President Donald Trump has continued to establish a precedent that loyalty to his administration will be rewarded, and anything else will be met with a harsh response on social media. Both of Alaska’s senators were recently on the receiving end of that ire.

Trump decided to publicly and privately express his displeasure with Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski for her “no” vote on repealing the Affordable Care Act. Early Wednesday, Trump took to Twitter to specifically call out Murkowski for her decision.

Senator @lisamurkowski of the Great State of Alaska really let the Republicans, and our country, down yesterday. Too bad!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017

But Trump’s team did not leave it at that. Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke called Murkowski and fellow Republican Senator Dan Sullivan yesterday to warn them that opposing the bill could lead to repercussions for Alaskans, according to Alaska Dispatch News. Sullivan told the Alaskan publication that the message was “troubling.”

“I’m not going to go into the details, but I fear that the strong economic growth, pro-energy, pro-mining, pro-jobs, and personnel from Alaska who are part of those policies are going to stop,” Sullivan said.

Some of the key regulatory issues that have been priorities for Murkowski and Sullivan include nominations of Alaskans to Department of Interior posts, an effort to build a road out of King Cove through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge, future opportunities to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and expanding drilling in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. All of these could hypothetically be in jeopardy.

However, as is the case with many of the decisions this administration has made, it appears that this may have been a poorly thought out move. First off, Trump has decided to hit back at a senator who is quite popular with Alaskans. In 2010, Murkowski became the first senator in over 50 years to win an election with a write-in campaign over Tea Party candidate Joe Miller. The campaign gave out temporary tattoos to voters so they could remember how to spell her name on the ballot.

Murkowski is the chairwoman of the Interior-Environment Subcommittee, which is tasked with confirming any nominees to the Department of the Interior that Secretary Zinke may put forward. She also helps control the money that goes into the department as a member of the Senate Appropriations committee. It’s been theorized that Murkowski may be hitting back against Zinke. A hearing to confirm a series of nominees to the Interior has already been delayed, according to NBC News Capitol Hill Correspondent Kasie Hunt.

Perhaps the biggest flaw in the Trump Administration’s threat is its inadvertent support for the environment. The road through King Cove is supposed to cut through a wildlife refuge. The plans for oil expansion include drilling in protected lands. So, Zinke could end up continuing the Obama Administration’s tradition of prioritizing environmental protection over exploiting federal lands.

Murkowski might still be paying attention to these threats. Oil is one of the largest contributors to Alaska’s economy so any damage to that would be severely damaging to the jobs of her constituents. But it seems that the senator is confident that she made the right decision with her health care vote. “I base my votes on what I believe is in Alaska’s best interest,” she said Tuesday. “So I know that there are those who wish that I would be more in line with following the party platform, but I don’t think it should come as any surprise that there have been occasions that I have not followed the lead of the party.”

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump’s Threats Against Alaska May Be Misguided appeared first on Law Street.

Political polarization in the U.S. feels like it is at an all-time high, and it’s hard to find a single politician that both sides of the aisle can agree is absolutely purr-fect. And that designation may become even harder to come by, as sad news just broke that Stubbs, the (honorary) cat mayor of Talkeetna, Alaska, has passed away.

Stubbs had been mayor of Talkeetna, population 876, since he was a kitten, and garnered quite the following on the internet. A few years ago, news that the beloved mayor was attacked by a dog made it into the local media, and Stubbs regularly was featured on high-brow political lists like “Five of the nation’s most accomplished animal mayors.”

Sad news from Talkeetna, Stubbs the Cat, unofficial mayor has passed away. https://t.co/jbg03v7p7a pic.twitter.com/Ww2e8ZNsi2

— KTUU.com (@Ch2KTUU) July 23, 2017

Stubbs’ human family released a statement about his passing, explaining that the publicity at the end of his life was overwhelming:

In 2017, Stubbs did a couple TV shows and more than a handful of interviews, but was not fond of the camera and all the people; it had gotten to be too much for him. He made it to the store a handful of times this summer and was completely bombarded by people passing him back and forth to take selfies.

However, there is some good news. Stubbs’ family believes one of their new kittens, Denali, may be able to make a mayoral run as well.

And of course, Stubbs isn’t the only political pet in the spotlight these days. In Washington D.C., an intense contest is underway to determine the cutest dogs on the hill. At the federal level, Vice President Mike Pence recently welcomed a new puppy named Harley into his family. And of course, there are other animals looking to take on Stubbs’ mantle as actual political leaders in their hometowns. For example, two towns in Kentucky recently “elected” pit bull mayors. And a dog has recently launched a mayoral bid in Durham, North Carolina. He uses Twitter to connect with his followers:

Howdy! My name is Obie! What’s your name? I am a dog! Are you a dog? I’m running for Mayor of Durham NC! Vote for me or just pet me.

— Obie For Mayor (@ObieForMayor) June 30, 2017

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RIP Stubbs: Cat Mayor Dies at 20 appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this week, the Canadian province of Ontario announced it would be conducting a pilot program for 4,000 of its residents, guaranteeing each person minimum income even if they did not work. While the idea of giving away “free money” may draw criticism from some, this is not a new concept. In fact, programs similar to this have been around for nearly 50 years, with the ultimate goal of eventually replacing the welfare system as we know it.

Read on further to find out more about guaranteed basic income (otherwise known as universal basic income or basic income), its purpose, the history behind it, and how it might impact the future of welfare programs worldwide.

Guaranteed Basic Income?

So what is guaranteed basic income (GBI)? According to the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN), this type of payment has five key characteristics: it is paid in intervals instead of all at once, the medium used allows the recipient to use it any way they want (it is not a Food Stamp card, for example), it is paid on an individual basis only, it is paid without a means test, and those that receive it are not required to work.

Everything else, such as the amount of money in each payment or longevity of payments varies based on the proposal. (In the Ontario test case it does have an income threshold and is paid to only the 4,000 included in the program; the rest of the principles still apply.)

The Purpose of GBI

Guaranteed basic income is not really “free money,” as some may claim; it does serve a few important purposes. An article from Law Streeter Eric Essagof already does a great job of explaining the GBI’s use in fighting poverty. Namely, the income encourages people to keep working, while also ensuring that if their income rises, they won’t automatically lose the benefits they rely on (also known as the “poverty trap”). In addition, in the United States at least, it could streamline a complicated system where someone who needs benefits has to sign up for five different programs that all fall under one welfare system.

There are other potential benefits associated with a guaranteed basic income. If people were assured of at least some income, they might be more likely to go to school for more education or training or even take a chance and start their own business. They could also pursue passions (such as writing, for example) that they are harder to take on when their time is dictated by the necessity to make money. For individual workers, a guaranteed income would also enable them to bargain more effectively with their employers and force employers to agree to concessions in order to keep their workers.

History of GBI

The Ontario GBI pilot program is certainly not the first of its kind; in fact, it is not even the first in Canada. The first program was conducted in the province of Manitoba in the 1970s, and led to societal health improvements while simultaneously not discouraging work participation. The idea for a universal basic income can be traced even further back than that–much further, in fact. In 1797 Thomas Paine, a pamphleteer famous for his work “Common Sense” in support of the American Revolution, stated that in exchange for social consensus among the people, the government should offer yearly payments to its citizens.

Since then there have been numerous debates between thinkers on all sides of the political spectrum, but generally basic income has been viewed as a positive. The accompanying video looks at the evolution of the basic income idea:

This type of program and the philosophy behind it have been embraced outside of Canada as well. The most recent effort was in Finland: earlier this year, the Finnish government selected 2,000 unemployed people at random to begin receiving a guaranteed basic income of €560 for two years instead of the unemployment benefits they had been receiving. The major advantage to this for the participants would be that if they found jobs they would still get to keep their basic income, as opposed to losing unemployment benefits.

Through the Finnish trial, which is still ongoing, the government wants to see whether this type of program can help the country’s ailing economy by encouraging part-time work. In addition to this trial, other similar programs worldwide have proven successful, such as one in Brazil in 2004 and another in Namibia in 2007. There was also a similar cash transfer pilot program in India from 2011 to 2012 that led to increased test scores and improved health in participating villages.

Despite the success of many of these programs, there seems to be a perception that they can only be successful in poorer countries and would never work in an “affluent” country like the United States. However, even the United States has some history with the guaranteed basic income. One of the earliest efforts, the Negative Income Tax Experiments, took place between 1968 and 1990 in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Iowa, North Carolina, Indiana, Washington state, and Colorado. Although these experiments had successful outcomes, they were not politically popular and they lost their momentum. Arguably the most successful experiment so far concerning guaranteed basic income in the U.S. is currently ongoing, and can be found in Alaska.

In 1976, a permanent fund was set up in Alaska to preserve profits made by the oil industry to ensure that the wealth would benefit future populations in the state. This fund was allocated for a basic income program in 1982, and ever since then anyone living in the state for at least six months is eligible to receive a dividend from the state. At its peak in 2008, the fund annually paid out more than $2,000 per resident.

The following video looks at how the program is playing out in Finland and other places:

Future of GBI

With more and more places willing to at least launch guaranteed basic income pilot programs, the future of the measure seems bright. This is especially true given the benefits that it so far has offered, along with the fact that automation is increasingly making many jobs obsolete. Currently, along with Finland, there are also ongoing guaranteed basic income trials occurring in Italy and the Netherlands, with Scotland considering a trial of its own as well.

While a basic income has been advocated by some philosophers, researchers, and other individuals, overall there has not been a tremendous groundswell of support. Even in places where pilot programs have been launched, these are usually only reserved for a few thousand people in countries with tens if not hundreds of millions of citizens. So, if this program has repeatedly proven so successful and could replace faulty welfare programs, why are countries not more willing to try them?

The answer starts with cost. In 2016, Swiss voters rejected a basic income for the country’s citizens, and while Scotland is considering adopting such program, the rest of the UK in general is resistant. This opposition comes even when polls show that up to 64 percent of Europeans approve of a basic income. Part of that, however, might be attributed to how the survey questions were worded, in that they do not mention tax increases necessary to provide that income.

Aside from cost, there are other considerations, such as the fear of automation. Although some fear this trend could lead to a dearth of jobs, some economists are quick to point out this same thesis has been made before with regard to past trends, and has been proven wrong by new innovations that, in fact, created more jobs. Additionally, while some want to use basic income to replace existing safety nets, there is no proof yet that exchanging one for the other is actually superior. Even some of the protections basic income is supposed to offer can be turned on their head, with a basic income convincing some employers they can pay lower wages. There’s also the argument that basic income will lead to people choosing simply not to work. The video below looks at basic income, highlighting some pros and cons:

Conclusion

Guaranteed or universal basic income as an idea has been around for hundreds of years. As an idea put into practice, it has been around for at least around half a century. Moreover, in seemingly every case, pilot programs incorporating basic income guarantees have been successful in a number of measures, from raising GDP and improving test scores to ensuring nutrition. Furthermore, these types of programs have been lauded by leaders on all parts of the political spectrum as everything from a panacea for solving the broken welfare system to necessary in a world that is increasingly automated.

However, for all its success stories, guaranteed income has never become widespread nor long-lasting. The reasons for this apparent contradiction are manifold and run the gamut from high costs to exaggerated benefits. Additionally, for every country that has adopted and embraced the idea there are others that have rejected it.

What is basic income’s outlook then? In a world that is increasingly feeling budget cuts and squeezes, it seems unlikely a major initiative to expand the program is possible, especially given the ascendance of more conservative leaders who rose to power partially on attacks of the social welfare system. Basic income, then, is unlikely to be guaranteed or universal anytime soon, yet continued successful trials indicate that when conditions are more favorable, it could become the norm.

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Right to Life, Liberty and a Basic Income?: The History of Guaranteed Basic Income appeared first on Law Street.

There’s no denying the fact that Hillary Clinton is dominating the Democratic primaries. That said, underdog Bernie Sanders hasn’t let the presidential primary race turn into a runaway. On Saturday, Sanders nabbed sweeping victories in the caucus states of Washington, Alaska, and Hawaii, giving him a nice bump in electoral delegates.

In response to the wins, CNN credited the Vermont Senator’s success to a tendency to do well in “largely white and rural” states, warning that in order for Sanders’ to win he needs to “replicate this success in other, more ethnically diverse states that hold primaries.”

That description didn’t sit well with some of Sanders’ minority supporters.

Leslie Lee III, a writer in English teacher from Baton Rouge, Louisiana currently living in Yokahama, Japan, responded to the stereotype with some sarcasm. Lee jokes,

.@HillyesRose @MisaelFrancoO @TheBpDShow @cenkuygur Ever since I voted for Bernie, I’ve been bingewatching Friends. #BernieMadeMeWhite

— L. (@tokyovampires) March 27, 2016

And just like that the hashtag #BernieMadeMeWhite was born!

It didn’t take long for other minority Sanders’ supporters to jump on the hashtag’s bandwagon.

.@tokyovampires ever since I voted for Bernie I traded in my Timbs for Vans. #BernieMadeMeWhite

— Benjamin Dixon (@TheBpDShow) March 27, 2016

Then it sort of just spiraled out from there.

Ever since I voted for Bernie I deny racism and wear shorts in February. The media was right. #Berniemademewhite #FeelTheBern

— Aristotle McFly (@hollowman928) March 27, 2016

@TheBpDShow @tokyovampires I stopped seasoning my food. #BernieMadeMeWhite

— C. (@Maxplatypus) March 27, 2016

#MSM But how can Bernie win Hawaii with only young white men supporters? Check out #BernieMadeMeWhite for obvious answer. #FeelTheBern

— Fortitude (@Fortitude_1) March 27, 2016

#BernieMadeMeWhite Ever since I started to #FeelTheBern, I only dance like this pic.twitter.com/synwO93Xct

— SanBernaDingDong (@noreallyhowcome) March 27, 2016

Check out the #BernieMadeMeWhite tweets. So good. pic.twitter.com/unDPfbNo6z

— laurie allee (@laurieallee) March 27, 2016

Dear CNN, white power???#BernieMadeMeWhite @BernieSanders pic.twitter.com/0MmWWsbWmh

— tᕼe ᒪᑌᑕᗩᔕ ᗷᖇOᔕ (@lucasbros) March 27, 2016

Ever since I started supporting Bernie I suddenly lost my rhythm. #BernieMadeMeWhite

— lyn (@dlynaffor) March 27, 2016

Will someone please show me how to do my hair? It’s all so confusing since #BernieMadeMeWhite pic.twitter.com/rDI5QFoxiQ

— Coco Hops (@coco_hops) March 28, 2016

Ever since I started supporting Bernie, Don’t Stop Believing became my karaoke staple #BernieMadeMeWhite

— Jason Alexander (@soulcreator) March 27, 2016

#BernieMadeMeWhite My whole black family is losing its taste for hot sauce and spreading mayo on everything

— Chris Hamilton (@dteg32) March 27, 2016

#BernieMadeMeWhite and now I am looking to move out of this neighborhood, you know, cause of the property values, of course.

— Carolyn Hyppolite (@CKHyppolite) March 27, 2016

Finally I have white privilege.#BernieMadeMeWhite

— WesleyZ3 (@50th_President) March 27, 2016

And just like that #BernieMadeUsWhite #BernieMadeMeWhite #BernieMadeMeMillenial #BernieMadeMeMale pic.twitter.com/maiHJ3VHQc

— Dallas Fowler (@YoDallas) March 28, 2016

If loving him is wrong, i don’t wanna be right #BernieMadeMeWhite #BernBabyBern pic.twitter.com/qt5n4epz2e

— suZee (@BigOlSoulSista) March 28, 2016

I’m so thankful that #BernieMadeMeWhite.

Can we stop worrying about racial profiling and hate crimes now? pic.twitter.com/NqE1zD5bSz

— Simran Jeet Singh (@SikhProf) March 28, 2016

#BernieMadeMeWhite We are not invisible despite the media propaganda machine would have you believe pic.twitter.com/qGeuBKm2zD

— Nativespirit (@N8tive2spirit) March 28, 2016

#BernieMadeMeWhite & male so I don’t have to worry about maternal healthcare, paid family leave, or gender pay gap. pic.twitter.com/QXO48QiKtB

— Ashlyn Shockley (@ashlynshockley) March 28, 2016

This isn’t a picture of two friends, it’s actually a before and after voting for Bernie pic. #BernieMadeMeWhite pic.twitter.com/lHH9QJvTfB

— Lauren Sandernista (@welknett) March 27, 2016

The moral of the story is that Sanders’ supporters really don’t like being generalized, because white males aren’t the only demographic “feeling the Bern.” Don’t get me wrong, Sanders still has a long way to go. His campaign has struggled to secure the black and latino vote, which has repeatedly propelled Clinton to victory. With three more months still remaining in the primary race, he’ll need to rally more support among all demographics if he hopes to secure the nomination.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post #BernieMadeMeWhite Calls Out the Media Whitewashing of Sanders’ Supporters appeared first on Law Street.

Recreational marijuana may be legal in four states (and the District of Columbia) but it’s still not legal at the federal level. This has caused some problems and inconsistencies with between states and federal agencies–most recently, the United States Postal Service has declared that it is illegal to mail materials, including newspapers, that advertise marijuana.

This revelation comes after the Democrats of Oregon’s Congressional delegation wrote a letter to the Postal Service asking the agency to explain its policy. That inquiry was sparked by a memo that was circulated in the Portland, Oregon, postal district that stated that it was illegal for any media sources to run ads for marijuana and still distribute their publications through the Postal Service. The Democrats of the Oregon Congressional delegation explained their frustrations with the Postal Service’s policy, which they say is too rigid and doesn’t respect the voters of Oregon, stating:

We are working as a delegation to quickly find the best option to address this agency’s intransigence. Unfortunately, the outdated federal approach to marijuana as described in the response from the Postal Service undermines and threatens news publications that choose to accept advertising from legal marijuana businesses in Oregon and other states where voters also have freely decided to legalize marijuana.

In response, the Postal Service explained that “the Postal Service has released a national policy, which also spells out that local postal officials can’t refuse mail that contains pot ads, but they must report it; the matter must then be turned over to law enforcement agencies who can decide if an investigation is warranted.”

So, it’s actually pretty unclear what will happen if a newspaper or magazine publishes an ad for marijuana–the Washington Post points out that it’s tough to determine whether or not any prosecutions would come from breaking the policy. The law being broken would technically be advertising for illicit goods, but as the Washington Post states: “federal authorities have generally not cracked down on pot sales in states where they’re legal.”

Given that the number of states that have legalized marijuana are a notable minority, and traditional advertising isn’t necessary flourishing, this may not be a big deal. But it’s another messy manifestation of the current divide between state and federal law–one that only threatens to widen as more states legalize recreational marijuana.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Newspapers Can’t Run Marijuana Ads if They Want to Use the Postal Service appeared first on Law Street.

Amid a recent push to make climate change a larger issue in American politics, President Obama is traveling to Alaska to help give a more visual appreciation of how the climate is changing. The Obama administration has ratcheted up its efforts to fight climate change, but the Alaska trip shows a slight change in its tactics. Until now, Obama has focused largely on taking action in the form of new regulations and subsidies that prevent pollution and encourage the use of renewable energy. But in Alaska, Obama seeks to put a face to an issue that is often seen as complicated, boring, and distant.

Before his departure to Alaska, President Obama announced that the name of Mt. McKinley will be changed back to Denali–the name originally given to it by Alaska Natives.

The mountain has spoken Mt McKinley officially renamed Denali: http://t.co/VSN2vl7yZo Congrats, Alaska! pic.twitter.com/ZdRTJ2PEHL

— US Dept of Interior (@Interior) August 30, 2015

While in Alaska, the President visited melting glaciers, met with Bear Grylls, spoke with Alaskan Natives, and gave multiples speeches about the importance of addressing climate change. The tone of his trip is focusing on the real life effects of climate change and the growing need for action, a topic that Obama will likely discuss frequently in the months leading up to the UN Climate Change Conference in Paris this December.

The President’s decision to visit Alaska is significant but also complicated. Of the 50 states, Alaska is arguably the most affected by climate change, yet the Obama Administration recently granted Royal Dutch Shell a permit to drill in the Arctic’s Chukchi Sea. The decision to allow drilling caused backlash from environmentalists and the timing of the President’s Alaska trip has caused some groups, like the progressive social change organization Credo, to call Obama a hypocrite (although some of the group’s other claims are problematic).

Despite the drilling controversy, Alaska is experiencing significant climate change effects and Obama’s trip intends to highlight that. Temperatures in Alaska have risen more than in the rest of the United States, and climate change is beginning to affect the lives of the state’s residents. According to a recent National Climate Assessment:

Over the past 60 years, Alaska has warmed more than twice as rapidly as the rest of the U.S., with average annual air temperature increasing by 3°F and average winter temperature by 6°F, with substantial year-to-year and regional variability.

A possible consequence for the increase in temperature is a rise in the number and severity of wildfires, which are a big problem for Alaska. According to recent research, the Alaskan wildfire season has increased by more than 40 percent since 1950, and was particularly bad this summer. Melting glaciers, thawing permafrost, and reduced snow cover are quickly affecting the Alaskan landscape. A recent Atlantic article highlighted the effects of climate change on the people in Newtok, Alaska–who actually voted to relocate their town before it was destroyed by rising water levels.

For years, Obama has lamented the lack of action and pushback from Congress, but now he is taking a much more aggressive approach. In his speech on Tuesday, he attacked those who refuse to acknowledge the issue, saying, “The time to plead ignorance is surely past.  Those who want to ignore the science, they are increasingly alone.  They’re on their own shrinking island,” in a speech to the GLACIER conference. His remarks also emphasized that time to address climate change is running out, painting a grave picture of what could happen if emissions are not significantly reduced, saying:

If we were to abandon our course of action, if we stop trying to build a clean-energy economy and reduce carbon pollution, if we do nothing to keep the glaciers from melting faster, and oceans from rising faster, and forests from burning faster, and storms from growing stronger, we will condemn our children to a planet beyond their capacity to repair

It’s difficult to tell whether the President’s new approach to trumpeting climate change will shift public opinion, but climate change will likely get more attention moving forward. With the Paris climate conference in December, the Democratic presidential candidates continuing to raise the issue, and impending legal challenges to new EPA regulations, climate change will be the topic of much discussion. Although most Americans acknowledge the fact that the climate is changing, they still rate it low on their list of priorities. While the future remains difficult to predict, the conversation has certainly been started.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama Doubles Down on Climate Change In Alaska appeared first on Law Street.

On New Year’s Day 2014, it became legal in Colorado to sell marijuana in specially licensed dispensaries to adults 21 years and older. Much like any liquor store, you can walk in, show your ID, and make your purchase. But the dispensaries don’t just sell marijuana you smoke; you can also buy edibles, as well–marijuana you eat. As a newly legal product, the state was in uncharted territory. As we fast forward a little more than a year later, what are the state regulations on edibles, what effects have the sale of edibles had, and are other states following suit?

What is edible Marijuana?

The Science

Cannabis, or marijuana, has three primary active compounds: THC, CBD, and CBG. THC is the only psychoactive ingredient. CBD and CBG have medicinal properties and alter the effects of THC. The drug reacts with the body’s endocannabinoid system, a “regulatory mechanism that modulates the release of compounds produced throughout the body,” and causes humans to experience a high. Marijuana can be vaporized, smoked, or consumed orally.

When marijuana is smoked or vaporized, delta-9-THC is absorbed through the lungs and heads straight to the brain. The onset high is relatively quicker and shorter than if marijuana is eaten. When the marijuana is consumed and digested by the liver, the delta-9-THC turns into 11-hydroxy-THC. The transformation causes the THC to quickly bypass the blood-brain barrier and produce a more psychedelic effect than smoked THC. Smoked and vaporized marijuana completely sidestep the liver and the THC never converts.

While the high from smoking marijuana is faster, edible highs last longer. When smoking marijuana, 50 to 60 percent of the THC in a joint can reach the blood plasma. The peak of the high can come after five to 10 minutes of smoking. In comparison, only ten to 20 percent of the THC in edibles hit the blood plasma and the high takes effect an hour or two later. The high from edible marijuana is described as a “whole body” high and can last from six to ten hours. Essentially, people experience the highs from smoking eating marijuana differently.

Why would someone choose edibles over smoking?

Although the high from edibles lasts longer, it isn’t necessarily stronger. The high from smoking is rapid and strong, and the effects wear off rather quickly. It is also relatively easy to know when you’ve reached a limit since the high is so immediate. One answer could be personal choice–some people prefer the experience of edibles. Edibles could also alleviate any problems a person has with consuming smoke, and coughing fits are essentially eliminated.

Also, edibles are inconspicuous. A person eating won’t invite attention the way someone smoking will. This is probably most important to medicinal marijuana patients. Amanda Reiman, policy manager of the California Drug Policy Alliance, explains that “people using marijuana medicinally for long-lasting chronic pain often prefer oral ingestion because it lasts longer and they don’t have to consume as often.” Bob Eschino, a partner at Medically Correct, says “They’re discreet, and it’s an easy way to dose the medication…especially here in Colorado, where you can’t smoke in public, you can still medicate with edibles.”

Edible Products

The sky seems to be the limit. Marijuana comes in the form of cookies, gummies, brownies, caramels, hard candies, chocolate bars, Rice Krispies treats, and beyond. Colorado dispensaries estimate edibles account for 20-40 percent of sales. Nearly five million edibles were sold in Colorado in 2014. For example, Dixie Elixirs, a popular cannabis products store, sold THC-infused mints, truffles, dew drops, whipped cream, coffee, and tea all in a variety of flavors. There are plenty of companies getting onboard. In an interview just this past February, Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield of Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream even stated they would experiment with cannabis-infused ice cream if legal hurdles were removed.

Health Concerns

A major issue when ingesting marijuana is a person’s inability to predict the right amount to take. In order to receive the intended effect, there are many factors to take into consideration. Dosage is based on the type of marijuana, tolerance, body weight, gender, body chemistry, and more. The issue is further exacerbated by the fact that an edible’s effect can take an hour to two hours to reach its height. This prompts impatient people to ingest more.

The Cannabist, which seeks to educate readers about marijuana, recommends the following steps to be safe. First, a user must acknowledge his or her drug history and tolerance and recognize body factors like body type and gender when ascertaining the proper dosage. Also, it’s recommended when eating an edible to have a full stomach or to do so while also consuming food. Next, a user should measure by milligrams. A unit is generally ten milligrams of cannabinoids. A user should stick to a brand that works for him after lightly experimenting with a variety. Be patient, and cautious.

Controversy arose after a string of tragic incidents occurred involving edible marijuana. Levy Thamba, a Wyoming college student, committed suicide by jumping from a hotel balcony after eating an entire marijuana-infused cookie. The recommend dosage was probably only a portion of that cookie. Lack of portion control knowledge is a problem. Al Bronstein, a physician and medical director of the Rocky Mountain Poison and Drug Center, explains “[portion control is] difficult to do, practically. I know, myself: I wish I could only eat one-eighth of a Snickers bar and leave the rest for later.” Another concern is that consumers don’t realize that ten milligrams refers to one-tenth of a candy bar, for example, as opposed to the entire thing.

A Colorado man was accused of killing his wife after consuming pot candy. This man is thought to also have been on prescription drugs. As with alcohol, it is extremely dangerous to mix marijuana and prescription drugs.

Another major concern is children accidentally ingesting edibles that look like their non-marijuana-infused counterparts. According to a 2013 JAMA Pediatrics study, Children’s Hospital Colorado saw a “significant spike in the number of children treated for accidentally eating marijuana-laced treats” after the new marijuana-based laws were set in place. In one month, three seventh graders were hospitalized after ingesting marijuana-infused brownies.

The culmination of these events prompted public outcry that inspired new and stricter regulations on the selling and packaging of edible marijuana

Laws and Regulations

Stricter laws and regulations in Colorado went into effect on February 1, 2015 aimed at standardizing the labeling, packaging, and potency of edibles.

The recommend amount to take is one unit or ten milligrams. According to the new law, to avoid any consumer confusion, the serving portion must be transparently clear and marked “in a way that enables a reasonable person to intuitively determine how much of the product constitutes a single serving of active THC.” For example, Dixie Elixir’s marijuana-infused mints used to come in a loose tin of ten, with ten milligrams of THC each. They are now wrapped individually and sold at 16 mints of five milligrams apiece.

Packaging must now be child-resistant. Packages must be “constructed to be significantly difficult for children under five years of age to open…opaque so that the packaging does not allow the product to be seen without opening the packaging material…[and] resealable for any product intended for more than a single use.”

Labels must be more informative and give clear warning signs such as “This product is unlawful outside the State of Colorado” and/or “The intoxicating effects of this product may be delayed by two or more hours.” This specifically targets overdoses caused by impatience and overconsumption while a user is waiting for the drug to take effect.

The Marijuana Enforcement Agency now provides incentives for companies to sell ten milligram-portioned products. Manufacturers will face larger obstacles for production of ten to 100 milligram products.

Other Laws

Marijuana is still prohibited under federal law. This means you can still be fired for recreational use, and it can also lead to the loss of benefits, public housing, and financial aid.

Driving under the influence of marijuana will always be illegal, like alcohol. In Colorado, you can transport an unopened original package, but never across state lines. It is also forbidden to fly with marijuana even if you are traveling to another state with legalized marijuana.

You can obtain marijuana from a licensed dispensary or another adult over 21 as long as no money is exchanged. It is illegal to sell or resell any marijuana.

Alaska and Washington have also legalized marijuana for adult use with similar regulations. Washington D.C. and Oregon are following suit, but certain aspects of regulation have yet to go into effect. A total of 23 states allow marijuana for medical necessity.

Conclusion

Education and clear information are both vital. The tragedies surrounding edible marijuana seem like they most likely could have been avoided if these regulations were initially set in place, but it is hard to say for sure. Legalized marijuana, including edibles and other products, remains a new territory. New consumers need to learn what is safe and right for them as a learning curve is involved. If you are going to try it, it is important to be as informed as possible and in a safe environment. In the future, additional states may follow suit and legalize marijuana, and these questions will remain essential to keeping everyone as safe as possible.

Resources

Primary

Colorado Department of Revenue: Retail Marijuana Regulations

Additional

ABC News: Why Marijuana Edibles Might Be More Dangerous Than Smoking

Cannabist: Get Educated About Edibles: Eight Tips For Getting the Right Dose

Cannabist: New Rules in Effect for Colorado Marijuana Edibles Feb. 1

CBS: Colorado Moves to Curb Dangers of Edible Pot Products

BoingBoing: Everything You Need to Know about Marijuana Edibles

Consumer Responsibly: Know the Law

Denver Post: More Than 15 Months in, Pot-infused Edibles Still Confound

Dixie Elixirs: Products

Huffington Post: Ben & Jerry’s Founders Are Totally Down With Weed Ice Cream When It’s Legal

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Marijuana Edibles: A New Challenge for Regulators appeared first on Law Street.

The number one article at Law Street this week came from Marisa Mostek, our resident authority on the dumbest laws of the United States. And guess what? Alaska and Hawaii are no exception. The second most popular post of the week, from Alexis Evans, is decidedly more serious as the UVA rape allegations that ran last Fall in Rolling Stone were found baseless by the police. And the number three article of the week, from Ashley Shaw, details the case of a criminal who outed his own hiding spot by Snapchatting it to his friends. ICYMI, check out this week’s best of the week from Law Street.

#1 The Dumbest Laws of the United States: Alaska and Hawaii

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. Read full article here.

#2 Police Find No Evidence to Support UVA Gang Rape Story

Last November, Rolling Stone shocked the nation with its 9,000-word article entitled “A Rape on Campus.” The piece told the horrific story of a University of Virginia freshman known only as “Jackie.” She claimed to have been gang raped by seven Phi Kappa Psi frat members during a frat date party. The article accused UVA of a “cycle of sexual violence” and “institutional indifference” that preferred to silence girls like Jackie who reported rape instead of helping them. The piece started an impressive national dialogue about rape culture, particularly rape culture on college campuses. Now after four months of investigating and roughly 70 interviews, police have concluded that the gang rape that reignited a movement most likely never even happened. Read full article here.

#3 Peek-a-Boo! Cops Find Crook Who Snapchatted His Location

There are a lot of stories about idiots who are wanted for one crime or another who get caught through social media. This might be because the police post their searches on Facebook and people see them and report the fugitives’ whereabouts. It could be the girl who posted a video on YouTube talking about everything she had just stolen. Or the guy who posted a pic of himself siphoning gas from a police car. Basically what this shows us is that many crooks are stupid and arrogant, and the man in this week’s story is no exception. Read full article here.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week 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.

If you have bought something from any store that does not sell products made in the United States, be it a local small business or a corporate giant like Walmart, the transportation of products that you bought was likely governed by a law known as the Jones Act. Find out what the Jones Act is and why people are fighting to repeal it.

What does the Jones Act do?

The Jones Act requires that all merchandise transported between two ports within the jurisdiction of the United States be carried by a U.S.-flagged vessel that was built in America, is owned by an American citizen, and crewed by American merchant mariners. This act not only encompasses inland bodies of water, such as the Great Lakes or the Mississippi River, but also extends to areas beyond the continent including the states of Alaska and Hawaii, as well as the territories of Guam, Puerto Rico, and American Samoa.

Also called the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, it was put into place in the same year and has been updated over the decades with its last update in 2006. The Jones Act supplies the United States with the following:

• $14 billion in annual economic output and 84,000 jobs in U.S. shipyards.
• 70,000 jobs working on or with Jones Act vessels, including shipyards and those who crew the ships.

The S.S. United States. Image courtesy of Stewart Clamen via Flickr.

A merchant marine is a civilian sailor whose ships can be used by the United States in the event of war. A historic example of a ship that was part of the merchant marine is the S.S. United States, pictured above. She was designed that in the event that the Cold War heated up, the United States could be quickly turned into a troopship; however, she never had to be called to serve in this function.

What is the debate over the Jones Act?

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) introduced an amendment to the Keystone XL Pipeline bill on January 13, 2015 that would repeal the Jones Act.

The two camps that are involved are those that wish to see McCain’s amendment to scrap the Jones Act pass and those that wish to see it fail so that the Jones Act remains law. For those who do not support the Jones Act, they see it as an antiquated law that is hindering economic growth in territories that are under United States jurisdiction, as well as the two states that are not part of mainland America. They also state that the United States has too few ships that qualify under the Jones Act to make it cost effective. On the flip side, those who support the Jones Act state that the act promotes economic growth for the shipping industry and that scrapping the act would cost a lot of jobs. Furthermore they state that scrapping the act would allow foreign ships to sail up America’s waterways, which could pose a national security hazard.

Concerns if the Jones Act is Scrapped

There could be a loss of jobs due to the closing of ship building and maintenance. There are also worries that there could be a loss of transportation for armed forces, which would negatively impact future conflicts in which the United States becomes embroiled. To give an example from a previous conflict, during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, more than 90 percent of all needed material was moved to the war zones via water transportation.

Supporters of the Jones Act also worry about the loss of border security, as ships from all nations, even those who are hostile against us, could have access to inland rivers such as the Mississippi.

Arguments for Eliminating the Jones Act

Opponents of the Jones Act highlight the possible decreases in the cost of living in the territories, Alaska, and Hawaii, though this benefit could be offset by increase in prices to foreign shipping companies. It is thought that repealing the Jones Act could benefit the American economy, as it may be cheaper to build ships elsewhere. It additionally will increase competition in the shipping industry, also thought to be a benefit to the economy.

Repealing the Jones Act

Prior Attempts to Repeal

McCain has attempted to repeal the act before. In 2010 with support from co-sponsor and fellow Republican Senator James Risch of Idaho, McCain put forward a bill similar to the current amendment; however, S3525, the Open America’s Waters Act, died in committee, meaning that it never got past a small group of senators who debated its merits. As a result, the 2010 version had no chance to make it to the Senate floor to be debated upon by the whole of the Senate.

Current Fight to Repeal

McCain is the leader of the current charge to repeal the Jones Act, stating when he filed the amendment that he has “long advocated for a full repeal of The Jones Act, an antiquated law that has for too long hindered free trade, made U.S. industry less competitive and raised prices for American consumers.”

Who Else is on Board to Repeal?

The main group in favor of repealing the Jones Act is the Heritage Foundation. Chief among the Heritage Foundation’s touted benefits from repeal is having better access to requisition foreign ships to fill in gaps that United States shipping cannot fill, and the cost savings and economic gain that small islands under United States control would experience. The group also cites a report from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which found that it costs an estimated $3,063 to ship a 20-foot container of household and commercial goods from the East Coast of the United States to Puerto Rico while the same shipment costs $1,504 to the nearby Dominican Republic city of Santo Domingo and $1,687 to Kingston, Jamaica. While the New York Fed does not go so far as to call for the removal of the Jones Act, it  does point out that the act is often cited as a factor that raises business costs.

Lawmakers from Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico, and Guam are also major proponents of the Jones Act’s repeal. Their main complaint with the amendment is that repealing it would help to make the cost of living cheaper for the affected states and territories. According to Hawaiian State Senator Sam Slom it costs about $790 to ship a 40-foot container from Los Angeles to Shanghai, but it costs $8,700 to ship the same container from Los Angeles to Honolulu. This means that it costs 11 times more money to ship something to some domestic locations than international ones. They feel that if the Jones Act is repealed, the cost of living would decrease as residents would not have to spend as much money to get goods, be they from mainland America or from a foreign nation.

Support for the Jones Act

While a single leader in support of the Jones Act has not fully been identified at this point–the amendment is still in committee–Representative Duncan Hunter (D-CA) and Representative Steve Scalise (R-LA) were strong defenders of the act in the past when it was brought under question in 2014. Their actions helped to enact legislation last December that reaffirmed the Jones Act. The legislation also called a strong commercial shipbuilding industry particularly important as Federal budget cuts may reduce the number of newly constructed military vessels

The American Maritime Partnership (AMP) opposes the amendment on the grounds that it would gut America’s shipbuilding industry and outsource U.S. Naval shipbuilding to foreign builders, which would cost hundreds of thousands of family-wage jobs across this country.

The United States Navy and United States Navy League also opposed the amendment on the grounds that:

For decades, U.S. merchant mariners have provided essential support for the U.S. Navy during times of war and national crisis.  Repealing the Jones Act would remove that support at a time when we are fighting two wars and facing a continuing threat from international terrorism.

The Navy League added that repealing the Jones Act would hinder the commercial maritime industry that is vital to the United States of America.

Finally, the Lexington Institute stated in an article that America has always had a special relationship with water. The institute goes on to state that adversaries of the United States recognize the advantage conferred on the United States by its military preeminence on the seas and are working assiduously to deny it access to that domain and that to prevent that the country needs a Navy that is second to none. In order to maintain it, the Lexington Institute asserts that American shipyards are vital.

Conclusion

The Jones Act has been a major part of America’s merchant marine infrastructure for decades. While there are currently many arguments about the efficacy of keeping the Jones Act in place, the fight certainly isn’t over. However, the benefits of keeping this document have been shown to be beneficial to the United States both in terms of economically and national security, and changing the law may be more harmful than good.

Resources

Primary

Department of Transportation Maritime Administration: Maritime Statistics

Additional

AP: Hawaii, Alaska, Territories Team Up on Jones Act 

Heritage Foundation: Sink the Jones Act

American Maritime Partnership: Congress Reaffirms Support for Jones Act

Maritime Executive: US Navy Opposes Congressional Efforts to Repeal Jones Act 

American Maritime Partnership: McCain Amendment to Eliminate U.S. Shipbuilding Would Outsource US Jobs and Security

Marine Link: AMP Opposes Amendment to Eliminate U.S. Shipbuilding

American Maritime Partnership: Jones Act Truth Squad

Chris Schultz

Chris Schultz is a Midwestern country boy who is a graduate of Dordt College in Sioux Center, Iowa and holds a bachelors degree in History. He is interested in learning about the various ocean liners that have sailed the world’s waters along with a variety of other topics. Contact Chris at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Jones Act: Outdated or Vital? appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

As you probably know, marijuana is now legal for recreational use in Colorado and Washington, and soon it will be legal in Alaska and Oregon, along with possibly Washington, D.C. pending Congressional approval.

I was surprised to see recently that the University of Denver’s Sturm College of Law will be offering a class on the laws of marijuana beginning in January 2015. Created by professor Sam Kamin, the course is called “Representing the Marijuana Client” and it intended to instruct law students on how to represent parties in cases involving marijuana as a result of the wave of state legalizations. According to Kamin, “topics covered will include regulatory compliance, criminal defense, contract, banking, tax, real estate, and multidisciplinary practice. It’s not going to be a joke.”

I don’t think that this class is a joke at all. In fact, I love the idea! Obviously it is legal now in several places and people will need to know their rights–or really their lawyers will need to know their rights. It’s what they are paid to do!

I am in the process of applying to law schools, and before applying I took a very long time to see what various schools had to offer. I love a program that can separate itself from others and really show that it cares about the future lawyers it’s teaching. The University of Denver’s Sturm College of Law is able to recognize times are changing and so should some of its courses. Taking a class on the legalization of marijuana is vital to the lawyers and citizens of the states where it is legalized. Knowing your rights is the best way to stay out of trouble!

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Sturm College of Law Changes With Times, Offers Marijuana Class appeared first on Law Street.

The midterms are finally over (thank God/the universe/Oprah) so now we can all go back to real life. Just kidding — it’s practically presidential election time. Your attention span and patience are ready for that, right? Well before you get into that, take a look at some of the top stores from Law Street last week that you might have missed in all the excitement. It was a clean sweep for writer Anneliese Mahoney who wrote all three of the top articles on Law Street last week. Number one is Mahoney’s take on Taylor Swift’s latest album and her decision to pull all her work from popular streaming music site Spotify; number two is an in-depth look at the three states with major marijuana legislation on last Tuesday’s ballots; and number three was a shout out who is generally accepted as the country’s youngest new elected official, Saira Blair of West Virginia. ICYMI, take a look at Law Street’s Best of the Week.

#1: Taylor Swift and Spotify: Never Ever, Ever Getting Back Together?

Taylor Swift made waves this week when she pulled all of her music from the popular streaming site Spotify. The 24-year-old singer-songwriter’s newest album, “1989,” was never put on the site, and her older music can no longer be found there. Read full article here.

#2: States to Watch Today: Marijuana on the Ballot in Oregon, Alaska, and DC

It’s been a truly whirlwind few years for marijuana legalization. In 2012, voters in Washington and Colorado voted to legalize marijuana use in those states. Others continue to decriminalize marijuana and allow its use for medical purposes. Today Oregon, Alaska, and the District of Columbia will vote on whether or not to legalize marijuana. How do these laws stack up? Read full article here.

#3: Saira Blair Youngest Elected Official in America: Snaps for Her

Saira Blair is an 18-year-old West Virginia University freshman majoring in economics. She’s also believed to be the youngest elected lawmaker in the United States. At 17, Blair actually beat a 66-year-old Republican incumbent in a primary, and on Tuesday she beat a 44-year-old Attorney, Democrat Layne Diehl. She will represent a district of just under 20,000 people located in the West Virginia panhandle, close to Maryland, as one of 100 members of the Virginia House of Delegates. Read full article here.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

It’s official. Two more states — Oregon and Alaska — have joined Colorado and Washington in legalizing marijuana.

Oregon’s Measure 91 had a convincing victory, winning approximately 54 percent of the vote. Like Washington and Colorado, Oregon will now allow regulated and taxed sales of marijuana to adults. Stores will probably come sometime in 2016, a timeline consistent with those that Colorado and Washington set for themselves previously.

Ballot Measure 2 passed in Alaska by a margin of roughly 52-48 percent. In 90 days it will become the law of the state, and the state will create mechanisms to regulate the use and sale of legalized recreational marijuana. Alaska has long had a lax view on marijuana laws — a 1975 court decision legalized very small amounts in the home, although it was incredibly narrow and not really followed. In addition, Alaskans have tried a few times to get legal marijuana on the ballot, voting on the issue in 2000 and 2004. While both measures obviously failed, Alaska has certainly had a storied and complicated history with marijuana legalization.

And then, of course, there’s D.C. Our nation’s capital legalized recreational marijuana use, although not the sale of marijuana. There’s confusion over what this actually means, though. Congress technically has oversight over the District, and it can take measures to basically make sure that nothing ever comes out of the passage of this initiative. D.C.’s ability to actually govern itself and the people who live within its borders is notoriously limited. No one can do anything to stop the 735,000 people who live in Alaska from legalizing marijuana, but D.C.’s 650,000 are prohibited by officials they didn’t even elect. That’s why there’s a big question mark next to D.C. — no one really knows what will happen here.

As fascinating as the wins were for the future of marijuana legalization, it’s also interesting to look at what they mean for the overall scheme of American politics. Democrats lost last night on pretty much every level. Some marijuana legalization was one of the very few things that Democrats support that made it through. But what’s important to remember about marijuana legalization is that it’s not so much a Democratic value, it’s also a very Libertarian issue. There are reasons for both Democrats and Libertarians to support marijuana legalization, which may have been one of the reasons that it passed. It’s a strange phenomenon, as 538‘s Ben Casselman tweeted:

So voters want a higher minimum wage, legal pot, abortion access and GOP representation. Ok then.

— Ben Casselman (@bencasselman) November 5, 2014

So, the success of marijuana legalization in an election where so many other Democratic measures failed could mean a few things. It could mean that the Libertarian wing of the Republican party is really becoming sort of a dark horse among Millennials who are frustrated with the way that Democrats have been running the country, but aren’t willing to align with the Republican base or the Tea Party on most social issues. Or it could just mean that Oregon, Alaska, and the District of Columbia really enjoy getting high and don’t mind the increase in taxes that comes with the legalization of marijuana. Either way, it will be interesting to see if anything at all comes of the measure in D.C., as well as which states will be next to hop on the marijuana legalization bus.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Oregon and Alaska Legalize Marijuana appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been a truly whirlwind few years for marijuana legalization. In 2012, voters in Washington and Colorado voted to legalize marijuana use in those states. Others continue to decriminalize marijuana and allow its use for medical purposes. Today Oregon, Alaska, and the District of Columbia will vote on whether or not to legalize marijuana. How do these laws stack up? Check out the infographic below, based on information from Measure 91 in Oregon, Ballot Measure 2 in Alaska, and Ballot Initiative 71 in DC.

Oregon, Alaska, and the District of Columbia aren’t the only places considering marijuana legalization today. The cities of Lewistown and South Portland, Maine, are going to vote on whether or not to legalize it — Portland, Maine has already made it legal for adults to own less than an ounce of the substance. In addition, votes continue on legalizing medical marijuana. If the initiative currently up for a vote in Florida passes, it would make the Sunshine State the twenty-fourth to legalize marijuana, as well as the first southern state.

Regardless of how these particular measures do, there’s a good chance that we’ll see more states starting to legalize marijuana in the very near future. The national opinion on marijuana has changed rapidly. Polls fluctuate, but the amount of Americans who believe legalizing marijuana would be in the best interest of the nation hovers around 50 percent. In addition, most Americans don’t think that jail time should be served for small amounts of marijuana, which is now very much a “soft” drug; it doesn’t receive the same kind of punishment as more addictive and harmful drugs.

The progress in Alaska, Oregon, and the District of Columbia might not mean that we suddenly see a large wave of marijuana legalization across the country — it will still be illegal under federal law. But it will be interesting to see if any other states join Colorado and Washington this year.

Editor’s note: The infographic in this article was updated November 5, 2014 to reflect each vote’s outcome.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post States to Watch Today: Marijuana Laws On the Ballot in Oregon, Alaska, DC appeared first on Law Street.

The five-foot high tires were insufficient to prevent the specially designed bus from jostling about as it turned off the road and toward the Columbia Ice Field in Alberta, Canada. The massive carpet of ice expanded in all directions upon disembarkation, as I walked about the sheet that was hundreds of feet thick and thousands of years old. A small stream of water meandered by. It was water only recently thawed; water that had frozen before industrialization and heavy increases in air pollution. I cupped my hands in the crystal and cold flow and sipped. It was perfect. I was eight years old, enthralled, and officially a nature lover.

The Columbia Ice Field Snow Coach, courtesy of Leonard G. via Wikipedia

Four years later we returned to the Canadian Rockies to immerse ourselves in the wilderness once more, without any doubt that we would pay a visit to the Columbia Field. The bus again turned off the road, but this time onto an expanse of grey rock. We were in the same location as last time, but the glacier was not there. It still existed, but was far in the distance. In only a few years it had melted substantially, retreating into the mountains. I was 12 years old, horrified, and officially an environmental activist.

Glaciers are the most visible manifestation of climate change. Photographer James Balog utilized this concept in an attempt to bring to the forefront the urgency of the issue. In his project Extreme Ice Survey, he and his crew mounted 25 cameras to take snapshots of glacial activity every daylight hour for three years, yielding distressing results as to the rapidity of glacial melting. The project was documented in the 2012 film Chasing Ice.

Some argue that the situation is not so severe, as glaciers ebb and flow with the seasons. The guide at the Columbia Ice Field related that the sheet rises 50 feet in the winter and melts 80 feet in the summer. Therefore, while it does grow in the cold months, there is an overall trend of recession. Further, many glaciers consistently recede regardless of season.

A study in the Yukon from 1958-2008, Chasing Ice explains, tracked 1,400 glaciers in the region. Over the course of the half century, four grew, 300 disappeared entirely, and the other 1,096 shrunk. Though they are powerful symbols of environmentalism and conservation, these figures do not solely embody a concern for saving the glaciers. Despite the fact that they are often portrayed in tandem with other champions of conservation, such as polar bears and their struggles to survive in the face of melting ice sheets, the issues at hand are a microcosm of the challenges of mitigating the causes and repairing the consequences of human-induced climate change.

A recent article in the Alaska Dispatch News explored the potential effects of climate change on said state’s tourism industry. The U.S. Forest Service in Juneau has expressed concern over the shrinkage of several notable glaciers as they withdraw from the line of sight at lookout points, reducing the number of annual visitors. Furthermore, the author relates, a study suggested that melting permafrost might increase the region’s susceptibility to invasive species and shorten ski seasons.

The study attempts to take an optimistic angle in the face of these ominous developments, suggesting that the extended summer cruise season and concept of “last chance to see it” are about to create a short-lived boom in the tourism industry there. These are very shallow cheers. A “last chance” promotion is not financially sustainable for the long term of tourism, and more importantly, it is not an acceptable response to the threats to the environment there. Nor is it acceptable to sit back and allow unnatural change to occur, capitalize on the new reality, and allow the old state of things to disappear and be destroyed. While Alaska is beautiful in the fair weather and expanded opportunities for a summertime vacation there are enticing, that is not what the place was originally like before substantial human intervention. There are plenty of locations across the globe to which one can venture for a summer retreat; Alaska should be visited for what it was, and for what it ought to remain.

A cruise ship docked in Ketchikan, AK, courtesy of blmiers2 via Flickr

What Alaska was, and ought to remain, has figured substantially in American cultural identity and early manifestations of the conservation movement. In 1879, John Muir made his first trip to the wild lands. Many followed in his footsteps, including an expedition in 1899 on which a crew of scientists noted how deforestation, clear cutting, over fishing, and animal slaughtering were already stripping Alaska of its natural resources. One of the scientists later published a study arguing that the mining activities there, as the Yukon Gold Rush was in full swing, were not sustainable in the long run; Alaska’s economic future, he prophesied, lay in wilderness (eco) tourism. Furthermore, as historian Douglas Brinkley relates, Muir believed that the more people saw of Alaska’s frozen wonders, the more likely they were to become conservationists.

These two concepts formed powerful components of Teddy Roosevelt’s platform and presidential objectives. He agreed with the naturalist William H. Dall in seeing Alaska as “…having ecological, moral, scientific, and spiritual values that would help reserve the frontier spirit.” Regardless of truth or falsehood, the frontier mythos and concepts of rugged individualism played important roles in American identity. By the early 1900s, Manifest Destiny had brought the United States border to the Pacific Coast; Alaska was dubbed the final frontier. The wilderness, presumably so vital in the development of values and Americana, had to be preserved here if American culture was to survive. Enabling people to get in touch with nature would, as writer and environmentalist Aldo Leopold stated, “build receptivity for ecosystems in human thinking.”

Teddy Roosevelt (left) and John Muir (right) in Yosemite National Park, CA. Courtesy of Library of Congress via Wikipedia.

The growing awareness and value systems resulting from human contact with nature helped in the latter’s preservation, and continues to do so to this day. It worked for me; the spiritual beauty of the glacier inspired an appreciation in my heart for the natural world and its right to survive. In order to be a self-fulfilling prophecy, it must endure in order to inspire people and societies to maintain it. The current tourism industry in Alaska must remain focused on the real environments and benefits of the North. Establishing national parks to protect lands has helped in the past, as the main threats to the environment were direct human activities such as logging. Now, the threats are more varied in source and wider in scope. It will take many actions on multiple fronts to retain an interest in the locale and take the necessary steps to maintain the state of things there. The glaciers and tundra of Alaska and the Arctic are not a desolate wasteland, but places of great aesthetic value to be admired in their own right.

As John Muir wrote:

“Though the storm beaten ground it is growing on is nearly half a mile high, the glacier centuries ago flowed over it as a river flows over a boulder; but out of all the cold darkness and glacial crushing and grinding comes this warm, abounding beauty and life to teach us that what we in our faithless ignorance and fear call destruction is creation finer and finer.”

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Climate Change, Melting Glaciers, and the Future of Alaskan Tourism appeared first on Law Street.

Sometimes the news, especially when it’s about politics, can get us all down. But recently I’ve been seeing a few news stories that have lifted my spirits. Lately, some small towns have started to elect dogs and cats as mayors.

Most recently, there’s Duke, a 7-year-old dog who was just elected the mayor of Cormorant, Minnesota. He’s going to have a lot of responsibilities, given that the town he presides over has 12 people. Luckily he has a great salary–kibble and treats provided by a local pet store. I’ve heard rumors that items on his agenda will include outlawing the postman, and importing more frisbees. But I’d have to say that Duke’s best qualification is that he is incredibly adorable and fluffy–just check out a video of Cormorant’s new mayor below:

One of the most famous animal leaders in the United States is the prolific Mayor Stubbs, who has run Talkeetna, Alaska since 1997. Here is Mayor Stubbs conducting an important meeting with a constituent.

Thanks, t-dawg!

Stubbs has been the mayor since he was just a kitten, defeating some of his less-qualified human candidates early in life. He was a write-in candidate, and has been very successful in reelection bids. Stubbs’ leadership has been very well received by the roughly 900 townspeople of Talkeetna, Alaska. They especially appreciate his paws-off approach when it comes to business. He also has increased tourism visits to Talkeetna just by being himself–everyone wants to come see the most prolific cat mayor in the United States.

Another more recent four-legged mayoral victory came from the town of Divide, Colorado. The leadership structure in general there is actually quite wild–the mayor is a dog named Pa Kettle, the Vice Mayor is a wolf named Kenyi, and the viceroy is a cat named Buster. To be fair, their leadership is less official than those of Duke or Stubbs, because they were elected on fundraiser driven by the local animal shelter. But since Divide doesn’t have a human mayor, I assume they’ll be consulting Pa Kettle on many important matters.

Of course, not every animal has quite as much success when running for elected office. Einstein, a beautiful shepherd mix, is running for mayor of Oakland, California. He has a very well developed platform that contains good proposals for both his human and animal friends. Unfortunately, due to horribly discriminatory laws, Einstein will not be on the ballot this year.

From what I can tell, there’s two reasons why these animals are getting involved in politics. The first is because let’s be honest, they’re super cute. Small towns often have other institutions in place to deal with day-to-day leadership, and a mayor is just a figurehead. Why shouldn’t the figurehead be fluffy, easy to work with, and boost tourism?

However there’s also another reason that some of our towns may be turning to electing dogs, cats, and other critters. It’s a pretty unsubtle comment on the state of politics in the United States. Einstein, the little guy running for Oakland mayor, is running on behalf of the Occupy Oakland movement. In a time when Congress has an approval rating of 13 percent, the state of our politics is pretty depressing. Why not change it up–at least dogs won’t try to impeach the President, fail to pass any bills, or anything of the sort. So next time that American politics have got you down, google “mayor dog.” I predict that we may see a gubernatorial bid from Duke soon.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [geckoam via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Animal Mayors on the Rise: A Solution to America’s Political Woes? appeared first on Law Street.

Sarah Palin is fed up with the Liberal Media bias and is doing something about it. She started an online TV channel called the Sarah Palin Channel that’s going to make Fox News look like MSNBC.

I’m scared too, Catelyn.

In the introduction video, Palin says this is going to be a news channel that is going to be a lot more than news: it will get around the “media filter” and “find solutions.” Reading between the lines, Palin is saying, “The media has filtered me out, so I had to start my own channel. And I want to share my solutions that were too crazy for FOX.” In the video Palin also says that her channel will cut through “Washington DC’s phony capitalism.” So I take that to mean she will continue to call Barack Obama a socialist, while refusing to look at the actual definition of socialism.

The channel will also have very engaging guests and while she did not mention any names, a clip of Ted Cruz campaigning was rolling in the background. I thoroughly look forward to their “Who hates Obama more” and “Because the Bible told me so” segments.

Also, there is good news if you were a fan of Sarah Palin’s reality TV show. The channel will also give viewers a glance into her family’s daily life. They are just like any other American family…that has a ton of money. Watching the Palins really allows you to see how she relates to all those average Joes (read: white people) she talks so much about. And I am sure she will argue that because of her close proximity to Russia, she knows better than anyone how to deal with Putin.

Of course, if this channel is going to be more than news, it might be looking for some TV show ideas. Well, the masses have taken to Twitter to help Palin with some ideas for brilliant television. Here are some of the best:

The Big Benghazi Theory #PalinTVShows

— Lizz Winstead (@lizzwinstead) July 28, 2014

I Love Lucy But Deport Ricky #PalinTVShows

— David Corn (@DavidCornDC) July 28, 2014

America’s Funniest Stump Speeches #PalinTVShows

— CC:Indecision (@indecision) July 28, 2014

#palintvshows Everybody Loves Reagan

— James VanLaningham (@jdvanlaningham) July 28, 2014

One of the central themes of the channel, according to Palin, is that it’s about you. But there is one person the site focuses on much more than any other and I doubt that is the “you” Palin was referring to. This person is President Obama, and wow does he seem to be the main focus of the Sarah Palin Channel. Three of the seven stories on the site feature the President, and it even has a clock counting down to the end of the Obama administration. I am guessing it is a countdown to remind Palin when she will lose any relevance she might still have.

I’m laughing too, B-rock.

So in conclusion, Sarah Palin has her own TV channel because being a contributor on FOX News was too constraining for this maverick. The channel is supposedly about you, the viewer, but primarily focuses on Sarah Palin, her family, and Obama. And sadly, just in case you had any hope that this was a joke, this is not Tina Fey parodying Palin — though it can be very hard to tell the difference.

—

Matt DeWilde (@matt_dewilde25) is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [eskimojoe via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

Matt DeWilde is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post America, Sarah Palin Has Her Own TV Channel appeared first on Law Street.

Prior to this week Alaska remained the only state without its own law school, but thanks to the Seattle University School of Law that is no longer true. After six months of planning and negotiating, it’s official: Anchorage will be home to a satellite campus of the Washington state law school. This is potentially a positive symbiotic relationship. The goal of this move is to improve the legal industry in both states, and if the intended outcome becomes reality, there may be hope for our nation’s legal industry. Let’s look at how.

Alaska’s Benefits

Of all 736,399 Alaskan residents, approximately 4,000 are lawyers, but very few of those lawyers are Alaskan natives. According to the American Bar Association, the total number of active lawyers in 2013 who are U.S. residents was 1,268,011. That means that only .003 percent of American lawyers reside in Alaska. The reason for such a small legal industry in the state is accessibility. Alaskans are deterred from moving to other states to go to law school because of high expenses and complicated logistics. This deal with Seattle University will help change that trend.

It’s  important to note that Alaskans will finally be granted an easily accessible legal education. Why this hasn’t happened sooner I cannot understand. But I think the partnership with Seattle is a great step forward for the legal education industry and I hope Alaskan students dive right in.

Seattle’s Benefits

In an attempt to fight the rapidly decreasing law school enrollment rates, SU Law is implementing several creative methods. In addition to offering a two-year law program and in-state tuition to top out-of-state students, SU Law is planning this satellite campus in Alaska.

According to the Seattle Times, law school enrollment has declined by about 23 percent over the last three years; in Washington, it’s dropped by a third. Simultaneously, the need for representation is at an all-time high, so what solution could be better than making law school more accessible across the nation?

Beginning of a Trend?

I’ve done some scouring and it seems SU Law is not alone in the implementation of a satellite campus. But the other institutions merely implement satellite centers or the satellite campus is in a different city, not a different state. For example, the main campus of Stetson Law is located in St. Petersburg, Florida, but the school hosts a satellite center in Tampa Bay. The Tampa Law Center is located in an upcoming hub for legal activity and shares its law library and courtroom with Florida’s Second District Court of Appeals. Similarly, the University of Oregon School of Law is located in Eugene but has a satellite in Portland. Like the Seattle-Alaska program, students will be able to complete their third years at the satellite campus.

Could satellite campuses that reduce tuition be the best way to increase law school enrollment?

The United States is home to more than 200 law schools. Seems a bit excessive, but I guess it fits with our unofficial national motto of “Go big or go home.” If more states begin implementing methods similar to those of Seattle, more students would be inclined to enroll.

Even better, schools with specialized areas of study could offer program-specific courses at satellite campuses. The need for more accessible law schools paired with a new approach to provide highly specialized studies could fix the downturn in law school enrollment. Alaska lacks lawyers who practice in specific disciplines, including same-sex issues, civil rights, and drug crimes.

Offering specialized programs like business, civil rights, healthcare, and intellectual property law allows students to graduate with a fuller knowledge of those fields. Plus they get to focus on what interests them most, in an environment that is even more accessible than ever before for remote areas like Alaska.

I commend Seattle University for making a noble attempt to create real change in the legal industry.

—

Natasha Paulmeno (@natashapaulmeno)

Featured image courtesy of [Christian Meichtry via Flickr]

Natasha Paulmeno

Natasha Paulmeno is an aspiring PR professional studying at the University of Maryland. She is learning to speak Spanish fluently through travel, music, and school. In her spare time she enjoys Bachata music, playing with her dog, and exploring social media trends. Contact Natasha at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Law School Disruptor of the Week: Seattle Satellite Campus appeared first on Law Street.

Activists are pushing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to take a drastic regulatory step that could have significant repercussions for the U.S. economy. At issue is the Pebble Mine — a natural resource project in Alaska that could yield more copper than has ever been found in one place anywhere in the world.

With more than 80 billion pounds of copper, Pebble Mine also holds other strategic metals like molybdenum and rhenium, which are essential to countless American manufacturing, high-tech and national-security applications. However, before plans have even started to be developed, the EPA seems to have responded to activist groups, such as the National Resources Defense Council. The EPA has carried out initial assessments of the site and has already taken a position to veto the project before Pebble Partnership even applied for permits.

The goal is to kill the proposal before it starts. The NRDC and other activist groups worry that once in progress the project will continue unless stopped early on, saying that, “EPA’s study (and intervention) is critically important. If left to its own devices, the state of Alaska has never said no to a large mine.”

However, some groups are speaking out against this preemptive EPA vetoing power. The Center for American Progress, for example, has come out in favor of letting the permitting review take place, even though the group has criticized the Pebble Mine project.

[See Full Article: Alaska Dispatch]

—

Featured image courtesy of [emydidae via Flickr]

Davis Truslow

Davis Truslow is a founding member of Law Street Media and a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Davis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post EPA Trying to Stop Pebble Mine appeared first on Law Street.