin. I agree that if you would have tested their BMIs that they probably would have been much too thin. And that's the standard in the modeling industry and the fashion industry as well."
PHOTOS: Miss Universe 2012 bikini bodies
Miss USA 2003 Susie Castillo was also disturbed by the shrinking figures. "I was a little shocked, too, sitting in the audience and seeing ribcages showing, protruding from these girls' skins. I was like, 'Wow, these girls…' "
PHOTOS: Miss America 2013 bikini bodies
"I realize that 10 years ago, when I was Miss USA, I was a lot thinner too…. I was an athlete. I wasn't that thin. And I agree that it's going in a way where girls are just super thin," Castillo continued.
Tell Us: Do you think the Miss USA contestants this year were too skinny?

Miss USA Hopeful Opens Up About Her Scar: 'I Got Branded'

• Darren Decker/Miss Universe Organization, screengrab/Miss USA - Miss West Virginia USA 2013, Chelsea Welch, poses in evening gown upon arriving to Planet Hollywood Resort and Casino, in Las Vegas, Nevada. She …more  will spend the next two weeks touring, filming, rehearsing, and making new friends while preparing to compete for the coveted MISS USA Diamond Nexus Crown. Tune in to the crowning moment LIVE on NBC starting at 9:00 PM ET on June 16th, 2013 from PH Live.?  less 

The next Miss USA could have a more permanent accessory than a crown.

Miss West Virginia Chelsea Welch carries a mark on her back from her time studying abroad in Tanzania. But it's not a scar from an injury or accident — she chose to put it on her body!

[Photos: Miss USA Contestants Carbo-Load Ahead of Pageant... Or Do They?]

"The Massai, they put a lot of burns and scars on their body. They think it beautifies them," she explained to Yahoo! TV. "So at the end of my trip they asked if I wanted to receive one of their traditional circle brands, so I thought, 'Well why not, let's go for it.'"
The 22-year-old grad student recently posted a "Road to the Crown" video with an image of herself getting the distinctive mark. As for its meaning, Welch remained coy. "The circle, they think is just a beautiful shape, I don't think there really is a specific meaning to the shape," she said.

See Welch getting branded:

Though her "why not?" rationale may seem like it was an impulsive decision, Welch "thought about it for awhile."
"I thought, well, if I ever do a pageant one day or model one day, I'd want it in a place where I could easily hide it. So I have it on my upper back," she revealed.
But the opinions of pageant judges was far from the biggest concern for Welch. Of greater worry? Mom!

[Related: Miss USA Nana Meriwether Crushes on Prince Harry: 'We Should Get Married!'] 

"I didn't tell my mom because I knew she'd be mad at me," Welch told us. "I had a friend take my photo while it was happening and I uploaded it as my profile picture on Facebook and that was the first time that my mom knew that I did it and she called me so upset."
Considering Welch is now a leading candidate for the title of Miss USA — with the brand — guess Mom didn't have much to be upset about!

Politician promises free weed, disappoints with tomato plants instead

Cincinnati mayoral candidate Jim Berns announced he was going to bless the people of the city with free marijuana plants at a public event, but those who turned out in support were instead gifted with a leafy tomato plant. Berns said the media stunt was to spread the word about his intent to "re-legalize marijuana." Since slinging around a controlled substance might hinder his campaign efforts, the bogus "pot" plants seem fair enough. Being photographed with a sign that said "Free marijuana plants" near a table of fake pot plants, however, was just a step too far. Who'd have thought a politician wouldn't deliver on a widely publicized promise?

Kate Upton spends her 21st birthday with Congress (really)

We would literally never have guessed how model Kate Upton spent her 21st birthday: with Congressmen. We would have been just as hard-pressed to figure out why — but it turns out Kate's uncle, Fred Upton, is a real live member of the House of Representatives. (For the record, he's a Michigan Republican.) GOP Whip Fred McCarthy tweeted an image of himself with the Upton family — to the interest of his nephew, who tweeted back, "Don’t forget you got a 21 year old nephew." Congressional matchmaking?

Charlie Sheen Sends Farrah Abraham Harsh Rejection Letter: You're a Desperate Guzzler of Douche Agua

Charlie Sheen, Farrah Abraham

Farrah Abraham is not #winning in Charlie Sheen's eyes anymore.

After the Teen Mom-turned-porn star leaked their text conversation to TMZ in which she asked him on a date, Sheen sent Abraham a vicious rejection letter.

See more of the biggest celeb feuds

"hey, you desperate guzzler of stagnant douche agua;  I truly do not recall giving you permission to globally reveal any communication between us," Sheen wrote, according to TMZ. "congrats on surviving your lobotomy and an even bigger congratz on the recent attempt at porn. your daughter must be so proud. please send my number to middle earth and if allowed, eagerly follow it into said abyss and slam the door behind you. the world will collectively sigh as the pungent memory of you vanishes into the pedestrian troposphere of lame-suck and zero-life. oh and I'm sure they'll wave [sic] the cover charge when they see your tranny-boobs and five o'clock shadow."

Add new shows to your watchlist

Abraham had reached out to Sheen through text in part to inquire about a role on Anger Management, but also to ask the actor out for coffee or a playdate with their children. Sheen responded that "coffee is for amateurs and grandma," but that he "would love to get together!!"

Unfortunately for her, it seems like the date is off. Looks like Abraham can forget that role on Anger Management too.

He's Gone: As Schwagstock founder Jimmy Tebeau enters federal prison, should other music-festival organizers worry about on-site drug use?

Jennifer Silverberg

Anybody who has ever attended Bonnaroo, Lollapalooza, Coachella, Sasquatch or other major summer music festivals understands that drugs are an inescapable part of the experience. Many people enjoy the show sober. Others stick to alcohol. But inevitably there are thousands of people stoned out of their skulls, on every hallucinogen under the sun. It has been that way since the Woodstock era, when "sex, drugs and rock & roll" was a to-do list as much as an ethos.
So on November 1, 2010, when federal agents swarmed Camp Zoe, a 330-acre campground and festival venue in rural Missouri owned by the frontman of a Grateful Dead tribute band, their big announcement after four years of undercover investigation was less than shocking: People at a jam-band festival called Schwagstock were buying, selling and consuming marijuana, mushrooms, LSD, ecstasy and other drugs.
Who knew, right?
The more alarming revelation was that Jimmy Tebeau, the man federal prosecutors aimed to hold responsible for the drug activity, was not actually a drug dealer. He was the venue owner, concert promoter and lead singer of the Schwag, the festival's headlining act. Federal prosecutors contended Schwagstock was "an illegal drug haven, with its music as a side offering."
"We didn't view this as a music-festival prosecution," says Richard Callahan, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri. "We viewed it as somebody who was using a festival site to promote illegal drug sales and profit off of that. We thought there was a difference between a music festival with incidental drug use and a drug festival with incidental music. We believe in this case it was the latter rather than the former."
At first prosecutors weren't sure what charges to press against Tebeau. They used asset-forfeiture proceedings to take his land and freeze his bank accounts (see "Shakedown Street," published in the February 3, 2011, issue of Riverfront Times). Finally, six months after the raid on Tebeau's property, they accused him of "maintaining a drug involved premises" — a violation originally intended to punish landlords who lease houses to crack dealers.
One long-time friend describes Tebeau as "a low-key guy who doesn't like a lot of confrontation," but the 45-year-old with a bushy red beard and long dreadlocks is still indignant about being charged under the so-called Crack House Statute.
"That's not me at all," Tebeau says. "We're talking about a 330-acre campground, and I'm putting on music festivals. I'm paying for the sins of others. Some people were ingesting some drugs at the property and selling drugs, which I wasn't affiliated with in any way, shape or form."
Last June Tebeau reluctantly accepted a plea bargain. Had he gone to trial, he faced the possibility of a nine-year sentence. The government possessed overwhelming evidence that he at least tacitly allowed certain drugs to be bought and sold at Schwagstock (marijuana, hallucinogens and ecstasy were allegedly OK, while crack, meth, heroin and others were off-limits) and profited handsomely from the popularity of his festival as a result. The plea agreement explicitly states that the government could not prove Tebeau himself ever bought or sold drugs.
Prosecutors say the circumstances of the case are unique, but civil-liberties advocates warn that targeting a musician and venue owner sets an ominous precedent for festivals and concert sites nationwide. Tebeau is believed to be the first artist or festival organizer ever imprisoned for widespread drug use at a music festival.
"Club owners should be fearful," says Daniel Abrahamson, director of legal affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance, a nonprofit advocacy group working to reform American drug laws. "There is precedent of government overreach with this statute, implicating core First [and Fifth] Amendment concerns."
Abrahamson and others wonder when the government, having targeted Tebeau, will next decide that drug use at a concert has crossed the line from open secret to something that deserves punishment. How does one prove that fans are drawn to a summer festival for the party and not the music? And could the organizers of a mega-festival like Bonnaroo be next?

---

Tebeau is exactly what you'd expect from a guy fronting a band that promises to "preserve and perpetuate the vibe and music made popular by the Grateful Dead": He is a cheerful old hippie through and through. But his keen business acumen is at odds with the fun-loving-stoner stereotype.
In 1997 Tebeau (pronounced tee-boh) began organizing Schwagstock festivals at campgrounds in rural Missouri. The events were a showcase for his band, the Schwag, and they gained a steady following among Deadheads and Haight-Ashbury revivalists from around the Midwest. The gigs were profitable, but Tebeau wisely recognized that a substantial chunk of his change was lost to the rental fees he paid to the host venues.
On April 8, 2004, the bandleader tapped his savings and borrowed money from family members to purchase Camp Zoe, a sprawling tract of land squarely located in the middle of nowhere: about 80 miles southeast of Fort Leonard Wood near the tiny town of Eminence. Formerly the site of a church youth retreat, the property borders the Ozark National Scenic Riverways near the Current River.
Tebeau envisioned the perfect venue for Schwagstock: beaches, caves, swimming holes and a secluded place to party.
"I never really wanted to be a campground owner," he says in hindsight. "I just wanted to be a musician. But I thought, 'Hey, I'll put my name on the mortgage and build some equity. If it all fails, at least I'll make a few bucks on the back end with the real estate.'"
Before long business was booming. In addition to the bands, entertainment came to include dancers, parades, bonfires, drum circles, fire-baton acts and laser light shows. It was Branson for hippies. Once just a performer and promoter, Tebeau established his own vertically integrated music enterprise. Beyond the $60 cost of admission, concert attendees paid to rent their camping spot from him and purchased food, drinks, firewood and other goods from his general store. He staged five to seven festivals each year with an average attendance of 6,000 per event. Festivities commenced with "Spring Jam" in April and concluded with "Spookstock" on Halloween.
From 2004 to 2010, Tebeau deposited more than $4.6 million cash in his local bank, according to a search warrant affidavit filed October 29, 2010, by an IRS special agent. The operation was so lucrative the DEA came to suspect he was peddling more than just music.
Local law-enforcement agents paid their first serious visit to Schwagstock in August 2006, according to court documents. Undercover officers from the Missouri State Highway Patrol bought two ounces of hallucinogenic mushrooms from a pair of dealers making the rounds at Camp Zoe. The men told the officers they had three pounds they intended to unload before the festival ended. (Both dealers were later arrested and eventually pleaded guilty to federal drug charges.) Beyond their encounter with the mushroom merchants, the troopers noted the "unfettered illegal drug use" they witnessed at Schwagstock.
"Drug sellers walk around the campground making contact with other campers and people gathered in front of the stages to watch the bands play," states an affidavit filed with a request for a search warrant on October 22, 2010. "The sellers will approach campers and ask if the campers want 'nuggets' for example, which is marijuana, or 'shrooms' meaning psychedelic mushrooms."
The undercover highway-patrol officers paid close attention to Tebeau's security force, a staff of about ten managed by St. Louis-based B&D Security, which operates at several prominent St. Louis music venues. (B&D Security declined to comment for this story.) The undercover agents reported that security guards merely asked dealers to be discreet and set up shop away from the main festival entrance. Dealers were "not hampered by the Camp Zoe security personnel; in fact, the investigating officers made controlled drug purchases from at least one security person," the affidavit reads.
Tebeau insists he had little control over the day-to-day operations at the campground. "I just came to play music," he says. "I rehearsed with the band all through the week, then played the show. I wasn't so in touch with daily activities of the campground and security. We hired security to deal with issues like [drugs], but apparently they weren't always doing their job."
Court documents state that Tebeau "visits the campgrounds very often, socializing with campers and checking their campsites." Officers videotaped Tebeau "smoking a substance that appears to be marijuana."
The frontman of a Grateful Dead tribute band indulging in a few puffs of reefer is hardly a revelation, but other incidents would soon confirm that drug dealing at Camp Zoe had crossed a line.

---

On August 15, 2006 — coincidentally, just after the weekend when the highway patrol first infiltrated Camp Zoe — a young man was found dead in a motel in Rolla. According to police, David Smith was headed home to Kansas City after attending Schwagstock. His friends said he'd recently taken four or five methadone pills he bought at the festival. A drug screening found amphetamines, benzodiazepines, cocaine and marijuana in his system. The death was ruled an overdose.
The incident, coupled with the mushroom bust and accounts of unchecked drug dealing, compelled federal law enforcement to join the Missouri State Highway Patrol's investigation of Tebeau. Together the DEA, IRS and highway patrol spent the next three summers sending undercover agents to Schwagstock.
All told, the feds made more than 120 controlled drug buys from 2006 to 2010, acquiring everything from moonshine to marijuana to LSD tabs labeled "Foxy." When investigators failed during that period to prove that Tebeau did much other than promote concerts and perform, they searched for evidence that he was acting irresponsibly and indirectly profiting from the Camp Zoe drug trade.
On January 11, 2010, Tebeau's sister Christine Atkinson and her husband were arrested for buying pseudoephedrine from multiple stores in the same day. According to court documents, after grilling Atkinson about allegedly smurfing pills in order to manufacture meth, police asked about her duties at Camp Zoe.
Atkinson worked at "Safestock," an improvised medical facility at the campground. She told police that "kids show up at the festivals and that they use drugs like ecstasy and LSD for the first time." Atkinson said her job was keeping the inexperienced users hydrated and making sure their condition did not deteriorate.
When she was arrested again three months later for alleged possession of methamphetamine, Atkinson was more forthcoming. She estimated that 80 percent of Schwagstock campers were teenagers and that 75 percent of those teens were using or selling drugs. "Everybody is doing something," court documents quote Atkinson saying. "I'm sure you can get anything down there. Syringes are everywhere."
Atkinson described incidents in which kids freaked out on ecstasy or LSD were physically restrained by being strapped to a table. She said many teens should have been hospitalized and claimed their parents later called to complain.
Tebeau says he was never personally involved in supervising the Schwagstock medical tent, and he remains incredulous that the existence of a medical tent that tended to the occasional drug-related crisis could be considered incriminating.
"Any major festival always has a medical facility, and always there's some drug-related incident," Tebeau says. "I never saw restraints. I heard one guy was getting wild, and they restrained him. I have mixed emotions about that, but apparently he was pretty drunk and pumped up on whatever."
Tebeau says there were no fatal drug overdoses at Schwagstock. He points out that by contrast, since Bonnaroo was first staged in 2002, eight people have died from drug overdoses at the annual Tennessee festival.
"At any music festival, you'll get people with other motivations for going there," he argues. "Ask a thousand people if they're there for the music, and they'll all say yes, but if you dig deep enough, long enough, you'll find people there for the wrong reasons. The amount of drug dealing and mayhem I saw at [Bonnaroo] — I never felt we were anywhere close to that."

---

There are certainly a handful of similarities between Bonnaroo, which happens this week, and Schwagstock, the most obvious being that both take place on remote, privately owned farms about 300 miles apart. But the sheer scale of Bonnaroo — attendance routinely tops 100,000 — and the caliber of artists involved (headliners include Paul McCartney, Tom Petty and Björk) are a world away from Tebeau's mom-and-pop operation.
A closer cousin of Schwagstock might be the notorious Gathering of the Juggalos. Held on private property in tiny Cave-in-Rock, Illinois, about 150 miles southeast of St. Louis, the annual event attracts more than 10,000 fans of Detroit rappers Insane Clown Posse. Music is ostensibly the main attraction — George Clinton, Ice Cube, Warren G and other hip-hop legends have performed — but debauchery rules the day. There are carnival rides, wrestling, wet T-shirt contests and more, a spectacle Village Voice writer Camille Dodero famously described as a "shantytown psycho-porn amusement park."
Drugs are openly bought and sold at the Juggalo party. There's a dark corner of YouTube dedicated to "Gathering of the Juggalos Drug Bridge," where solicitations run the gamut from "I got LSD, 'shrooms and ecstasy, dawg," to "buy some weed, see some titties." It makes the DEA's frumpy description of the Tebeau homestead festivities seem tame in comparison. Private security patrols the grounds at the Juggalo gathering; the local sheriff has refused to send in officers, publicly citing concerns for their safety.
There is, of course, widespread drug use at Bonnaroo as well. Last year police seized twenty pounds of Rice Krispies treats laced with marijuana, along with small quantities of LSD, cocaine, ecstasy, mushrooms and synthetic drugs. In 2011 authorities in a nearby Tennessee county boasted of confiscating "more than $12,000 worth of illegal drugs en route to the annual festival." Nevertheless, Tennessee law-enforcement officials heap praise on Bonnaroo.
"They're as much against drugs coming in as we are," says Billy Cook, director of a task force on drugs and violent crime for the Coffee County District Attorney's Office. "A lot of times [Bonnaroo] security will bring people to us that are dealing drugs or have drugs on them. The Bonnaroo administrative people — I think they do a good job. They're our allies instead of our enemy."
There is a strong economic incentive for Coffee County to keep things running smoothly at Bonnaroo. One study estimates that the mega-festival provides $14 million worth of annual revenue for the sparsely populated swatch of southeastern Tennessee.
"I don't want people to get the false idea that this is just a drug fest, because it's not," Cook says. "There's a tremendous amount of good people that come to this. They come to enjoy the music and events and things, and that's really what it's all about. It's not about the drug stuff."
Tebeau says he paid more than $200,000 in tax revenue to Shannon County over the years but that his relationship with local law enforcement was always adversarial. He claims the Shannon County sheriff told him he couldn't spare officers to patrol Schwagstock, and he says the state highway patrol rebuffed his request for assistance, as well, opting instead to set up roadside checkpoints and hassle drivers going to and from Camp Zoe.
"I found out later the highway patrol was part of the undercover investigation, so of course they're not going to help me," Tebeau says now. "I was almost set up for failure in a way."
In truth, Schwagstock was destined for failure in more ways than one. Tebeau clearly never felt that widespread use of marijuana and hallucinogens was a problem at his shows. (Jerry Garcia surely felt the same way during the heyday of the Grateful Dead.) His tolerance was slowly exploited until he totally lost control of what was happening on his property.
Undercover agents interviewed a cocaine dealer who boasted of selling two kilograms of product every weekend at Camp Zoe. (Court documents say the man, a convicted armed robber, was banned from the festival in 2010 for carrying a gun.) "It is common," the feds alleged, "for the officers to walk around the grounds and witness drug sellers weighing out powder cocaine in the open for a buyer."
Callahan, the federal prosecutor, points to a DEA estimate that $500,000 worth of drugs changed hands every weekend at Schwagstock.
"I'm not aware of any other festival venue other than perhaps Woodstock where that could happen," Callahan says with a laugh. "I wasn't there — although I wish I were — but Woodstock was a one-time phenomenon. These [Schwagstocks] were occurring four or five times a year. This was more of a business."
Of course, nobody really has a handle on the volume of drugs that are bought and sold each year at music festivals. Callahan's unspoken message is that law enforcement can stomach thousands of pot-smoking, acid-eating freaks running wild for a weekend so long as they keep to themselves and buckle their seat belts on the way out of town. But if the same bearded hippie flouts the rules all summer long, beware the long arm of the law.

---

Tebeau's case is not the first time federal prosecutors have used the so-called Crack House Statute to target the owner of a music venue. The law, broadly drafted to criminalize properties maintained "for the purpose of unlawfully manufacturing, storing, distributing, or using a controlled substance," dates back to the mid-1980s, but it was amended in 2002 at the urging of then-U.S. Senator Joe Biden. Hysteria surrounding crack cocaine faded years before. Ecstasy and rave parties were the new battles in the drug war.
In 2001 federal prosecutors tried to use the Crack House Statute against a trio of New Orleans club owners who frequently hosted raves at their venue, claiming the men "knew that drugs were being used and distributed at their raves but did nothing to prevent it." The club owners agreed to a settlement, later blocked through appeal, which banned glow sticks and similar items at their events. That same year a jury in Florida refused to convict two nightclub owners accused of profiting from drug use and raves at their venue.
In response, Biden introduced the Reducing Americans' Vulnerability to Ecstasy (RAVE) Act, which was, he explained, intended to tweak the Crack House Statute so that it could be applied to "rogue promoters who were knowingly using property episodically or on a one-time basis for illegal drug purposes."
The Crack House Statute was already unpopular with civil libertarians because it allowed prosecutors to punish business owners for the offenses of others. When Biden sought to target a specific subset of music fans and venues, the outcry was swift and forceful.
"Put most simply, the federal government should return to the task of identifying and stopping illegal drug activity, whether it occurs at a rave or elsewhere," Graham Boyd, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Drug Policy Litigation Project, testified before Congress. "The government must not allow for harassment or punishment of innocent business owners who are unable to guarantee absolutely that drug use will not occur on their property."
The RAVE Act was defeated, but nearly identical language was later inserted as an amendment to another bill. Police, prosecutors and the public gradually lost interest in raves, however, and the law was not successfully applied until the DEA set its sights on Schwagstock.
After pleading guilty, Tebeau took his case to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to argue that the law didn't apply to a music festival. The lower court's ruling was upheld.
"I think there was a lot of pressure in this case, because I'm sure there were a lot of people who didn't like that festival in their neck of the woods," says Tebeau's lawyer, St. Louis-based defense attorney Scott Rosenblum. "I can't really say anything our government does surprises me anymore, but there's no question there was a substantial amount of resources put into this case. To some extent it's a scary type of case in terms, I guess, of how far they're going to go to apply [the Crack House Statute]."
Callahan says there were serious discussions among law-enforcement officials about whether Tebeau could or should be held accountable for people buying and selling drugs on his property.
"We had to wrestle with issues of whether it made him criminally responsible or not," the federal prosecutor says. "We wanted to be careful not to cross the line so that we were going after a music festival simply because of what a minority of patrons were doing.
"[This] doesn't serve as a warning to major music festival sites that are sincerely trying to operate within the law," Callahan emphasizes. "I'm sure you can go to a Willie Nelson concert and smell the aroma of marijuana, but I don't think his concert is promoting the sale of drugs."
The fact that prosecutors used asset forfeiture to confiscate Tebeau's property — the land upon which he lived with his wife and two young children — still rubs some people the wrong way. Mike Cullen, Tebeau's neighbor at Camp Zoe who helped out with groundskeeping, wonders why authorities chose to bust Tebeau rather than the actual drug dealers.
"There's a lot of resentment still in the community from that," Cullen reports. "They don't like the idea that the government is swooping in there and taking somebody's property. They could have gone in with an investigative team and just busted people actually accused of selling drugs. Jimmy got a bum rap on that. But they have to blame somebody, and since he owned the place, there it was."
Cullen adds that he was disappointed other concert venues and music festivals in Missouri and beyond did not speak up in support of Tebeau.
In reality, most festivals and venues want to distance themselves as much as possible from drug use. Representatives from several major festivals (including Coachella, Bonnaroo and Sasquatch) declined to comment for this story when asked about drug use at their events. It seems ignoring the issue entirely is a safer strategy than reproaching law enforcement for making an example of someone.
On May 25, Tebeau played a farewell show with the Schwag at 2720 Cherokee in St. Louis. A mélange of hippies old and young lined up around the block before the doors opened. Despite a thorough security check, the aroma of smoldering weed wafted through the venue. The occasion was somber, but the atmosphere was playful and boozy. When it came time for the encore, the band played the Grateful Dead songs "Row Jimmy" and "Touch of Grey." It was an emotional moment for Tebeau.
"I noticed during 'Row Jimmy' that [Jimmy] was starting to struggle with singing the lines," recounts Schwag guitarist Sean Allen Canan. "His hat was down low over his eyes, and I could see he was swollen and choking out the lyrics by the time he began to sing 'Touch of Grey.' Not to mention all the hardcore fans in the front who were crying, as well as his wife and our crew on the side of the stage.
"It was very surreal and bittersweet for everyone."
Three days later Tebeau reported to a minimum-security prison in Yankton, South Dakota, to begin serving his 30-month sentence. The facility is 600 miles away from his family in St. Louis, but he's buoyed by a rumor that well-behaved inmates have access to a music room where he might be able to practice playing guitar.
"Hopefully I'll keep my chops up and come out a better musician than when I went in," Tebeau says. "I've played 3,000 gigs in my life, and I want to play 3,000 more. They said people weren't coming [to Schwagstock] for the music, but when we were playing there was quite a few people in front of the stage there to see the show. Some people go for wrong reasons, but I think the vast majority were there for the music."

Brazil scraps 'happy prostitute' ad campaign

The intention was to put a positive spin on legal prostitution and safe sex, but critics slammed the effort for glorifying the trade.

A Brazilian ad campaign aiming to put a positive spin on prostitution hasn't met a happy ending. 

The country's health agency has scrapped the campaign, which featured photos of prostitutes with taglines such as "I'm happy being a prostitute."

"I do not think this is a message the ministry should be sending," Health Minister Alexandre Padilha said, according to the BBC. 

The campaign raised widespread criticism, with some people saying it glorified prostitution, which is legal in Brazil. The ads had been tested on the ministry's website and weren't meant to be published, Padilha said. Other posters had slogans such as "I cannot be seen without a condom, my love."

Demand for prostitution is expected to jump in the next few years, given that the country is hosting the FIFA World Cup in 2014 and the Olympics in 2016. 

Unfortunately, young children are often meeting the demand for sex services, according to a 2010 report by the BBC. The country has been overtaking Thailand as the most popular sex tourist destination, the report noted. 

The campaign is yet another example of an advertising strategy gone wrong. Procter & Gamble (PG 0.00%) this week yanked an ad showing the feminist icon Rosie the Riveter holding a Swiffer mop, while PepsiCo (PEP 0.00%) last month scrapped a Mountain Dew ad that one expert called "arguably the most racist commercial in history."

Miss World bikini ban: why it's no victory for feminists

Something about the news that Miss World organisers have axed the famed bikinis from this year's pageant, amid mounting protests from hardline Muslim groups, doesn't sit quite right. Dr Brooke Magnanti, no fan of beauty pageants, explains why.

Miss England: the London-based Miss World Organisation has agreed to the request out of respect for the traditional customs and values of Indonesia Photo: PA

At this time of year, there is probably no more depressing question than "Are you bikini ready?" It is the opening salvo of a thousand grim magazine features, an echo chamber of self-loathing and fat-free yogurt dressed up as indulgence. Well, for this year's Miss World entrants, that vile utterance at least is one thing they won't have to hear. With concerns about offending some Muslims in Indonesia, the contest's organisers have agreed that this year the women will wear sarongs instead.

_{Get ready for those adverts}

As it turns out, it is not the first time the contest has faced objection from conservative religious groups and altered as a result. It began in 1951 as a bikini show for the Festival of Britain and was quickly dubbed 'Miss World' by the tabloids. The first winner, Kiki Hakansson from Sweden, was condemned by the Pope for her efforts and became the only Miss World ever to be crowned in her bikini… though not the last to sport swimwear on her victory lap. Miss World 1966, Reita Faria of India, was crowned in a modest black one-piece in 1966. (And very fetching it looked with a cape and sceptre too.)

Bikinis made a reappearance in later years and more controversy followed. In the 1970s and 1980s the contest was regularly picketed by feminist protestors, because let's face it a contest that started as a bikini show is unlikely to hold much appeal for that crowd. It disappeared from terrestrial broadcasts and was only semi-successfully revived - for the British pubic, anyway - a decade later.

Elsewhere it is still hugely popular. You can't go to a Bollywood opening without tripping over several dozen ex-Miss Worlds, I'm pretty sure Venezuela actually has a law requiring women to enter it. Believe it or not, the Miss World competition is still centred on Britain and the winner traditionally lives in London during the year of her resign. Various objections to the contest have meant that while it enjoys success worldwide, it was last broadcast on UK televisions in 1998.

_{Miss World 2012 winner Yu Wenxia}
Why the fuss over ladies in small swimsuits? It is, despite some desperate 1990s rebranding, still primarily a pony show. No doubt there are some brainy women in the roster of past winners - Aishwarya Rai would not still be the megastar she is today if she didn't have grey matter to spare - but any claims to judging 'beauty with a purpose' are (if you'll pardon the pun) purely cosmetic.
Personally, I'd love to see bikinis on more women, not fewer. We are so often ashamed of our bodies and think going for a dip on a hot summer's day is something that need to be dieted and exercised for, as if the enjoyment of cooling off is only for the thin and the young. Why not be comfortable and stylish if a bikini's what you fancy?
So there are plenty of reasons not to like beauty pageants - which means the recent announcement is great news, right? Well, not really. While no great fan of pageants there's something about this that rubs the wrong way. For some time it's been clear that the interests and tactics of certain types of feminism and certain types of religious fundamentalism not only converge, but seem to complement each other.
The consultation resulting from Rhoda Grant's upcoming bill in Scottish Parliament hoping to "end demand" for sex work, for example, are dominated by radical women's groups and conservative church members. Sometimes when it comes to the far right and the far left, you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference. Especially where sex might be involved.
And it continues to be surprising that many feminists seem to have no great problem with this. Sure, the ends some wanted have been achieved. Bikinis gone thanks to the Pope or Muslims or whoever it is this time. But at what cost? As they say where I come from (the US), ‘you gotta to dance with the one who brung you’. Such dirty alliances always, always, come with a hidden cost. It doesn't take much imagination to see what outcome religious conservatives of any faith are aiming for when they order the womenfolk to cover up.
Will the sarong-clad competitors in Jakarta this year make any great swing one way or the other as to the future of flashing the flesh? In all likelihood not. But it is interesting to see a contest that previously felt the wrath of 1970s feminists now coming under fire from the small, but vocal, fringe of religious practice in Indonesia.
Meanwhile I'm off to the beach in my customary wetsuit… but if Scotland had the climate of Indonesia, you can bet I'd be out there in my two-piece in solidarity.