A man who was being taken to the hospital in an ambulance last year, but somehow managed to jump out of it, is now suing New York City, the Fire Department, and the four medical workers in the vehicle. He claims it’s their fault that he injured himself in the fall, as they failed to stop him from jumping out of the ambulance.

This seems like a lawsuit that the plaintiff–Yaugeni Kralkin from Staten Island–could not possibly win. But the snag is that he was very drunk–by the time a second ambulance picked up the then-unconscious man and took him to the hospital, his blood-alcohol level was .34. So it was likely higher when he was in the first ambulance.

For the record, you are not allowed to drive in New York when your blood alcohol concentration is .08 or above. A level of .16 can cause severe impairment to speech, judgment, and memory and cause unconsciousness. A blood alcohol level between .31 and .45 is life threatening.

So considering the amount of alcohol Kralkin, who is 56, had in his blood, it is safe to believe he didn’t make very thought-out decisions that night. Kralkin said he had just returned from a long-haul drive to California–he drives a truck–and was looking forward to seeing his wife and son. But he got into a fight with the son, and hit the bottle.

“Your honor, had the city not supplied the ambulance, I could not have jumped out of it.” https://t.co/9N3JdZoKsQ

— Andrew Harris (@amharris26) June 20, 2017

He said he bought a bottle of cognac and ended up outside a house in the neighborhood, but he doesn’t remember what happened after the ambulance showed up. He did however suffer bruises and cuts after tumbling out of the ambulance. His lawyer Borislav Chernyy said:

He certainly did get himself out of the ambulance, but our position is that he was so grossly unsober, he had so much alcohol in his system, that the condition he was in rendered him the equivalent of helpless, absolutely helpless to make informed decisions about his own safety.

The lawsuit states that the four medical workers “permitted” Kralkin to jump out of the moving emergency vehicle, and that after he jumped, they “failed to properly diagnose, treat, care and transport Plaintiff.” It allegedly took another 12 minutes before he was transported to the hospital, this time without exiting his vehicle, as he lost consciousness in the fall.

Kralkin’s lawyer argues that the medical workers were at fault for not stopping Kralkin. He is seeking damages as well as compensation for his medical bills. But the spokesperson for the medical worker’s union, the Uniformed EMTs, Paramedics and Fire Inspectors F.D.N.Y. Local 2507, says there is no way they could be held accountable.

“What is this E.M.T. supposed to do to stop somebody who loses control of themselves and does something crazy like that?” Robert Ungar, the union spokesman, said. He added that EMT workers don’t have the legal authority to hold someone against their will, and they are not armed. A stretcher in an ambulance is not that hard to break out of, and if someone tries to do something out of the ordinary, the EMTs are under no obligation to get into an altercation. We’ll have to see if Kralkin’s lawsuit ends up being successful.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Man Who Drunkenly Jumped Out of Ambulance Sues New York City appeared first on Law Street.

As former FBI Director James Comey prepares to speak on Thursday before a Senate committee on recent events surrounding Russia, President Donald Trump, and the 2016 election, many are preparing their watch parties.

First off, not only will C-SPAN and PBS be broadcasting the feed but ABC, NBC, and CBS all plan to replace their normally scheduled daytime programing with a live feed of his testimony, according to CNN.

And some bars in the nation’s capital are changing things up to show the testimony on their flat-screen televisions.

Shaw’s Tavern plans to open at 9:30 a.m. Thursday morning in preparation for Comey’s 10 a.m. testimony, according to The Washington Post. The bar is calling its viewing party a “Comey Hearing Covfefe,” nicknamed after Trump’s mysterious tweet last week.

They will be offering $5 vodka drinks along with $10 “FBI” sandwiches, according to CNN.

A bar fittingly named The Partisan will also be opening at 10 a.m. to offer food and beverages.

Other bars are running with the “covfefe” theme. Duffy’s Irish Pub, normally a Washington Nationals bar, will tune into the testimony instead of baseball. The pub is offering a “Covfefe Cocktail,” an orange drink with unknown ingredients.

Duffy’s getting in on the Comey watch party action pic.twitter.com/HvDT35YMHR

— Tierney Sneed (@Tierney_Megan) June 6, 2017

“…It is like drinking Kool Aid but only a small group of people know what’s in it,” the advertisement says.

“Covfefe” is quite clearly another joke on the administration. In the aftermath of Trump’s strange tweet, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer explained that “the president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant,” according to CNN.

Comey’s testimony on Thursday has the potential to be an interesting morning in Washington so television networks and bars are looking to capitalize. Cheers to what may be a momentous day in American history.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Television Stations (and Bars) Prep for the Comey Hearing appeared first on Law Street.

States with medical marijuana laws have fewer traffic fatalities than those without, especially among younger drivers, says a new study.

Researchers at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health found on average an 11 percent reduction in traffic fatalities when examining places that have enacted medical-marijuana laws–in total, 28 states and the District of Columbia.

There was also a strong correlation between the presence of medical marijuana dispensaries and fewer traffic fatalities, claimed the study, which was published in the American Journal of Public Health.

The presence of medical marijuana laws seemed to have the biggest effect on the number of traffic fatalities for individuals between the ages of 15 and 44, with special emphasis on those aged 25 to 44 years.

Dr, Silvia Martins, a physician and associate professor who was a senior author of the study, told the Washington Post that the lower traffic fatality rates could be related to lower levels of alcohol-impaired driving as people–especially younger people–substitute weed for booze.

“We found evidence that states with the marijuana laws in place compared with those which did not, reported, on average, lower rates of drivers endorsing driving after having too many drinks,” Martins said in a written statement.

However, not every state experienced a substantial reduction in traffic fatalities. California and New Mexico, for example, both experienced gradual increases in traffic deaths after initial reductions of 16 percent and 17.5 percent, respectively.

“These findings provide evidence of the heterogeneity of medical marijuana laws and indicate the need for further research on the particularities of implementing the laws at the local level,” said Julian Santaella-Tenorio, a doctoral student in epidemiology at Columbia, and the study’s lead author. “It also indicates an interaction of medical marijuana laws with other aspects, such as stronger police enforcement, that may influence traffic fatality rates.”

While medical marijuana laws have seemingly influenced these rates, they may not be the sole factor driving the change.

According to Martins, other factors that might help explain the correlation could be the “strength of public health laws related to driving, infrastructure characteristics, or the quality of health care systems.”

Researchers used National Highway Traffic Safety Administration data on traffic fatalities from 1985 to 2014 to conduct the study. Factors such as whether the states had graduated driver licensing laws, as well as median household income, unemployment rates, laws increasing the speed limit to 70 mph or more, laws on enforcing the use of seat belts, and bans on using cellphones and texting while driving were all taken into account.

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 Study: Medical Marijuana Laws Linked to Drops in Traffic Fatalities appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Friday and welcome to today’s edition of RantCrush Top 5!

Taco Trucks On Every Corner? Clinton Responds

A couple weeks ago, mortgage broker and founder of Latinos for Trump, Marco Gutierrez, warned  MSNBC viewers of the armageddon that is taco trucks. Skip to 6:04 for Gutierrez’s crazy claim.

Wow. Just wow on so many levels.

Last night, at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute, Hillary Clinton cleaned up in support, when she addressed the backwards remarks that Gutierrez made: “You’ve stayed focused no matter what kind of outlandish and offensive comments we’ve heard from my opponent and his supporters,” she told the crowd. “By the way, I personally think a taco truck on every corner sounds absolutely delicious.”

That it does, Hillary, that it does.

via GIPHY

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: September 16, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Sex under the influence is a complicated topic–one rife with questions of consent and the spread of STIs or unwanted pregnancy. Traditionally, that “influence” has been alcohol, but as the legalization of recreational marijuana becomes increasingly the norm in some states, will the same concerns extend to sex while stoned? New York University researchers recently set out to weigh the differences between stoned sex and drunk sex, and their results shed some light on that question.

The researchers, led by Joseph Palamar, PhD, MPH, an affiliate of NYU’s Center for Drug Use and HIV Research and an assistant professor of Population Health at NYU Langone Medical Center (NYULMC), studied 12 heterosexual men and 12 heterosexual women. They conducted in-depth interviews about their sexual experiences while under the two different influences.

The results? Both alcohol and weed lead to riskier sexual behavior overall. But, at the end of the day, drunk sex was riskier than stoned sex. Sex after consuming lots of booze was more likely to lead to negative feelings of regret, shame, and embarrassment afterwards. According to the Washington Post’s analysis of the study:

The most commonly reported feeling after sex on alcohol was regret. Both males and females commonly reported that regret, shame, and embarrassment were associated with alcohol use, but this was rarely reported for marijuana.

However, the study also acknowledged that those feelings may come from the situations in which alcohol and marijuana are likely to be consumed. Given the fact that marijuana is still illegal in most states, it’s more likely to be consumed in intimate settings; alcohol is often consumed at larger parties and in more social situations.

The study also found that sex under either influence led to some technical difficulties for both men and women–the study’s writeup stated: “marijuana use was linked to vaginal dryness and alcohol was commonly described as increasing the likelihood of impotence among males.”

Put simply, sex under the influence–alcohol or weed–has its risks. But drunk sex is riskier than stoned sex, an important distinction as recreational marijuana becomes more and more socially acceptable (and legal).

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 What’s Riskier: Drunk Sex or Stoned Sex? appeared first on Law Street.

Most of us have experienced having to painfully roll out of bed to make an early work shift after a late night of drinking the night before. It’s always a struggle, but no matter how slow time passes, the shift comes to an end and you can return to bed and nurse your hangover. But this is not the case for every early morning shift. When it comes to arriving to work to co-pilot a commercial airline flight for hundreds of passengers, there are much graver consequences.

Saturday morning, a pilot for an American Airlines flight headed from Detroit to Philadelphia was arrested for failing a breathalyzer test.  A TSA agent was the first person to notice the pilot “acting suspiciously” and minutes before the flight was to take off at 7 AM, the airport police were notified. The Wayne County Airport Authority administered a breathalyzer test, which the pilot failed and resulted in the airport police taking him into custody. The pilot was then “turned over to Romulus police, where he failed another breathalyzer test.”

The Federal Aviation Administration recommends that pilots wait at least 24 hours from their last sip of alcohol before flying. However, the FAA requires that “no person may operate or attempt to operate an aircraft” within eight hours of having consumed alcohol or “with a blood alcohol content of 0.04 percent or greater.” Though this unnamed pilot’s blood alcohol content has not been released, Michael Conway, Director of Public Affairs at the Detroit Metropolitan Airport, reported that the pilot’s BAC was over the 0.04 percent limit. Conway further commented that this is an “extremely unusual” situation and said the pilot has been released as authorities determine whether charges will be filed.

Due to this pilot’s irresponsible drinking, the American Airlines flight was cancelled. Despite this airline’s bad reputation with canceling flights without offering accommodations, under these unique circumstances, American Airlines offered other flights for its passengers. Many of the passengers, on their way to enjoy their spring break in Philly, had to postpone or cancel their spring break plans. Though I am sure they were all shocked and disappointed, especially the spring breakers who had to postpone their spring break dreams, this will probably be a story they will never forget.

Ashlyn Marquez

Ashlyn Marquez received her law degree from the American University, Washington College of Law and her Bachelor’s degree from The New School. She works in immigration law and has a passion for worker’s rights, tacos, and avocados. Contact Ashlyn at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Spring Breakers’ Plans Ruined Due to Pilot’s Apparent Drunken State appeared first on Law Street.

Picture this: you wake up in the middle of the night with insane abdominal pain and call 911 to be rushed to the hospital immediately. Once you get there, the doctors decide you are suffering from acute appendicitis and you have to quickly be prepared for an emergency surgery to remove your appendix. Before you’re put under anesthesia, you notice the nurse prepping you is stumbling around, tripping over chords, and is seemingly having a hard time doing average tasks. Worried yet?

This exact scenario unfolded earlier this month at the Wilkes-Barre VA Medical Center, for which a nurse has been charged with reckless endangerment of a patient’s safety, driving under the influence, and public intoxication for showing up to work and then proceeding to work on an appendectomy while drunk.

The story, according to the drunk nurse, Richard Pieri, was that he had forgotten that he was on call at the hospital on February 4 until he received a call around midnight telling him to come into work on an emergency surgery. At that point, Pieri was already four or five beers deep at a local casino, but still decided it would be better to drive while intoxicated to the hospital and work on this surgery than it would be to acknowledge his mistake. In court documents, Pieri acknowledged that he just didn’t want someone else to have to come in while he was supposed to be on call. That is why he decided drunk surgery was a good plan–a great reminder to us all that alcohol can seriously inhibit good decision-making skills. Authorities later visited Piere and asked him if he knew why they were there to chat with him, Pieri nonchalantly responded, “I guess it has something to do with me being drunk on call.”

The Department of Veterans Affairs sent a statement to the Washington Post noting that it will not tolerate behavior like this, especially since it can put veterans who are coming in for care at serious risk. The VA is currently working on reinforcing its guidelines for staff and ensuring that an incident like this never happens again. Pieri’s affidavit notes that he was tasked with prep work that was legitimately important:

[He] was responsible for preparing the patient, retrieving the patient, preparing the materials inside the room, documenting the surgery, and monitoring the vitals of the patient throughout recovery.

In addition, the affidavit pointed out that the operating room, in general, can be dangerous if someone is intoxicated:

[The operating room] is filled with complicated equipment that Pieri needs to operate and has several loose wires and cords that can be tripped on or disconnected by somebody with an inability to properly ambulate themselves.

While details about the patient have not yet been released, reports indicate that he or she was readmitted to the hospital after the surgery for complaints of stomach pains. There is no evidence to suggest that this readmission has anything to do with Pieri’s drunkenness–thank goodness–but he was promptly removed from patient care responsibilities after this incident.

While this story turned out alright (for the most part), it’s a sobering reminder to us all that alcohol can have serious consequences in certain situations. Just because you think you’re alright to drive home, make a large purchase, or even perform a serious medical procedure, doesn’t mean you are. So, think carefully about when and where you drink and make responsible decisions everyone, because no one wants to be that guy who was jokingly asked, “Rick, are you drunk?” after he stumbled into work.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Drunk Nurse Arrested for Reckless Endangerment appeared first on Law Street.

Researchers have determined that there’s a relationship between college football games and incidences of reported rape. The study was released by the National Bureau of Economic Research late last year, but has broken into the news recently, as the conversations around college sexual assault and the violence of football have continued into the new year.

The researchers, led by Professor Jason Lindo at Texas A&M University, discovered that:

Home football games increase reports of rape by 41 percent on the day of the game while away games increase reports by 15 percent. They estimate that Division 1A football games cause between 253 and 770 additional rapes of college-aged victims per year across 128 universities.

The researchers don’t claim this is a direct link–rather they were attempting to look at the connection between events that sparked heavy drinking and partying, and reports of sexual assault. Understandably, then, they found higher reports of rape when something worth “celebrating” happened during a football game–for example, underdog teams upsetting better-ranked rivals. Additionally, game days saw a spike in other crimes–such as disorderly conduct, DUIs, and public intoxication. Given that big college football games usually happen on Saturdays and Sundays–busy party days for college students–the researchers attempted to control for that. According to NPR’s Social Science Correspondent Shankar Vedantam:

Lindo and his colleagues actually tried a control for this by comparing reports of rape on a days the college team was playing to reports of rape on other Saturdays of the year when the team was not playing. So this analysis is focused on the additional rapes being reported to college police and local law enforcement on days the college team is playing compared to what’s reported on a typical Saturday.

In order to conduct the study, the researchers looked at 22 years of FBI data on rape. Given that those statistics have received criticism for being undercounts of sexual assaults, the numbers could be even higher. Additionally, the statistics can’t provide a full picture of all big college football schools, as only 96 of the 128 schools with Division I teams voluntarily reported enough data to be included in the study. However, as they stand, the statistics are certainly worrisome, and worth a look as the fight to prevent sexual assault on college campuses continues.

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 Is There a Connection Between College Football and Rape? appeared first on Law Street.

Eighteen to 20-year-olds everywhere have their attention turned to three states who are may be in the process of lowering the drinking age to 18-years-old. California, Minnesota, and New Hampshire all have legislation in the works that would allow people under the age of 21 to drink in certain circumstances. Though each plan is unique, with its own caveats and rules, it looks like this time next year 18-year-olds may be able to enjoy a drink every once in a while in these states.

New Hampshire

New Hampshire’s proposed plan, House Bill 1606-FN, was introduced to its legislature’s Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee Thursday and is sponsored by Republican Max Abramson. The bill’s aim is to try to dampen the binge drinking culture we see so much of in today’s society by allowing people between the ages of 18 and 21 to drink beer and wine in the presence of someone over the age of 21. The bill states that lowering the drinking age in this capacity will make it so that “younger people will no longer be initiated to alcohol consumption in the absence of adult supervision.” Essentially, the state wants to introduce kids to alcohol in a safer, more controlled environment than what a lot of teens are currently experiencing.

Binge drinking is a big problem in our country today, especially among underage drinkers. According to the CDC, “about 90 percent of the alcohol consumed by youth under the age of 21 in the United States is in the form of binge drinks.” The CDC also notes that excessive drinking costs the United States “$249 billion in 2010, or $2.05 a drink, from losses in productivity, health care, crime, and other expenses. Binge drinking was responsible for 77 percent of these costs, or $191 billion.” Many people who talk about lowering the drinking age cite European habits when it comes to alcohol; younger teens can drink beer and wine at a young age and are generally introduced to casual drinking in a family setting. This then leads to lower levels of underage binge drinking, which the United States clearly has a problem with.

Minnesota

Minnesota’s bill is slightly different and would allow people over the age of 18 to drink any kind of alcohol, but only in bars or restaurants. This new bill is an extension of Senator Phyllis Kahn’s proposal from this time last year, which would allow 18-year-olds to drink in bars as long as they are with their parents. This idea comes with the hope that teens will stop drinking to excess at dorm parties in favor of drinking responsible amounts in public. People under the age of 21 still wouldn’t be able to purchase alcohol from liquor stores–they’d only be allowed to drink under the supervision of the general public at restaurants where they can be easily cut off by bartenders or waiters.

Governor of Minnesota, Mark Dayton, who currently opposes to the bill, said of the bill,

I think we are better off staying where we are. I haven’t talked to any of the legislators about it, I don’t have an etched-in-concrete position, but this debate has been going on appropriately for many years now, and the middle ground comes down to: It should be 21, where it is now.

The governor’s statements are technically correct, and we have some existing legislation like this to judge whether or not letting kids drink with their parents helps reduce binge drinking. For example, in Wisconsin, anyone under the age of 21 can drink alcoholic beverages in licensed establishments if they are with their parents or legal guardians. This law is technically at the discretion of the restaurants, so they can prohibit minors from buying or drinking alcohol even if the underage patrons are supervised. Unfortunately, for those hoping Wisconsin may be a shining example of how our country should lower the drinking age, statistics show that Wisconsin is actually one of the states with the biggest binge drinking problem in America. To be fair, this data was taken from adults ages 21 and over, but, it certainly doesn’t help further the theory that teaching people young will promote healthier drinking habits overall.

California

The final state that is considering lowering its drinking age is California, this time in the form of a ballot initiative. The initiative was drafted and last year by Terrance Lynn, who is now in the process of collecting signatures so the measure can be placed on a ballot this coming April. Lynn will need 365,880 signatures in order to have the general public vote on whether or not they want to lower the drinking age, which may be an entirely separate battle if the initiative makes it that far.

Because this law doesn’t have any financial backing and it would directly allow 18 to 20-year-olds to purchase and consume alcohol legally, California could lose up to $200 million in highway funds. Why? After the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 was passed, states that lower their drinking age to below 21-years-old can have their highway funding cut by 10 percent. This act was passed with the support of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), an organization working to prevent the thousands of drunk driving deaths every year, in an attempt to decrease the number these deaths substantially. While the measure would significantly reduce funding from the federal government, an estimate from the state’s Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance said that the measure could increase sales tax revenue by several million dollars per year.

Final Verdict?

People under the age of 21 shouldn’t get too excited just yet, as all of these bills and initiatives still need to be voted on before they can become. Although many people may assume a lower drinking age popular among the general public, a public opinion polling suggests otherwise. According to a Gallup poll from 2014, 74 percent of Americans claim they would oppose legislation to lower the drinking age to 18 while only 25 percent say they would support it. These rates are about the same as they always have been, so these efforts may have an uphill battle when it comes to getting enough public support.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Will Some 18-Year-Olds be Able to Drink Alcohol Legally this Year? appeared first on Law Street.

It sounds almost like a headline from The Onion or another source of satirical news: But it’s a true, a woman in New York got out of a DWI because her body produces its own alcohol, due to something called “auto-brewery syndrome.”

Making your own alcohol isn’t nearly as fun as it sounds, however. In here case, the syndrome is likely due to “a severe yeast infection in her intestines.” According to Tech Insider:

The extremely rare condition is caused by the unlikely presence of a high concentration of yeast in someone’s stomach. That yeast consumes sugar and converts it into alcohol inside the gut itself. That alcohol can than be absorbed by the intestines and make its way into the bloodstream, where it can intoxicate the patient in question.

It can be triggered by eating carbohydrate-heavy foods, including french fries. It’s a very rare disorder; estimates of how many people there may be that suffer from it in the United States number in the hundreds. However, multiple cases have also been reported in Japan.

The woman (whose name has remained anonymous) is a 35-year-old teacher from western New York. In October of 2014, she was pulled over and blew a .33 BAC, well over four times the legal limit, after a 911 tipster reported that she was weaving on the road.

However, despite her high BAC levels, she claimed she had only consumed three drinks, and had stopped drinking well before getting on the road. According to her lawyer, after she was charged, she spent over $7000 working with a medical specialist to prove that she suffers from the disorder. However, the disorder is still poorly understood, and a hard explanation to swallow for why a driver may have had a BAC at over four times the legal rate.

There have been a few other confirmed cases, including a 61-year-old man in Texas in 2013 who started “getting drunk out of the blue.” The doctor who treated the DWI defendant from New York has stated that he’s treated about 10 people with the disorder over the last few years. But given that the disorder seems pretty rare, it’s doubtful that we’ll be seeing too many others successfully use auto-brewery disorder as a defense to get out of DWI charges–the woman in New York may be a rather isolated incident.

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 Woman Gets Out of DWI Because of “Auto-Brewery Syndrome” appeared first on Law Street.

College students are big partiers–that’s no secret. But their vice of choice may be changing. Marijuana use is up among college students, surpassing cigarettes for the first time. Even more surprisingly, rates of alcohol abuse are also falling.

The study looked at 1,500 students at two and four year universities around the country in order to reach its conclusions. According to the study, habitual cigarette usage among students is down to about five percent, a sizable drop from years past. Just 16 years ago, in 1999, 19 percent of college students reported daily cigarette use. On the other hand, almost six percent of college students use marijuana daily. That’s the highest rate since 1980, when data reporting marijuana use among college students was first reported.

The rate of students using marijuana semi-regularly is also up. According to the Chicago Tribune: “Twenty-one percent of the college students surveyed said they had used marijuana at least once during the previous month, and 34 percent said they had used it in the past year.”

Incidences of dangerous drinking among college students are also decreasing. Binge drinking among college students, defined as having five or more drinks in a row in the past two weeks has dropped  from 44 percent in 1984 to 35 percent in 2014. Extreme binge drinking, which is defined as “having had 15 or more drinks in a row at least once in the previous two weeks,” is falling. Only five percent of students reported that behavior in this year’s study.

But this news isn’t unique to college students. This sort of shift is consistent with the general population’s views on cigarettes and marijuana. Now that multiple states have legalized the recreational use of marijuana, and medical use is all but commonplace in many other states, the use of weed is becoming more and more acceptable. A majority of Americans–a slim majority, but a majority all the same–believe that recreational marijuana should be legalized for adults. Additionally, a majority of Americans believe that alcohol is more dangerous to an individual’s health than marijuana. And possibly most strikingly, almost exactly half of Americans have tried marijuana at some point in their lives.

Of course as weed becomes more acceptable generally nationwide, it’s important that the risks that are still associated with marijuana, particularly for young people, are not overly minimized. Some studies have raised concerns that for young people whose brains are still developing, marijuana can have some negative long term effects.

That being said, overall there’s a lot of good news in the study. Alcohol and cigarettes have long been consumed at worrisome levels by college students. College students will probably always partake in illegal substances, but changes to the ways in which they do so will probably continue to reflect the national zeitgeist when it comes to drug and alcohol acceptance.

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 College Students Are Smoking More Marijuana, Fewer Cigarettes appeared first on Law Street.

Bud Light, produced by beer giant Anheuser-Busch, is apologizing after controversy broke out over one of the beer’s labels. The brand has been using a number of slogans as part of its “Up for Anything” marketing campaign; however, one sparked a lot of controversy–the phrase that posited Bud Light as “the perfect beer for removing ‘no’ from your vocabulary for the night.”

Bud Light….the perfect beer for marketers about to lose their job. #NoMeansNopic.twitter.com/dLWtDSMhXQ

— Jeff Barrett (@BarrettAll) April 28, 2015

There was a lot of backlash in response to this slogan, as many who saw it thought that it was an inappropriate, if inadvertent, nod to rape culture. The phrase “no means no” has become a popular rallying cry for those combatting the incredibly prevalent problems of rape and sexual assault. So for Bud Light to hint that its product takes away, in any way, the ability to say “no,” struck plenty of negative chords.

Moreover, there are plenty of other things that people should say “no” to if they’ve been drinking–driving, to name just one. This slogan indicates that people drinking Bud Light would engage in activities they normally wouldn’t–and that doesn’t exactly scream responsible alcohol consumption. While Bud Light’s slogan was supposed to be light-hearted, and presumably indicate that its beer would lead to a fun night where its consumers were open to new experiences, this slogan completely missed that mark.

Twitter users took to the social media platform to express a wide variety of reactions, ranging from disgust to mocking.

Sorry AB. NO does mean NO. No matter how much beer. #SoWrong #BigFail http://t.co/OXBbwQd4uq

— Rep. Stacey Newman (@staceynewman) April 28, 2015

Stolen from reddit: “No” always means “No”…especially if the question is: “Do you want a Bud Light?” #terribletagline#UpForWhatever

— TheRealLouisWeiher (@LouisWeiher) April 28, 2015

Bud Light has stopped production of the bottles featuring the slogan in question, although it won’t be recalling the ones that are already on the shelves. The bottles are sold in packs with mixed labels, meaning a 12-pack may contain a few offensive labels, just one, or none at all. Logistically speaking, a recall would have been difficult, which is understandable. Also in response to the backlash, Alexander Lambrecht, Vice President for Bud Light, released a statement:

The Bud Light Up for Whatever campaign, now in its second year, has inspired millions of consumers to engage with our brand in a positive and light-hearted way. In this spirit, we created more than 140 different scroll messages intended to encourage brand engagement. It’s clear that this particular message missed the mark, and we regret it. We would never condone disrespectful or irresponsible behavior. As a result, we have immediately ceased production of this message on all bottles.

It’s good that Bud Light made the call to remove the slogan from its labels, but the fact that it took such a concerted backlash to do so is a bit concerning. While we shouldn’t expect everyone to have an encyclopedic knowledge of every current social movement, “no means no” has been a pretty visible one. The fact that a single Bud Light marketing executive didn’t think of the overall implications of their label is pretty surprising. Bud Light did the right thing by apologizing–hopefully in the future it gives a little more thought to what message it is sending to consumers.

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 Bud Light Removes “No From Your Vocabulary” in Misguided Campaign appeared first on Law Street.

Tumultuous alcohol regulations speckle America’s past. Prohibition alone demonstrates our sometimes love/hate relationship with liquor. Some people loved alcohol enough to succumb to criminal behavior. Others hated it enough to dream of scourging it completely from the nation. Extreme feelings on both sides only led to fleeting Prohibition policies, blemishes on the Constitution, and a case study in alcohol regulation.

Today, we enjoy more balanced alcohol policies, but the system has yet to achieve the perfect balance of  freedom, safety, and economic gain. From a public health perspective, alcohol consumption still presents a regulatory challenge in avoiding preventable alcohol-induced illness and death. Alcohol has unflattering ties to illness, death, and economic burden. Every year in the United States, alcohol consumption causes 1.6 million hospitalizations and 80,000 deaths. Alcohol-related liver cirrhosis alone kills 26,000 a year.

Many interventions place focus on the individual, with programs to treat heavy drinkers or educate people who might become heavy drinkers. Unfortunately, many accidents result when habitually moderate drinkers engage in uncharacteristically risky behavior. To make sure everyone benefits from interventions, many experts seek changes in alcohol regulations that could benefit the entire population. Some recent studies have yielded compelling results on how increasing taxes and adding breathalyzers to cars could yield enormous benefits to our overall well-being.

 Regulation of Alcohol in the U.S.

You can strut around certain streets of Savannah, Georgia clutching an open container with no questions asked. Try that in any city in Virginia and you could face misdemeanor charges. Alcohol policies vary–sometimes dramatically–from state to state.

Alcohol regulations fall into four major subject areas:

• How alcohol is sold and distributed
• How alcohol is purchased and served
• Taxes, usually in the form of excise taxes on wine, beer, and hard liquor
• Blood alcohol content (BAC) laws for operating cars and machinery

Recent studies on the effects of taxes and BAC laws scrutinize current policies and call attention to possible changes. Keep reading to learn about the findings and how they could mix things up.

Higher Alcohol Taxes

One action that could potentially reduce alcohol-related deaths and boost the economy? Sounds like a great idea. Unfortunately, the idea is raising taxes, which immediately puts a sour taste in many mouths. Unpopular or not, the researchers assessing the relationship between alcohol and taxes have found tax increases could yield major benefits.

Increasing Taxes Decreases Alcohol Consumption.  

Raising alcohol taxes decreases alcohol consumption, and therefore indirectly reduces alcohol-related disease and death. Research has proven many times the inverse relationship between alcohol consumption and higher taxes and prices. Compared with other prevention policies, taxation tops the list of the most effective ways to reduce drinking. Models have found increasing alcohol taxes could reduce alcohol-related deaths by about 35 percent, lower crashes by 11 percent, and even reduce transmission of sexually transmitted diseases by 6 percent.

Increasing Taxes Could Actually Create, Not Destroy, Jobs

People who oppose an increase in alcohol taxes often cite job loss and other economic concerns to justify their positions. But researchers have found that the opposite might be true, and increased alcohol taxes could actually stimulate the economy. Researchers from University of Illinois at Chicago and the Center on Alcohol Marketing and Youth (CAMY) at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health created an online tool that tests how different alcohol tax rates could impact the economies of all 50 states.  According to the model, a $0.05 alcohol tax increase in California could create about 21,500 jobs if the tax revenue goes into the government’s general fund. You can check out the tool here and even find out what increased alcohol taxes could do in your state.

Let’s give a possible increase in alcohol taxes some perspective. Alcohol taxes have pretty much avoided being adjusted for inflation since the 1950s. Since alcohol taxes didn’t adjust with the rest of the economy, in relative terms alcohol costs significantly less than it did in the 1950s. Take beer for example; most states calculate beer taxes per quantity, not based on price. By the year 2000, state beer taxes amounted to relatively about a 1/3 of what they were in 1968 as inflation spiked beer prices but taxes stayed stagnant. While some states adjusted for inflation, most states saw tax profit dwindle by over 50 percent since 1968.

That’s why Alexander Wagenaar, a professor at University of Florida, believes taxes should be raised and automatically adjusted for inflation. He estimates that every drink consumed costs society about $1.90 in healthcare and other burdens, but points out that alcohol consumers aren’t responsible for the extra costs incurred by their actions.

Will it happen?

Any attempts to raise taxes on alcohol have been met with firm opposition from liquor lobbies and the hospitality industry. As a result, most attempts at increasing alcohol taxes have failed, at least 335 out of 364 major attempts since 2001 in New Mexico, Minnesota, Maine, and Hawaii, just to name a few. In 2012, it’s estimated that the liquor industry spent $16 million on political candidates, solidifying their place in regulatory affairs.

Mandatory breathalyzers in our cars?

Had enough of grim DUI-warning commercials and high school “Grim Reaper” days? One policy could put an end to them by physically stopping would-be drunk drivers from starting their cars. One possible alcohol intervention involves installing alcohol ignition interlocks (a.k.a in car breathalyzers) that connect to the car’s ignition and lock it if the driver’s BAC is above a pre-set limit. This might seem extreme, but shine a spotlight on the problems with alcohol-involved motor vehicle crashes (AI-MVCs) and you’ll see why it’s appealing from a policy angle.

AI-MVCs rank as a major public health threat mostly because the dangerous actions of a few can end up hurting many innocent people. Awareness campaigns and laws have decreased the problem since the 1980s, but in 1994 AI-MVCs accounted for 30 percent of all traffic fatalities and since then that percentage hasn’t really budged.

Policies like BAC limits, zero tolerance laws, and license suspension work, but they place the burden of finding and penalizing perpetrators in the hands of police officers. Without a magical drunk radar, this means some people slip through and cause devastation. Some estimates find that repeat offenders often drive drunk as many as 80 times before they’re discovered and apprehended. Even license suspensions don’t stop them, as 50 percent to 75 percent of offenders keep on driving anyway.

Interlock devices cause prevention-minded experts to salivate at the idea of nipping fatal accidents in the bud.  But would interlock devices actually help in the real world?

In 2008, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) started a five year test to determine the viability and effectiveness of widespread use of the devices. The Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety (DADSS) program sought to find out if mandatory adoption policies would have an impact on fatal and non-fatal AI-MCVs and if they could decrease economic costs associated with AI-MCVs.

Here’s what they found out:

Interlock devices would prevent deaths and injuries: 

Using a 15 year implementation model, the DADSS program estimated that 59,000 (83 percent) deaths and 1.25 million (84 percent-88 percent) of nonfatal injuries could be prevented.

Interlock devices would reduce AI-MCV costs: 

Again, assuming a 15 year implementation model, costs associated with fatal injuries could be reduced by $260 billion and costs associated with nonfatal injuries could be reduced by $83 billion. In perspective, if the devices each cost $400 and worked 100 percent of the time, the reduction in injury costs would outweigh the implementation cost after 3 years.

A required interlock device program has already been implemented in France, the wine mecca of the world. Drivers in France need to have breathalyzers on hand or face fines. After implementing the program, France went from having one of the highest alcohol-related traffic fatalities in the world to having one of the lowest.

Will it happen?

The researchers acknowledged that mandatory interlock devices would be a drastic change, would take many years to implement, and would need to pass through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration as a new safety standard. They recommend strengthening current policies in the interim, such as having all states require interlocks among first time DUI offenders, requiring the device use for longer periods of time, and requiring their use in the pre-conviction time frame. The DADSS found the public receptive to the idea, with 64 percent of people surveyed saying they thought it was a good idea.

 Prevention instead of Punishment  

State alcohol regulations change constantly.  With an alcohol tax system that’s stuck in the 1950s and an AI-MCV rate that hasn’t budged since 1994, more changes are certainly in order. New policies would shift our alcohol intervention system from one of punishment, to one of prevention.

If either of these ideas seem extreme to you, remember that there are already some odd alcohol-related laws on the books. For example, in Massachusetts, discounted alcohol, even during happy hour, is prohibited. When dining at a restaurant in Utah, all alcohol bottles on display must be empty. We’ve endured these and other strange alcohol laws throughout the history of the United States. Surely interventions that could reduce alcohol-related fatalities, disease, and injuries will prove more palatable to many Americans. 

 Resources

Primary

US National Library of Medicine: Effects of Beverage Alcohol Price and Tax Levels on Drinking: a Meta-analysis of 1003 Estimates from 112 Studies 

Additional 

Science Daily: Alcohol Taxes Can Improve Health, Lead to More Jobs

Association of State and Territorial Health Officials: Reducing Alcohol-Impaired Driving Through Ignition Interlock Policies

Mothers Against Drunk Driving: Ignition Interlock Frequently Asked Questions

Pew Charitable Trusts: Liquor Lobby Fights Off Tax Increases on Alcohol

American Journal of Public Health: Modeling the Injury Prevention Impact of Mandatory Alcohol Ignition Interlock Installation in All New US Vehicles

American Journal of Public Health: Effects of Alcohol Tax and Price Policies on Morbidity and Mortality: A Systematic Review

Public Health Law Research: Raising Alcohol Tax Levels to Reduce Drinking

Public Health Law Research: Effects of Alcohol Taxes on Alcohol-Related Mortality in Florida: Time-Series Analyses From 1969 to 2004

Yale Law School: Liquor Laws and Constitutional Conventions: A Legal History of the 21rst Amendment

Ashley Bell

Ashley Bell communicates about health and wellness every day as a non-profit Program Manager. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Business and Economics from the College of William and Mary, and loves to investigate what changes in healthy policy and research might mean for the future. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Breathalyzers in Cars? Changes in American Alcohol Policies appeared first on Law Street.

ICYMI, check out Law Street’s top three article of the week, including the latest installment of dumb laws from Marisa Mostek; the latest news in alcohol laws from Anneliese Mahoney; and hookup site Grindr getting out of legal trouble when one of its members had sex with an underage user.

#1 Dumbest Laws of the United States: Vermont, New Hampshire, & Maine

New Hampshire came close to earning the same honor as its neighbor, Vermont–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). Read full article here.

#2 Federal Government OKs Powdered Alcohol

There’s a new product floating around that is threatening to be a big game-changer for the alcohol industry. It’s called “Palcohol” and it’s powdered alcohol. Since the idea of powdered alcohol began being floated around, regulators have been worried about its potential for abuse–despite that Palcohol just received federal approval this week. Read full article here.

#3 Grindr Found Not Liable For Man’s Sexual Encounter With Minor

Many sites that are intended for adults, such as dating sites, come with a disclaimer that states, “You must be at least 18 years or older to use this site.” New Jersey native William F. Saponaro, Jr. was under the impression that warning was true when he logged into hisGrindr account to meet available men. Instead Saponaro met up with a 13-year-old boy, had sex with him, and then was arrested for the act. Saponaro ended up being prosecuted for engaging in a sexual act with a minor. 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.

Bad news for cheap wine lovers and broke 20-somethings everywhere–many beloved budget wine brands just got slammed with a class-action lawsuit filed yesterday in California. Allegations are being made that some of those wines include unsafe levels of arsenic.

The brands named in the lawsuit include Franzia, Menage a Trois, Sutter Home, Wine Cube, Charles Shaw, Glen Ellen, Cupcake, Beringer, and Vendage. These are all pretty popular brands–Franzia actually call itself “the world’s most popular wine,” and consistently has extremely high sales.

The arsenic contamination was found by a company called BeverageGrades, founded by Kevin Hicks, who previously worked in the wine distribution business. The Denver-based company started running tests on different brands of wine to see what sorts of ingredients are found in the most popular ones. The lab looked at 1,300 different kinds of wine and terrifyingly, approximately one quarter of them tested for a high level of arsenic.

Hicks did say that there were some odd trends in the wines that tested positive, however. The cheaper the wine, the more arsenic Hicks’ lab detected. Also, the problem appeared to be with white wines from the aforementioned brands, but not necessarily from the red.

Hicks filed the class-action lawsuit after he claims that he tried to bring the issue to the attention of the wine producers, and they ignored him. The lawsuit alleges that the companies misrepresented themselves to customers.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does allow some arsenic in water, as small amounts aren’t necessarily harmful. Some of the wines though had up to 500 percent of what the EPA allows in drinking water. However, the wine producers argue that using water as a comparison doesn’t make much sense. After all, we drink a lot more water than we do wine, so overall arsenic intake from wine won’t be as high. While our federal government doesn’t regulate how much arsenic can be in wine, Canada’s does. The arsenic levels found in the American wines would have passed under the Canadian standard, even though it’s above the EPA standards for water. That doesn’t necessarily mean that those levels of arsenic are acceptable. Allan Smith, associate director of the Arsenic Health Effects research program at U.C. Berkeley, told CBS that arsenic, even in very small amounts, is very dangerous.

Whether or not this lawsuit will actually go anywhere remains to be seen as it was just filed this week. There are certainly some questions about the validity of Hicks’ claims as well, as when CBS News tried to check his results, they didn’t yield nearly as much arsenic as he claimed.

The companies will presumably be arguing against the allegations. Some of the companies involved in the suit, including Trader Joes, have already said that they are in compliance with all existing regulations.

It’s no surprise that cheap wine isn’t the best thing out there for you, but the fact that it has quite that much arsenic is somewhat surprising. If anything, maybe this lawsuit will push the U.S. government toward more regulation of the wine industry.

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 Lawsuit Claims That Your Favorite Wine Contains Arsenic appeared first on Law Street.

There’s a new product floating around that is threatening to be a big game-changer for the alcohol industry. It’s called “Palcohol” and it’s powdered alcohol. Since the idea of powdered alcohol began being floated around, regulators have been worried about its potential for abuse–despite that Palcohol just received federal approval this week.

Read more: Schumer’s Crusades Against Weird Alcohol Help Build His War Chest

Palcohol is a patented product, so exactly how it works is proprietary to the company that owns it, Lipsmark, but essentially powdered alcohol is a lot like powdered milk. You have to add water to make it liquid again. In Palcohol’s case, a one ounce package needs to be mixed with six ounces of water. That one ounce ends up equivalent to a shot. Palcohol will be sold in five “flavors”–vodka, rum, cosmopolitan, powderita (a riff on margarita), and lemon drop. Now that the product has been approved by the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, we should expect to see “Palcohol” on our shelves sometime within the next few months.

Advocates for Palcohol cite its convenience, and how easy it will be to transport. Palcohol’s site uses its founder, Mark Phillips, as an example:

Mark is an active guy…hiking, biking, camping, kayaking, etc. After hours of an activity, he sometimes wanted to relax and enjoy a refreshing adult beverage. But those activities, and many others, don’t lend themselves to lugging heavy bottles of wine, beer or spirits. The only liquid he wanted to carry was water.

Palcohol also might have pretty cool future uses besides just a convenient, light way to throw one back. For example, it could be used as an antiseptic, particularly because of how lightweight the pouches will be.

However, there are many who are worried about Palcohol. First of all, because of Palcohol’s smaller size and weight, it would probably be easier for underage drinkers to sneak somewhere–whether that be into an event or just concealed within their own home. In that vein, not only could it be easier for underage drinkers to utilize, it could be rendered particularly potent. Technically Palcohol could be mixed with any sort of liquid to create a drink. So, if you really wanted, you could mix it with another type of alcohol to make a very strong drink. There’s also a concern that it could be used in food, whether to get drunk yourself or to spike someone else.

This is probably a pretty legitimate concern as, to be fair, teens aren’t always exemplary when it comes to making smart decisions with regard to alcohol consumption. Remember Four Loko? The caffeinated adult beverage was thought to be responsible for quite a few college and high school binge drinking injuries.

One of the more high-profile figures to come forward with concerns about Palcohol was Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) who included in a statement:

I am in total disbelief that our federal government has approved such an obviously dangerous product, and so, Congress must take matters into its own hands and make powdered alcohol illegal. Underage alcohol abuse is a growing epidemic with tragic consequences and powdered alcohol could exacerbate this. We simply can’t sit back and wait for powdered alcohol to hit store shelves across the country, potentially causing more alcohol-related hospitalizations and God forbid, deaths. This legislation will make illegal the production and sale of this Kool-Aid for underage drinking.

While many new products have the potential to be abused, drinking fads also tend to die out pretty quickly. Yet all of these concerns aside, the federal government did give Palcohol the go-ahead, so we’ll probably see it on shelves eventually. Changes for the alcohol industry are ahead, that’s for certain.

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 Federal Government OKs Powdered Alcohol appeared first on Law Street.

The huge influx of snow in the Northeastern part of the United States didn’t stop this week’s weird arrest nominees from doing some truly stupid stuff. Check out the slideshow to learn about the top weird arrests of this week.

[SlideDeck2 id=33410 ress=1]

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 Weird Arrests of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

We’re all familiar with “A Christmas Carol” and the old miser named Ebenezer Scrooge who achieves enlightenment after a night of ghostly visits. But it turns out that Scrooge’s haunts might have been helped along by something he ate or drank.

Eating and drinking (especially the extreme forms practiced throughout the holiday season) can impact your body enough to cause memorable dreams, nightmares, and sometimes hallucinations.

Below, I’ll explore the mental effects of holiday food through the lens of Scrooge’s misadventures. What actions might explain Scrooge’s nocturnal visits from a troupe of formidable ghosts? What does it mean for you? Let’s find out…

He Could Have Eaten a Hallucinogenic Food

I’m not saying that old Ebenezer was purposefully tripping on magic mushrooms. Quite a few foods might have contributed to his visions, or even cause you to see some weird things after Christmas dinner.

Moldy Bread

Specifically, Moldy rye bread. Ergot or (Claviceps Purpurea) is a fungus common on grasses, cereal crops, and ryes. It’s also the source of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD). Scrooge’s cold, wet, pantry would have favored the growth of this fungus, which causes hallucinations when ingested.

Ergot has such extreme effects that researchers Linnda Caporael and Mary L. Matossian have linked it to the Salem Witch Trials. If it could have caused that hysteria, it could have caused Scrooge’s ghostly episode.

Nutmeg

Nutmeg becomes psychoactive when taken in large quantities. How much? More than the amount that usually dusts a mug of eggnog. It would take more than two tablespoons (two whole seeds) to produce any hallucinogenic effects. Nutmeg has mind altering properties because it contains myristicin, a chemical similar to amphetamine and mescaline.

Would Scrooge consume enough nutmeg to trip? In his day, men were sometimes known to carry around their own nutmeg graters in case an appropriate beverage presented itself. Nutmeg was used for headaches, and turkeys were even stuffed with it. While it’s unlikely that he was judiciously grinding copious amounts of nutmeg into his eggnog, it’s almost certainly something he could access. You shouldn’t worry though, unless you’re really planning on overindulging in nutmeg this holiday season.

Fish

Hallucinatory fish poisoning, or ichthyoallyeinotoxism, is a rare type of food poisoning that causes central nervous system disturbances, especially hallucinations and nightmares. Ciguatera poisoning is the most well-known type of hallucinatory fish poisoning. Fish become contaminated with ciguatoxins when they eat the toxin-producing seaplant, dinoflagellates. They can also become contaminated by eating another fish with ciguatoxins in its system.

Eating exotic fish usually causes hallucinatory fish poisoning, so it’s unlikely that London-dwelling Scrooge would have this to blame for his visit by ghosts.

What this means for your holiday: If you’re hoping to avoid holiday hallucinations, steer clear of strange new fish, don’t overdose on the nutmeg, and check your bread twice for suspicious mold spores.

He Could Have Been Over-Caffeinated

If Scrooge was in fact such a “tight-fisted hand at the grindstone”, maybe he owed his disciplined work ethic to profuse amounts of caffeine. And too much caffeine could lead to hallucinations, says this Durham University Study.

The researchers found that heavy caffeine users–those who drink the amount in seven cups of coffee or more a day–were more likely to have hallucinations or hear voices than low caffeine users.

Why does this happen? It might be stress, which caffeine tends to heighten, even physiologically. A stressed body releases the hormone cortisol, and a stressed and caffeinated body releases even more. The researchers believe the extra release of cortisol might be where the hallucinations come in, but they need to do more research to tell for certain.

What it means for your holiday: If you’re sleep deprived over the holidays, go ahead and have more caffeine, but draw the line at seven cups.

He Could Have Eaten Some Cheese

Could cheese cause vivid dreams? A study by the British Cheese Board suggests there might be some truth to this–if Scrooge had nodded off and dreamt of Marley, that is. The study found that consuming different types of cheese could encourage different types of dreams. Listen to this NPR spot to find out more.

Other scientific studies investigating a cheese-dream connection are limited. But preliminary results of a study on vitamin B-6, of which cheese is an excellent source, produced some compelling information. The results showed that people taking higher doses of vitamin B-6 reported higher dream salience; their dreams were more vivid, emotional, colorful, or just plain bizarre.

What it means for your holiday: If you want to have vivid dreams, taking a tour through the old holiday cheese plate might not be a bad idea.

He Might Have Just Eaten Too Much and Nodded Off

Scrooge lived alone. He also was trying to save money by keeping his house sparsely lit. Darkness + quiet = a perfect recipe for nodding off in the easy chair. Scrooge could have drifted off to sleep as soon as the stimulation provided by his sparse dinner had ended. Eating just before bed might be the perfect recipe for weird dreams, including those featuring the return of a deceased former boss.

Food has been shown to affect the levels of neurotransmitters in the brain that control time spent in rapid eye movement, or REM, sleep. You are most likely to dream in REM sleep.

For example, the chemical tyramine-a (found in dairy, meat, poultry and fish) increases brain levels of noradrenaline, also called norepinephrine. Noradrenaline produces the body’s response to fear and is sometimes even referred to as the “fight or flight” chemical. If your noradrenaline levels peak and you have a nightmare, your heart rate increases and your muscles tense up in response. Your heightened response to the visions in your nightmares would make them more memorable upon waking. Noradrenaline also makes blood pressure rise which could make dreams more nightmarish.

Other experts suggest a less complex explanation for vivid dreams following a late night binge. With an uncomfortably full stomach, you tend to toss and turn more, waking yourself up and interrupting your dreams. Dream interruptions often lead to heightened memories of the dream and the general sense that you’ve had more dreams than usual.

What it means for your holiday: If you tend to have nightmares, you might want to steer clear of the fridge on your way to bed. Those holiday leftovers could wreak havoc on your dreams.

He Might Have Had Too Much “Holiday Spirit”

It was hardly uncommon for gentlemen in those days to have a “nightcap” (stiff drink) before bed. They thought it might keep them warm throughout their nights like the actual nightcaps they wore on their heads. Scrooge wanted to save money on coal for heating, so he might have indulged in this nightly ritual. Little did he know that drinking so close to bedtime can lead to disturbed sleep and nightmares.

Alcohol interferes with REM sleep and leads to frequent sleep interruptions, just like overeating. So again, you can remember your dreams more vividly. Also drinking alcohol suppresses REM sleep and your brain tries to make up for lost time later on. So, in the morning, your brain might try to cram in some REM sleep and your dreams might become more bizarre and frightening as result.

What it means for your holiday: Craving a holiday night cap? Just drink it at least three hours before bedtime or prepare for some nightmares.

He Might Have Had an Alcohol Problem

Without any concerned family or friends to stage an intervention, Scrooge could have been a closet alcoholic. In rare cases, chronic alcohol abuse could lead to psychosis, the state of losing contact with reality.

Alcohol is a neurotoxin that can have many damaging effects on the brain. It can even induce alcohol related psychosis. Psychosis has been observed:

• during heavy intoxication
• as a symptom of alcohol withdrawal
• in disorders resulting from years of alcohol dependency

Long time alcoholics might be thiamine (B1) deficient which could lead to Korsakoff syndrome, a brain disorder associated with hallucinations, loss of memory, and confabulation.

What it means for your holiday: Even if you’ve had one too many eggnogs, you probably won’t start having visions. Alcohol induced psychosis is a concern for chronic alcohol abusers.

He Could Have One of These Conditions

Aside from one-off actions that might lead strange visions, some seemingly commonplace medical conditions cause hallucinations. Many of them could result from dietary choices like, gastroenteritis, gastritis, peptic ulcers, vitamin B12 deficiency, and low blood sugar. Scrooge could have suffered from any of these, and been none the wiser.

What it means for your holiday: Having a blood sugar crash after a unwise cookie binge? It might be the reason you’re hearing friendly voices telling you to eat even more…

A Hallucination Sidenote  

Don’t get too scared. Food-induced hallucinations like these occur rarely. But experiencing a hallucination doesn’t automatically diagnose you with mental illness.

This video explains how anyone can hallucinate:

Pass the Sugar Plums, Please

So there could be an easy explanation for what happened to Ebenezer Scrooge. The ghosts he saw might have been encouraged by beef, gravy, or an underdone potato. Now that you know what you know about the possible effects of holiday eating, you can prepare accordingly.

The hallucinations are pretty rare so you probably don’t need to worry about that. The worst your holiday eating and drinking will probably do is cause nightmares and disturbed sleep. Luckily, it’s not totally out of your control. This blogger has some advice to ensure your dreams are full of sugar plums and not sinister spirits:

• Eat dinner about 4 hours before bed.
• Stop drinking (everything) 90 minutes before bed.
• If you do have late night snacks, keep them high in carbohydrates and medium to low on the protein. A slice of whole wheat toast topped with peanut butter or cheese is an excellent choice.
• Steer clear of anything too acidic, like pasta with red sauce, that might lead to acid reflux.

Sweet dreams and happy holidays!

Resources

Primary

Durham University: High Caffeine Intake Linked to Hallucination Proneness

Med Scape: Alcohol-Related Psychosis

Centre Antipoison: Hallucinatory Fish Poisoning (ichthyoallyeinotoxism): Two Case Reports From the Western Mediterranean and Literature Review

NIH: Effects of Pyridoxine on Dreaming: a Preliminary Study

Additional

Bon Appetit: Foods That Make You Hallucinate

New Scientist: The Nightmare Before Christmas

Psychology Today: Psychoactive Spices – Bon Appetite!

NPR: Study: Eating Cheese Can Alter Your Dreams

Live Strong: Do B Vitamins Give People Vivid Dreams?

Ashley Bell

Ashley Bell communicates about health and wellness every day as a non-profit Program Manager. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Business and Economics from the College of William and Mary, and loves to investigate what changes in healthy policy and research might mean for the future. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Holiday Hallucinations: Can You Really Have Visions of Sugar Plums? appeared first on Law Street.

A California federal court dismissed a trademark lawsuit last week that John Wayne Enterprises brought against Duke University. The case was dismissed based on lack of jurisdiction and improper venue.

Actor John Wayne, born Marion Robert Morrison, had several nicknames that contained the word “Duke,” such as Duke Morrison, Duke Wayne, and The Duke. John Wayne Enterprises was created to “preserve and protect the name, image, and likeness of John Wayne by associating the John Wayne brand with quality and timeless products and experiences that embody the spirit of John Wayne and give back to the community.” In July 2013, the organization filed a trademark application with the Patent and Trademark Office to use the trademarks “Duke” and “Duke John Wayne” on all alcoholic beverages except beer. Last July, the organization sued Duke University for infringing its Duke trademark on alcoholic bottles.

John Wayne Enterprises argued that Duke University does not own the word “Duke” for use for all purposes’ however, the university argued that John Wayne Enterprises’ use of “Duke” on alcohol beverages caused consumer confusion, which trademark law is designed to prevent. According to the Los Angeles Times, John Wayne Enterprises’ “Duke” trademark is “a label on a bottle of bourbon stamped with a silhouette of the movie star in a cowboy hat, clutching a gun. The name ‘DUKE’ is stamped over his thighs, and John Wayne’s signature is reproduced near his feet.”  The John Wayne Enterprises logo can be seen here.

John Wayne Enterprises tried to gain personal jurisdiction over Duke University in a California federal court because “the school actively recruits students there, raises money there, maintains alumni associations there and sells university-related products there.” However, U.S. District Judge David Carter dismissed the Wayne estate’s lawsuit for lack of jurisdiction and said the case belonged in front of the Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Appeal Board in Alexandria, Virginia.

The court believed that “Duke was aware of John Wayne Enterprises’s presence in the state, but that there was no showing how Duke [University] purposefully directed its conduct at California by filing an opposition to trademarks in Virginia [the location of the Patent and Trademark Office.]”

John Wayne Enterprises and Duke University have battled over the use of the “Duke” trademark before. A July article in the Hollywood Reporter cites conflicts over using the name “Duke” in restaurant services, gaming machines, and celebrity licensing services. Thus, Judge Carter’s dismissal is likely not the end of this case. John Wayne Enterprises can always bring a suit against Duke University on the East Coast.

It’s rare to see John Wayne on the losing-end of a battle, but I am sure that John Wayne Enterprises is already preparing its next move to prevail in the end.

Joseph Perry

Joseph Perry is a graduate of St. John’s University School of Law whose goal is to become a publishing and media law attorney. He has interned at William Morris Endeavor, Rodale, Inc., Columbia University Press, and is currently interning at Hachette Book Group and volunteering at the Media Law Resource Center, which has given him insight into the legal aspects of the publishing and media industries. Contact Joe at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Duke’s Trademark Suit Against Duke University is Dismissed appeared first on Law Street.

Stories about marijuana and alcohol abuse on university campuses seem to consume the media, but what about prescription drug abuse? Students who abuse prescription pills tend to be overlooked because many of them do not fit the “criminal” profile; yet Adderall and other medications can be incredibly dangerous and very addictive.

Although many cases easily slide under the radar, in April of 2014, University of Colorado officials decided to crack down when two students were arrested for selling Adderall at their school. Christopher Valentine and Graham Hankin will be facing felony criminal charges for selling their prescriptions, at $4-$5 per pill.

According to CNN, “researchers estimate about 30 [percent] of students use stimulants non-medically.” This is becoming an epidemic in universities, and has even trickled down into middle school and high school communities.

These teens and young adults are not drug addicts; they are students with motivation and goals. As a matter of fact, many of them go to Ivy League schools and have professional plans. But good intentions can quickly turn bad when an innocent pop of a pill becomes a dangerous addiction. The scary thing about prescription drugs is that one might assume that they are safe because they are regulated by the FDA. However, assuming that prescription drugs are harmless is very dangerous–Adderall is an amphetamine, comparable to cocaine or speed, and when taken in non-regulated doses it can be lethal.

How Does Adderall Work?

Adderall creates a constant flow of dopamine. It continuously sends a supply of the feel-good neurotransmitter to the prefrontal cortex of the brain, which regulates behavior, emotional processing, and cognition. According to Synapse, Penn’s Undergraduate Medical Connection research center, “stimulating this region of the brain predictably causes increased alertness, wakefulness, and concentration.”  These chemical reactions cause the high that students report feeling.

What are the Side Effects Associated with Unregulated Use?

The side effects of excessive usage are not pretty. Because of the “speed” like qualities and caffeine in Adderall, it has been linked to “cardiovascular complications.” In extreme cases Aderall abuse can lead to a stroke. More common side effects include heart palpitations and a rapid heart beat. Physically, Adderall can cause teeth grinding, and since it’s an appetite suppressant, it can cause extreme weight loss.

Psychological disturbances such as depression, paranoia, and anger have also been reported. When a regular user decides to quit the drug, they will experience symptoms similar to those felt by recovering narcotics addicts. According to a source from Study Drugs, “I slept an hour a night for a week straight [while on Adderall.]” Once she stopped taking the drug, she slept and ate non-stop for several days in a row to compensate for her loss of sleep. At the rate at which her brain was processing information, the source claims that, “she wasn’t living in the moment.”

To hear three personal perspectives from students check out this clip:

How do so Many Students get Their Hands on Adderall?

Many students are prescribed Adderall for ADHD; yet those students can sometimes function without their medication, so they sell their prescriptions for an elevated price. The dealer makes a profit, and the student buyer has a steady dose of Adderall to get them through exams and papers.

Here’s a shorts news clip and interview on the fad:

Just as any fad catches on, someone who tries Adderall talks about the success that they have with the drug and their grades. The word spreads, and other students begin to seek out someone who has a  prescription. Students that have never even touched alcohol or narcotics want the drug for its practical purposes. They have very little knowledge of what they are taking; or even if they do, they feel that the positive effects of the drug outweigh the negative health and psychological effects. Sometimes it’s too late, and similarly to any addiction, the users’ decision-making becomes overpowered by their desire to have the drug.

Who is to Blame for this Epidemic?

According to the Partnership for Drug-Free Kids:

Recent media reports underscore the massive surge in the prescribing of prescription stimulants to our nation’s children. Combine the existing daily damage from prescription opioid abuse together with a range of other medicines that are abused, and we ourselves have created this crisis.

In 2009, youth abused marijuana the most, but prescription drugs ranked second. Acquiring prescription pills is not difficult for the average student. Students can easily go to a psychologist and claim that they are experiencing ADHD-like symptoms and receive a prescription. Whether the student abuses their own prescription or buys from a friend, prescription stimulants are not regulated or penalized nearly as often as they should be.

How do we stop it?

On June 11, there was a conference held at Temple University in Philadelphia to promote the safety and regulation of prescribed pills at universities.  Michael Botticelli, the  director of National Drug Control Policy, led the conference and spoke about methods to manage the abuse of prescription pills. A few of his tactics included pharmaceutical regulation and personal assessment of the distributor and the situation. He also suggested the importance of “disposal programs,” which emphasize throwing away prescriptions after the patient is finished with the bottle.

A less passive way to regulate the illegal sale of Adderall would be to crack down on the overall drug trafficking on campuses. Search and seizure policies have led to students being kicked out of universities for many years. If campuses crack down, there will be a large number of students who will face either educational consequences, or in more extreme cases, criminal convictions. Legal action will cause students to take the issue more seriously; they are more likely to stay away from these illegal behaviors if there is a clear consequence.

—

Madeleine Stern (@M3estern) is a student at George Mason University majoring in Journalism and minoring in Theater. Her writing on solitary confinement inspired her to pursue a graduate degree in clinical counseling after graduation. Madeleine is an avid runner, dedicated animal lover, and a children’s ballet instructor. Contact Madeleine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Simone via Flickr]

Madeleine Stern

Madeleine Stern attended George Mason University majoring in Journalism and minoring in Theater. Her writing on solitary confinement inspired her to pursue a graduate degree in clinical counseling after graduation. Madeleine is an avid runner, dedicated animal lover, and a children’s ballet instructor. Contact Madeleine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Adderall Epidemic: Speed for Success appeared first on Law Street.

While the city of Toronto collectively wonders where in the world its mayor, Rob Ford, is today — Rehab? The U.S? Eating a sandwich at the corner deli? — we thought it’s the perfect time to take a walk down memory lane. Are Rob Ford’s 15 minutes of fame winding down? Doesn’t seem like it — this most recent sparkling example of stupidity was just released today.

The Toronto Sun released this video showing our favorite beleaguered crack head mayor ranting in a bar. It’s quite spectacular, especially it means that Ford has apparently mastered being in two places at once, given that he’s currently supposed to be in rehab and his family claims that he has not left rehab since being admitted. Rob Ford is saying some pure gold in this video, my favorite being: “I’m nodding here. I’m in f—ing divorce and going to the f—ing doghouse and going in a hotel. (Inaudible) I don’t know what to say.”   

Unrelated but awesome.

Oh yeah, Rob Ford’s doing as well as always. And if you like that video, make sure to check out 15 other ridiculous Rob Ford moments below.

Click here to read the original post published November 20, 2013.

Bumbling Toronto Mayor Rob Ford has made waves in recent weeks for the revelation that he once smoked crack while “in a drunken stupor” this February. I’d love to say that this was the only dumb thing Mayor Ford has ever done, but where would the fun be in that? Let’s look at a countdown of Mayor Ford’s oddest, most embarrassing, and downright idiotic moments.

15. That one time the Toronto City Council tried to strip him of his power after the crack smoking scandal and he compared his side of the story to…The Gulf War.

“This, folks, reminds me of when — and I was watching with my brother — when Saddam attacked Kuwait. And President Bush said, ‘I warn you, I warn you, I warn you, do not.’ Well, folks, if you think American-style politics is nasty, you guys have just attacked Kuwait. Mark my words, friends, this is going to be outright war in the next election, and I’m going to do everything in my power — everything in my power — to beat you guys.”

Why it’s cringeworthy: C’mon, Mayor Ford. The Gulf War, really? I hope we’re not talking about that Gulf War where tens of thousands of people were killed. You’re comparing your reelection campaign to a deadly war? A+ for complete lack of sensitivity.

14. In 2002, when Mayor Ford was a City Councilor, there was a discussion about putting a homeless shelter in his district. Mayor Ford made the always eloquent point that instead of having a “public meeting” about said homeless shelter, maybe a “public lynching” would be more appropriate.

Why it’s cringeworthy: Do I even have to answer this one? This wasn’t Mayor Ford standing up for his constituents like he claimed, it was him being a gigantic jerk about a legitimate proposal. That doesn’t really incite compassion in the hearts of those who should be voting for him.

13.  In 2006, Mayor Ford went to a Toronto Maple Leafs game. Mayor Ford got wasted. Mayor Ford then got kicked out of the Toronto Maple Leafs game. He got kicked out because he was screaming at, berating, and swearing at a nice couple from out of town.

(Image Courtesy: Wikimedia)

Why it’s cringeworthy: Why was he screaming at some random Toronto visitors? Did they root for the other team or something? Now, I’m not going to pretend I know that much about Toronto tourism, but it seems to me like that is not a good way to get anyone to visit your city.

12. Number 12 on my list is a nice followup on Number 13. After the news broke that Mayor Ford was kicked out of a hockey game, he had a great excuse: he claimed he was never even at the game. He originally told the Toronto Star: “This is unbelievable. I wasn’t even at the game, so someone’s trying to do a real hatchet job on me, let me tell you.” Eventually he had to admit that he was there, and just said that he had been irresponsible and wasn’t perfect.

Why it’s cringeworthy: Dude, we live in a world where everyone has a camera, or a camera phone, or something. It’s pretty hard to deny that you weren’t at a public event. It’s not even a good try.

11. At that same City Council Meeting where Mayor Ford compared his life to the Gulf War, he absolutely plowed into a woman while trying to walk.

Why it’s cringeworthy: Nothing says “let me keep running this city” and “I’m totally not on drugs” like being really, embarrassingly, uncoordinated.

10. In 2007, Mayor Ford said that if a bicyclist gets hit by a car it’s definitely the bicyclist’s fault. He also compared bike lanes to “swimming with the sharks.” My favorite part of this clip, though? Definitely the last sentence: “My heart bleeds for him when I hear someone gets killed, but it’s their own fault at the end of the day.”

Why it’s cringeworthy: Lack of understanding about the difference between sharks and humans driving cars aside, there is a huge logical fallacy to Mayor Ford’s argument. He says roads are dangerous and people shouldn’t be cycling. Then he goes on to say that therefore, the implementation of bike lanes, which would make this all safer, is a bad idea. Mayor Ford, that is not how logic works, but good try!

9. Mayor Ford’s use of the term “Orientals.” He stated:

“Those Oriental people work like dogs … they sleep beside their machines. The Oriental people, they’re slowly taking over … they’re hard, hard workers.”

Why it’s cringeworthy: Are you kidding me?

8. In 2011, a Canadian comedian showed up at his door pretending to be a journalist and asking him satirical questions. It’s also probably important to note that she was dressed like Xena, Warrior Princess. Weird comedy show aside, a rational response to this is not to call the police, as Mayor Ford did. In an expletive-filled 911 call, he claimed he was “attacked.”

Why it’s cringeworthy: Because it displays he has no sense of humor. Because it also displays a complete overreaction to a comedic stunt. And, because he apparently said to the dispatcher, “”Don’t you f***** know? I’m Rob f****** Ford, the mayor of this city.” Oof.

7. A former mayoral candidate, Sarah Thomson, ran into Mayor Ford at a political function about 9 months ago.  Ms. Thomson is a pretty woman, and no one seems to appreciate that more than Mayor Ford. He reportedly grabbed her butt and then told her she should have joined him in Florida a week earlier, because his wife wasn’t there. She later posted this picture to her Facebook:

Why it’s cringeworthy: At first I thought I was going to make a comment about not grabbing women’s butts in public, but I think Thomson covered it with her Facebook comment. So let’s all take a minute to appreciate the face he’s making in this picture instead.

6. Speaking of Rob Ford and women….he’s had a veritable plethora of problems with his wife and other female members of his family. On Christmas day in 2011, his mother-in-law had to call the cops because he was drunk, threatened to kidnap the couple’s children, and bring them to Florida.

Why it’s cringeworthy: A) Doesn’t he have better things to do? Like, I don’t know, run a city? and B) She made the call sometime between 4 AM and 5 AM. Who in the world is drunk and trying to go to Florida at 4 in the morning?

5. …To continue number 6, there have been multiple calls from Mayor Ford’s house alleging domestic abuse. On at least one occasion, both he and his wife may have been drunk or under the influence of drugs when the police showed up.

Why it’s cringeworthy: I seriously considered not including this one on the list, I really did. It’s about domestic abuse, and domestic abuse is not something that should ever be joked about it. But I did include it, because as funny and snarky as this list is supposed to be, there is a point. Mayor Ford is an idiot. He is unfit for office, and he should be embarrassed by the things he’s done. ALL of the things he’s done. And not shaming this man for his actions against his family and women…well that’s just unacceptable.

4. He used his mayoral letterhead to try to solicit donations for his high school football charity. In my opinion, that’s a little illegal, and a judge agreed.

Image Courtesy: Flickr

Why it’s cringeworthy: Mayor Ford’s defense? He didn’t know he wasn’t supposed to use his position to solicit funds from his own charity. In a bizarre move, an appeals judge actually agreed with that argument, and he was ultimately not removed from office.

3. As a Councillor in 2006, Rob Ford rallied against an AIDS prevention program, stating about the disease, “It is very preventable. If you are not doing needles and you are not gay, you will not get AIDS probably, that’s the bottom line. These are the facts.”

Image courtesy: Toronto Life

Why it’s cringeworthy: When I first started making this list, I was calm and sitting on my couch. I’m still sitting on my couch, but now I’m not calm and I’m working my way through a very large pile of leftover Halloween candy to soothe my soul. It’s not working, because I keep running across statements like this. These are not the facts, Mayor Ford. They are not. And you should stop talking, forever.

2. That time that Mayor Ford tried to find a drug dealer to buy OxyContin on the street for a constituent. In 2010, a phone call happened where a man claimed his doctor would not prescribe him Oxy. Comments like this were made by Mayor Ford:

“I’ll try buddy, I’ll try,” the councillor replied. “I don’t know this shit, but I’ll f****** try to find it.” A few moments later Mr. Ford asked: “What does OxyContin go for on the street, so I have an idea?”

Image Courtesy: WikiMedia

Why it’s cringeworthy: One hand, decent job trying to help a constituent. On the other, logical, hand, how could saying that ever seem like a good idea?

1. This.

Why it’s cringeworthy: I. Can’t. Stop. Laughing.

—

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 [Shaun Merritt via Wikipedia]

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 Where in the World is Rob Ford? 15 Minutes of Fame, 15 Dumb-Ass Things appeared first on Law Street.

Whether its for spring break, summer vacation, or anything in between, Florida remains a top destination for vacationers in the U.S. Miami is perhaps one of the most frequented cities for this reason. Miami is a great city to vacation in for twenty somethings: not only are there beaches, but Miami boasts one of the best night life scenes in the country. It’s no surprise that the city attracts a variety of people. But whether you are planning a trip to Miami or even considering a move to this Florida city, it’s important to know what laws are on the books in order to have a fun but safe time there.

Drinking Laws

When you’re going to Florida to vacation and you’re 21 or older, odds are you would be interested in consuming alcoholic beverages. Here are some things you might want to know about Miami’s alcohol policy:

• There is an open container law on the books. Miami maybe a party town, but it certainly isn’t NOLA. Getting caught with an open container could result in a fine of 50 dollars. According to the Miami News Times, this regulation isn’t very heavily enforced. But unless you want to lose some money, it’s better to finish up that drink inside.
• Purchasing alcohol: In most counties of Florida, the sale of alcohol on Sunday is prohibited. However, in Miami-Dade county, liquor stores are allowed to remain open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. You can therefore buy alcohol at any time if you are of age, but stay safe!

The Beach

Miami is famous for its coastline, and a visit to Miami isn’t complete without spending some time relaxing by the ocean. Here are some important things you should know about the use of Miami’s beaches:

• The beach does close. Miami Beach is closed from 12 AM to 5 AM. And this law will be enforced. So if you were planning on taking a dip in the middle of the night, you’d better make other arrangements.
• There are also specific hours when a life guard is on duty. Miami beaches’ hours happen to be from 9:30AM to 6PM. While the beach is open during times when no lifeguard is present, it is highly advised that beach goers swim when a lifeguard is on duty.
• It should also be known that cans of any kind, alcoholic or otherwise, are prohibited on the beach. Styrofoam containers are also unlawful to have with you while on the beach. The Miami News Times noted that individual had been given a fifty dollar fine for the possession of a Diet Coke can and a styrofoam container while on the beach, so this law is enforced. It may seem more economical to bring your own snacks and beverages to the beach, but treat yourself to a lunch in a cafe instead.

Pets

Moving to the area and have a pet or looking to get one? Make sure you don’t violate these rules:

• In Miami Dade County, pets must not be chained or tethered outside without you present. This means you can’t keep your dog tied to a pole while you eat lunch in a restaurant. So if you’re running errands or meeting friends for a meal, keep Fido at home.
• Dogs have to wear tags at all times and must be registered yearly.
• You cannot take your pet on a bus or train without the animal being kept in a cage or carrier.

Florida State-Wide Laws

Miami residents and visitors should also respect state-wide laws. Miami-goers should be considerate of these laws as well, including:

• No texting while driving. A new law took effect in October that outlaws texting while operating a vehicle, making Florida the 41st state with this law on the books.
• Concealed weapons: Florida is a unique state in that it allows concealed weapons to be carried with a license. This isn’t to say that you should go to Florida to carry around a gun for fun, but rather it’s a warning to stay extra careful.

There are many other laws to take note of while traveling or moving to Miami, Florida, but this is a starting guide. Miami is a great city, and knowing the laws of the city and state of Florida can help you to have a fun and risk-free visit.

[Miami News Times] [Legal Beer] [Miami Beach] [Miami Dade] [Miami Herald]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Featured Image Courtesy of [Marc Averette via Wikipedia]

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post Traveling to Miami: Here Are the Legal Need to Knows appeared first on Law Street.

During the 2012 elections, Colorado voters voted to legalize recreational marijuana, with about 54 percent of Colorado residents voting yes. As of yesterday, recreational marijuana became retailed at twenty-four stores around the state, though most of the locations were in Denver.

Despite awful weather in Colorado, shoppers waited in long lines to purchase the first legal pot in the United States. Yesterday was nicknamed “Green Wednesday” because of its popularity.

Understanding the new marijuana laws in Colorado are relatively easy if you compare them to alcohol laws. When they were written by the Colorado legislature, they loosely based the new marijuana laws off of already existing alcohol regulation laws. The reasoning for this is that legalization advocates have argued that marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol, so it makes sense to provide similar laws for the two. For example:

• You must be 21 or older to purchase marijuana.
• It is illegal to distribute marijuana to anyone who is under the age of 21.
• It is illegal to drive while under the influence of marijuana.
• It is not limited to residents, but visitors to Colorado may partake as well.
• There are limits to where smoking can take place. Marijuana cannot be consumed openly and publicly. Although this is stricter than open container laws, it is the same idea.

There are of course, other sections that differ from already in place alcohol laws:

• There’s a limit on how much you can buy. Residents can purchase up to an ounce; out of state visitors can purchase one quarter of an ounce.
• As of right now, Marijuana can only be bought with cash, although that may change as the market evolves.
• Marijuana cannot be brought across state lines.

There are other interesting rules that are specific to the sale of marijuana. A system called the Marijuana Inventory Tracking System (MITS) will log sales, and stores are required to keep it updated on sales. Any marijuana sold must be put in a child resistant package. Retailers cannot advertise in an outlet where 30% or more of viewers may be under 21. These are just a sampling of the safeguards that Colorado has put in place.

After the first day, it seems like the sales are going well. In fact, demand threatens to outpace supply. There are some complaints, of course. One of the concerns about selling recreational marijuana is that it would price medical marijuana license holders out of the market, but Colorado is making sure that won’t be the case. Medical marijuana will be sold more cheaply than its recreational counterpart.

There’s also a concern that demand will outpace supply–leading to inflated prices. There was no implementation of any sort of statewide pricing structure or rules, so stores can essentially charge what they wish. By the end of the day yesterday, one store sold 1/8th of an ounce of pot for $70. There’s also the state and local taxes to think about–they total about 25% of the cost.

Many onlookers have harkened this as an interesting experiment that will have some hand in dictating what marijuana legalization may look like in the rest of the United States. Colorado’s market is the first of its kind. It even differs from the Netherlands in that there’s no unregulated production.

Washington state also legalized marijuana during the 2012 elections, although they probably will not begin legal retailing until this summer. Colorado’s successes and failures may help Washington, and potentially other states, set up their market.

—

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 [PabloEvans 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 A Breakdown of Colorado’s New Marijuana Laws appeared first on Law Street.

Bumbling Toronto Mayor Rob Ford has made waves in recent weeks for the revelation that he once smoked crack while “in a drunken stupor” this February. I’d love to say that this was the only dumb thing Mayor Ford has ever done, but where would the fun be in that? Let’s look at a countdown of Mayor Ford’s oddest, most embarrassing, and downright idiotic moments.

Courtesy of Shaun Merritt via Flickr.

15. That one time the Toronto City Council tried to strip him of his power after the crack smoking scandal and he compared his side of the story to…The Gulf War.

“This, folks, reminds me of when — and I was watching with my brother — when Saddam attacked Kuwait. And President Bush said, ‘I warn you, I warn you, I warn you, do not.’ Well, folks, if you think American-style politics is nasty, you guys have just attacked Kuwait. Mark my words, friends, this is going to be outright war in the next election, and I’m going to do everything in my power — everything in my power — to beat you guys.”

Why it’s cringeworthy: C’mon, Mayor Ford. The Gulf War, really? I hope we’re not talking about that Gulf War where tens of thousands of people were killed. You’re comparing your reelection campaign to a deadly war? A+ for complete lack of sensitivity.

14. In 2002, when Mayor Ford was a City Councilor, there was a discussion about putting a homeless shelter in his district. Mayor Ford made the always eloquent point that instead of having a “public meeting” about said homeless shelter, maybe a “public lynching” would be more appropriate.

Why it’s cringeworthy: Do I even have to answer this one? This wasn’t Mayor Ford standing up for his constituents like he claimed, it was him being a gigantic jerk about a legitimate proposal. That doesn’t really incite compassion in the hearts of those who should be voting for him.

13.  In 2006, Mayor Ford went to a Toronto Maple Leafs game. Mayor Ford got wasted. Mayor Ford then got kicked out of the Toronto Maple Leafs game. He got kicked out because he was screaming at, berating, and swearing at a nice couple from out of town.

Courtesy of Tim Alamenciak via Wikipedia.

Why it’s cringeworthy: Why was he screaming at some random Toronto visitors? Did they root for the other team or something? Now, I’m not going to pretend I know that much about Toronto tourism, but it seems to me like that is not a good way to get anyone to visit your city.

12. Number 12 on my list is a nice followup on Number 13. After the news broke that Mayor Ford was kicked out of a hockey game, he had a great excuse: he claimed he was never even at the game. He originally told the Toronto Star: “This is unbelievable. I wasn’t even at the game, so someone’s trying to do a real hatchet job on me, let me tell you.” Eventually he had to admit that he was there, and just said that he had been irresponsible and wasn’t perfect.

Why it’s cringeworthy: Dude, we live in a world where everyone has a camera, or a camera phone, or something. It’s pretty hard to deny that you weren’t at a public event. It’s not even a good try.

11. At that same City Council Meeting where Mayor Ford compared his life to the Gulf War, he absolutely plowed into a woman while trying to walk.

Why it’s cringeworthy: Nothing says “let me keep running this city” and “I’m totally not on drugs” like being really, embarrassingly, uncoordinated.

10. In 2007, Mayor Ford said that if a bicyclist gets hit by a car it’s definitely the bicyclist’s fault. He also compared bike lanes to “swimming with the sharks.” My favorite part of this clip, though? Definitely the last sentence: “My heart bleeds for him when I hear someone gets killed, but it’s their own fault at the end of the day.”

Why it’s cringeworthy: Lack of understanding about the difference between sharks and humans driving cars aside, there is a huge logical fallacy to Mayor Ford’s argument. He says roads are dangerous and people shouldn’t be cycling. Then he goes on to say that therefore, the implementation of bike lanes, which would make this all safer, is a bad idea. Mayor Ford, that is not how logic works, but good try!

9. Mayor Ford’s use of the term “Orientals.” He stated:

“Those Oriental people work like dogs … they sleep beside their machines. The Oriental people, they’re slowly taking over … they’re hard, hard workers.”

Why it’s cringeworthy: Are you kidding me?

8. In 2011, a Canadian comedian showed up at his door pretending to be a journalist and asking him satirical questions. It’s also probably important to note that she was dressed like Xena, Warrior Princess. Weird comedy show aside, a rational response to this is not to call the police, as Mayor Ford did. In an expletive-filled 911 call, he claimed he was “attacked.”

Why it’s cringeworthy: Because it displays he has no sense of humor. Because it also displays a complete overreaction to a comedic stunt. And, because he apparently said to the dispatcher, “”Don’t you f***** know? I’m Rob f****** Ford, the mayor of this city.” Oof.

7. A former mayoral candidate, Sarah Thomson, ran into Mayor Ford at a political function about 9 months ago.  Ms. Thomson is a pretty woman, and no one seems to appreciate that more than Mayor Ford. He reportedly grabbed her butt and then told her she should have joined him in Florida a week earlier, because his wife wasn’t there. She later posted this picture to her Facebook:

Why it’s cringeworthy: At first I thought I was going to make a comment about not grabbing women’s butts in public, but I think Thomson covered it with her Facebook comment. So let’s all take a minute to appreciate the face he’s making in this picture instead.

6. Speaking of Rob Ford and women….he’s had a veritable plethora of problems with his wife and other female members of his family. On Christmas day in 2011, his mother-in-law had to call the cops because he was drunk, threatened to kidnap the couple’s children, and bring them to Florida.

Why it’s cringeworthy: A) Doesn’t he have better things to do? Like, I don’t know, run a city? and B) She made the call sometime between 4 AM and 5 AM. Who in the world is drunk and trying to go to Florida at 4 in the morning?

5. …To continue number 6, there have been multiple calls from Mayor Ford’s house alleging domestic abuse. On at least one occasion, both he and his wife may have been drunk or under the influence of drugs when the police showed up.

Why it’s cringeworthy: I seriously considered not including this one on the list, I really did. It’s about domestic abuse, and domestic abuse is not something that should ever be joked about it. But I did include it, because as funny and snarky as this list is supposed to be, there is a point. Mayor Ford is an idiot. He is unfit for office, and he should be embarrassed by the things he’s done. ALL of the things he’s done. And not shaming this man for his actions against his family and women…well that’s just unacceptable.

4. He used his mayoral letterhead to try to solicit donations for his high school football charity. In my opinion, that’s a little illegal, and a judge agreed.

Why it’s cringeworthy: Mayor Ford’s defense? He didn’t know he wasn’t supposed to use his position to solicit funds from his own charity. In a bizarre move, an appeals judge actually agreed with that argument, and he was ultimately not removed from office.

3. As a Councillor in 2006, Rob Ford rallied against an AIDS prevention program, stating about the disease, “It is very preventable. If you are not doing needles and you are not gay, you will not get AIDS probably, that’s the bottom line. These are the facts.”

Why it’s cringeworthy: When I first started making this list, I was calm and sitting on my couch. I’m still sitting on my couch, but now I’m not calm and I’m working my way through a very large pile of leftover Halloween candy to soothe my soul. It’s not working, because I keep running across statements like this. These are not the facts, Mayor Ford. They are not. And you should stop talking, forever.

2. That time that Mayor Ford tried to find a drug dealer to buy OxyContin on the street for a constituent. In 2010, a phone call happened where a man claimed his doctor would not prescribe him Oxy. Comments like this were made by Mayor Ford:

“I’ll try buddy, I’ll try,” the councillor replied. “I don’t know this shit, but I’ll f****** try to find it.” A few moments later Mr. Ford asked: “What does OxyContin go for on the street, so I have an idea?”

Why it’s cringeworthy: One hand, decent job trying to help a constituent. On the other, logical, hand, how could saying that ever seem like a good idea?

1. This.

Why it’s cringeworthy: I. Can’t. Stop. Laughing.

—

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 [West Annex News 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 Ford’s Fifteen: Fifteen Minutes of Fame, Fifteen Dumb-Ass Things appeared first on Law Street.