Perhaps New York and New Jersey thought they had dodged the bullet of all of the poking fun that is about to occur in this edition of The Dumbest Laws of the United States. Sorry guys, it’s only fair that we point out the dumbest laws in ALL of the states, right? Which one of you two states wants to take the hot seat first? No volunteers? Fine….

I have to give props to New York for having surprisingly few dumb laws. Fear not, however, as I was able to find a couple. Firstly, “it is illegal to congregate in public with two or more people while each wearing a mask or any face covering which disguises your identity.”

Planning a trip to New York in the hopes of scoring potentially famous chicks? Well, you better not be married and cheating on your spouse, as adultery is still illegal there.

In Kendall, New York, “it is against town ordinances to camp out on your own land more than 72 hours a month. If you want to camp out for two weeks you need a permit, which can only be obtained once a year.” I guess lawmakers there frown upon the joyous act of camping!

There were many other laws listed, unfortunately I couldn’t find any legal verification for them, including the one claiming that the penalty for jumping off a building is death. Another law about which I am rather suspicious claims that “women may go topless in public, providing it is not being used as a business.”

Oh man, I should’ve known to start with New Jersey! That small state on the East Coast boasts an impressive amount of stupid laws. It’s to the point where I don’t even know where to start! I’ll just kick it off with laws regarding driving or vehicles in any way. In New Jersey, “drivers must warn those who they pass on highways before they do so.” If the chosen warning method is honking, that must get a bit noisy on the highway. It will get noisy in neighborhoods too, as “all motorists must honk before passing another car, bicyclist, skater, and even a skateboarder.”

I wonder if the law applies to cats?

Continuing the topic of cars, if you wish to buy one on a Sunday you’ll be SOL, as car dealerships are forbidden to be open on Sundays. If you already have a car and need to top off your gasoline stores, you better not try and fill your tank yourself, as doing so is also against the law.

They celebrate some er…interesting…. holidays in New Jersey. The third Thursday of October is  “New Jersey Credit Union Day” and therefore the citizens of the state must observe the day with “appropriate activities and programs.” With, of course, no suggestions for what activities they should do! I know that New Jersey Credit Union day is enough to have all of you ready to ditch your lives and move there, but it gets even better. In an attempt to make its citizens be nice to each other, the month of May has been designated “Kindness Awareness Month.” Ah, mandated kindness. That’s the best, most authentic kind!

All of New Jersey during Kindness Month?

One dumb law that seemed somewhat rational to me was that spray paint may not be sold without a posted sign warning juveniles of the penalty for creating graffiti. Fair enough. They may as well know all the possibilities. Speaking of minors, in New Jersey handcuffs must not be sold to them. What if they are kinky 18-year-old teens and go to an adult store to buy some fuzzy ones?

The law “It is illegal to wear a bullet-proof vest while committing a murder,” seems to forget the fact that the murder is being committed. I believe that someone dead set on murder wouldn’t really be concerned with laws about what they can and can’t wear. Speaking of emergencies, one must yield a phone line to a person if it is an emergency. “Gimmie your cell phone, I’m starving, it’s an emergency, can I order takeout? Thanks bro.” Does that count?

Because I’ll probably end up giving it to you to BORROW for your next emergency!

In Blairstown, New Jersey, shooting ranges are outlawed, no street-side trees may be planted that “obscure the air” (don’t even get me started on this one), and it is illegal to throw ashes on the sidewalk. I have to wonder if it means all ashes, like from a cooking project gone wrong, an urn, or a cigarette? Clarify, people!

Phew, thus concludes a nice and wordy edition of The Dumbest Laws of the United States!

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Dumbest Laws of the United States: New York and New Jersey appeared first on Law Street.

Ah, Missouri, the Show Me state. Let me just jump right into this edition of The Dumbest Laws in the United States. In Missouri, you can’t honk the horn of a car that’s not yours unless you have the owner’s permission. Be sure to ask if it’s okay to honk the driver’s horn if you are the passenger in a car and feel offended by something another driver did. Furthermore, one may not “attempt to manipulate any of the levers, starting device, brakes, or machinery thereof, or set the machinery in motion” if you do not own said machinery. Also while on the topic of cars, Missouri has a law simply stating that it is illegal to speed. In case anyone wasn’t aware.

I can’t honk the driver’s horn? I can’t SPEED? WHAT?

In Colombia, Missouri, drinking in a bar between the hours of 2:00am and 6:00am is strictly prohibited. It would be a difficult task seeing as how most bars close at 2:00am. Perhaps it’d make more sense to ban breaking into closed bars and drinking inside. In University City, owning a PVC pipe is illegal as it is considered drug paraphernalia. Perhaps too many students were converting the pipes into bongs. In University City, yard sales located in one’s front yard are also banned. The law does not mention sales in back yards, however, so perhaps doing so is permitted?

It frightens me to think of what instances prompted Illinois to create such a law, but the state has one banning sex with a corpse. Sex offenders there are prohibited from taking part in holiday festivities such as passing out candy to children or acting as Santa Claus. I mean, makes sense sort of, especially for registered sex offenders who are pedophiles.

Both those laws up there? Messed up.

One law listed as “stupid” actually makes a lot of sense to me. Individuals younger than 21 may drink alcohol if they are enrolled in a culinary program. I mean, if this weren’t allowed, how else would aspiring chefs know about wine pairings or using alcohol in cooking?

In my oh-so-humble opinion, another “dumb law” that is actually very sensible is one that prohibits hanging dangling objects from rear-view mirrors. I find them personally distracting while driving but maybe that’s  just me.

In Illinois’ famous capitol city, Chicago, citizens with an expired city sticker on their cars can receive a fine of $120. Also, all businesses “entering into contracts with the city must sift through their records and report any business they had dealing with slaves during the era of slavery.”

Citizens of Collinsville, Illinois must have gotten sick of seeing young men whose boxers peek over their pants while walking around. Or perhaps they got sick of seeing a few too many plumber cracks. Yes, in Collinsville, wearing sagging pants is illegal, so tighten up those belts!

Watch those pants, Gramps!

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Dumbest Laws in the United States: Missouri and Illinois appeared first on Law Street.

Florida has so many moronic laws that it could almost take up an entire post by itself.

The popular college spring break destination features some rather entertaining laws, for example one prohibiting committing “unnatural acts” with another person. Gotta love those vague terms! Furthermore, unmarried couples may not commit “lewd” acts and live together in the same residence.

Lewd acts? Define, please.

If you wish to get around via a swamp buggy, a very popular mode of transportation in Florida, be aware that they are not included in the state’s definition of “motor vehicle,” and are thus not regulated.

Some lawmaker must have gotten sick of the lack of consistency regarding the direction that doors open, as they decided to make it a law that all doors open outward. I’m not sure if this law applies to airport bathrooms, but I always thought that it was irritating that they open inward when you are trying to close it around your suitcase once inside.

Even parents who are driven to the brink of insanity by their children’s actions may not sell their kiddos in Florida. Pigs can be confined in cages in Florida unless they are pregnant, in which case the law requires them to roam free.

Watch your mouth in Mississippi, where you could be fined up to $100 for using “profane language” in public places. And if someone is disturbing your spiritual experience in church, go ahead and arrest him or her. There, private citizens may personally arrest any person who disturbs a church service.

There are tons of laws relating to sexual relations, illegitimate children, and other similar topics in Mississippi. For starters, if someone is a parent to two illegitimate children, that person can go to jail for at least one month. Living together while not married or having sex with someone who is not your spouse results in a fine of $500 and/or six months in prison. Unnatural intercourse (whatever that even means), if both parties voluntarily participate, results in a maximum sentence of ten years and $10,000. Lastly on the sex topic, it is not legal to teach others what polygamy is.

Phew, those two states were a doozy, and we still have two more to go! Moving on to Alabama….

It’s a bit sad that this law had to be created, since it seems like a pretty commonsense thing to never do, but Alabama officially banned incestuous marriages. Another one that confuses me as to why it needs to actually be written into law is that driving blindfolded is illegal.

If you plan to attend a bear-wrestling match in Alabama you’ll have to change your plans as they are strictly prohibited. Also, beware that impersonating a person of the clergy is against the law, as is maiming yourself to get out of duty or to obtain alms. People whose preferred pastime is playing Dominoes will have to come up with an alternative game for Sundays as playing that particular game on that particular day is illegal.

As is the case with Florida, Georgia has almost enough dumb laws to warrant an entirely separate post, so I’ll try to keep it concise. Do you have a life goal to live on a boat in Georgia? Too bad. You cannot live on a boat for more than 30 days during the year. No getting kinky on boats there either, as sex toys are banned.

Not for 30 days in Georgia, you’re not

In Acworth, Georgia there must be mass amounts of leaves covering the ground during the Fall months, as residents there are required by law to own a rake. Athens-Clarke County takes the cake for the strangest laws in the state, though. There, adult bookstores may not sell alcohol. Didn’t think that was generally a place people flock to for booze, but what do I know. I also wasn’t aware of anyone venturing to a massage business for his liquor, but Athens-Clarke County felt the need to ban that as well so who knows. Yeah, lots of weird stuff with alcohol. It is also illegal to sell two beers for a single price as a deal. For example, “a bar can’t run a two Bud Lights for $5 special.”

There are some bizarre curfew laws in Athens-Clarke, where one may not read a book out loud in public after 2:45 AM and persons under 16 may not play pinball after 11:00 PM. Bummer for them, because 11:00 PM is prime pinball time.

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dumbest Laws of the United States: Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia & Florida appeared first on Law Street.

As we continue our research into the dumbest laws of the United States, let’s have a look now at Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee and Kentucky.

I’ve heard of the cliché of throwing tomatoes at comedians who are bombing to the worst degree on stage, but never of throwing eggs at public speakers–an act that is strictly prohibited in Kentucky and punishable by a year in prison. Kentucky seems to have a thing for eggs and birds as the state has also banned dying a duckling blue and offering it for sale unless more than six are for sale at the same time. Really makes you wonder how that law came to fruition…

In Tennessee, you can’t mooch off of your parents’ Netflix account or any one else’s for that matter because it is illegal to share your password. And with regard to technology, you cannot post images online that cause “emotional distress” without “legitimate purpose.”

Tennessee also has a number of strict laws pertaining to minors. For example, students cannot hold hands in school. From what I’ve seen of the public displays put on by students today, hand holding should really be the least concern. It is also illegal to dare a minor to purchase beer, and a misdemeanor to tattoo a minor. So if you have a hankering to open a tattoo parlor in Tennessee, be sure to check ID!

Moving on to Louisiana. For starters, don’t even try to steal an alligator, because if you succeed you can land in jail for ten years. Not worth it if you ask me! Stealing crawfish is also a crime in the state.

A ten-year prison sentence looks like nothing when you compare it to the punishment for urinating in the city’s water supply. Doing so could put you behind bars for 20 years. Speaking of bodily fluids, “rituals that involve the ingestion of blood, urine, or fecal matter” are also illegal. The aforementioned are just a couple of the crimes that result in prison time in Louisiana. A false promise can lead to a year, and every time a prisoner tries to hurt him or herself he or she could serve an additional two years.

Boxing and wresting are taken very seriously in Louisiana. There, fake wrestling matches are prohibited and it is illegal for spectators to mock one of the contestants participating in a boxing match.

“AR-kan-sas?” “Ar-KAN-sas?” You better know how to pronounce the name of this state before heading there, as it is illegal to pronounce it incorrectly. In Little Rock, sandwich shops specifically like their peace and quiet. It is illegal to honk one’s horn at one after nine at night. Also in Little Rock, you cannot suddenly stop your car at a McDonald’s fast food joint.

Some dumb Arkansas laws that appeared on the Internet but could not be validated include that dogs cannot bark after six in the evening, and that it is unlawful to walk one’s cow down Main Street in Little Rock after 1:00 PM on Sundays.

Oh, the fun just doesn’t stop with these laws! Keep your eyes open for the next installment!

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dumbest Laws of the United States: AR, LA, TN, and KY appeared first on Law Street.

Continuing down the northeast corridor this week, the dumbest laws continue to not disappoint.

Connecticut may be home to some of the most intelligent people in the world thanks to the presence of many Ivy League universities. This doesn’t stop it, however, from also being home to many stupid laws. Until recently, buying alcohol in Connecticut was a bit tricky. Although it was recently repealed, there was once a law that you could not buy alcohol after nine at night or on Sundays. And perhaps as a means of preventing road rage from getting out of hand, Connecticut lawmakers made it illegal to discharge a firearm from a highway.

In Rocky Hill you’ll find your selection of games a bit limited at the arcades, as only four amusement devices are permitted inside of them. Yes, some Connecticut cities just love raining on peoples’ parades. In Southington, silly string is banned. Yes, SILLY STRING! A staple of many a childhood, BANNED!

Many Massachusetts laws deemed stupid actually make sense to me. For example, it is illegal to give beer to hospital patients. I mean, I’d hope so! Speaking of alcohol, candy may not contain more than one percent of the stuff. This is also logical, if you ask me. We don’t need a bunch of kids (or adults, for that matter) bumbling around drunk after a mad candy binge. Halloween would be a nightmare otherwise!

Massachusetts doesn’t want to take any chances regarding gun users turning to killers. At shooting ranges in the state, targets may not resemble human beings. The state seems to be anti-violence in general as public boxing matches are illegal.

Considering its tiny size, I was blown away by the length of the list of dumb Rhode Island laws. Professional sports teams have a few hoops through which to jump in Rhode Island if they want to play on Sunday. There, every sport except ice polo and hockey must obtain a special license to play on that day. Also, business owners and sports coaches must be aware of a special law regarding the special day: “Exercising any labor, business, or work, or using any game, sport, play, or recreation, or causing any of the above to be done to or by your children, servants, or apprentices on the first day of the week results in a penalty of $5 for the first offense and $10 for the second.” With fines like that, you wouldn’t want to take any chances.

Seriously, Rhode Island. Chill.

If every Rhode Island driver adhered to the law the roads would be a loud mess, as one is required to make a loud noise prior to passing on the left. At least you won’t encounter any horse owners testing the speed of their steed on the highways. In Rhode Island, “riding a horse over any public highway for the purpose of racing, or testing the speed of the horse is illegal.”

I’ve heard of impersonating police officers, but impersonating an auctioneer? Well, it must have been a problem in Rhode Island at some point as it made it illegal to impersonate a town sealer, auctioneer, corder of wood, or a fence-viewer. And if you find yourself in some sort of quarrel with someone else, be aware that it is illegal to bite off his or her leg.

And be very careful in Scituate: you’ll need to transport beer from the liquor store or other place of purchase to your home in something other than your car because it is illegal to have it in your car even if it is unopened.

Phew, that was exhausting! So many dumb laws, so little time…

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dumbest Laws of the United States: Connecticut, Rhode Island, & Mass appeared first on Law Street.

The last two additions to the family of United States could not be any more different in some ways, for example their opposing climates. However, Hawaii and Alaska are similar in that both possess a unique set of strange and dumb laws.

In Anchorage, Alaska, there is a law specifically banning tying a dog to the roof of a car. Perhaps this brings to mind a certain politician doing so a few years back cough Mitt Romney cough. Speaking of driving, for anyone looking to cause some trouble by acting as a prankster, just know that in Anchorage, it is illegal to string wire across any road. Also, go ahead and live that trailer-trash lifestyle about which you’ve always dreamed, as long as the trailer you decide to call home is parked. It is illegal to live in a trailer while it is being hauled.

In Haines, bartenders must keep their minds sharp while serving clients, as doing so while drunk is prohibited. If you plan to use a slingshot or have one on your person, it’s no problem as long as you have the appropriate license.

If you own a flamingo in Juneau, just be aware of where your bright pink bird ventures off to. There, it is illegal for owners of the exotic bird to enter barbershops. If you are an architect and plan to construct buildings in Juneau, keep in mind that buildings that preserve scenic vistas are awarded “bonus points” by the government. And who doesn’t love having governmental brownie points?

If you’re thinking of wandering around Nome, Alaska with antiquated weaponry or simply plan to take up an archery hobby there, think again. It is illegal to walk around the city of Nome with bow and arrows. Sorry, Legolas.

Finally, in Soldotna, Alaska, people may not permit the existence of “attractive nuisances.” If you know what one is, please enlighten me.

Moving on to Hawaii–a beautiful, relaxing vacation destination for lovers on honeymoon, families, and travelers of every walk of life around the world. Before packing your bags and heading to the island state, you must be aware of a few laws that are out of the ordinary.

For example, there are plenty of safety regulations associated with riding in the back seat of a car versus riding in the bed of a pickup truck. For the former, you are required to wear a seat belt, but in the latter case, you needn’t use any safety equipment at all. Hawaii really redefines pacing yourself.

You may only have one alcoholic beverage in front of you at a time–none of that double fisting it! And some Hawaiian lawmakers must have gotten sick of obnoxious billboards distracting them while driving, as they made them illegal altogether. So don’t worry: thanks to that law, you can take in all of the lovely Hawaiian scenes unimpeded.

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Dumbest Laws of the United States: Alaska and Hawaii appeared first on Law Street.

I hereby award a special prize to Vermont, the first state for which I could find no dumb laws backed up with proper citation. Good for you, Vermont. You are hereby deemed the state with the most common sense.

Nicely done, Vermont!

New Hampshire came close to earning the same honor as its neighbor–but not quite as it still has some of the dumbest laws in the country. The Granite State attempts to keep its residents and visitors as authentic as possible: it is illegal to check into a hotel under an assumed name. Also, no matter how delicious you may find seaweed, you cannot pick up the oceanic goody on the beach to munch on (or use for any purpose, for that matter).

In cemeteries in Claremont, many actions are illegal. No one under the age of ten may enter one at all, and no matter what your age, you may not get drunk or picnic among the graves.

Now for this post’s main event: Maine. Did you like that little play on words, Main and Maine? Me too.

Perhaps the city of Biddeford had issues with airport travelers losing all of their money prior to flights, as that town went ahead and made it illegal to gamble in airports. I wonder if that is restricted to big-time gambling in proper casinos or if it includes playing poker with a $5 buy-in while waiting at your gate?

Biddeford also made it illegal to roller skate on the sidewalk. Maybe there were too many collisions between pedestrians and renegade roller skaters.

This is fine, as long as they keep off the sidewalks!

In Ellsworth, they seem to think their laws are above those at the federal level. There, if any part of the city ordinances are more stringent than federal laws, even though they may be in conflict with them, they will prevail.

Freeport, Maine bans the sale of mercury-containing thermometers, which I find totally logical considering the toxicity of the substance. However, most places these days don’t even sell them anymore in the first place.

Moving on to the city of Waterboro, a place that really redefines being kept on a short leash. There, dog leashes may not be over eight feet long. Not sure how happy PETA would be about that one.

Deer in Wells, Maine better not count on humans to obtain sustenance, as it is illegal for anyone to feed one. Also, the city really wants to ensure respect for the dead, as advertisements may not be placed in cemeteries.

I’ve saved the best for last in my oh-so-humble opinion. In South Berwick, Maine, there is a long list of places where one may not park. Included on that list is a specific Dunkin Donuts. But… how will doughnut lovers everywhere get their fix?! Walking?!

Thank you for joining me for this week’s post, tune in next time!

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dumbest Laws of the United States: Vermont, New Hampshire, & Maine appeared first on Law Street.

This week, the dumb laws blog will focus on two sets of neighboring states: Virginia and West Virginia and North and South Carolina.

What do railroad companies and Sundays have in common? South Carolina has dumb laws pertaining to both seemingly unrelated things, as it turns out. On Sundays in South Carolina, you won’t be able to go dancing, as dance halls may not operate on that day of the week. Also on Sundays in South Carolina, you cannot do any work. It is the day of rest after all. If you wish to spend your day off playing an instrument, make sure you buy one before Sunday, as they are banned from being sold then. It makes sense, if you think about it–since work on Sunday is prohibited, who would be working at the musical instrument store?

There is a surprisingly large number of laws dedicated to the regulation of railroads in the Palmetto state. In some cases there, railroad companies may be held liable for scaring horses, so hopefully conductors steer clear of skittish steeds. That may be a difficult feat, however, considering that by law, railroads must exist in towns of more than 500 people. Men also must be 100 percent sure about marriage before popping the question, because if an unmarried man promises to wed an unmarried woman, they legally must follow through.

South Carolina’s neighbor to the north has some pretty dumb laws as well. If you can somehow get around federal and state laws prohibiting you from possessing illegal substances, you must pay taxes on them in North Carolina. Yes, I’m sure that everyone with drugs in that state will make that fact known and pay taxes on them. Logical, North Carolina, so logical. Speaking of taxes, a three dollar tax must be paid on all white goods sold. Perhaps that includes sugar, white shirts, milk, you name it. If I ever buy something in North Carolina I’ll definitely stick to colored things.

Bingo in the Tar Heel state must have gotten a bit out of hand in the past, as now there is a law dictating that the game may not last over five hours unless it is held at a fair. Furthermore, serving alcohol at bingo games is strictly prohibited. Residents also take meetings very, very seriously. Even if one is held on Halloween, organizations may not hold their meetings while the members present are in costume.

Virginia cops must have a difficult time deciphering if someone is speeding or not, as radar detectors are illegal there. And even those in a consensual relationship, no matter how long they’ve been in it, cannot have sex by Virginia law, which limits sexual relations to married couples. Even married couples, however, are prevented from having oral or anal sex.

Hunting laws in Virginia are strict when it comes to every animal, stating that none except raccoons may be hunted on Sunday. Hunters have to cancel their raccoon hunting trip if they occur late at night, as hunting the furry bandits is only legal until 2:00 a.m. It’s good that Virginia law takes serious measures to prevent kids potentially drowning in private pools, but this state takes it to the extreme. In the city of Frederick, any pool owner risks a $2,500 fine for not closing the gate to the pool when they finish swimming in it.

I’m not entirely sure why someone would WANT to own a skunk as a pet, but doing so is illegal in Prince William County, Virginia, just in case. Another strange law there is one banning swearing about someone else in his or her presence. Hey, maybe that area of Virginia just wants people to be nice to each other.

West Virginia had many stupid laws prior to 2010, when a good portion of them were repealed. These repealed laws include ones fining people who wear hats inside theaters and individuals who commit adultery. Also repealed was a law stating that any “unmarried couple who live together and ‘lewdly associate’ with one another may face up to a year in prison.”

As far as current stupid laws go, West Virginia still has plenty. For example, just like Virginia, West Virginia has a law pertaining to swearing. There, if you swear in public, you will be fined one dollar. Also, if you are feeling hungry and see some roadkill that looks tasty, go ahead and take it home for dinner. Doing so is completely legal in West Virginia.

Phew, so many stupid laws, so little time. On to the next part of the United States!

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dumbest Laws in the United States: The Virginias and the Carolinas appeared first on Law Street.

East Coast states may be small, but that doesn’t mean they have fewer dumb laws than their larger counterparts. In Cumberland, Maryland, if you fall while playing games on a playground, you had better control your sailor mouth. In that city, using profane language on a playground is illegal. Speaking of parks, it is also illegal to knock stones into a public park in Cumberland.

Maryland as a state seems strongly opposed to swearing in general. In Rockville, swearing while on the highway, no matter how much other drivers piss you off, is illegal. And even If it is a sweltering hot day in Rockville, swimming in public fountains is not permitted.

As far as statewide Maryland laws go, there were many listed online, for example that oral sex cannot be given or received anywhere, but these laws lacked the proper citation, thus were omitted from my piece. Gotta have those references!

View post on imgur.com

The same was the case in Pennsylvania. A few of the statewide laws that I encountered lacking the proper citation to back them up stated that ministers cannot perform marriages while either the bride or groom is drunk, and that you may not sing in the bathtub. The latter law, which I cannot prove to be valid, still made me wonder about a couple of things, like if it would be legal to sing in one of those bathtubs that can also be used as a shower as long as you were to use it as the shower.

I was able to find proof of the existence of two stupid laws in Bensalem, Pennsylvania, however. Both of the laws pertain to the game Bingo. First, those in charge of operating the game may not advertise the prizes offered. I mean, why even play unless you know the lucky card? Furthermore, one may not operate a game of Bingo if he or she was charged with a felony.

Delaware is a beautiful and proud state with some rather entertaining stupid laws. Movie-goers wanting to see their favorite R-rated movie won’t be able to from the comfort of their vehicle, as such questionable films cannot be shown in Delaware drive-ins. Rehoboth Beach is an intensely strict place in Delaware that prevents such heinous acts as changing your clothes in your car. On the note of changing clothes, you are also banned from changing into or out of a swimsuit in a public restroom. Seriously, this city is obsessed with clothing. It specifically bans any girl over the age of five from being in public without being fully clothed.

Children must adhere to strict laws on Halloween in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware. There, they may only trick-or-treat from six to eight in the evening, and if Halloween happens to fall on a Sunday, they must go door to door asking for candy on October 30 instead. And don’t even think about whispering in church or serving alcohol in nightclubs if people are dancing on the same premises simultaneously.

Thus concludes another exciting blog making us all wonder why so many strange and stupid laws exist.

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Dumbest Laws in the United States: MD, DE, & PA appeared first on Law Street.

Michigan is a lovely state, arguably most famous as the home of the Great Lakes. It is also a state with many strange laws, especially a specific few pertaining to transportation. In Michigan, it is illegal to be drunk while on a train, and cars may not be sold on Sunday. Speaking of Sundays, the last one in June of every year is officially deemed “log cabin day.”

There are myriad laws in Michigan pertaining to the conduct of men and women. For one, adultery is illegal but only punishable if the affected husband or wife files a complaint. Also, men are banned from “seducing and corrupting unmarried girls.” If they do so, they face up to five years in prison.

Not if you’re an unmarried woman, missy!

Animal rights activists will be happy to know that in Michigan it is illegal to kill a dog using a decompression chamber. They would also be happy to know that a law that would have previously angered them has been repealed; at one point, there was a bounty on starlings and crows killed in any “village, township or city” in Michigan. Granted, a three cent bounty (for starlings) and a ten cent bounty (for crows) probably wouldn’t lead many to make them hunting targets, but you never know.

I know you’ve all been anxiously waiting to discover what the dumb laws in Ohio are. Well, the wait is over! Until 2005, breastfeeding was not allowed in public, no matter the state of hunger of the baby. Ohio lawmakers also decided at one point to create a nice and obscure law to make it illegal to “mistreat anything of great importance.” That is quite a subjective term, considering we all generally think of different things as greatly important.

Criminals in Ohio can basically go wild on Sundays and on the Fourth of July. On those days, no civil arrests may be made in the state.

These days, the appearance of food is grossly misrepresented in advertisements and other images. Akron decided to put an end to this by enacting a law banning the display of colored chickens. The city also takes sports safety a bit too seriously and bans skateboarding after dark.

Last but not least in this edition of Dumb Laws in the United States: Indiana. Mathematicians must have argued substantially over when to stop reciting the digits in Pi, as there is a law officially deeming its value as three.

If an Indiana man wants to impress a lady by showing off his macho nature skills, he cannot do so by catching a fish with his bare hands. He also had better not walk around looking aroused–another no-no according to Indiana law.

Lawmakers must really believe into the power of prayer as those who pray for their dependents don’t have to pay for their medical care. And liquor laws in Indiana redefine ridiculous. Looking for a one-stop shop for White Russian ingredients? You won’t find everything you need in Indiana, where liquor stores may not sell milk. You’ll also have to go elsewhere for cold soda as a mixer, since liquor stores there cannot sell that either.

Not if you’re an Indiana liquor store, you don’t!

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Dumbest Laws in the United States: Michigan, Ohio, & Indiana appeared first on Law Street.

This week, let’s venture to some northern states to see what entertainment they can provide with their dumbest laws. I’ll begin with North Dakota, a state famous for Fargo–both the city and the Coen Brothers’ film–and as a favorite spot for Lewis and Clark. North Dakota must love dry peas and lentils, as it decided to make a state version of the national Dry Pea and Lentil Council. North Dakota decreed, furthermore, that all members of the council be North Dakota citizens. In Devil’s Lake, New Year’s Eve celebrations had better not include a fireworks show, as shooting them off after 11:00pm is illegal.

South Dakota has even fewer verifiable dumb laws than its counterpart. Many websites claim that a law exists requiring horses to wear pants when entering the Fountain Inn. I couldn’t find anything to back this up, which is unfortunate because that would be rather hilarious.

As someone who has witnessed the terrors of Minnesota mosquitoes first hand, I am not the slightest bit surprised that the state has officially declared the insect to be a public nuisance. Specifically, the law states that “the abatement or suppression of mosquitoes of any kind, whether disease bearing or merely pestiferous, within any or all areas of the state, is advisable and necessary for the maintenance and betterment of the health, welfare and prosperity of the people.” Good riddance!

In Minnesota, always make sure you have a specific purpose before standing around in a certain location. It is illegal there to stand around any building without a good reason to be there. That law makes me wonder what exactly constitutes a good reason. What if you are waiting for a friend? Observing the architecture of the building?

There are many city-specific stupid laws in Minnesota. In Cottage Grove, one may not land an airplane, hot air balloon, or other similar craft in a city park. Makes sense. We wouldn’t want any accidents between planes and park-goers! Residents of Cottage Grove may have a hard time figuring out when to water their lawns. Here’s some insight: “residents of even numbered addresses may not water their plants on odd-numbered days excluding the thirty-first day where it applies.”

If you and your friends are considering taking an alleyway as a shortcut in Minneapolis, think again. There, alleyways may not be used by pedestrian traffic.

Minnetonka lawmakers must like the phrase “public nuisance,” as both driving with dirty tires and placing tacks on the sidewalk are considered to be such. I can’t even imagine how hard they would throw the book at individuals throwing tacks onto a sidewalk from the window of a car with dirty tires.

Last but certainly not least for this post: Wisconsin.

Wisconsin residents like to know what they are consuming in restaurants, and the law makes it easy for that to occur, at least when it comes to butter. In fact, at one point, margarine was illegal in the Badger State. Now margarine can only be used in place of butter if it is specifically requested by the customer. Wisconsin is seriously obsessed with butter–in prisons statewide, only the real thing may be served.

Camping in a wagon on a public highway is illegal in Wisconsin, but if you really have a hankering to do so, don’t fret too much as the fine is only ten dollars. If you do see livestock while on the highway, however, be sure to yield as livestock have the right of way on all public roads across the state.

Up next are Missouri and Illinois, so stay tuned for more dumb laws!

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dumbest Laws in the United States: Dakotas, Minnesota, and Wisconsin appeared first on Law Street.

Working out way across the country with our Dumbest Laws in the United States series, we’re now at smack dab in the middle of America’s Heartland. Let’s start with Nebraska, a state in which college football and corn are taken very seriously. Google search “Nebraska” and you’ll likely find that “football” pops up as the first result. Another thing taken very seriously there? Sexually transmitted diseases. In Nebraska, persons with gonorrhea may not marry.

Many truckers and road trippers drive through Nebraska en route to more modern locales. Those who drive through the state often note its flat terrain, which raises the question of why lawmakers there felt it necessary to warn mountain drivers specifically to use caution near the right hand edge of the highway.

Perhaps drunken pilots presented a problem in Nebraska in the past, as there is a law prohibiting flying a plane while drunk.

Many sites listed dumb laws in Nebraska for which they did not provide proper citation. Therefore, it may or may not be factual that sneezing or burping is illegal during a church service, and that barbers are prevented from eating onions after 7:00am. Even if they are not true, they are amusing to read.

Kansas gets off pretty easily here. Due to lack of proper citation, I can’t poke fun at its laws too much; however, the Wheat State doesn’t get off the hook completely as it does have many moronic city-specific laws. For example, in Derby, it is illegal to damage a vending machine or other coin-operated device. Even if a vending machine steals your money, you can’t beat the crap out of it, sorry! That city also enjoys quiet living–it is illegal to make screeching sounds with your tires, and you can’t use your trusty steed to commute because riding any animal down the road is illegal.

Topeka, Kansas is one of the stricter parts of of the state. There, spitting on the sidewalk is illegal. Like Derby, Topeka enjoys peace and quiet: residents may not engage in “yelling, shouting, hooting, whistling or singing on the public streets, particularly between the hours of 11:00pm and 7:00am, or at any time or place.”

Moving on to Iowa, another often under-appreciated state in good ol’ middle America. Lawmakers must have been as bored as kids often are driving through the state, as they made a law determining the exact size a box used for picking hops must be. The size of a box used for this purpose must be exactly 36 inches long, 18 inches wide, and 23.25 inches deep.

What’s with the Midwest and gonorrhea? Iowa, like Nebraska, actually has a law pertaining to the STI, saying that doctors who treat a person with gonorrhea must report this to the local board of health and include the disease’s “probable origin.”

Looking to get a closer parking space with a deceased person’s handicapped sticker? Sorry, but doing so in Iowa is strictly forbidden.

Ministers and other religious officials in Iowa are subject to a few more regulations than the average citizen. There, they must obtain a permit to carry liquor across state lines. On the liquor topic, liquor stores in Bettendorf, Iowa may not place advertisements for beer outside the store.

There is a vast number of stupid laws for Oklahoma listed on the Internet, but many, like one saying that dogs must have a permit signed by the mayor in order to congregate in groups of three or more on private property, do not have proper citation; however, one particular outrageous law for which there is citation says that in Oklahoma, “it is illegal for the owner of a bar to allow anyone inside to pretend to have sex with a buffalo.” Strict stuff! Oklahoma lawmakers must be very concerned about animals as there, one may not promote a horse-tripping or bear-wrestling event. PETA would be happy to know that!

Phew, those four states were a doozy!

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Dumbest Laws in the United States: America’s Heartland appeared first on Law Street.

Texas. Home to the Bush family, the South by Southwest music festival, big trucks, Tex Mex, and some of the dumbest laws in the South. Knowing the conservative tendencies typical of the large southern state, it should hardly be surprising that homosexual behavior there was once a misdemeanor offense. The Supreme Court overturned this law in 2003, however.

Also reflecting the state’s conservative nature is the law banning the promotion of dildos or owning more than six of them. Technically, the law bans obscene devices, which it defined as “a device including a dildo or artificial vagina, designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs.”

Reflecting a previous post on dumb laws in Nevada, urinating on the streets is illegal in El Paso. Really gotta pee there? Best to sneak into McDonald’s and pretend to be a paying customer.

Not in the El Paso streets, Tom Hanks!

It is also prohibited to appear in public places wearing lewd dress. Specifically, the “lewd dress law” states that, among other things, “no person shall exhibit or expose himself naked, or disguised, or in any indecent or offensive manner to any person.”

Looking to sell your eye or other organs in Texas? Sorry, you’ll have to take your body-part sales aspirations elsewhere, as doing so is illegal there.

Agnostics or Atheists looking to hold public office in Texas may have trouble since you are legally required to acknowledge the existence of a higher being before taking office. Though, I guess they could lie and say they believe in a higher power.

In Austin, wire cutters cannot be carried in one’s pockets. This law seems perfectly reasonable to me, however; imagine how many accidents have been and will be prevented by such a measure, especially for men.

Speaking of conservative laws, New Mexico has many of them on the books, especially concerning nudity. There, nudity is legal under two conditions: first, male genitals must be covered, and second, women must have their nipples covered.

I’m not sure exactly the criteria used to determine whether or not one is an idiot, but in New Mexico, they are prevented from voting. Perhaps it is some sort of I.Q. test. Maybe they should just take it one step further and say that only geniuses may vote. In fact, not only idiots but also “insane persons and persons convicted of a felonious or infamous crime unless restored to political rights” are prevented from voting.

Deming, New Mexico must have had some strange issues in the past because it saw the need to specifically ban spitting on the steps of an opera house. Or, the community just really, truly values the operatic arts and doesn’t want a building relating to them defiled by nasty saliva. In the same city, they made a law prohibiting hunting in Mountain View Cemetery. I don’t even WANT to know what happened to provoke that one.

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Dumbest Laws in the United States: Texas and New Mexico appeared first on Law Street.

In Colorado, there is a famous city called Boulder. World-class geology professors teach at the University of Colorado Boulder, and the state’s concert venue Red Rocks is known across the nation. So, naturally, Colorado takes rocks very seriously.

This brings me to dumb Colorado law number one: one may not mutilate a rock in a state park. I’m not entirely sure what is considered “rock mutilation.” Carving your initials into a rock? Do pebbles count? Oh, the confusion! In the city of Boulder, it is illegal to roll or throw rocks on public property. This law also raises a lot of questions. What if you are rolling snow to make a snowman and there is a rock in the ball of snow? Does that count? Can you throw a pebble at a window to get someones’ attention like they do in the movies?

Because of the presence of llama farms in Boulder, lawmakers felt it necessary to ban llamas from grazing on city property. This law also applies to other domestic animals, in case you’re wondering. No need to worry about a missile being thrown at your vehicle while driving in Alamosa, Colorado, as that is illegal there. And if you frequently need to pee in Alamosa, make sure you are always near a restroom, as there is a law banning public urination.

Colorado is famous for a lot of things, including recreational marijuana and skiing. If you decide to take a skiing or snowboarding trip to Vail, you’d better be pretty good at it, as it is illegal to crash into obstacles on a ski slope. So, if you are a little less than pro level, I’d recommend venturing elsewhere lest you have a run in with the law.

Now it’s time to poke some fun at Arizona laws. Obviously, Cocaine is illegal in the state, yet lawmakers also felt the need to make the manufacture of imitation cocaine illegal, as well. What about baking soda companies, or other companies that make white powdery substances? Doesn’t that technically count as “imitation cocaine?”

You should also be careful what you write or draw on a flag in Arizona. If you place any mark on a flag likely to cause a physical retaliation, you will be charged with a class 2 misdemeanor. The state also cherishes its cacti. If you cut one down, you’re looking at up to 25 years in prison. Also, if you happen to come across a camel there, don’t shoot! Camel hunting in Arizona is illegal. This law may sound dumb, but there actually are camels in Arizona. The U.S. Army once experimented with camels in the desert there but they eventually gave up. The remaining camels were set free, and are now protected.

In summary, be careful with rocks in Colorado and don’t cut down cacti in Arizona or kill any camels and you should be okay. Join me next time for the dumbest laws of New Mexico and Texas!

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Dumbest Laws in the United States: Colorado and Arizona appeared first on Law Street.

Nevada is home to legal prostitution and Sin City. Yet, it is surprisingly not home to many stupid laws. However, its neighbor Utah makes up for that with a whole long list of weird laws on the books.

Let’s start with Nevada. In Reno, sex toys are outlawed, and it is illegal to lie down on the sidewalk, no matter how drunk and tired you are. Apparently, at some point in the past, Reno also had issues with benches in the middle of the street, as lawmakers felt the need to ban putting them there. Other than that, most of the laws in Nevada are pretty reasonable.

Utah, however, is another story entirely. They take stupid laws to a completely new level. Many sites claim that in Utah, it is illegal NOT to drink milk. However, Utah’s Criminal Code actually states that “‘unfair discrimination’ of sections, communities, localities, cities or towns by buyers of milk, cream or butterfat constitutes an offense against public health, safety, welfare and morals.”

In Utah, animals have many laws that concern them specifically. For example, animals better be careful while on the road as they are considered traffic. Furthermore, it is legal to consume roadkill in Utah. Some sites wrongfully claim that it is illegal to fish from horseback, which is apparently not true. Utah does, however, have laws pertaining to fishing with a crossbow.

Also, if you are looking to change the weather in Utah, you’d better read into the laws there, where you need a permit to perform services as a “weather modifier.” Specifically, according to the Utah Administrative Code, this refers to “all acts undertaken to artificially distribute or create nuclei in cloud masses for the purposes of altering precipitation, cloud forms or other meteorological parameters.”

Many sites also claim that Utah outlaws whale hunting, which sounds like a perfectly reasonable law, except when you consider that Utah is a landlocked state. However, according to an article on Deseret News, Utah’s state law says no such thing. However, according to federal law, “it is unlawful for any person or vessel or other conveyance to take any species of whale incident to commercial whaling in waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” So, okay, technically it IS illegal to whale hunt in Utah.

Sorry, Mike Tyson. Boxers must keep their technique in check in Utah matches, where biting is prohibited. If it saves the ears of other boxers from the likes of Tyson, I say that one is a reasonable law.

But not in Utah…

Despite not being allowed to swear, women have it relatively easy in Utah. If married women commit a crime in the presence of their husbands, the husbands can be held responsible for their wives’ actions.

One Utah law frequently listed as dumb bans individuals from causing a catastrophe. That sounds perfectly reasonable to me! This world could use a few less catastrophes. On that same note, it is illegal to detonate a nuclear weapon there. Makes sense, because doing so would almost certainly cause a catastrophe.

Due primarily to its Mormon population, the state has concocted a number of laws related to its inhabitants imbibing. In Utah, alcohol may not be sold during an emergency, and only retailers may possess beer in containers of two liters or more.

So to summarize, in Utah you’d better not try to cause a catastrophe by detonating a nuclear weapon and then try to purchase alcohol. But remember, in Reno, don’t put a bench in the middle of the road or sleep on the sidewalk.

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Dumbest Laws in the United States: Utah and Nevada appeared first on Law Street.

I initially planned to dedicate this post to the dumb laws of Idaho and Montana exclusively, thinking that each state alone would probably have enough to constitute an entire addition to my series; however, I was shocked to find that both states have very few moronic laws on the books. Therefore, after much internal deliberation, Wyoming has been included in today’s post.

Let’s start with Montana. Not only is prostitution illegal, but  it is also considered a “crime against the family” there. So, don’t try to sell your body unless you plan to bring shame to your kin.

It’s a hard knock life for wives in Montana, too. It is a felony there for them to open their husband’s mail, and illegal for wives to go fishing alone on Sundays; however, that is a privilege considering that unmarried women are banned from fishing alone on any day of the week. And if you’re feeling like trying out something kinky in the bedroom, think again. In Montana, it is illegal for a man and woman to have sex in any position other than missionary.

A far as state laws, Idaho has shockingly few stupid ones, despite there being many illogical laws specific to certain cities. One state law that could qualify as stupid may actually make sense to women. There, it is illegal for men to give their “sweetheart” a box of candy weighing less than fifty pounds. Sounds fair to me! Who wants candy if it weighs any less than 50 pounds? That’s right, no one.

Also, you’d better be ready to flash those pearly whites at all times in Pocatello, Idaho, despite whether you feel cheerful or not. There, it is illegal not to smile in public.

I’m not sure how fishing from the backs of various animals, especially those not native to North America, ever became a problem; however, there Idaho specifically prohibits fishing from a camel’s back. Animals surely must have caused a lot of trouble at some point in Boise, as leading an animal on sidewalks is banned as well.

Eagle, Idaho is quite strict. Lawmakers in the city have banned taking bicycles into tennis courts. Additionally, one cannot sweep dirt from his house into the street. Gotta keep those streets clean!

Keep it inside, buddy!

Wyoming has quite the slew of atypical laws related to alcohol. For one, being drunk in a mine could land you in jail, and so can skiing while drunk. I certainly see the validity behind both of these as doing either thing seems dangerous to me. Also, salespeople or corporations that deal with buying or selling junk metal are banned from making business transactions with intoxicated individuals. Makes sense–we wouldn’t want drunk people to sell beloved junk materials and completely regret it once they sober up. That would be tragic.

Women have it rough when going out for drinks in Wyoming, where a law prevents them from standing within five feet of a bar while drinking.

Although many consider the law that prohibits wearing hats that obstruct peoples’ view in theaters or other places of amusement to be stupid, I think it’s downright innovative. I personally can’t stand when I can’t see the stage at a theater because of someone sitting in front of me.

Wyoming lawmakers want their citizens to EARN their fish by using a good ol’ fashioned rod and reel. Using a firearm to fish is strictly forbidden. Speaking of animals, you may not take a photo of a rabbit without a permit from January to April. Perhaps that is when they feel the most camera shy.

My particular favorite? Neglecting to close a fence in Wyoming could earn you a $750 fine.

So there you have it, the dumb laws of Idaho, Montana and, Wyoming. Next up: Utah and Nevada.

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Dumbest Laws in the United States: Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming appeared first on Law Street.

I was wrong a couple weeks ago when I said that California laws are crazy. Many of the Golden State’s laws that I mentioned now seem completely sane in comparison to those I’ve discovered in Washington and Oregon.

For example, if you are trying to woo the opposite sex by saying your dad just won the lottery and drives a brand-new Lamborghini when in fact he doesn’t have a dime to his name, you better think again. In Washington state it is illegal to pretend that your parents are rich.

Also, Evergreen State residents better not plan to go mattress  shopping on a Sunday, as purchasing either item on that day is illegal. If lollipops are your candy of choice, you may want to steer clear of Washington–marijuana may be legal, but lollipops are not. Okay, okay: although this law exists, it is not enforced. You can certainly buy lollipops at many shops.

And Washingtonians are much less concerned about Ebola than something much worse: the common cold. If you have the virus, sorry; you are banned from walking around in public.

If you are lucky enough to spot Bigfoot or any other mysterious creature, feel free to take a picture, but not if it in any way insults the being. Harassing Bigfoot, Sasquatch, or any other “undiscovered subspecies” is a felony punishable by law. That begs the question, if Bigfoot is ever considered “discovered,” will it become okay to harass him? Or, can we never have the pleasure of making fun of his big feet?

For some reason, lawmakers in Washington felt the need to create a law specifically banning painting polka dots on American flags. I wonder if painting little smiley faces would be acceptable?

Alright, I’ve had my kicks poking fun at Washington. Now it’s Oregon’s turn.

The first law that I will mention really makes me wonder why there was a need to create it. In Oregon, it is illegal to place a container filled with human fecal matter on the side of a highway. What about on residential roads? Is it okay there?

Drivers are under many restrictions in Oregon as well. They are prohibited from pumping their own gas, cannot leave a car door open “longer than is necessary”–who is the judge of that??–and are banned from testing their physical endurance while driving. Drivers must also be sure to yield to pedestrians who are standing on the sidewalk. I don’t even understand what that means.

Hopefully you weren’t planning to use canned corn as bait on your next fishing trip in Oregon, as doing so is against the law. It’s okay to use other canned vegetables, however.

Thus concludes this week’s installment of the Dumbest Laws in America. Up next, I will explore Montana and Idaho, so don’t miss it!

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Dumbest Laws in the United States: Pacific Northwest Edition appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome, readers, to a new series focused solely on sharing the most ridiculous laws that actually exist in our country. From banning women from parachuting on Sundays to making swearing loudly unlawful, the 50 United States are chock full of laws that really make you wonder how they ever came to be.

To kick start this series I will focus on one of the largest states, which has no shortage of bizarre laws on the books.

As you all know, California is home to Hollywood and major film and television production companies. If you are a parent wishing to take advantage of this to live vicariously through your child’s film career, beware. In the Golden State, film producers must have permission from a pediatrician before filming a child younger than one month.

Also, if you wish to include a scene with a dog pursuing a bear or bobcat in your film, you will have to change the plot. In California, it is unlawful to allow a dog to pursue either of the two aforementioned animals at any time.

Speaking of animals, while it is illegal to shoot at them from a moving vehicle, there is an exception for anyone wishing to play out a Moby Dick scenario: shooting at a whale from a moving vehicle is completely fine. So go ahead and release your inner Ishmael!

I’m sure you are all aware that some cities nationwide charge customers for plastic bags. San Jose and Sunnyvale, California take this to the next level, however; in those two cities, it is illegal for grocery stores to provide plastic bags at all.

Horny animals better control their natural instincts in Cali. Animals are banned from mating publicly within 1,500 feet of a tavern, school, or place of worship. This law in particular is a major head-scratcher for me. How is it enforced? Who would be arrested in such a case? Would two dogs getting it on next to a church be sent to the pound? Oh, the confusion of it all… I have so many hilarious visuals playing out in my mind of cops leading handcuffed dogs to the holding cell.

The final law worth mentioning is one specific to the city of Fresno, where it is illegal to sell permanent markers within city limits.

Thus concludes this week’s edition in the series “The Dumbest Laws in the United States.” Tune in next week when we will explore the illogical laws throughout the rest of the West Coast.

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Dumbest Laws in the United States: California Edition appeared first on Law Street.

Cannibalism is truly the stuff of nightmares that, terrifyingly enough, still occurs today. Recently police found a 34-year-old man, Matthew Williams, eating the face and eyes of a 22-year-old woman whom he recently killed in a hostel in Wales. He later died after the police stunned him with a 50,000-volt taser.

Williams, who had been recently released from jail, lived in the hostel, which housed many homeless people and former convicts. He allegedly brought his victim, Cerys Yemm, back to the building for a drink after meeting her for the first time. A key witness in the case informed authorities that Williams had taken a number of drugs earlier that evening. There is substantial debate over just what those drugs were. Some coverage claims that he took cocaine while others claim he overdosed on beta blockers and injected himself with heroin substitutes.

Hostel owner Mandy Miles discovered Williams covered in blood eating Yemm’s eye and face. According to a recent article, Williams said “that’s no girl” after Miles exclaimed “do you know what you’re doing to that girl?” Miles told authorities that she would have attacked Williams with a fire extinguisher if she thought there was any chance that Yemm was still alive. However, she found it clear that Yemm’s situation was beyond hope and so she locked Williams in the room and phoned the police. Miles stated recently that she frequently experiences flashbacks to the horrifying incident.

Following his grisly crime, Williams’ mother informed authorities that she felt it could have been prevented. According to her, her son was not taking the proper medication following his release and should have been hospitalized for his severe mental disorders. She elaborated on her son’s condition by saying that he heard voices and often suffered paranoid delusions. A fellow inmate imprisoned with Williams claimed that he called himself “the Wolf” because he ate people.

This isn’t the first story in the past few months of incidents of people eating human flesh. In June a Norwegian man consumed the meat taken off of his own hip bone following a surgical procedure. His actions, of course, differed substantially from this case as they did not inflict harm on others.

Even celebrities are weighing in on the topic of eating other people. Josh Hutcherson, best known as Peeta from The Hunger Games film series, recently conceded that he was curious about the taste of human flesh. Granted, he said he would only consume said theoretical human flesh if it were from someone who “died of natural causes.” Sorry, Josh, that is still a creepy thing to say.

Hopefully, this recent incident of cannibalism remains an isolated and rare occurrence and isn’t the start of a violent trend.

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hostel Cannibalism: Welsh Man Eats Woman’s Eyeball and Face appeared first on Law Street.

The 2014 Midterms just wrapped up, so of course the 2016 presidential race contenders have not even crossed the starting line. Or, have they? In my oh-so-humble opinion, the race hasn’t just begun — it’s already over. The cheering fans watching the contestants have already gone home and are reminiscing about the day’s excitement over a nice dinner. And which runner dashed first through the tape held taut across the finish line? Hillary Clinton, of course. Her win seems already a guarantee. Why? For the following reasons, which all happen to conveniently start with the letter F. Just like on Sesame Street, today’s episode is brought to you by the letter F.

1. Feminism

This is the word of the moment, especially after Emma Watson gave her speech on the topic at a recent United Nations event causing people to swoon over her more than usual. We had our first African-American president, so now it’s time for a lady to step up to the plate. And in Hilary’s case, a pretty bad-ass lady.

2. Foreign Policy

Love him or hate him, it’s pretty undeniable that Obama’s foreign policy leaves much to be desired. That’s where Hilary steps in. She traveled to 112 countries while serving as Secretary of State – the most of anyone in that position throughout history. That kind of indicates she knows her shit.

3. Family Dynasties

The Bush family. The Kennedy family. The Clinton family. What do they have in common? Their members were and are political big wigs and small wigs (maybe a wig for a baby or a gnome?). It must be some sort of requirement that as they are raised, members are brainwashed to some extent to acquire and live out lofty political aspirations.

4. Facial Expressions

Okay, okay — perhaps facial expressions alone are not exactly a qualification for making someone a good president. But you have to admit that her facial expressions to suit varying social situations are pretty on the ball. She’s not afraid to let those emotions show, and we need some honest people in politics.

PHOTOS: @HillaryClinton‘s Best Facial Expressions http://t.co/FXcUqu7me8

— Mstars News (@MstarsNews) June 19, 2014

All you naysayers out there (and not just horses) are probably pointing out that after the scandal caused by Bill Clinton and a certain Ms. Lewinsky with whom he DID, indeed, have sexual relations, we don’t need another Clinton in the White house. But look at it this way: with all of that crap Hilary had to put up with from her husband, she deserves to get what she wants and be president. Furthermore, she has already lived in the White house and can therefore just pick up where she left off there and doesn’t need an adjustment period. So, get ready for Hillary to step up to the presidential podium: our first woman president. Brace yourself, nation!

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Just Get Ready For It: Another Clinton in the White House appeared first on Law Street.

It seems that McDonald’s will change its slogan yet again ever so slightly by making it just a little bit worse. Now, instead of hearing the phrase “I’m lovin’ it” to accompany the iconic Golden Arches, you will hear “Lovin’ Beats Hatin’.” What’s with McDonald’s and bad grammar, anyway? Starting next year, the McDonalds catchphrase will be all about stating the obvious.

Not anymore, I’m not. Courtesy of Gabby Kaminsky via Flickr.

Personally, I am unsure as to what McDonald’s marketing experts wish to accomplish with this change. Are they trying to be progressive? Like, 1970s Beatles-style let’s all love everyone and sit in a hippie drum circle? I mean, don’t most people worldwide kind of know that treating others with love is better than the alternative? It’s something they tell us in preschool in the U.S., anyway.

Well, I guess it’s not such an obvious thing since there is so much war, hate, turmoil, and all that in the world today. Ah, I think I understand now! McDonald’s is trying to create world peace by telling others to LOVE not HATE! Wow, McDonald’s, that is such a noble task you are trying to undertake! The collective imagination behind the new catchphrase will single-handedly bring peace to the Middle East, thus earning its creators the Nobel Peace Prize. Okay, maybe I am exaggerating a bit…

Or perhaps I am misunderstanding the objective. Maybe it’s as simple as trying to drum up some competition among the foods offered at McDonald’s to keep things interesting. Dollar-Menu burgers versus six-piece chicken nuggets. Which are you lovin’ and which are you hatin’? Maybe consumers are lovin’ egg McMuffins and hatin’ Japan’s exclusive squid-ink burger. Personally, I am just sick and tired of the fast food giant omitting the “g” at the end of the words. I draw a blank as to the reasoning behind that one…

According to McDonald’s big wigs themselves, the campaign is designed to “spread happiness in the face of Internet hate.” There wasn’t any more elaboration than that, but they have admitted that the company is in for big changes.

Why? Sales are down for the fast food chain due to its failure to keep up with modern eating habits worldwide. Also, the company claims that introducing too many new items too quickly last year caused a decline in revenue. The mentality of consumers seems to be changing, too; whereas consistency was previously looked at positively, today’s consumer prefers customization with their orders. Thus, the true motive behind the new slogan. Though perhaps the campaign change will not boost sales as intended, only time will tell, the company made a smart move by deciding to unveil the new slogan during the next Super Bowl.

So, McDonald’s, I’m “lovin’” that you’re trying to adapt, but I’m “dislikin’” your proposed new slogan. It leaves me “wantin’” some more creativity. Okay, sorry, I’m done bothering everyone with poor grammar.

Amen, sister!

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post McDonald’s is Changin’ Things Again appeared first on Law Street.

Time and time again, celebrities have evaded prison sentences because they claimed to be too fragile for life behind bars. In the case of recently tried and convicted Olympian Oscar Pistorius, he may be able to serve just ten months of his five-year maximum for shooting and killing his then-girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp. After those ten months, he can request to be moved to house arrest in his mansion. That’s a rough life right there.

In Pistorious’ case, it’s a bit tricky. He is a double-amputee, and because of this, many claim that prison is simply not suitable for him. Nooshin Erfani-Ghadimi, project coordinator for the Wits Justice Project, a civil society group, said before the sentencing that she believed Pistorius would probably receive far better treatment than the average prisoner and has throughout the entire judicial process thus far. However, she also noted “I don’t think anyone with a disability necessarily will be able to be provided for at the moment in a way that ensures that they would have the correct medical treatment, that they have the correct physical structures.”

Pistorius’ prosthetic limbs are not the only issue. Health risks such as tuberculosis are often cited as a problem in South African prisons due to poor air circulation, and many fear that he will be susceptible to contracting the illness. Some believe that his celebrity status will make him a target for gang violence.

While defending his client, Pistorius’ attorney, Barry Roux, argued that there is extreme overcrowding in South African prisons. This point is irrelevant, however, as his celebrity status would easily prevent him from sharing a cell. The other health fears such as inmates not receiving their medication because of the inadequate number of health workers in prisons are unlikely to be of valid concern. He is a celebrity. History shows that celebrities receive special treatment in prison.

Efraini-Ghadimi conceded that South African law has policies for accommodating physically disabled inmates. Zach Modise, acting National Commissioner of Correctional Services, pointed out that there are 128 disabled inmates currently doing time and therefore prisons are properly equipped with the appropriate facilities.

Currently, Pistorius is living in a single cell with everything he needs along with access to the medical care for any ailments both physical and psychological. In ten months, he will likely be permitted to move to his home in the Silver Woods Estate in Pretoria.

This case is undoubtedly tricky. If Pistorius did not have his celebrity status, his prison sentence would be of greater concerned because it would mean less special treatment behind bars. For example, a paraplegic man, Ronnie Fakude, struggled with very real concerns while serving a prison sentence; however, he did not enjoy the status as a famous individual the way that Pistorius does.

Just because you are in the media spotlight doesn’t make it okay to commit crimes, and hopefully this case will shed light on that fact, even though he is getting off relatively easily. Even Arnold Pistorius, Oscar’s uncle, said that the family accepted Oscar’s sentence and viewed it as a way for his nephew to pay back society. Perhaps in ten short months Mr. Pistorius can relax in the comfort of his own home again. Only time will tell…

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Pistorius Can Opt for House Arrest in Just 10 Months appeared first on Law Street.

So, it seems the self-touted “fearless” leader of North Korea is suffering from some sort of ankle, foot, or other lower body-related ailment. Until footage surfaced of Kim Jong-un walking with a cane, he hadn’t been seen in over a month. He was last seen before his disappearance attending a ceremony commemorating the twentieth anniversary of the death of his grandfather, the first leader of North Korea.

His sudden absence kicked off a slew of strange, but somewhat positive events, including a high-status official admitting to the use of prison camps in North Korea. Prior to this statement conceding simply that they exist, North Korean officials denied it wholeheartedly. Admitting the truth is the first step to making progress.

While he was gone, political leaders from North and South Korea met to discuss the state of affairs between the enemy nations. They sat at the SAME table in the SAME room and even appeared to share a laugh about the SAME remark. Even a forced laugh is a step in the right direction as far as foreign relations go.

OMG, North Korea, you have the BEST sense of humor…

Kim Jong-un’s sister, Kim Yo-jong, was thought to be in charge of the country during his absence. This should have pleased feminists — “yay women in power” and all — despite the fact that she was probably just as bad as her brother.

Yes, the time of his unexplained absence could have been seen as a nice time. Theoretically, we could all look back on it as fondly as an old, single cat lady would reminisce about her senior prom. Unless she is a single cat lady by choice because she hates people, in which case her overbearing mother probably forced her to go to the prom in order to live vicariously through her daughter.

However, despite the good that occurred in his absence, the international community didn’t seem thrilled. Let’s all admit it, we sort of…missed Kim Jong-un. I mean, I sure did — it was tough to find things to poke fun at during his absence. The international media had a bit of a collective panic attack inquiring where the man could possibly BE!

Come back to me, Kim Jung Un!

Now our buddy Kim Jong-un is back, most likely along with his bull-like determination to thwart or prevent any positive relationships from forming between his “perfect” nation and other parts of the world. No one knows how to rule a kingdom of isolation better than he does. I think if he were to claim that Disney stole the plot for Frozen from his life, he would be more likely to win damages than that woman from the U.S. I mean, he is EXACTLY like Elsa in that they both run isolated kingdoms and have a sister. Woah, crazy similarities! North Korea is also cold. WHAT? Maybe he even has some powers to freeze things with his emotions and the media doesn’t know about it yet! Disney clearly based Elsa off of Kim Jong-un. Those creative thieves!

I digress…

Welcome back, Kim Jong-un! Time to start doing the crazy things for which you are known, so we all have something to make fun of. Maybe something a little more bonkers than usual to make up for lost time. It’s good to have him back, isn’t it?

Comedic gold

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post We Missed You, Kim Jong-un appeared first on Law Street.

The bone-chilling, stomach-churning sounds of a knife tearing through human flesh followed by the camera panning over a decapitated corpse lying in a pool of the blood that once sustained it played on the screen. Yet, following this savage montage of brutality, no credits rolled. Those nauseating and disturbing sounds were not fabricated in a Hollywood studio. Those haunting images, permanently tattooed into the viewer’s mind, were not created with fake blood and body parts.

The most recent video released by the Muslim extremist group ISIS is a jarring demonstration of the sheer brutality going on in the Middle East today. Immediately after viewing this heinous, offensive act, it took awhile for the feeling to return to my numbed face. I felt as if I had received a massive blow to my gut. Once I could wrap my mind around what I had just seen and the revelation that yes, this was real, I was overcome by a tidal wave of emotion. Rage, sadness, and helplessness were just the tip of the iceberg of what I felt.

After discovering more about the man who was mercilessly slaughtered for all to see as a warning to the United States and its allies, I became even more outraged. Alan Henning was a father of two and dedicated husband from England who had traveled to Syria to partake in aid work. The injustice of his death astounded me. I simply cannot imagine the depth of grief his family is feeling right now, and will continue to feel for the remainder of their lives. I was struck with the revelation that this is exactly how ISIS wanted the viewers of this murder to feel.

Then the questions began swirling dizzyingly in my mind. Why is ISIS committing these unforgivable acts of barbaric violence? In a recent article, Britain’s Telegraph provided insights into the psychological motivation for such public brutality. First on the list is the dissuasive power of fear. One of the reasons the Iraqi people have withheld from engaging ISIS in battle, the article purports, is the sheer element of extreme violence utilized by ISIS fighters. The article makes the insightful inquiry, “which poorly paid soldier wishes to risk decapitation, impalement, or amputation for the sake of a distant, crumbling government? Fear is a uniquely effective weapon.”

Additionally, the members of the Islamic state feel that the United States and its allies will be equally deterred from engaging in militant action against them if it means its citizens will meet such an abhorrent fate. But honestly, I cannot imagine that its enemies ceasing their attempts at military interference would halt ISIS’ streak of terror.

The last point made by the author of the article explains why the murder of an individual rather than a large population affects us so much. Selecting a single person via a methodical, calculated process produces a means of propaganda not likely to be forgotten, which is the nature of terrorist acts. With the detonation of a bomb, the deaths are numerous and quick and lack a specific individual target. Although deaths by any means of violence are horrific, acts of beheading are chilling and terrifying in that they are a complete desecration of the body by the hand of another human.

However, when addressing the effectiveness or lack thereof of these acts, the article points out that they often backfire entirely. When my eyes beheld the merciless slaughter of an innocent man by the ISIS executioner, I was anything but turned to sympathy for their cause. It merely deepened the chasm of my anger and hatred for their “cause,” if you can even call it that. It made me realize the gravity of the challenge imposed by the extremist group in terms of its defeat. By demonstrating the lack of humanity possessed by its members, ISIS has hurled coals into the already blazing fire of animosity and antipathy bore by its enemies.

Has ISIS learned nothing from its predecessors? Engaging in brutal violence that clearly knows no bounds was one of the major downfalls of al-Qaeda. I desire one thing to be the response to the question posed by the article in the Telegraph, “the modern jihadist’s dilemma: when does a strategy of calibrated terror turn into a self-defeating orgy of violence?” I hope that their “strategy” brings about their downfall before anyone else falls victim to it. No child should have to lose a parent, no one should have to lose a dedicated friend, and no innocent person should perish at the hands of hate.

Watching the brutal killing of this man grounded, humbled, outraged, and upset me in ways I never could have imagined. I would never wish my worst enemy to see the video. The menacing voice of the executioner, the sounds of the beheading itself, and the final words of the victim will forever echo in my mind. The images I beheld are forever seared into my retinas. Now, my passionate desire to see the end of violence in the Middle East is stronger than it ever was.

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ISIS: The Mentality of Madness appeared first on Law Street.

A close friend of mine passed away last weekend. My dear friend, Saturday Morning Cartoons, whom I will never forget, was murdered by a group of assassins headed up by cable and streaming video. Perhaps I should have seen it coming. The final life support system of Saturday Morning Cartoons, the CW television station, was finally terminated. The CW decided to invest elsewhere, replacing Saturday Morning Cartoons with a program called “One Magnificent Morning.” Not such a magnificent morning, I think.

So good job, television, you have officially killed childhood. Yes, I concede that kids still have options to get their fix. With Hulu, Netflix, and other methods of streaming shows, it could be argued that they have even MORE options. Some might say that cartoon viewing is only ENHANCED by the ability of children to choose what they want to watch on Sunday morning. I still feel strongly, however, that ending the block of programming we knew and loved known as “Saturday Morning Cartoons” signifies the end of an era.

Before being able to watch whatever we want whenever we want to, there was a little bit more patience and excitement involved. Perhaps this is a stretch, but Saturday Morning Cartoons taught some pertinent life lessons. Because they can decide not just which show they want to watch but which specific episode of that show, kids will no longer learn to expect the unexpected. Life is not always under our control. We cannot determine our lives with the touch of a button on a remote. Saturday morning cartoons kept alive the beautiful air of mystery that is present in real life. What shenanigans are Scooby and the gang going to get into this Saturday? I don’t know. Let’s grab a bowl of Reese’s Puffs and park it in front of the TV to find out. What adventures are Patrick and Spongebob going to have tomorrow morning? Who knows! Let’s enjoy the first part of our weekend by finding out.

No, now things will be quite a bit different. What do we want Tom and Jerry to fight about tomorrow? Let’s browse through the collection of episodes on the Internet and decide. Let’s watch the same episode of Dexter’s Laboratory that we watch EVERY TIME instead of venturing outside of our comfort zones to try something new.

Honestly, kids these days don’t have to learn to deal with anything. As annoying as they were, commercials were a given part of the Saturday morning cartoon-watching ritual. Now, that ritual is a dead and beaten horse. Saturday morning cartoons were not just for the children but for their parents as well. That block of programming specifically set aside for cartoons allowed the perfect time for families to bond. Commercials simply provided a little break for kids and their parents to reflect on the crazy capers that their favorite cartoon characters have gotten into. Now, they can just fast forward and sit in silence the entire episode. How depressing.

So, Saturday Morning Cartoons, you will be gravely missed by me, by children everywhere, by their nostalgic parents, and many others. I am sure I am not alone in saying that I hope you rest in peace. May Scooby, Sonic, Garfield, all the Looney Tunes, and any other cartoon I have failed to mention forever remain in our hearts. Now, please join me in the reception hall for a photo montage of Saturday Morning Cartoon’s long and beautiful life. Refreshments will be served. Thank you.

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RIP Saturday Morning Cartoons and Your Childhood appeared first on Law Street.

People tend to do some pretty clinically insane things to get back at their exes. Disgruntled men dumped by the girls of their dreams have posted naked pictures of them online, dated their best friends, and other concerning but far-from-deadly actions. However, the men starring in recent headlines have taken revenge to a whole new and disturbing level.

Recently, a dude was so peeved when his girlfriend left him that he concluded that feeding her dog to her was the best means of revenge. What ever happened to the saying “living well is the best revenge”? Not anymore, apparently.

That has to be one of the most messed up ways to get back at someone in recent history. It wasn’t just her beloved pet, but one of the most adorable dog breeds around — a Pomeranian — with one of the most adorable names possible, Bear. He fed her precious pooch to her during a “reconciliation meeting.” He then bombarded her with disturbing text messages asking her how her pet tasted and saying he thought BBQ sauce would have been a welcome addition benefiting the flavor. As if that weren’t a massive enough blow to the poor girl, he left the poor pup’s paws in a box at her doorsteps a few days later.

Apparently, you don’t need to be suspicious just of exes, but of your current significant other as well. In England, a teenage guy killed his girlfriend in an attempt to emulate Dexter, the character from the hit TV series. The young man says he was overcome by an alter-ego who made him stab and dismember his girlfriend. I guess the people concerned about the effect of such violent television series wasn’t all wrong, though the teenage boy suffered from various mental problems including schizophrenia.

Another cringe-worthy incident is the recent case in which 18-year-old Aston Robinson murdered his pregnant girlfriend and wrote a letter to her mother with the acronym “LOL.” After the couple sneaked into Robinson’s house, he strangled her and abandoned her corpse. While awaiting trial, Robinson wrote multiple letters to the mother of his deceased girlfriend to really twist the metaphorical knife in her gut.

The bone-chilling element of these stories is amplified by the pathetic sentences the criminals received. In the case of the teenager killing his pregnant girlfriend, his prison time could be as low as 14 years. The juvenile who killed his girlfriend Dexter-style is only looking at about 25 years. The dog-murder’s punishment is not yet known.

Seriously? It is cases like these where judges need to get their hands dirty and lay down the law. These terrifying tales certainly reveal how messed up people can be when they are dumped. So, who CAN you trust these days? Who knows…

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Be Careful Who You Love appeared first on Law Street.

The way that the “Fifty Shades of Grey” series flies off of bookstore shelves makes it pretty obvious that sex sells. I admit to getting caught up in that craze, and despite the lack of literary merit present on the pages of those novels, they certainly do entertain. Fluffy books catered to the sexually deprived are not the only place where eroticism is being used to get peoples’ attention.

What’s sexier than every dirty page of “Fifty Shades of Grey”? Voting. Yes, you read that correctly. Recently, United States politicians have taken a page out of other countries’ books and decided to amp up the sex appeal of their ads. In 2011, Russia ran an ad suggesting that the act of voting may get you laid. Who knew filling out a ballot could have such an effect? What’s that you say, sir? You’re…voting?? Take me now, sailor!

A political ad in Germany didn’t even try to be discreet; a pair of breasts is plastered onto a poster for all to see. That’s some classy not-so-subliminal messaging. Germany and Russia are far from the the only countries embracing sexuality as a theme in campaign ads. The good ol’ U S of A loves to copy Europe when it comes to many trends, and using sex in campaign ads is no exception.

Take a look at an ad released this summer by Equality Illinois entitled “Doris Wants Your V Card.”

The ad features an older woman gesturing suggestively to two younger males and a voice tells viewers to “go ahead, vote. Take advantage of Illinois’ new online voter registration, and get your voter ID card,” which is suggestively referred to earlier in the ad as your V-card. So witty, Equality Illinois, so witty.

NPR recently published an article about the ad, which quoted Bernard Cherkasov of Equality Illinois saying that “there is a double entendre, and I think it’s very effective at catching people’s attention.” Their target audience? Young people who are disinterested in politics and therefore unlikely to register. “To tell them this is a cool thing to do, a super easy thing to do, and then once we’ve got their attention and they’re registered, then we can help them get educated as to what’s at stake in this election, how they can exercise that democratic right.”

The success of these ads, according to a Unilever study cited in The Atlantic, depends on the intended audience. Women may not be so easily persuaded by sexual innuendo as men, according to the article. Major shock there. So while ads suggesting that casting your vote may be a huge turn on may potentially get more men to the polls, women may not be so easily persuaded.

As sexual voting ads are the new kid on the block — especially in the United States — their success or lack thereof at getting people voting has yet to be seen. But hey, at least they make for some more entertaining campaigns during the oft-droll election season. So, it’s almost time to get your butt to the *wink, wink, nudge, nudge* “polls.” See you there. And so will Ryan Gosling, apparently.

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [aptmetaphor via Flickr]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Voting Gets You Laid appeared first on Law Street.

Oh crap, I probably offended PC computers and everyone who makes, owns, or has ever owned one on an unprecedented level by using that term that way. How many people should I apologize to, now? The makers of PCs? PC users? PC computers themselves? I guess I would have to write code for that last one. I don’t want to anger an entire type of computer causing a futuristic, robot revolt. Actually, I bet Macs are angry that their name isn’t used in the acronym for being sensitive to all needs at all times. “That’s so not Mac” just doesn’t have the same ring to it.

Simultaneously offensive to cats, cat lovers, and Mexicans. Shit, I mean latinos! I mean… latinos and latinas??

The aforementioned paragraph is an example of hyperbole, shedding light on the absurdity that has blossomed from the idea that everyone must be “politically correct” ALL the time to not offend anyone, ever. The extreme degree to which being politically correct is spiraling out of control is ever apparent in schools and universities across the United States.

In the last few years, public school students have been sent home for wearing shirts depicting the American flag and logos of political organizations among other things. Wearing something patriotic in America? Well, that is just crazy! How dare they show support for and pride in their country! I hope it’s obvious that the previous sentences are brimming with sarcasm.

Additionally, a Fiji-themed party at a UC Irvine fraternity caught flak after being deemed racist. One of the most recent absurdities and blatant overreactions happened when students were punished for saying “bless you” when those around them sneezed. Yes. Seriously. Saying the word “bless?” Heaven forbid. Yikes, I just said Heaven…good thing I am not a public school student anymore. I would probably be expelled for such an insensitive remark.

It’s gotten to the point where specific areas on many university campuses are designated “free speech” areas. Once upon a time, this designation of an area where Americans can speak their minds was unnecessary, as one could feel free to speak his or her mind anywhere. Yet that time has come to a close, it seems, based on the recent news about the evil students saying “bless you.” Those crazy renegade kids! Get them off our streets!

Hopefully, schools can realize that, while it is important to be politically correct, (I definitely condone sending a student home if he or she wears a shirt with a racist slur), there is definitely a way to go too far in the other direction. Students should not have to feel like they are walking on eggshells with every single action. So, schools, how about trying to be just the right amount of PC? Or, the right amount of Mac. Whatever you prefer.

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Travis Nep Smith via Flickr]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post That’s SO Not PC! appeared first on Law Street.

Prominent religions worldwide preach many similar ideals, some of which include exhibiting kindness to others and living a peaceful life. Although these religions have vastly different teachings, they generally urge followers to be good and fair to one another. However, religious extremist groups claiming to adhere to certain religious ideals often distort the teachings of their faith in order to justify violent acts. Some of the groups at large in the United States today include al-Qaeda, Yaweh ben Yaweh, al-Fuqra, The Army of God, and the Klu Klux Klan. These groups, among several others, have all taken the teachings of different religions and mutated them into extremist ideologies used to condone violence.

Click here to see our infographic on religious extremist groups

Christianity to Justify Discrimination and Violence

The Phineas Priesthood is a prime example of a group that twists religious concepts to justify hateful acts. Claiming to be servants of Christ, Phineas Priests believe that in order to carry out God’s will, they must strive for a completely white North America. The group targets Jews, those with mixed-race backgrounds, and anyone else they consider “undesirable.” Individuals professing to be Phineas Priesthood members have used Christianity as an excuse for committing terrorist activities such as bombing, robbery, murder and arson.

The Klu Klux Klan strives for similar goals and defends its actions by saying they are following Christian ideologies. The Klan believes in an entirely Christian and white North America. Though the number of members in the Klan has dwindled since its foundation many years ago, they still have at least 500 members. Just recently in Florida, a police officer was fired from his position after his ties with the KKK were discovered.

Another group that associates with Christianity, but focuses less on adhering to its teachings, is the Sheriff’s Posse Comitatus. This group does not openly use Christian values to defend its actions, but rather calls itself anti-government as well as racist, and has been known to associate with the Klu Klux Klan. Although its members have not committed many high-profile crimes aside from the 1974 assault of an I.R.S. agent, many have been convicted of tax evasion, weapons possession, and attempting to circulate counterfeit bills.

The Army of God, another clandestine group calling itself Christian, believes in preventing abortion by any means necessary. This includes murdering doctors who perform the procedure. The group defended the actions of member Paul Hill, who allegedly murdered abortion doctor John Britton. They claimed, “his actions are morally justified if they were necessary for the purpose of defending innocent human life. Under these conditions, Paul Hill should be acquitted of all charges against him.” This extremist group even provides a how-to manual for its members, explaining how to execute attacks on abortion clinics using bombs, gas and other means. One of the highest profile crimes carried out by an Army of God member occurred in 2001, when Clayton Waagner sent over 550 anthrax threat letters to clinics and signed them with the name Army of God.

Defending Islamic Ideals at All Costs

There are two major groups operating in the United States that use Islamic teachings to justify their violent acts. One such group, Al-Fuqra, has been linked to “shoe-bomber” Richard Reid. Even more infamous is al-Qaeda, which operates out of the United States, in addition to other countries around the world. The philosophies of both groups are ones of “defensive jihad,” a term defined as the defense of Muslim communities at all costs. Osama bin Laden, the founder of al-Qaeda, encouraged each Muslim to fight what they consider to be attacks on Muslims across the world. The extremist group aims to overthrow governments that they believe oppress their Muslim citizens and replace them with genuine Islamic governments. They also stand strongly against all Western influences.

The Jewish Extremist Justifications

The only major Jewish extremist group that operates in the United States today is The Nation of Yahweh. Yahweh ben Yahweh formed the group, which had a relatively large following in Florida during the 1980s. They believe that blacks are the true Jews and that their founder is the messiah. Ben Yaweh often ordered members to murder his perceived enemies, who were mainly white. Eventually, he formed a group called “The Brotherhood.” In order to become a member of his cult, young men had to kill a “white devil” and bring a body part back. The group is far less active today following the death of ben Yaweh in 2007.

Other Spiritual Reasoning

One group that follows multiple ideologies and has an operating base in the United States is called Aum Shinrikyo, also known simply as Aleph. The group, formed in 1984 by a Japanese man named Shoko Ashara, adheres to Buddhist, Hindu, Christian, and New Age ideologies, as well as some elements from other religions. Ashara encouraged his followers to confront the Japanese establishment. The group members have used their spiritual beliefs to justify murder. Aum Shinkrikyo members have not conducted any noteworthy attacks in the United States, despite having a base here. However, the group has wreaked havoc in Japan on multiple occasions. In 1994, members conducted a sarin gas attack which killed seven people. Perhaps the most infamous Aum Shinrikyo attack occurred in 1995 in Tokyo when the group released sarin nerve gas, killing twelve people and injuring over 5,000 others on the metro.

Many religious extremist groups,  such as the Klu Klux Klan, have their own websites to further explain their ideologies. One of the keys to preventing the expansion of these violent groups is to reduce the sympathy potential members feel for their respective causes. Revealing the twisted nature of their allegedly “justified” reasoning by which they commit crimes could be a way to reduce the desire to join. The United States also has organizations that work to alert the public about the statuses of such hate groups. Hopefully through education and awareness, religiously justified violence will one day be a thing of the past.

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Religion to Justify Extremism: A Worldwide Issue appeared first on Law Street.

Punishments often don’t fit the crime, but cases of overly lenient or harsh sentences are especially prevalent in the world of the rich and famous. The NFL in particular has received a lot of attention for its recent punishments, as many see them to be inconsistent. While it may be true that the criminal justice system treats pro football players differently than the average American, much of the recent outrage is focused on the NFL’s internal system of discipline. Athletes in the NFL can commit the same crimes and often receive completely different punishments.

One of the most recent cases involved Ray Rice, a star running back for the Baltimore Ravens. Video cameras captured Rice beating his former fiancée, Janay Palmer, unconscious after dragging her out of an elevator. His punishment for this heinous act was recently revealed by the NFL: Rice will be suspended for two games.

If Rice were not a professional football player, his aggravated assault may have been considered a felony, punishable by up to 25 years in a Maryland state prison. Instead Rice was placed in a diversion program for first time offenders and does not face any prison time. His status as a famous athlete instead of an average Joe seems to have led to his evasion of prison time and a very lax punishment from the NFL.

To contextualize the absurdity of his recent punishment, one must look at other examples of crimes committed by NFL athletes. Another similar case that vastly juxtaposes Rice’s is that of Daryl Washington, a linebacker for the Arizona Cardinals. Washington, like Rice, assaulted his girlfriend, yet received a much harsher penalty of one year of supervised probation. He later got a one year suspension for substance abuse.

Clearly, there is no uniformity dictating the type of punishments doled out to NFL athletes. Their punishments fall at two extreme ends of a spectrum–either far too harsh or far too lenient. Punishments for drug violations in particular have proven to be one area that demonstrates the league’s use of “far too harsh” sentences. Last year, LaVon Brazill received a four game suspension for violating the league’s drug policy by reportedly smoking marijuana. Brazill recently violated this policy a second time, for which he was suspended for an entire year. His most recent punishment also prompted his release from the Colts entirely.

So, let’s compare this to Rice’s case:  Rice was given a two game suspension for beating his wife. On the other hand, Brazill’s first offense for smoking a drug that has been decriminalized or legalized in many states, yielded a suspension that was twice as long, and his second violation left him without a job. While assault and drug use are obviously very different crimes, this kind of disparity doesn’t seem to add up.

In the last year alone, at least 14 players were suspended by the NFL for either substance abuse or performance-enhancing drug use. None of the aforementioned players received less than a four-game penalty. One of them, Indianapolis Colts linebacker Robert Mathis, was suspended for four games by the league for taking a fertility drug.

There are countless more examples of confusing and disturbing punishment inconsistencies. In January 2013, a player for the Indianapolis Colts was kicked off the team after being charged with a misdemeanor simple battery. In February of 2013, Chicago player J’Marcus Webb was arrested for possession of marijuana and all charges were later dropped. The NFL said they would “look into the charges,” but did not end up doling out a punishment. In contrast, two players for the New York Jets were cut from the team for possessing small amounts of the same drug.

Fans have expressed outrage towards the inconsistency of punishments given by the NFL, yet the league maintains that its punishments are consistent. In order to establish true uniformity and ensure that punishments properly fit the crime, the NFL and its players’  association need to reevaluate their current policies and punishment guidelines. Otherwise, these all-over-the-board punishments will continue to be doled out to players committing the same or similar crimes.

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Bob Marquart via Flickr]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Recent Suspension Reveals NFL’s Inconsistency in Punishments appeared first on Law Street.

Extremist groups twisting religious ideologies to justify their violent acts are still active in the United States today. This infographic provides a glimpse into the basic facts about the most prominent religious extremist groups currently operating in the United States.

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [McBeth via Flickr]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Infographic: Religious Extremism in the United States Today appeared first on Law Street.

Lynching, torture, and deliberately planned hate crimes bring to mind antiquated racist and religious extremist groups like the infamous Ku Klux Klan. Tragically, these groups are not things of the past. In fact, many of them remain at large in the United States. The radical religious ideologies of these groups drive their members to commit and justify heinous crimes. Most sources agree on a loose definition of religious extremism as people who commit, promote, or support purposely hurtful, violent, or destructive acts against others for what they deem to be religious reasons. A substantial number of these Christian, Islamic, and Jewish groups still operate via bases in the United States.

Recently, a Florida police department shockingly discovered a former officer’s connection to the notorious KKK. Though the number of Klan members has dwindled to about 500, they still exist in the form of smaller sects throughout the states.

Determining which of the modern Christian extremist groups contains the most members is almost unfeasible due to the shroud of secrecy under which they conduct their operations. For example, the activities of the Christian terrorist group, the Phineas Priesthood are often impossible to attribute to its members. Phineas Priests, who desire a North America that is entirely Christian and white, differ from other white supremacist groups in that they hold no meetings. To become a member, one must commit ‘Phineas acts,’ which are violent acts against non-whites.

Click here to see our infographic on religious extremist groups

Another extremist group identifying itself as Christian is the Sheriff’s Posse Comitatus. Specifically, this group targets employees of the IRS and FBI, claiming that they violate the rights of Americans. Posse members were much more active during the 70s and 80s than they are today. During those years, the group’s membership was estimated somewhere between 12 and 15 thousand. In the late 1980s, the popularity of the Posse’s ideology declined dramatically. One of its leaders, James Wickstrom, attempted to bring the Posse back to life in the 1990s, though he emphasized the racist aspects of the Posse’s ideology to the near-exclusion of the rest of the group’s principles.

Islamist extremist groups today receive arguably the most media attention. Many of these groups have bases in the Middle East as well as a myriad of countries around the globe. For example, both Al-Fuqra and Al-Qaeda operate in the United States as well as abroad. Al-Qaeda, possibly the most notorious terrorist group, devastated the world with its 2001 attack on the World Trade Center in New York. Recently, however, some argue that the newly formed ISIS in Iraq will usurp the position of most prominent religious extremist group, although it does not currently operate in the United States.

The Jewish extremist group the Jewish Defense League flourished until recently. Now, the only prominent Jewish terrorist group operating in the United States is Nation of Yaweh, though its activities diminished significantly following the death of its founder and leader in 2007.

Aum Shinrikyo, also known as Aleph, is a group primarily based in Japan that cannot be associated with one single religion. Members adhere to Christian, Buddhist, and Islamic ideals among others. Despite its presence in the United States, the group has performed no notable attacks in North America; however, members have committed multiple heinous acts in Japan, including the sarin attack of a Tokyo subway in 2005.

The United States and its allies are not standing idly by as the threat of extreme terrorism driven by religious ideologies grows, yet combating these groups can be difficult due to the important role of religious freedom in America. As stated by journalist Neil J. Kressel, “many political leaders, for example, have argued that religiously motivated evil always represents a corruption of true religion…We should…start with the assumption that ethical and reasonable people – whether religious, agnostic, or atheistic – will typically disdain and reject destructive violence and intolerance perpetrated in the name of religious faith or other ideologies.”

Various countries worldwide devote significant time and resources to CVE, or countering violent terrorism. CVE efforts began in the United States as a response to the growing threat on its turf of Muslim extremist groups. One of the main ways the U.S. tries to combat religious extremism is to reduce sympathy and support for its causes.

The FBI’s website extensively explains the core goal of the new U.S. strategy as outlined in a 2011 White House document, “Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States.” The goal of the FBI and other law enforcement agencies is “to prevent violent extremists and their supporters from inspiring, radicalizing, financing, or recruiting individuals or groups in the United States to commit acts of violence.” The document emphasizes the plans of the United States to focus on combating extremism in three areas. First, the government plans to provide support and education to local communities that may be targeted by violent extremists. It also plans to build up “government and law enforcement expertise for preventing violent extremism” and counter extremist propaganda.

With continued efforts from world leaders and citizens, perhaps someday the world can be free of these acts of extreme violence in the name of religion.

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Ras67 via wikipedia.org]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Violence in the Name Of Religion appeared first on Law Street.

A slew of recent crimes committed by minors has prompted debate over whether or not they should be tried as adults in court. Earlier this year in Wisconsin, two preteen girls brutally stabbed their classmate in the name of a mythical being known as Slenderman. Due to the severity and the premeditated nature of their heinous act, the girls have been charged as adults. In a case this month, three Albuquerque teenagers brutally attacked and killed homeless men. Two of the perpetrators, aged 15 and 16, will likely be charged as adults.

The process by which a minor’s case is transferred to adult criminal court is called a waiver, because the judge “waives” the typical protections provided by juvenile court. Many protections afforded to juveniles are the same as those offered to adults. As held by the Supreme Court, these protections include advance notice of the charges, the right to counsel, the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, and the right to remain silent. Perhaps the most significant difference between juvenile and adult courts is that minors in court do not have the right to trial by a jury. This is in order to provide a more intimate and diagnostic experience for juveniles.

When Can Minors be Tried as Adults?

A multitude of factors can lead a minor to be tried in adult court. Most states do not have any age limit for charging minors as adults if they have committed a particularly serious crime such as murder. However, to be handed the death penalty, a juvenile must be 16 years old in 18 states, 17 in 5 states, and 18 in 15 states. According to fairsentencingofyouth.org, the cost to keep one minor in prison for life could educate 169 children for a year.

According to a report by the U.S. Department of Justice, it is estimated that as many as 250,000 youth annually are prosecuted as adults. The United States is the only country in which minors can receive life in prison. Currently, there are 2,570 minors serving life sentences without parole. Twenty-two juveniles, all aged 17, have received the death penalty in the United States since 1973. In Iraq, 46 minors received the death penalty between 1990 and 2009; however, Iraq’s numbers are a vast outlier, as only 17 juveniles in total were sentenced to death in every country besides the United States and Iraq.

Due to the rising crime rate among youths and the recent violent crimes committed by children, many states are working to lower the age at which juveniles can be tried as adults. Generally, there are five factors that can cause a minor to be charged as an adult. If the perpetrator has committed a serious crime, has a lengthy prior record, is an older teenager, did not improve with prior attempts at rehabilitation, or if future rehab attempts seem unrealistic, he or she may be tried as an adult.

If a judge or prosecutor in a juvenile case wishes to try the offender as an adult, the first step is to hold a waiver hearing. In this situation, the prosecutor must argue his or her case as to why the juvenile should be tried as an adult by providing probable cause that the minor committed the crime. Afterwards, the judge considers if the minor has a good chance to succeed at rehabilitation.

Occasionally, minors who are tried as adults receive greater sympathy from juries in adult criminal courts, which may seem favorable. However, a trial in adult court can lead to far more severe sentences, and even the death penalty or life in prison. Juveniles charged as adults can also end up in prisons as opposed to juvenile detention centers.

The Debate

Does doling out adult sentences to juveniles make a difference, though? Some studies claim that there is no evidence to date that doing so reduces criminal activity among minors.

Those in favor of trying minors as adults argue that a crime is a crime, and just because a child commits it does not impact the victim’s suffering. There is also the claim that sentencing minors to less-severe punishments for their actions will not deter them from future criminal activity. Not treating minors who commit serious crimes as responsible for their actions will, arguably, turn them into irresponsible adults as well.

Those against minors being tried in adult court believe that they lack the ability to fully comprehend the nature of their crimes. Yet while many argue that children cannot mentally plan and execute a crime and understand its consequences, the case of the Wisconsin teens disproves this thought. The two preteens spent substantial time plotting the murder and how to hide the evidence of their crime.

Of course, children are capable of committing very serious and violent offenses that can cause tremendous suffering,” she continued. “But children are also uniquely capable of growth and change, and a sentence that gives them no opportunity to show their capacity to change is a sentence that denies the differences between children and adults.

-Alison Parker, the U.S. director for the advocacy group Human Rights Watch

It is difficult to know how to properly punish underage criminals for their sometimes heinous crimes. At the moment, the trend leans in the direction of ensuring that they take responsibility for their actions by trying juveniles as adults.

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Rawle C. Jackman via Flickr]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post “Minor” Offenses? Trying Juveniles as Adults is on the Rise in the US appeared first on Law Street.

Flashing red and blue lights in your rear-view mirror can cause the blood to drain from your face, your hands to become clammy, and your heart to do a gymnast-style somersault. After the immediate physical effects of dread set in, questions begin to catapult forth from your mind. “How much will this cost me? “Did the officer see me texting?” “Am I going to lose my license?” The questions become louder and more frequent during that dreaded time waiting for the officer to approach your window and request your license and registration.

This is a nerve-racking situation that many will encounter during their years as drivers, which is why it is important to know your rights when a cop pulls you over. The following tips teach you what to do when you get pulled over and will make the anxiety-ridden experience more pleasant for you and the officer.

When Can an Officer Legally Pull You Over?

A cop needs probable cause — that is, a legitimate reason to believe you broke the law — in order to stop you. Speeding or driving with a broken tail light are both common examples of probable cause. Once you are pulled over, however, if a police officer observes something illegal in your vehicle such as drugs or weapons, he or she can arrest you and would not have to prove that you were speeding in court — just his account of the story suffices.

How and Where Should You Pull Over?

Unfortunately, due to the presence of crooked cops and police impersonators, it is of paramount importance to pull over in a well-lit, populated area. This promotes better safety for both the officer and driver. If you cannot pull over immediately, give a hand signal to the officer indicating that you plan to and drive the speed limit until you find a safe place; however, do not coast or drive for too long before stopping, as this could make it seem like you are trying to hide something. Once you do stop, there is some dispute as to whether or not it is a good idea to get out of the car. While staying in the driver’s seat could lead to the suspicion that you are concealing a weapon, getting out of the car can also seem threatening to some officers. A retired State Trooper in Virginia told the AOL Autos section that he never wanted drivers to get out of the car, as to him this indicated that he or she had something to be afraid of.

I don’t care if you’re the baddest officer there is, there’s always someone out there who’s badder than you, and if we can keep them inside the car, that’s the best way to keep from being injured.

-Retired Virginia State Trooper

Be On Your Best Behavior

You’ve already been pulled over, and whether or not you think this action was justified, it is important to be courteous to the officer to avoid provoking him or her to slam you with a higher fine or charge. Take a few deep breaths, greet the officer kindly, and don’t make any snide remarks.

According to the same retired Virginia officer, a woman once harassed him while he was trying to write her ticket. “I had to roll my window up while she was yelling at me…Well, I guess she didn’t like that because she yanked my door open and said, ‘Don’t you ignore me, you m——- f——!’ Well, that was it, she crossed the line there, so I cuffed her and arrested her for disorderly conduct and took her in.” Had she kept her cool, the woman may have prevented an unnecessarily unpleasant experience for both her and the officer.

It’s important to remember that you have the right to remain silent. Choosing your words carefully can be beneficial, as officers often seek an admittance of guilt from the driver. The 5th Amendment protects individuals against self-incrimination. This means that you can answer “no” to an officer when he or she asks if you know why you were pulled over and to similar questions.

After the officer issues a ticket, warning, or other penalty, ask him or her if you may leave. This avoids the chance of leaving any loose ends or seeming like you are trying to make a getaway.

When Can a Cop Search Your Car or Cell Phone?

A police officer can legally search your vehicle under five circumstances:

1. If the officer asks and you consent to the search
2. If you have an illegal substance or object in plain sight
3. If you are arrested for a legitimate reason
4. If the officer has adequate reasoning to suspect a crime
5. If the officer believes crucial evidence could be destroyed without a search

These five criteria also dictate when an officer can do a search on a home. Minor traffic violations on their own do not constitute just cause for a search. The 4th Amendment provides the right to refuse a search, but officers do not need to inform drivers of this.

Recently, the Supreme Court heard a case regarding whether or not it is lawful for officers to search the contents of cell phones without a warrant. The justices determined that doing so is generally unlawful, except to physically examine the phone to ensure it cannot be used as a weapon. If a police officer asks to search your phone, you can refuse to consent to the search until he or she has a warrant.

Know Your State Laws

Being at least slightly familiar with the driving laws in your state can be immensely beneficial in the event that you are pulled over. These laws can vary immensely from state to state, especially with regard to the use of electronic devices while operating a vehicle. For example, in New York, it is unlawful to talk on a cell phone whereas other states permit the use of hands-free devices.

Knowing even your most basic rights as a driver can only serve as a benefit in the event that you are pulled over. Click here to see an infographic with a state by state overview of driving.

 —

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Jace via Pixabay]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Do You Know What to Do When You Get Pulled Over? appeared first on Law Street.

The amount of prison time doled out by courts to perpetrators of non-violent, drug crimes are often excessively severe, sometimes more than 100 years in prison. In one particular case, a man was sentenced to a lifetime behind bars for possessing a bag with traces of cocaine. In another case, a man with no prior record is now serving a 25-year prison term for selling his pain pills to an undercover informant. These two individuals are just a few of the many serving years in prison due to harsh mandatory sentencing laws.

Keeping non violent criminals incarcerated for decades leads to overcrowded conditions and billions of taxpayer dollars. The mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses have led to prisons vastly exceeding their maximum capacity. The United States has seen a 500 percent increase in the number of inmates in federal custody over the last 30 years.

The goal of these harsh laws is to deter would-be criminals from committing crimes when they realize that they could spend for the rest of their lives behind bars. This plan sounds good in theory, but has failed in practice. Hosting them is not cheap; it costs around $50,000 to keep one person in prison for one year in California alone. Although America has only five percent of the world’s population, it hosts 25 percent of the world’s prison inmates.

The issue of overcrowded prisons is alarmingly prominent in the United States, as other countries have adopted more effective means of dealing with individuals who commit minor offenses. For example, in 2001, Portugal became the first European country to abolish all criminal penalties for personal drug possession, and since then many countries around the world have followed suit. Drug users in Portugal are also provided with therapy rather than prison sentences. Research commissioned by the Cato Institute found that in the five years after the start of decriminalization, illegal drug use by teenagers declined, the rate of HIV infections transmitted via drug use dropped, deaths related to hard drugs were cut by more than half, and the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction doubled.

Finally, the United States has realized the gravity of the situation and decided to take action. Recently, Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin and Senator Mike Lee introduced the Smarter Sentencing Act to reduce the number of harsh drug sentencing policies in the United States. Essentially, the goal of the Smarter Sentencing Act is to reserve the use of federal resources for the offenders of the most serious crimes. Lawmakers supporting this bill hope that it will cause judges to use less harsh punishments such as community service or drug therapy. Making these changes could save taxpayers billions in the first years of enactment alone.

Specifically, the Smarter Sentencing Act would amend the federal criminal code so that defendants without prior record who did not commit a violent crime receive a less severe sentence. The bill also aims to reduce the chance that prisons reach their maximum capacities and lower prison housing costs.

How would the Smarter Sentencing Act impact current laws?

Under current guidelines, a first-time drug offense involving at least 10 but not more than 20 grams of methamphetamine has a recommended sentence range of 27-33 months. Under the new guidelines, the same quantity of methamphetamine would have a sentence range for a first-time offense of 21-27 months.

Attorney General Eric Holder is urging lawmakers to fast track a solution to this problem, stating that “this over-reliance on incarceration is not just financially unsustainable. It comes with human and moral costs that are impossible to calculate.”

Because Democrats and Republicans agree that the extreme sentencing problem is a serious one, prospects are good that this bill has a chance for success. Both parties more or less concede that there is a problem when looking at the prison system in the United States. Former Vice Presidential Candidate Paul Ryan is one of the prominent conservatives expressing his support for reform of current mandatory minimum sentencing laws.

I think we had a trend in America for a long time on mandatory minimums where we took away discretion from judges. I think there’s an appreciation that that approach has some collateral damage—that that approach is missing in many ways…I think there is a new appreciation that we need to give judges more discretion in these areas.

-Paul Ryan

The push to pass the Smarter Sentencing Act is gaining momentum, as almost a year has passed since its introduction in the House in October 2013. Hopefully, with continued support for this legislation, it will soon become law and alleviate the growing problems associated with extreme mandatory minimum drug sentences.

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Barnellbe via Wikimedia]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Are We Nearing the End of Failed Mandatory Minimum Sentences? appeared first on Law Street.

Most of us remember Todd Akin, former Missouri Senate candidate, for his comments about how women cannot get pregnant if they are “legitimately raped.” Unfortunately for him, and for everyone who has to deal with his moronic comments, the fiasco hasn’t ended there. In a recent attempt to explain his 2012 comments, all he did was dig himself into a deeper hole. It’s probably time to just stop talking, Mr. Akin. I mean, I’ve heard from doctors that if you legitimately have stupid thoughts, you won’t say them because your mouth has the ability to shut the whole thing down. Or, in this case, your hand will lose its ability to write a book if you plan to write legitimately ridiculous words.

In his new book (how did he get a publishing deal?), Firing Back, Akin defends his infamous 2012 “legitimate rape” comments and blames the evil media for spinning the whole thing. Someone needs to explain to Akin what spinning means, because he obviously doesn’t know. The media saying exactly what a politician says during an interview is not spin, Mr. Akin. That’s what we call “reporting the facts.”

In what I am sure is a positively invigorating piece of literature, Akin tries to educate his readers about what “legitimate rapes” are. You see, some rapes are not “legitimate” because some women falsely accuse, and when he spoke about a woman’s body shutting “that whole thing down,” he didn’t mean the reproductive system battening down the hatches. Rather, he was referring to rape-related “stress” inhibiting her ability to get pregnant. He does concede that perhaps his wording was a little off.  I feel like I need a Todd Akin Dictionary of Rape Terms to understand this guy’s insane reasoning.

Well, almost…

His comment brings up so many questions: what exactly is “illegitimate rape?” When a woman rejects sex sarcastically? When her attacker rapes her in a certain location? As far as I, and hopefully most other people with common sense know, uteri and fallopian tubes don’t have the capability of self-realization. I’ve never heard a case of ovaries yelling, “We’re under attack! Shut the whole thing down!” to their reproductive-system comrades.

Reviews say that the take away from his new book is that despite his apology immediately following the comments in 2012, Akin is legitimately not sorry. Apology redacted.

But not actually…

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Jennifer Moo via Flickr]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Todd Akin Needs to Legitimately Stop Talking appeared first on Law Street.

Whether near your home or on the other side of the country, you’re responsible for knowing the driving laws wherever you go. Many drivers may not realize that these laws frequently change as you cross state lines, especially those relating to cell phone usage. Some states still allow text messaging while driving, whereas others ban cell phones, even in hands-free mode.

The following infographic breaks down some of the most pertinent driving laws and how they differ among the 50 states and the District of Columbia. And in case you accidentally mix up any of these laws, make sure to check out these tips for what to do when you get pulled over.

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Lord Jim via Flickr]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Infographic: State-by-State Driving Laws appeared first on Law Street.

It’s any teen’s worst nightmare: your girlfriend’s mother discovers the sexually-explicit video you sent to her phone and she reports it to the cops. That’s horrifying enough, but the cops in a recent incident are trying to take a 17 year old’s humiliation to the next level.

This week, a Manassas, Virginia teen was charged with distributing pornographic material in the form of a video of his own sexual endeavors. This in itself sounds a bit strange, to charge one for distributing material about him or herself. Doesn’t he have a right to that material, despite being 17?

Ready for the truly disturbing element of the story? Brace yourselves, especially my male readers.

In order to identify the teen in the video, the cops in charge of the investigation want to (ready for it?) induce him to have an erection for them all to observe via an injection in a hospital. I can see you all grabbing your crotches in terror now.

I would say “I’m left speechless,” because this is the kind of situation that that saying is generally reserved for, but I actually find I have heaps to say. My mind simply cannot fathom that conducting such an emotionally-scarring procedure is legal. Not to mention the legality of obtaining the video via a search of his phone in the first place. According to the Washington Post, only one individual has attested to seeing the alleged warrant that grants permission for this.

As noted by Carlos Flores Laboy, the teen’s appointed guardian, the cops’ desire to take photos of his erect penis more or less equates to trying to combat child pornography with child pornography. There’s some nice hypocrisy for you.

They’re using a statute that was designed to protect children from being exploited in a sexual manner to take a picture of this young man in a sexually explicit manner. The irony is incredible. As a parent myself, I was floored. It’s child abuse. We’re wasting thousands of dollars and resources and man hours on a sexting case. That’s what we’re doing.

-Flores Laboy

After obtaining the photos, analysts would need to use “penis to penis” software, or, as one man commented on the article, “penis identification hardware.” Get it?

Let’s take this case at face value — it is an attempt to wildly blow out of proportion a “sexting” conversation between a girlfriend and her boyfriend and morph it into a child pornography case that would instantly land the teen with two felonies and the requirement that he register as a sex offender. Lesson to all those lovers under age of 18 — don’t send sexy videos to each other. Just wait like, a couple of years. I really hope she doesn’t dump the poor guy for this…

It sounds almost like a police department soap opera. You’ve got drama, child pornography, underage lovers, and major hypocrisy. I feel pretty confident that the police department could spend its time doing something far more productive, like trying to nab legit sex offenders like the creepy old dudes that prey on little kids.

Thankfully someone other than just me came to that conclusion, as the department decided to forgo its forced-erection project. The public, expressing these strange things called logic and reason, seems to have convinced the cops planning to take the graphic photos of the teen’s privates to drop their perverted plan.

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Alton via wikimedia]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Combating Alleged Child Porn by Compelling a Minor to Drop His Pants? appeared first on Law Street.

If anyone believes that the President of the United States has overstepped his bounds, he or she may sue him. Recently, House Speaker John Boehner threatened to do just that. He announced that he plans to urge the House of Representatives to sue President Obama for multiple abuses of executive power.

Like any citizen of the United States, the president can be brought to court. The last time this happened successfully, Senator Edward Kennedy sued President Nixon in 1976 over his abuse of the “pocket veto.” According to Boehner, “the constitution makes it clear that the president’s job is to faithfully execute the laws and in my view the President has not faithfully executed the laws.” How exactly will the process go, should he choose to act?

Though touted in the media as a battle between Obama and Boehner, it would actually be the entire House of Representatives acting as the plaintiff in the lawsuit. Boehner is simply spearheading the legal action by calling on members of the House to bring the case against the president. Boehner plans to bring a bill to the House floor this month to authorize the lawsuit.

This is not the first time a political body has tried to sue a president. In 2011, an independent group of legislators challenged the authority of the president to allow the use of U.S. military force during the Libyan conflict.The case was dismissed by the D.C. Circuit Court due to the plaintiff’s inability to establish standing.

Suing a president differs from impeachment, which is the complete removal of the executive from office, and censure, which is a congressional procedure for punishing the president that has no explicit basis in the federal constitution.

How Can I Sue the President?

1. State Your Grievances: The first step in suing Obama, or any president, is to allege his misuse of power. Doing so is simple — you simply need to state your grievances with his actions. Boehner has already completed this step. Among his complaints, Boehner contends that Obama abused his powers on healthcare issues, specifically changing the “fixed” deadlines in the healthcare law. He also mentioned in a memo to congress that Obama overstepped his bounds in matters of energy, foreign policy, and education.

During his time in office, President Obama has used his constitutional powers to circumvent congress and put a number of laws into effect via executive order. Executive orders are legally binding decisions passed down by the U.S. president that bypass the typical order of passing through both legislative bodies. For example, he required the Department of Labor to allow same-sex couples the right to family leave. Obama also went around congress to raise the minimum wage for federal contractors.

2. Involve BLAG: The second step in the process to sue the president is the involvement of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group. BLAG is a body of the U.S. House of Representatives comprised of five members of the House, the speaker, the majority and minority leaders, and the majority and minority whips. The group was enacted by Congress under President Clinton in 1993. BLAG is authorized to guide the office of the House General Counsel to take legal action on behalf of the House of Representatives. As stated by the rules of the House, “the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group continues to speak for, and articulate the institutional position of, the House in all litigation matters in which it appears.”

3. Establish Legal Standing: Step three to sue the president is to establish legal standing in court. To do so, the plaintiff, in this case the House of Representatives, would need to show that they have incurred “injury” as a result of Obama overstepping his boundaries set by the Constitution.

4. Argue Your Case: The final step in the process is for the plaintiff to actually argue the case against the president. If Boehner successfully establishes standing, the House will be permitted to begin expressing its grievances at the trial court level. Whoever loses the case at that level would likely appeal to the D.C. Circuit Court, followed by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Will it Work?

So, does Boehner have a chance to successfully sue Obama? Many believe that Boehner’s threat to sue is, as Obama labeled it, a “stunt” simply intended to cause further political divide and steal the spotlight from the lack of legislation that congress has passed lately. Political analysts believe that other governmental bodies will be wary of involvement to prevent deepening divides among parties.

Frank Anechiarico, professor of law and government at Hamilton College, told ABC, “Even the conservatives on the Supreme Court — particularly Scalia — are reluctant to get in the middle of a political fight between the president and the Congress, unless the stakes are much higher than anything currently detectable. But all it takes is for one district judge to rule otherwise and we’re off and running.”

It’s very weird for the speaker of the house to suggest something like this. That said, if the speaker feels the president has violated the constitutional order of powers in a way that has harmed the house, he may feel he needs to sue.

– John Hudak, fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution

As taxpayers would be the ones covering the legal fees, many believe that citizens of the United States would not be supportive of the legal action Boehner wishes to take. Suing the President of the United States is no easy task, and only time will tell if Boehner’s plan to sue Obama over his “king-like” actions will come to fruition.

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Take Radio News Service via Flickr, Pete Souza and Valerie A. Martinez via Wikimedia Commons]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How to Sue Your President, Obama Edition appeared first on Law Street.

Despite some positive results of Colorado’s marijuana legalization, like additional revenue and a decrease in crime, there are issues that require further legislative attention. The main point of dispute is the regulation, or rather lack thereof, of marijuana edibles. THC, the mind-altering ingredient in marijuana, can be converted into a cooking oil and used to make treats including truffles, lollipops, cookies, and basically anything else you can eat.

It is easy to see the appeal after just a glance at the menu in a dispensary, often including selections like macadamia nut cookies and candy bars alongside the more traditional brownies. This appeal, however, does not only apply to legal users over age 21, but to children who unknowingly find these THC-laced goodies lying around.

Why Regulate?

Critics claim edibles are far too alluring to children. The cardinal concern here is that kids will be tempted by marijuana candy and guzzle it down without knowing what they are eating. According to the New York Times, “so far this year, nine children have ended up at Children’s Hospital Colorado in Aurora after consuming marijuana, six of whom got critically sick. In all of 2013, the hospital treated only eight such cases.” In a recent incident, a seven-year-old girl in Colorado was hospitalized after ingesting a THC edible. While it does appear that the trend of the hospitalization of children who consumed pot has increased, the evidence is not yet conclusive.

What is the key to preventing future events from occurring? Law enforcement officers and manufacturers of marijuana edibles stress time and time again the importance of the role of parents in keeping their kids away from potentially tempting pot candies. “There is a level of discretion and education and, frankly, tenacity on the behalf of parents that has to occur. If you leave pot lying around, kids are going to find it,” said Joe Hodas, a spokesman for the Denver-based Dixie Elixirs edibles.

Another issue noted with marijuana edibles is the difficulty with dosing them properly. To deal with these issues, lawmakers are considering new packaging with more obvious warnings or limiting each package to contain just a single dose. Recreational dispensaries are also implementing safety measures by listing precautions for edible users.

Edible marijuana information sheet via anonymous

Last time I ate a brownie I bought it legally from a recreational marijuana dispensary. The brownie was 90 MG, so I used caution in the portion I ate because I knew that my tolerance was nonexistent. I started feeling the sensation creeping on about 20 or 30 minutes after eating it. My girlfriend, who has had much less experience using marijuana than myself, was trying to argue that it wasn’t working and that we should eat more, but I urged her to be patient because I knew that even the small amount we ate would get us high. We both ate a little more because I figured she could learn firsthand about the appropriate dosage for her. The peak of my high wasn’t attained until two to three hours after consumption. The experience is equally in the mind as well as the entire body, so I recommend not going out or driving and just letting the drug take effect.

-Anonymous Colorado marijuana user

Advocates of further regulation often cite recent incidents in which two individuals died, allegedly due to the over-consumption of THC edibles; however, the roll of edible marijuana in these deaths remains in question. The only instances on record include a man who jumped off a balcony to his death after consuming a cookie laced with the amount of THC in six joints. In the other instance, a man hallucinated and stabbed his wife, but other drugs were more likely the contributing factor leading to his actions.

Whether the marijuana edibles were the true culprit or not, these events and others have led lawmakers to begin tightening the regulatory noose on their THC content, sale, and marketing. Many express concern over the appearance of the labels on edibles as they appear strikingly similar to their non-THC counterparts.

How are Edibles Different?

In short, when THC is digested, the body absorbs it more slowly than when it is smoked, and therefore can cause the user to feel the need to consume far too much. In spite of this, edibles do not cause damage to lungs in the way that smoking can.

According to an anonymous Colorado marijuana user, the experience consuming pot edibles is a juxtaposition of emotion. “There is a simultaneous balance of being completely relaxed and being on the verge of a panic attack, for me.”

Like many other recreational pot users, he generally prefers pot edibles. “Edible marijuana makes me feel like I need to go to sleep right away but my heart rate is also increased because THC is a stimulating drug. The mind altering properties of weed are especially apparent because it takes feelings that I experience and makes me see them from a different perspective, making me physically uncomfortable yet more accepting to new ideas.”

Even supporters of legalization such as Brian Vicente, one of the authors of the amendment that legalized marijuana, say that Colorado needs to pass stricter rules about edible marijuana. He said that the state was racing up a sharp learning curve. “Marijuana was illegal for 80 years. Now it’s legal, and everyone’s just trying to figure out how to approach these new issues.”

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Janet Hudson via wikipedia]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Have Your Pot and Eat it Too: Regulating Edible Marijuana appeared first on Law Street.

At least, that would be the advice of political hopeful Scott Fistler, two-time loser for public office in Phoenix, Arizona. Oh wait, sorry — I mean Cesar Chavez, formerly known as Scott Fistler. While known as Fischer, Chavez ran and lost twice, yet he stuck to his guns and, determined, decided his luck would change if he changed his political affiliation and name for the low, low price of $319. Thus, another Cesar Chavez, no relation to the civil rights activist, was born! They don’t even look alike, except perhaps if you squint in a certain light. To avoid future confusion, I will, from here on out, refer to Fistler as “Chavez the Second.” Hopefully Fistler at least knows whose name he stole…

Chavez the Second figured he would fare better with his new and oh-so-original name in a heavily Hispanic, Democratic congressional district. According to Fox News, Chavez the Second’s campaign website featured photographs of frenzied supporters holding “Chavez” signs, which are obviously scenes from the streets of Venezuela at rallies for its late president Hugo Chavez. Whoops.

Chavez the Second explained his reasoning in black-and-white terms to the Arizona Republic. “It’s almost as simple as saying Elvis Presley is running for president. You wouldn’t forget it, would you?” You’re right, Chavez — we certainly wouldn’t.

He went on to tell everyone why he went against another name. “If you went out there running for office and your name was Bernie Madoff, you’d probably be screwed.” Hm, yes… logical.

This seems like a pretty bizarre move, but then again, Chavez the Second has always gone a bit against the grain. The 35-year-old’s favorite book happens to be The Sneetches by Dr. Seuss. That would be normal if he were, say, 30 years younger. I can hear the original Chavez, one of the founders of the National Farm Workers Association in 1962, rolling over in his grave. Chavez the First championed the cause of better treatment, pay, and working conditions for field workers and is considered a hero in the Hispanic community.

Ironically, after going to so much trouble to run for office as a Democrat, Chavez the Second missed the deadline to appear on the ballot. A Maricopa County Superior Court judge ruled that hundreds of signatures that Scott Fistler gathered to get on the Aug. 26 ballot were invalid, thus disabling him from running. He had the chance to appeal this decision, but missed the deadline. That’s what happens when you get distracted and procrastinate — thanks for reminding us of this important life lesson, Chavez the Second!

Chavez the Second’s own family members are peeved by his name change. His grandson, his own flesh and blood, filed a legal complaint about his grandfather, claiming that the name change would defraud voters.

It’s hard to imagine how he could have possibly lost twice in the first place considering his goals as a politician should he ever win: “Just show up there and act presentable. It’d be kind of like the first day of kindergarten,” he said. Well, at least on the first day of Kindergarten it probably seemed normal when he was seen reading “The Sneetches.”

One can only speculate what he will do if the name Cesar Chavez doesn’t pan out. Probably run as an Independent and change his name to Winnie the Pooh. That would appeal to everyone, I imagine. I can’t think of anyone who wouldn’t vote for a loveable, cartoon bear. Ah, it’s refreshing to know the direction in which politics is headed…

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Joel Levine via wikipedia]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lost Your Bid for Congress? Change Your Name! appeared first on Law Street.

There are some pretty bizarre trends going around these days, and just one of the many is men posting photos of themselves with tigers on online dating sites. Why? To seem manly and brave via some kind of weird, caveman-esque mating ritual showing that they can take on any wild beast to save his damsel in distress. Alas, there is a new challenge to this practice — a New York law threatening to ban tiger selfies.

If men trying to prove their macho-manliness can no longer pose with the wild, striped felines, what will become of the Tumblr blog dedicated to featuring their photos? How will women find suitable partners on the reliable sites Tinder and OKCupid if they cannot assess he size of the tiger with which her potential mate cuddles?

State legislators in both houses have passed a bill banning people from posing for photos while touching tigers in New York State. This, along with ridding the world of large, sugary sodas, clearly top the priority list of New York politicians, as they should the lists of everyone.

Manhattan Assemblywoman Linda Rosenthal explained that she introduced the legislation to increase safety at traveling circuses and fairs that allow the public to take photographs of themselves getting cozy with tigers. She did not point out, however, that there were only two big-cat attacks at traveling shows in New York over the last decade.

So no matter the size of the tiger with which you are posing, you will pay up to $500 for such a horrendous offense. If Tigger approaches you in New York, back away — yes, he LOOKS friendly, but it’s all a farce. Same with Raja — Jasmine better not consider a move to New York anytime soon.

Sorry, Jasmine, that’ll be $500

Lauren Schuster, a staffer for Rosenthal, accurately pointed out what their law is REALLY going to do: “We’re killing bros’ dreams and chances of being laid!” She couldn’t have foreseen the consequences of this law any better. Seriously, if a man can’t post pictures of himself with tigers, I can’t think of how he will score chicks. Buying them drinks just doesn’t suffice anymore.

Despite this attack on the prominent method through which men demonstrate their masculinity, there is still hope, at least according to Rosenthal. “They can still pose with bears and monkeys,” the assemblywoman said. “They just have to take big cats off their list.” Even if dating app users can still pose with monkeys and bears…come on, that’s not NEARLY as sexy and manly. It’s just not the same! How are Tinder users going to woo the love of their lives while cozying up next to a monkey? Will that be the next blog on Tumblr? Simian selfies? That is bound to attract an entirely different type of woman. I guess only time will tell.

No word on if lion selfies are acceptable…

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Wilma Verburg via Wikimedia]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post No More Tiger Selfies, NYC Men Will Have to Snag Chicks Some Other Way appeared first on Law Street.

The evil United States, a terrifying and corrupt country hell-bent on wreaking havoc on our world and threatening everything for which North Korea stands is on the offensive again. Our authorities recently uncovered a sinister, in-depth plot by an overweight Jewish comedy actor and his pretentious, marijuana-smoking sidekick. With a team of United States-based terrorist filmmakers, Seth Rogen and James Franco are maliciously plotting to create and release a comedy movie later this year telling of the fictional assassination of our fearless leader, Kim Jong-Un. We must take action immediately by threatening the entire country with bloody warfare, a threat on which we shall never take action! Doing so won’t make us seem too sensitive and prone to overreaction at all!

We must continue to perpetuate the stereotype that North Korea runs by shoving propaganda down the throats of its citizens. To maintain the enormous facade that our country is a complete utopia despite our detention camps and atrocious living situations, we must threaten the other countries who criticize us! No more will we stand idly by while world leaders and American actors insult us! Yes, it is time to take a stand and use our best weapon against these demons among humanity — our empty threats!

Rogen, Franco, and their companions in crime plan to release The Interview, a clearly fictional comical story about journalists assassinating our esteemed leader, this October. Not if we have anything to do with it! We shall release a public statement informing not just the United States but the entire world of our war plans that will never come to light.

Our fearless leader and I spent all morning concocting the perfect statement. We are pretty thrilled with it. We intend to tell the media that we will respond mercilessly and resolutely unless the United States bans the release of this film. We know that all of you are simply outraged by this provoking act on behalf of our enemy country, and that if you are not, you will at least pretend to be to avoid punishment. We have not actually seen a trailer for the film, but know with our mystical powers that it will be offensive. We just know it. The ring-leader of this operation, Seth Rogen, even Tweeted that he hopes our beloved leader will like The Interview. What’s Tweeting, you ask? Um, nothing… forget I said anything.

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Zscout370 via Wikimedia]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Attention, North Koreans: We Must Stop Seth Rogen! appeared first on Law Street.

Fewer burglars and robbers lurk in the streets of Colorado, and not because of a Batman-style, crime-fighting vigilante. After Colorado’s legalization of recreational marijuana, skeptics believed the rate of crime would elevate if not skyrocket; however, the opposite appears to be true. Since January 2014, when recreational marijuana sales began, robberies and burglaries have decreased in Colorado.

Although a causal link between legalized recreational marijuana and the decrease in crime cannot be determined, the correlation remains. Other factors such as weather and the economy most likely influenced the lower crime rate. One of the main reasons it is important to observe these rates is that they can act as a crystal ball for other states hoping to follow Colorado’s lead. As the first state to legalize recreational marijuana, it became a guinea pig for demonstrating the effects of this legislation.

Many lawmakers and analysts predicted that the legalization of marijuana would lead to increased crime rates. For example, prior to its legalization Denver District Attorney Mitch Morrissey made the case that robbers would prey on marijuana businesses and their customers because they carry lots of cash and pot. This is because they are unable to open bank accounts and therefore need to keep their income in cash.

None of these fears have panned out, at least not yet.

Have we forgotten about Washington, the other state in which citizens voted to allow the purchase and use of recreational marijuana? Has the new law in the Evergreen state (potential for plenty of jokes there, along with the Mile-High city of Denver) mirrored a decrease in crime as well? The simple answer is no, because despite its new legal standing, not one Washingtonian has purchased a joint nor lone bud of Mary Jane.

For more than a year, the sale and use of recreational marijuana in Washington has been legal under Initiative 502; however, Washington residents still wait with bated breath to purchase recreational pot. Colorado residents have spoken: they voted to get high legally, and now they can. Perhaps the encouraging statistics demonstrating its decrease in crime will finally cause Washington lawmakers to speed up the enactment their law.

Why the difference between the two states? Whereas Colorado simply opened up the state’s existing medical cannabis system to recreational customers, the initiative passed in Washington required that the recreational pot business start from scratch. Although marijuana is legal to possess, there’s no way to acquire it until the state issues licenses for what the state calls its “seed-to-sale” system. Currently, this system does not exist. Would-be marijuana sellers filled out and handed in applications to acquire these licenses last November. The Washington State Liquor Control Board, the legal authority in charge of distributing these licenses, has not handed out a single one.

If and when the aspiring pot shop owners finally do get their licenses, they still must go through the tedious process of securing business permits from local authorities who are often against legal pot. Good luck to them.

If they decide to take a page from Colorado’s legislative notebook, Washington may be able to get the sale of legal marijuana up and running. Sometimes it is hard for lawmakers to move past the fear that naturally comes with enacting a new law, especially when they are the first to do so. The lower crime rate in Colorado since the legalization of marijuana should hopefully put them at ease.

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured Image Courtesy of [United States Fish and Wildlife Service via Wikipedia]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Colorado Crime Down Since Pot Legalization; is Washington to Follow? appeared first on Law Street.

It seems that Democrat Brian Schweitzer, former Montana governor, has been watching a bit too much of “The Office.” It’s funny when Dwight Schrute, one of the characters, uses the term “gaydar” because he is Dwight. He truly believes that he orders an authentic device able to determine someone’s sexuality. That’s good, funny television.

When politicians use the word “gaydar,” however, they seem exactly like Dwight, which doesn’t look so good to constituents. Recently, Schweitzer made an anti-gay remark that may have decreased his appeal as a 2016 presidential candidate. Ever-so-slightly.

Here’s how it all went down. Marin Cogan, a journalist for National Journal, phoned Schweitzer to get his opinion on the defeat of Republican Eric Cantor in the Virginia primary. Schweitzer didn’t exactly share his thoughts on Cantor’s defeat, but rather on his sexuality.  “Don’t hold this against me, but I’m going to blurt it out. How do I say this … men in the South, they are a little effeminate.” When Cogan asked him what he meant, he explained:

They just have effeminate mannerisms. If you were just a regular person, you turned on the TV, and you saw Eric Cantor talking, I would say — and I’m fine with gay people, that’s all right — but my gaydar is 60-70 percent. But he’s not, I think, so I don’t know. Again, I couldn’t care less. I’m accepting.

At least he ended on that note, right? So redeeming.

Yes, that is pretty insensitive. But Texas Governor Rick Perry may have outdone Schweitzer in the unofficial contest to see who can best speak filter-free and simultaneously offend an increasingly important demographic. Perry’s shining moment occurred when he compared homosexuality to alcoholism not long after endorsing “reparative therapy” for gays and lesbians who seek to change their sexual orientation through counseling.

In his 2008 book, Perry made the following statement: “Even if an alcoholic is powerless over alcohol once it enters his body, he still makes a choice to drink,” he wrote. “And, even if someone is attracted to a person of the same sex, he or she still makes a choice to engage in sexual activity with someone of the same gender.” He has since stood by that comparison.

Does this count as a homosexual act?

As most of us know, Perry and Schweitzer are not the only politicians with questionable opinions about the LGBT community. Even more appalling contenders for the “who-can-best-offend-homosexuals” contest include Scott Esk, a Republican candidate for Oklahoma’s house of representatives, and Gordon Klingenschmitt of Colorado. Both claimed recently that those committing acts of homosexuality are “worthy of death.” Maybe Klingenschmitt is just mad about his last name and was unsure how to express that sentiment.

So, gays are comparable to alcoholics and just need to go to corrective therapy possibly led by Rick Perry, and Brian Schweitzer will find them with his 60-70 percent accurate gaydar. They’d make a great team. It is quite possible that their comments will lead to their rapid defenestration, or at least weighty consequences if they ever do try for office again.

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Benson Kua via Wikimedia]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Offensive Gay Statement Showdown: Rick Perry vs. Brian Schweitzer Edition appeared first on Law Street.

After the Columbine school shooting in 1999, some schools cancelled all classes. Students around the nation observed moments of silence in honor of the 12 students and one teacher who lost their lives in the massacre. Headlines covering the event did not seem to subside for weeks; however, mass shootings have now become commonplace, and most hardly think twice when we hear of yet another attack.

Since these shootings are now regular occurrences, police need to keep updating their response methods. During the Colorado attack, police did not enter Columbine high school and attempt to stop the shooters for at least 30 minutes. The reasons behind the delay can be attributed to their training, which was focused on containing the situation and waiting for SWAT team members to arrive and respond. These tactics; however, are intended to be used in hostage situations, which Columbine was not. Naturally, the delay of the SWAT team caused widespread disapproval and quickly led police departments to realize the need to lower their response time in the event of future attacks. During the shooting at Columbine high school, most of the students were shot while the police waited outside for the SWAT team to arrive.

SWAT is typically too slow. Very few cities in America can field a full SWAT team in less than 30 minutes.
– Mike Dorn, former school police chief and head of Safe Havens International, a nonprofit school-safety organization.

The nation averaged five active-shooter situations annually between 2000 and 2008. Since 2009, that number has tripled, according to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security defines an active-shooter as “an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area; in most cases, active shooters use firearm[s] and there is no pattern or method to their selection of victims.”

Updated Tactics, New Equipment

Officers on the site of an active shooting can no longer wait around for reinforcements as they did unsuccessfully at Columbine in 1999. With the increase in shootings nationwide, cops are taking action to increase the effectiveness of their tactics.

Long Island police departments have changed their tactics to respond faster to mass shootings, and civilians who work at potential targets such as schools and shopping malls are being taught how to help. The new approach to active-shooter incidents, adopted by New York police and law enforcement across the nation, provides responding officers with specialized training. Instead of waiting for SWAT teams, officers are being trained to run toward the shooter(s) and remove the threat in order to save lives. Today the goal is rapid response. Most police departments provide cops with extensive active-shooter training and equip them with high-powered rifles.

If someone in the building is shooting, and you’re the first one there, you’re going in.
– Indiana State Police Trooper Aaron Gaul

Police officers at the scene of an active shooting are instructed to get to the shooter and end the situation. The priority now is doing so as quickly as possible, which leads to some controversial tactics including not stopping to help wounded victims.

If we stop and try to treat and help every person, we’re losing seconds where seconds can cost lives.
– Indiana State Police Sgt. Trent Smith

The Role of the Public

In addition to their extensive and updated training, police departments are reaching out to civilians to seek their help during shootings. On Long Island, the Nassau Police Department is collaborating with employees of public venues that face a greater risk of an attack in order to revise their emergency plans. Police departments across the nation are holding seminars to better educate the public on how to react in the event of a shooting. Individuals inside the building are generally told to evacuate at once and call 9-1-1 once they are at a safe distance. If leaving the building is not possible, they are told to hide in a quiet place until the danger dissipates.

A Joint Effort

Cops are not the only ones receiving specialized training for active-shooter situations. Emergency responders are taking part in new exercises designed to increase their response time to aid victims. Once again referring to the tragedy in Colorado in 1999, EMTs cite as a concern the length of time victims waited to receive necessary medical attention. Just last week, police and firefighters in Kansas City, Missouri demonstrated a new plan to respond to shootings during a practice drill. In the event of a school shooting, police would enter first. During the training exercise, police and firefighters showed how that response plan is evolving. The two departments have planned their response tactics to the last detail. To ensure that officers are prepared for handling school shootings, precincts will hold staged events at schools from time to time for practice.

Are These Changes Making A Difference?

In January of this year, there was a shooting at a grocery store in Indiana that may have ended substantially worse if not for the quick thinking of the officers responsible for dissipating the situation. There is still disagreement, however, among law enforcement professionals as to whether or not cops should confront a shooter or wait for backup.

The string of school shootings in recent years has demonstrated that these incidents really can occur anywhere. As scary as this sounds, the mentality that no school is completely safe is the one that needs to be embraced. With better preparation and modern police tactics, perhaps the upward trend in the number of school shootings will begin to reverse.

Featured image courtesy of [t i g via Flickr]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Continual Mass Shootings Prompt Tactical Changes Within Law Enforcement Community appeared first on Law Street.

The name “Tesla” can provoke various thoughts: the character played by David Bowie in The Prestige; Tesla Motors; “tesla coil” and, of course, its inventor Mr. Nikola Tesla himself. Aside from providing the car company with a catchy name, the famous inventor’s original 1882 design of an AC motor is the predecessor to the one currently used by Tesla Motors.

On June 12, 2014 the Tesla Motors company made headlines by announcing that it would make its patents publicly available. As of the end of last year, Tesla had been issued 203 patents and had more than 280 applications pending with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

According to Tesla’s official blog, “Yesterday, there was a wall of Tesla patents in the lobby of our Palo Alto headquarters. That is no longer the case. They have been removed, in the spirit of the open source movement, for the advancement of electric vehicle technology.”

Why did the company release this information, allowing others to access its secrets? What does the wide availability of these patents mean for the future of Tesla Motors and the entire the auto industry?

To answer the question of why Tesla Motors made its patents publicly available, one need not search any further than the company’s website, where Musk explains the company’s hope that the wide availability will lead to rapid-evolution of the electric car industry.

Given that annual new vehicle production is approaching 100 million per year and the global fleet is approximately 2 billion cars, it is impossible for Tesla to build electric cars fast enough to address the carbon crisis…We believe that Tesla, other companies making electric cars, and the world would all benefit from a common, rapidly-evolving technology platform.

-Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla Motor Company

Why release their patents now, though? Initially employees of Tesla Motors worried that if the technology were made public, large auto companies would copy the information and leave Tesla Motors entirely unable to compete; however, as Musk states in the blog, they quickly realized that this was not the case.

Our true competition is not the small trickle of non-Tesla electric cars being produced, but rather the enormous flood of gasoline cars pouring out of the world’s factories every day.

-Elon Musk

Will It Catch On?

Tesla expects this release to encourage other auto companies to build on the information, leading to the mass production of electric cars; however, despite the appeal of electric cars, they still have numerous drawbacks limiting marketability to the average consumer. For example, the vehicles typically only have a range of about 100 miles and take hours to recharge, whereas cars run by gasoline have a 300-plus mile range and only require a quick stop at a gas station to refuel. On the plus side, however, electric cars cost only 2 cents per mile to run. For electronic vehicle sales to really take off, the upfront costs will need to be substantially more affordable. Unfortunately, reducing carbon emissions alone is not motivation enough for the majority of car buyers to go electric.

Despite the fact that the number of electric vehicles sold each year does not even approach that of gasoline-powered vehicles, the number is increasing. In 2013, approximately 96,000 electronic vehicles were sold, almost doubling the number sold in 2012.

Time will tell if Tesla Motors’ release of its patents will provide sufficient motivation for other auto companies to beef up the production of electric vehicles and lead to the reduction in the impact of drivers on the environment. If this technology is embraced by other car manufacturers, the automaker community could work together to improve the way electric cars are made and marketed. Doing so would have a tremendous impact on the environment. According to research compiled by Sherry Boschert, author of the book, Plug-in Hybrids: The Cars that Will Recharge America, use of electronic vehicles would reduce the amount of pollution released by cars between 32 and 99 percent. Though there is discrepancy between the exact amount of reduction the switch to electric cars would cause, there is a general consensus that it would be beneficial. Although no one can be sure exactly what will happen now that Tesla Motors has made their patents public, it seems to be a step in the right direction of sharing potentially valuable information throughout the industry.

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [randychiu via Flickr]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Tesla Releases Its Patents, But is it Enough to Jump Start Electric Vehicle Production? appeared first on Law Street.

She was the Hillary Clinton before Hillary Clinton. She stared gender stereotypes in the face and boldly took them on. She paved the way for women desiring to make their mark in the political world and did so with pride. Though she never once considered a career in politics growing up, Patricia Schroeder became a national icon and a representative of women and their rights during her time serving in the United States Congress. She shocked the masses time and time again, especially when she ran an unprecedented campaign for President of the United States.

Despite her monumental achievements, she is surrounded by a humble and genuine air. I felt completely comfortable approaching her at her appearance at the Library of Congress last week to request an interview. I wrote a brief article chronicling the short event, which barely whet my palate of curiosity. Luckily she quickly agreed to my request.

Patricia Schroeder, born in Oregon, comes from modest beginnings. Her father worked in the aviation industry, which often uprooted the family from one city to another. Because of her father’s career, Patricia Schroeder obtained a license to fly and developed an admiration for Amelia Earhart, along with other bold female figures. “Eleanor Roosevelt and Amelia Earhart were two women who spoke their minds and branched out and did things that women weren’t normally doing,” Schroeder explained in a pensive tone during our phone conversation.

Because her mother was a teacher, Pat Schroeder grew up with a female role model who was successful as both a mother and a working woman. “I was very lucky in that my mother was a teacher and I didn’t have as many hangups about being able to work and raise my children. I didn’t have such a severe attack of guilt about doing both. [My parents] encouraged me to do whatever I want.” Schroeder does not think that her political career had any negative impacts on her children. “They are both well adjusted, not on drugs, one went to Princeton and got a PhD, one went to Georgetown and got an MBA, and they’re both married with two kids.” Yes, it sounds like they are doing just fine.

During our interview, Schroeder recounted an amusing anecdote about the time when her son called her while he was at college. The simple reason was to thank her for not constantly asking if he was dating anyone like the mothers of his friends did. Schroeder said that the information about his friends’ romantic lives was none of their parents’ business.

After attending the University of Minnesota for her undergraduate degree, Schroeder attended Harvard Law School. When I asked how her time at Harvard changed her as a person, she pointed out that it was good preparation for entering into the male dominated Congress later on in life. “I went to the University of Minnesota first and there were 30 or 40 thousand students. It was huge and we were assumed to be adults; if you come and you pass, great, if you come and don’t pass, too bad. At Harvard it was more regimented in a way. A lot of the students had always gone to private schools or [gender] segregated schools and couldn’t get over going to schools with girls.” She told me that men constantly lectured her about taking a “man’s job.”

Despite her immense success as a player in the political arena, Schroeder never considered a career in politics before her husband’s suggestion that she run for congress to challenge the Republican incumbent in their Colorado district. James, her husband, was not only responsible for jump starting her career as a politician at age 32, but also acted as a role model for men whose wives were in similar roles. “A lot of guys didn’t know how to manage if their wife was in a prominent role,” Schroeder explained. “They thought it reflected on their masculinity.”

Being one of the few female politicians at the time was certainly challenging, but Schroeder used a variety of techniques to combat the difficulties. When I asked if she ever tried to change herself to better fit into the testosterone-dominated world of Washington politics, she quickly answered, “No. I always figured I was not an actress. If I couldn’t be myself this whole thing was not going to happen. What you saw was what you got.”

She was always well known for her quippy one-liners and sense of humor. For example, when asked how she could be a mother and a politician, she explained that she had “a uterus and a brain that both worked.” According to Schroeder, “humor is a wonderful way to keep your head. You can either get mad or find humor in it.” She partly attributes her ability to come up with her famous quotes to her gender. “Males always use sports analogies. Part of why people thought [my sense of humor] was different, was just the gender difference in what women might say. They rarely talk about ‘moving the goal posts’.”

Though in some ways women’s rights have come a long way, many issues still stand out for Schroeder as great challenges facing women today. “To me, it’s shocking that we are just a few years away from looking at having had the vote for 100 years, and yet we still aren’t in the constitution. Still? Remember Abigail Adams writing to John saying ‘remember the ladies’? Well, they still haven’t remembered the ladies.” Preventive healthcare for women is also an issue at the forefront of Schroeder’s mind, as it always was during her time in Congress. “One hundred years ago, Margaret Sanger was saying contraception was a big part of women’s preventative health issues and now the Supreme Court is looking into if it is necessary.”

Schroeder also criticizes the lack of equality between women and men in the workforce, and the measly amount of time given to women for maternity leave. “Two-thirds of the minimum wage earners are women and women college graduates will make less than men by about one million six.” Single moms have still got a really tough time, and we haven’t done anything to make childcare more accessible. In the United States, if you work for a group of more than 50 people you can get 12 weeks of unpaid leave. Women are not a minority, yet we haven’t been able to put it together and say ‘enough already.’ Somehow, it just hasn’t moved women and I guess I must be strange.”

During both of my encounters with Schroeder, she proved to be anything but “strange.” I see her as simply ahead of the curve, as she always was. Her iconic role as a political pioneer for women made it easier for them to enter into similar careers. Patricia Schroeder is a prominent advocate for taking action to make a change. “Don’t wait for somebody to ask you — men never wait to be asked. We keep pretending that we are at a dance and this is not a dance. Women are 100 percent qualified and men about 50 percent. Getting women to step forward and say ‘I can do this’ is very important, and they couldn’t mess it up any more than it already is.”

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Wikimedia]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Patricia Schroeder: Trailblazer for Women in Politics appeared first on Law Street.

A new, faceless horror threatens to wreak havoc on our lives by stalking and killing children, and is now influencing previously innocent youths to kill. The being resembles a tall, slim, featureless man, often depicted with tentacles protruding from his back. It is known as Slenderman, and while many believe otherwise, it does not exist. Though the creature is fictional, its influences are chillingly real. In a desire to make a sacrifice to Slenderman, two preteen girls in Wisconsin stabbed their peer 19 times in a cold-blooded murder attempt. Soon after, a 13-year-old girl in Ohio waited for her mother dressed as Slenderman and stabbed her when she returned home.

As horrifying as it sounds, the recent attempted killings in the name of the mythological creature Slenderman are not the first of their kind. Since the dawn of humanity, people have performed sacrificial murders to appease God(s), mythological beings, and other supernatural beings, forces, and creatures. Surprisingly, these sacrificial killings still happen in the modern world. In 2013, a man in India brutally murdered his own 8-month-old son to appease the Hindu goddess Kali. In Canada in 2009, a man on a Greyhound bus stabbed and killed his seat neighbor, a complete stranger, because “God told him to.”

The most recent examples of the desire to appease a being via human sacrifice occurred within a month of each other and were motivated by a desire to please Slenderman. Perhaps my age put me just outside the generation talking about this creepy, lanky stalker as I had not heard of it prior to the recent crimes. I learned that Slenderman was created by Eric Knudson, also known by the alias Victor Surge. Slenderman was born of Surge’s imagination in 2009 in a photo contest on the website Something Awful. After delving into who or what Slenderman is, I wish his name still remained unbeknownst to me.  Now that my mind is constantly plagued with images of the terrifying, mythological man I desire nothing more than to share this “joy” with others.

As previously mentioned, Slenderman resembles, as his name suggests, a tall, slim man with no face, often depicted with tentacles protruding from his back though there is a debate among enthusiasts as to whether or not the tentacles exist. Apparently, Slenderman’s objectives are highly mysterious but include kidnapping and murdering children. He supposedly lurks in the darkness of forests, but spends a good deal of time stalking people. When he is near an individual, they are said to come down with “The Sickness,” with symptoms including coughing up blood, vomiting, nausea, and a sudden onset of paranoia among other things that make the flu sound pleasant. For more information on “The Sickness,” you can’t turn to WebMD, but there is more information on the Slenderman Wikia page. Too bad most pharmacies don’t offer a vaccination for that one. Isn’t all of this information pleasant?

Stories about sightings of the creepy creature are more common on the Internet than sightings of Bigfoot. Individuals who claim to have seen Slenderman or have been personally targeted by him, chat back and forth on online forums such as the Slenderman Wikia. One contributor to said forum commented, “Is it weird that I have this obsession with The Slenderman… I mean it feels as if I had another life because I would get these weird dreams where I am in another time period and He is beside me, and i don’t react to Him being there plus I don’t really even remember most of my childhood which how many can say that.” Believe it or not, that is one of the least creepy posts. There is also a myriad of photos and disturbing YouTube videos portraying Slenderman, most of which I do not suggest perusing before bedtime.

Now, all of this was um… “good, innocent fun” until the incidents involving the girls in Wisconsin and Ohio. Because of the premeditated nature of the attack by the 12-year-olds, they are being charged as adults, whereas the 13-year-old Ohio girl suffers mental health issues according to her mother and is being charged as a juvenile. Their heinous, blood-curdling acts clearly demonstrate the impressionability of today’s youth, who seem to be growing up at a faster rate than any preceding generation. Unfortunately, with the amount of young children able to access the Internet, it’s no surprise that they will come across disturbing and potentially influential material at some point or another.

This being, born of the Internet, has somehow morphed into a twisted Urban legend with an immense number of people legitimately believing in its existence. It is frightening that people seem to forget that Slenderman was clearly created on the Internet by a man’s imagination, and even has an exact date of origin that can be pinpointed. In fact, some place the blame of the recent crimes on Eric Knudson, who says Slenderman was more or less a spontaneous creation stemming from other pictures he saw on the Something Awful forum. He began to create photo-shopped images featuring the tall, creepy being and accompanying captions. This caught on, and many internet users began doing the same.

It differs from the prior concept of the urban legend in that it is on the Internet, and this both helps and harms the status of the Slender Man as one. In my personal opinion, an urban legend requires an audience ignorant of the origin of the legend. It needs unverifiable third and fourth hand (or more) accounts to perpetuate the myth. On the Internet, anyone is privy to its origins as evidenced by the very public Something Awful thread. But what is funny is that despite this, it still spread.

-Eric Knudson, creator of Slenderman

Creepypasta is one of the many sites featuring campfire-like tales of Slenderman. The page on Creepypasta dedicated to Slenderman starts off with a brief explanation of what it is. “The Slender Man is an alleged paranormal figure purported to have been in existence for centuries, covering a large geographic area. Believers in the Slender Man tie his appearances in with many other legends around the world, including; Fear Dubh (or, The Dark Man) in Scotland, the Dutch Takkenmann (Branch Man), and the German legend of Der Großmann or Der Grosse Mann (the Tall Man).” After the two recent violent acts inspired by the creature, the administrator of the site spoke up.

The site clearly states the stories are fiction and its rules bar use by anyone under 13.

-Creepypasta site administrator David Morales

In fact, I just had to verify that I am over 18 in order to enter the site, which now features a post expressing the horrors of its users regarding the recent crimes. Generally, there is nothing wrong with the draw of the idea of mysterious and unknown beings lurking amongst us, but knowing how to differentiate fact from fiction is paramount. To prevent similar attacks in the future, parents and educators should take action by ensuring that their children know the difference between reality, Urban legend, and other forms of fabrication. This once again emphasizes the importance of monitoring the online activity of young people with impressionable minds.

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Lu1uLemon via deviantart]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Slenderman Made Me Do It appeared first on Law Street.

There is a new danger posing a massive threat to the health and longevity of young people. It holds the potential to be more lethal than MDMA, Heroin, tobacco, and every other street drug combined. The name of this new terror? Electronic cigarettes, designed to help the smokers of the real thing quit. DUN, DUN, DUN! Everybody start homeschooling your kids lest they pick up this atrocious habit and head down a lifelong path of recklessness. The scents of fruits and baked goods that encompass the flavors of electronic cigarette juice will surround the nation’s youth like an ominous black thunder cloud. Inhale vapor, exhale Satan’s breath.

The above paragraph is what is called hyperbole, a dramatic exaggeration for added emphasis. Recently, New York state passed a ban on electronic cigarettes in Central Park. I understand banning them indoors, where it makes complete sense that someone in a place like a restaurant would not want to eat his entree in a cloud of someone else’s electronic cigarette vapor. But in an enormous, unenclosed space? If it is between someone vaping e-cigarettes and smoking traditional ones, what would you choose?

Nicotine: Save our Children from this Toxic, Relentless Horror

A 2011 federal court case gives the Food and Drug Administration the authority to regulate electronic cigarettes under existing tobacco laws presumably because they deliver nicotine, which is derived from tobacco. This broad generalization that all electronic cigarettes “deliver nicotine” is not even true, since the flavored juices that turn to vapor via the use of devices often contain less nicotine than cigarettes and sometimes none whatsoever. Most articles stressing the health risks associated with nicotine delivered via e-cigarettes conveniently leave out this fact. Thankfully, an article on HowStuffWorks correctly points out that “there are also cartridges available that contain flavored liquid without nicotine, for users who want the sensory experience of smoking a cigarette without the harmful effects.”

According to an article bashing electronic cigarettes as a horrific danger to us all, the juice “poses a significant poisoning risk.” The article cites that, according to the CDC, “The number of calls to poison centers involving e-cigarette liquids containing nicotine rose from one per month in September 2010 to 215 per month in February 2014.” More than half of those calls involved children under age five.” How does this differ in any way from children getting into their parents’ medicine cabinets and overdosing on some candy-flavored medication? Here’s how you solve the issue of children getting a hold of electronic cigarette juice — put it on a higher shelf. There. I just solved one of the greatest concerns associated with e-cigs. Additionally, now that the good ol’ FDA is involved, they will probably make the juices childproof.

But of course, the concerns don’t stop there. The FDA claims that e-cigarette use can “increase nicotine addiction among young people and may lead kids to try other tobacco products.” First of all, please see my above comment about the nicotine-free juices. Additionally, in most states, minors are not allowed to purchase e-cigarettes or their accessories. Louisiana, one of the few exceptions previously, now prohibits the sale of e-cigarettes to minors. That law I get, because minors have underdeveloped brains that make rash decisions just to piss off their parents and the authorities. They are not trying to stop blackening their lungs and potentially giving themselves cancer by switching to a healthier method of getting their nicotine fix. Huge difference.Third, in response to leading kids to try other tobacco products, who wants to go from inhaling a smooth vapor flavored like delicious baked goods or refreshing fruits to choking down repulsive, chemical-laden and bitter tobacco smoke? No one, that’s who.

Toxic Vapor

Those adamantly calling for the banning of e-cigarettes argue that their juice has a high chemical content; however, the substance that is inhaled when vaping typically has four ingredients: propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin, nicotine, and food-grade flavors, whereas cigarette smoke contains substances such as carbon monoxide, tar, arsenic, ammonia, cyanide and acetone among many others. The Boston University School of Public Health has gone on record saying that “few, if any, chemicals at levels detected in electronic cigarettes raise serious health concerns.”

The FDA is more anxious than a preteen girl at a high school dance to regulate the heck out of e-cigarettes. Mitchell Zeller, director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products, said the agency is exploring potential product standards in the areas of addiction, toxicity, and product appeal as it prepares to gain regulatory authority over electronic cigarettes and other nicotine-delivery devices. One of the positive aspects that would go hand in hand with these regulations would be the increased public education by the FDA.

It’s not the nicotine that kills half of all long-term smokers, its the delivery mechanism.
-Mitchell Zeller

Well said Zeller, well said.

Exploding E-Cigs

Another oft-cited criticism of e-cigarettes is that they have exploded in the mouths of their users. I’m not sure which punch I want to throw at this absurdity first. Let’s start with all of the explosions our beloved friends cigarettes have caused in their long reign. The fact that there are signs at gas stations warning smokers to smother their cancer-causers prior to fueling clearly started as a result of an explosion caused by the proximity of a cigarette to the flammable substance gasoline. Search “cigarette gas station explosion” on any search engine and the page will instantly bombard you with a string of news stories. Electronic cigarettes that explode generally have been tampered with in some way or another by their owner. Before you decide to label all e-cigarettes as potentially causing your face to burn off, remember that quality electronic cigarettes come with safeguards like automatic battery shutoffs or smart chargers that prevent overheating, and are properly tested prior to sale. According to manufacturers, regular e-cigarette batteries can’t do much damage even in the extremely unlikely event of their explosion.

My Lungs Hurt!

Let me cite and mercilessly rip apart another anti-electronic-cigarette argument. According to a scholarly article, “despite the marketing claims that e-cigarettes are safer than smoking tobacco, researchers are finding e-cig users experience diminished lung function, airway resistance and cellular changes, regardless of whether or not they currently (or ever) smoke cigarettes. Users who vape nicotine-free e-cigs can’t escape the effects, either; they also experience airway resistance and other signs of inflammation as side effects of e-cigarette use.” However, all tests done with e-cigarettes are short term studies, as in what happens ten minutes after you inhale their vapor. Additionally, nicotine isn’t the culprit of airway resistance and inflammation. Tobacco has thousands of carcinogens and causes 90 percent of lung cancer, while short term studies indicate some minor inflammation after vaping on an electronic cigarette. Which would you choose? A painful, lingering and potentially lethal disease or about ten minutes of smaller airwaves?

While one study performed by Greek researchers at The European Respiratory Center found that “E-cigarettes, electronic tubes that simulate the effect of smoking by producing nicotine vapor, caused an immediate increase in airway resistance, lasting for ten minutes, making it harder for participants to breathe,” another study by Greek researchers published in February 2013 found that e-cig use did not affect short term lung function in comparison to both mainstream and sidestream tobacco smoke. The important aspect to note in the first study’s findings is that it increased airway resistance for “ten minutes.” Oh Heaven forbid, TEN whole minutes! I guess in this ADD era of short attention spans, that is basically a lifetime…

E-Cigarettes Already Making a Difference

Yet there is success story following success story of musicians, athletes, and other individuals who push their lungs to the physical limits as part of their jobs switching from traditional cigarettes to electronic ones.

Playing a wind instrument requires an incredible amount of lung capacity and physical endurance. I used to smoke analog cigarettes and my lungs hurt every day, and playing upwards of 8 hours a day in college with painful lungs was absolutely miserable. As soon as my friend brought the earliest version of the now much more advanced electronic cigarette to rehearsal, I knew there was hope and I had to make the switch. I vape almost constantly every single day and ever since I switched from cigarettes to electronic cigarettes my lungs haven’t hurt once. I can’t remember the last cigarette I smoked, and I have no plans to start again.

-Alex Cazet, freelance saxophone musician

Switching from traditional to electronic cigarettes also makes a huge difference for athletes. Online forum after online forum feature athletes relaying statements about the huge difference e-cigs made in their athletic performance, health, and lives overall. With the potential of e-cigarettes providing extreme health benefits for previous cigarette smokers, it only makes sense to make their use completely legal. Yet state after state is imposing ridiculous bans on the devices. At the moment, North Carolina is considering adding a tax to e-cigarettes. Okay, let’s take a long, hard look at what this will cause. One of the reasons cigarette smokers want to quit: it costs a ton, especially with the jacked-up tax rates on each pack they buy. So, if saving money by switching to electronic cigarettes is no longer a draw, then a good number of smokers destroying their health will just shrug their shoulders and stick with their nasty habit. There are also a vast amount of laws banning the use of electronic cigarettes which are, rightfully so, pissing off their dedicated users. In New York, electronic cigarette users took part in a “vape-in” to protest the New York City ban on the devices. New Jersey, Utah, and North Dakota already have similar bans and more states are considering following suit.

These over-the-top laws, regulations and the seemingly sudden backlash against electronic cigarettes are completely befuddling to me. I admit that, due to their relatively recent popularity and invention, the effects of electronic cigarette use ought to continue being studied. Although the e-cig juices found to contain toxins are often poorly made, cheap options while there are myriad options on the market that are comprised of organic materials. Tobacco cigarettes, on the other hand, contain thousands of toxins including arsenic, a deadly poison.

So, aside from “grossing out” Rachael Ray and giving kids a new device to covet and try to obtain from their older friends, e-cigarettes hardly pose a more pertinent threat than that of their toxin-laden tobacco predecessors. Well, now that I feel I have educated the public, I’m off to go vape. Peace.

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Joseph Morris via Flickr]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Vaporizing E-Cigarette Myths appeared first on Law Street.

A new study conducted by the University of Missouri finds that those who experience repeated sexual assault are significantly more likely to develop psychological problems such as PTSD, anxiety, and depression. Bryana French, one of the researchers who spearheaded the study, points out that this was only one of a few studies that focus on types of sexual assault that fall outside of the narrow forcible rape definition. The researchers broadened their scope to include offenses like verbal coercion, substance-induced assault, and forcible rape.

Our research focuses on those individuals who receive multiple forms of unwanted sexual advances and the psychological toll those experiences take on the victims.

In general, studies revolving around the topic of sexual assault hone in primarily on violent rape. One of reasons that a study looking at various forms of sexual assault is so necessary is that it could help identify other means of abuse that could lead to potentially lifelong psychological issues. The problems often caused by sexual assault include an increase in risky sexual behavior, lower self-esteem and elevated psychological distress. A better understanding of these incidents, whom they affect, and the issues they lead to can also help develop preventative measures, as psychological damage often results from these unwanted acts.

All Types of Sexual Assault Vs. Forcible Rape Alone

According to studies, there is a huge increase of individuals who have experienced any sort of sexual assault versus violent rape alone. Past findings indicate that one in five adult women and one in 100 adult men have reported being raped. The prevalence increases to two in five among women and one in five among men who report experiencing other forms of sexual violence, such as repeated unwanted sexual contact and sexual coercion.

Repeated victimization, according to a scholarly article on the website for the National Institutes of Health, is disturbingly common. Of the 433 survey respondents, two-thirds reported repeat incidents of sexual assaults.  Though not always the case, these are often committed by the same perpetrator.

What Psychological Damage Can Repeated Sexual Assaults Cause?

A study conducted in 2012 found that the chances of a woman is seven times more likely to develop PTSD if she has experienced repeated episodes of sexual violence. Findings in an issue of Mayo Clinic Proceedings found that in addition to a greater risk of developing PTSD, those who were victims of sexual assault could more easily develop anxiety disorders, depression, sleep issues, eating disorders, and are more likely to attempt suicide.

The good news for patients is that physicians are now more aware of the link between abuse and psychiatric illness so that abuse survivors may be more readily identified and referred to specialists for treatment. We hope that heightened awareness in clinical practice leads to improved outcomes for our patients.

-Ali Zirakzadeh, M.D., principal investigator of the Mayo Clinic study

How Can We Move Towards Ending Sexual Assault?

Bryana French suggests that the information gained from this study can help start a conversation among parents, adolescents and school administrators on the importance of consent and what steps to take to encourage preventative behavior.

Various websites discuss tips for preventing sexual assaults in various situations. For example, a page on West Virginia University’s website lists tips on staying safe such as “avoiding secluded places” and “practicing self-defense.” Perhaps equipping people with techniques to avoid sexual assault and educating others on the dangerous effects that these acts can cause will help reduce the number of individuals affected.

—
Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Keirsten Marie via Flickr]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Startling Effects of Repeated Sexual Assault appeared first on Law Street.

It’s embarrassing to admit that prior to hearing about her interview in the Library of Congress, I hardly knew a thing about former Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder. My shame augmented after realizing we are both from Colorado and have connections with the University of Minnesota. I was in for a pleasant surprise last Wednesday, when I received the opportunity to learn about a truly fascinating political figure at an event hosted by the Library of Congress.

Her interview, conducted by Deputy Librarian of Congress Robert Dizard Jr. in the Jefferson Building, inspired and fascinated me along with the rest of the audience, judging by the volume of their applause. The worry that their discussion would bore me to tears dissipated almost immediately upon the realization that Patricia Schroeder’s sense of humor is on par with her intelligence. Dizard excelled at extracting entertaining anecdotes from Schroeder as well, kicking off the interview by asking her what initiated signing her name with a smiley face in the letter P. She recalled being one of many Patricia’s growing up, and instead of going by Patsy as one of her teachers suggested, she proposed the smiley face in the P method of distinction instead, and it forever remained with her.

He also called her out on a discrepancy between a story in her recent memoir and that of her husband, Jim Schroeder, regarding how they first met. According to Mrs. Schroeder, he approached her in the library of Harvard, where she attended Law School. Whereas he claims that she initiated their first conversation. However, the debate remains unsettled.

She also brought up the one-liners she used repeatedly when dealing with insensitive questions during her years as a politician. For example, when asked how she could be a congresswoman and a mother, she would answer that she had a “brain and a uterus that both worked.” I realize that she must feel like a broken record, but her clever remarks still drew hearty guffaws from the audience.

Of course, the humorous moments intertwined with serious issues and topics including Schroeder’s current concerns regarding family and women’s rights. She also touched on the struggles she encountered while getting involved in the male-dominated world of politics, especially at such a young age. She recalled the negative reactions of her two male seat neighbors in one of her first courses at Harvard, and the general sexism she encountered while studying there as one of merely 15 women in her class. When she first arrived in Washington, she frequently faced criticism by her fellow politicians as well as citizens who asked her if she even considered the negative impact her career surely had on her children.

Though the program ran a mere 45 minutes or so, it packed a punch, Schroeder and Dizard filling every second with pertinent information, concluding with a question and answer session. One of the inquiries from the audience was what Schroeder’s priorities would be if she were elected President. She listed the environment, the overpowering involvement of the United States in other countries’ affairs, family issues, and the massive pay difference between classes. By the end of her interview, I felt inspired and honored to shake hands with a woman who truly made a difference in her country.

Come back soon to read the details of my personal interview with Pat Schroeder

___

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Marisa Mostek]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post My First Encounter with Congresswoman Pat Schroeder appeared first on Law Street.

One of the greatest fears of parents today is that their child or teen will be the victim of cyberbullying. Increasing numbers of young people today are engaging in malicious bullying acts online targeting their peers, which has emerged from the growing amount of social media platforms that enable them to hide. While there are factors that contribute to the likelihood of an individual being subject to this kind of bullying, the income of the family of targets seems to play a minor role if any. According to new data released by researchers at Michigan State University, cyberbullying affects young people in poor and rich households alike.

While traditional bullying rates still trump those of cyberbullying, the online version of cruelty among young people is increasing yearly. An academic study published in 2012 defined cyberbullying as “sending mean, vulgar or threatening messages or images, posting sensitive or private information online, pretending to be someone else online in order to make a person look bad or intentionally exclude a person from an online group.” From 2009 to 2011 alone, the number of those affected by cyber bullying increased from 1.5 to 2.2 million. Unfortunately, information released in 2011 is the most recent available data.

It was previously assumed that cyberbullying was predominantly the activity of young people in affluent areas. The reasoning behind this was the assumption that those living in impoverished conditions would have less access to the kinds of resources needed to participate in cyberbullying. This presumed difference in access to digital devices is referred to as the ‘digital divide,’ and according to Thomas J Holt, an MSU Associate Professor of Criminal Justice, does not exist based on their findings from researching cyberbullying.

Another contributing factor to these balanced levels of cyberbullying is the fact that significantly more young people have access to technological devices that can be used for this purpose. According to findings on cyberbullying.us, an October, 2013 survey found that of 400 middle school students interviewed, 97.5 percent had been online in the 30 days preceding, showing that the vast majority of youths have access to the Internet.

The MSU study seems to be one of the first of its kind, as it is only every few years that organizations release findings regarding rates of bullying. The team spearheading the research surveyed 2,000 students in rich and poor middle and high schools. The results revealed that living in poor, crime-infested neighborhoods was a significant predictor of physical, verbal and online bullying.

What can be Done to Eliminate Cyberbullying?

Teachers and parents of all socioeconomic levels need to increase their involvement and more closely monitor the online activity of their students and children. Holt emphasizes the importance of teachers and administrators to learn to combat bullying in both real and online settings.

Such a message is vital to ensure all forms of bullying are given equal emphasis

-Thomas J Holt

According to endcyberbullying.org, parents communicating with their children and setting guidelines for the use of technical devices can drastically lower the chance that they will engage in bullying activity in the long run. It goes both ways, however; youths are encouraged to speak with a parent or other trusted adult if he or she becomes the target of bullying.

[MSU Study]

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [PublicEpicness via Pixabay]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cyberbullying Knows No Socioeconomic Bounds appeared first on Law Street.

An international operation led by the United States caught a group of cyber criminals spearheading the largest cyber crime ring yet, one that infected approximately 500,000 to one million PCs globally. The group of cyber criminals, allegedly led by Russian national Evgeniy Mikhaylovich Bogachev who went by the aliases “lucky12345” and “slavic,” stole approximately $100 million from individuals and businesses worldwide starting in 2007. The botnet, which is a group of infected computers under the control of someone other than their owners, went by the name GOZ, short for Gameover Zeus, and mainly targeted bank accounts and credentials. A couple of notable targeted by GOZ are Bank of Georgetown and Capital One.

Their main goal was to monetize the investment they made into getting into your machine, they were absolutely after dollars, pounds and euros.

-Dell Employee Don Smith

How did Gameover Zeus do it?

Generally, the GOZ hackers ensnared targets and obtained secure information by using infected emails via a process known as “phishing.” Computer users would receive legitimate-looking email messages claiming to be from a trusted bank stating that there was a problem with one of their prior financial transactions. Once the computer owner unknowingly downloaded the malware after opening the email and clicking a link, it began a targeted search for financial information stored on the machine. The Gameover Zeus virus was initially spread by one of the largest botnets known called Cutwail, which popped up on the cybercrime scene in 2007 and is mostly involved with sending email messages containing viruses. In 2009, the Cutwail botnet contained the largest known number of infected machines.

The cyber crime ring also distributed malware called CryptoLocker, a form of what is known as ransomware, which makes data of a computer inaccessible to its user, claiming to only unlock their machine after receiving payment of as much as $700. The GOZ botnet in particular was so tricky to take down due to various components- namely, its advanced ability to hide the location of its servers via data encryption.

The Demise of the Crime Ring

Members of several organizations worldwide including the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Intel Corp, Carnegie Mellon University and Microsoft Corp had been tracking the activity of GOZ since it first appeared on the scene in 2007, well before they were able to take action and put an end to their criminal operations. The monitoring of the cybercrime ring was completely secretive until they commenced “Operation Tovar,” which shut down the operations of the computers involved in spreading the viruses. United States organizations, mainly the FBI and the aforementioned companies, collaborated with Europol and the UK’s National Crime Agency to initiate a virtual ambush on Gameover Zeus. Authorities ended the cybercrime ring’s operations by shutting down the servers they were using to control the computers infected with its viruses.

Bogachev, believed to be the ringleader of the GOZ operation, is thought to be residing in Russia and has been added to the FBI’s Cyber Most Wanted List. Various publications including the International Business Times warned residents of the UK that despite the ending of the operations of the cybercrime ring, they may be able to regroup within two weeks and begin infecting machines once again. To keep their machines safe from future cyber attacks, experts urge computer users to install or update their security software and change passwords on important accounts.

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured Image Courtesy of [geralt via Pixabay]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post World’s Largest Cyber Crime Ring Disbanded appeared first on Law Street.

….at least, on one man’s menu. The source of the meat? Himself. Now there’s a fine example of self sufficiency for you. According to an article in the New York Daily News, a 25-year-old artist in Norway, Alexander Selvik Wengshoel, managed to acquire an unusual keepsake; his deformed hip after a replacement surgery. Of course, the best ideas come to us spontaneously, and as he was boiling a once integral portion of his skeletal system to remove the flesh surrounding it, he concocted just such a bright idea. Though initially planning to remove and discard the meat so he could use the bone in an art exhibit, he must have figured “hey, how many times does one get to experience the quality of their own meat? Am I fatty? Am I lean? Would I pair better with a nice Merlot or a Chardonnay?”

Well, Wengshoel got to answer the aforementioned questions that only burn in the minds of very unique types of meat enthusiasts. After prepping his own meat, decided the best side dish would be potatoes au gratin. The side dish was needed to complete the meal, as Wengshoel noted that the amount of meat obtained did not equate to an entree, but more of an appetizer. He lifted his first fork full, and I imagine the suspense was as thick as the strange odors that were likely wafting throughout his kitchen. He eventually claimed, according to an article in USAToday, that it tasted like “wild lamb.”

It had this flavor of wild sheep, if you take a sheep that goes in the mountains and eats mushrooms. It was goaty.

-Alexander Slevik Wengshoel

With his new ability to delve into the flavor of his innards, Alexander will now have a way to stand out amongst job candidates during interviews. The initial question, “describe yourself” holds myriad possibilities for the young artist.

He made himself into dinner while his girlfriend was away, sparing her the chance (or robbing her of it) to get to know her man in a way that most lovers never do. At least she will be able to see his complete art project chronicling the removal of his deformed hip which caused him years of pain. His project is currently on display at the Tromso Academy of Contemporary Art in an exhibition called “No Guts, No Galaxy.” The project includes the removed bone as well as a video of the replacement operation, which took him a year to convince doctors to allow him to use. To Wengshoel, morphing his innards into art was the obvious thing to do.

It had been so hard to have it in my body, and when I took it out, it turned into something else, something romantic. It was a natural process I felt I had to do to move on.

-Alexander Slevik Wengshoel

I generally wouldn’t consider bones to be romantic, but then again I don’t call myself an artist. At least the fact that he ate himself as opposed to someone else is slightly reassuring in an odd way. Perhaps he isn’t that strange, simply spearheading a new generation of foodies. “Shockingly,” Wengshoel’s statements have been met with much skepticism.

The story is the story. Either you believe it and we can start a discussion and talk about it, or you do not believe. It’s not up to me to make people believe it. I’m just saying it.

-Alexander Selvik Wengshoel

Well, he certainly started a discussion…

[USAToday]

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Joel Mills via Wikimedia Commons]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Human Meat on the Menu appeared first on Law Street.

Security breaches among major companies such as Target, eBay, and Neiman Marcus dominated news headlines this past year and led many to wonder about the safety of the information stored with organizations throughout the United States. The statistics from the May 2014 US State of Cybercrime Survey are far from reassuring.

The survey, a combined effort of PwC, CSO magazine, the CERT Division of the Software Engineering Institute at Carnegie Mellon University, and the US Secret Service, states that the number of cybercrime incidents and the fiscal losses they incur are rapidly rising. The findings reveal that this is mainly because the companies could not adequately defend themselves from cyber-attacks. According to the 2014 survey, the top five methods for cyber-attacks involve malware, phishing (the attempt to acquire sensitive information such as usernames or passwords), network interruption, spyware, and denial-of-services attacks.

The report covered information from 500 different corporations and government agencies, including law enforcement, and stated that “three out of four had had some kind of security breach just in the last year, and the average number of incidents per organization was 135.”

Fourteen percent of those surveyed reported that monetary losses attributed to cybercrime have increased in the past year. The actual costs are generally not known, as the majority of those who reported a cyber attack were unable to estimate the associated financial costs. Of the few survey respondents that could, the average yearly loss was around $415,000. Businesses are beginning to feel that cyber security is an issue that is out of their control and that cyber attacks are costing them an increasing amount of money.

 Why the Rising Rate?

One of the major problems associated with the rising rate of cybercrime is that few companies, only 38% according to the survey, are adequately prepared to combat cybercrime. These rising rates are not simply due to inadequate defenses, but also increasingly sophisticated techniques used by cyber criminals. According to an article on Time.com, the most pertinent threats to cyber security in the United States come from Syria, Iran, China and Russia.

There are two kinds of big companies in the United States: those who’ve been hacked by the Chinese and those who don’t yet know that they’ve been hacked by the Chinese.

-FBI Director James Comey

The 2014 report lists major reasons why these attacks are on the rise. It claims that a few reasons are that most organizations do not spend enough on cybersecurity and do not properly understand cyber security risks. According to the survey, there is also a lack of collaboration among companies that have experienced a breach or other form of cyber attack, specifically that “82% of companies with strong protection against cybercrime collaborate with others to strengthen their defenses.” Other pertinent issues leading to increased cybercrime are insufficient security of mobile devices and lack of proper evaluation of attacks within organizations.

What can be Done to Lower the Rate of Cyber Attacks?

According to the 2014 survey, one major way for corporations and agencies to prevent cybercrime is through company-wide employee training which has been shown to be effective but is no currently used frequently enough. According to an article on CSO’s website, many organizations aren’t running information security training programs that are up to date. The 2014 survey recommends that the main focus of companies should be protecting the private financial information of their consumers. Perhaps as companies continue to strengthen the efforts of their cybersecurities, the rate of attacks from online adversaries will begin to lower, causing the 2015 report to reflect a decrease in cybercrime.

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [geralt via Pixabay]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Criminals Availing in Cyberspace appeared first on Law Street.