All Cannabis in America coverage is written by Alexis Evans and Alec Siegel and brought to you by Law Street Media.

STATE OF WEED: WATCH

Sessions Lacks Ammo for Marijuana Crackdown

Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ Task Force on Crime Reduction and Public Safety has released its recommendations for dealing with marijuana in states that have legalized it, concluding that the current policy is probably best. According to the Associated Press, the report “encourages officials to keep studying whether to change or rescind the Obama Administration’s more hands-off approach to enforcement.” While the task force failed to advance Sessions’ anti-marijuana efforts, some experts believe the AG could still invoke federal law to push his agenda.

Marijuana Company Buys Ghost Town, Anticipating Green Rush

One of America’s largest marijuana companies, American Green Inc., bought an entire town in California in anticipation of the expanding pot industry. American Green purchased 120 acres of Nipton, California for $5 million, in hopes of turning the nearly-uninhabited town into a pot paradise. The company said it hopes to make Nipton the country’s “first energy-independent, cannabis-friendly hospitality destination,” in a statement according to the Associated Press.

Pollution, Pesticides, and Pot…Oh My!

Pollution from illegal marijuana farms in California has turned thousands of acres into toxic waste dumps, according to Reuters. The use of illegal pesticides and fertilizers has contributed to a list of environmental problems and sent several law enforcement officials to the hospital. The state has amassed a backlog of illegal sites to clean up, but the problem extends to the legal industry as well. According to the Cannabist, many states are just beginning to check for pesticides, or have no testing programs at all. This disconnect is because the EPA is barred from evaluating the safe use of marijuana pesticides as the drug is still illegal at the federal level.

All links are to primary sources. For more information on state laws for possessing, selling, and cultivating marijuana, click here to read “The State of Weed: Marijuana Legalization State by State.”

LAW STREET CANNABIS COVERAGE

Cory Booker Proposes Bill to Legalize Marijuana at the Federal Level

THREE QUESTIONS: EXCLUSIVE Q&A

Each month, the Cannabis in America team interviews influencers in the cannabis industry and gives you an exclusive look into their work, motivations, and predictions for the marijuana marketplace.

As the executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), Erik Altieri understands the challenges marijuana legalization faces. NORML’s team of pro-marijuana activists are spread out around 150 chapters in the U.S., France, New Zealand, and elsewhere around the world. Law Street’s Alec Siegel spoke with Altieri about NORML’s legalization efforts, when he expects we’ll see federal legalization, and more.

AS: What is the greatest impediment to federal marijuana legalization?

EA: I think the impediment is still a lack of political will among some of the more entrenched and senior officials in Congress. They are starting to realize [marijuana] is something they need to address. We are starting to see that pay dividends in the bipartisan support coming together in Congress. It’s been four decades plus since [marijuana] prohibition, and it will take some time to unwind that problematic policy.

AS:  Has NORML shifted its focus after the new administration came into office?

EA: [The administration] really lit a fire under many of our activists across the country. For the first time, [an administration] represents a real major threat to progress. It would be immensely unpopular if [AG Jeff Sessions] issued a crackdown. We did not take a “wait-and-see approach,” hoping for the best. We wanted to make sure the backlash was clear and evident from the beginning to show this is exactly why we need to reform marijuana laws. If we change the law, Sessions’ hands would be tied.

AS: Where do you see legalization going over the next decade? When do you predict we’ll see full legalization?

EA: It’s not going anywhere any time soon. Unfortunately for people like Jeff Sessions, public opinion is behind us. Movement at the state level is the driving force over the next five years, and pressure from the bottom up will continue pushing us toward the tipping point. The more states we move, the more natural allies we’ll bring on board. For the next couple of years, fights at the federal level will be over budget amendments.

CANNABIS CULTURE

Maine Dispensary Trades Weed for Trash in Community Clean Up Effort

By Josh Schmidt

As part of an effort to engage the Gardiner, Maine, community and clean up the town of roughly 5,000, a nearby marijuana dispensary is rolling out an innovative new program. Essentially, citizens who bring in a bag of collected trash can exchange it for some weed.

Find out more here.

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 Cannabis in America August 2017: Sessions’ Pot Task Force Recommends Status Quo appeared first on Law Street.

The California Supreme Court has decided that it’s time to change the state’s notoriously difficult bar exam after observing very low passage rates for the past few years compared to other states.

The state’s passing score, referred to as the “cut score,” has been set at 144. California has the second highest score to pass nationwide behind only Delaware. Last year 62 percent of applicants passed. Other states, like New York, saw a rate around 80 percent, according to the New York Times.

The changes, which will take effect in January, will give the California Supreme Court the ability to change the “cut score,” according to the ABA Journal. The court will have the authority to appoint 10 of the 19 members of the committee of bar examiners. The court amended the California Rules of Court to expand its power, dictating that it “must set the passing score of the examination.” The Supreme Court justices could make the decision soon and retroactively apply them to last month’s exams, according to the New York Times.

Some businesses that prepare law students for the bar exam called the move “unprecedented.” But according to Erica Moeser, president of the National Conference of Bar Examiners, this action isn’t out of the ordinary. Instead, it will bring California in line with other states. “Virtually all state supreme courts exercise their inherent authority to regulate the admission of lawyers more closely than has appeared to be the case in California,” she said.

In February the state bar received a letter from 20 California law school deans advocating a scoring change, which prompted the group to launch the study.

The court was further compelled to act after the University of California Hastings College of the Law Dean complained to the California Committee of Bar Examiners. Dean David Faigman called the steep standard “outrageous and constitutes unconscionable conduct on the part of a trade association that masquerades as a state agency” after only 51 percent of his school’s graduates qualified.

Robert Anderson, a professor of corporate law at Pepperdine School of Law, who studied the 10 most difficult state bar exams in 2013, concluded that California had the most difficult exam even if its score standard was lower than Delaware’s, according to the New York Times. Anderson recommended lowering the score to 133, the same as New York. That change would mean that 87 percent of test-takers would pass, according to ABA Journal.

There are still people who advocate for the high standard when certifying lawyers. Supporters believe that the high cut score protects citizens from unprepared lawyers and continues a tradition of accepting only very qualified candidates.

California is home to plenty of prestigious law schools–ranging from Stanford in the northern part of the state to UCLA in the southern part–so it trains many law students. If California feels as though young law students are fleeing the state to get easily certified elsewhere, a change makes sense. The strict standards have been part of the California Bar Association’s reputation for a while now but for a state that is home to economic hubs for entertainment and technology, it’s important to retain talent.

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 Is the California Bar Exam About to Get Easier? appeared first on Law Street.

On Friday, Governor Chris Christie signed a bill into law raising the smoking age in the state to 21. New Jersey joins Hawaii and California in setting the legal smoking age at 21.

The New Jersey bill raised the smoking age from 19 to 21. Smoking ages vary, with the set age at 18 in most places throughout the country. But campaigns to raise the minimum age have been successful in some places–while New Jersey now joins Hawaii and California at the state level, some cities and counties have chosen to up the age to 21 as well. Perhaps most notably, New York City passed a law in 2013 that raised the smoking age to 21 within city limits. It was applauded as the first big city or state to raise the smoking age. A bill to do the same for all of New York is making its way through the state legislature currently.

A number of studies point to the fact that if people start smoking later in life, they’re less likely to become addicted and become lifelong smokers. New Jersey State Senator Joseph Vitale, one of the sponsors of the bill, explained:

Data surveys show that if individuals aren’t smokers by 21 years of age, they will most likely not start later in their lives. Making it harder to buy cigarettes by raising the age to legally purchase them in New Jersey will help prevent our youth from becoming lifelong smokers and suffering the long-term effects of the habit.

Supporters of the bill also pointed out that nicotine addiction costs New Jersey a ton of money–an estimated $4 billion in health care costs each year. According to state surveys from this year, almost 40,000 high school students in New Jersey smoke traditional cigarettes. But nicotine usage is even higher when you take into account e-cigarettes, which the new law will also restrict to 21 and up.

Raising the minimum age for smoking seems like it has the potential to become a trend in the United States. Other states are considering similar moves as well. A bill raising the minimum smoking age in Maine passed the state legislature, but it’s unclear whether or not Governor Paul LePage will sign it. It seems likely that other states trying to combat teen nicotine usage will follow suit.

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 New Jersey Becomes the Third State to Raise Smoking Age to 21 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Muslim Woman Running for Senate Faces Verbal Attacks

Democrat Deedra Abboud is running for senate in Arizona. She is hoping to run against Republican Senator Jeff Flake. But recently, she has been verbally attacked because she is Muslim. Abboud is an attorney in Phoenix and has reportedly endured harassment ever since she announced her campaign this spring. Recently, she posted a Facebook status talking about religious tolerance, and people responded by attacking her religion. “Nice try but your first love is Satan (AKA Allah) and your second love is to a litter box your ‘people’ come from,” one user wrote. “BAN ISLAM IN THE USA…WE HATE YOUR FILTHY DEATH CULT,” another one said. Abboud is originally from Arkansas but moved to Arizona and converted to Islam 19 years ago. After the comments became publicly known, even Senator Flake came to Abboud’s defense. “Hang in there,” he wrote. “Sorry you have to put up with this. Lots of wonderful people across AZ. You’ll find them.”

To clarify,he’s not “a flake” but Senator Flake,a Republican.
Hats off 4 standing against bigotry where others would have exploited the opp. https://t.co/HCITu7XPBQ

— Hend Amry (@LibyaLiberty) July 19, 2017

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 RantCrush Top 5: July 19, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Jerry Brown, the governor of California, made no bones about the dangers of climate change at a public hearing last week, calling it a “threat to organized human existence.” As the Trump Administration removes the U.S. from the frontline in the battle against climate change, cities and states have stepped forward to fill the void.

Monday evening, after hours of intense debate and an energized push from Brown himself, California lawmakers voted to extend the state’s cap-and-trade program through 2030. The current system, implemented in 2012, is set to expire in 2020. Extending the program, which Brown has been trying to spread to other states, has galvanized critics from two disparate corners: liberals and environmental groups who think it is too cautious, and Republicans who see it as a job killer.

But Brown, at 79 and nearing the end of his fourth term in office, has argued cap-and-trade is an effective way to combat carbon emissions while allowing economic growth.

“America is facing not just a climate crisis with the rest of the world, we are facing a political crisis,” Brown told lawmakers at the four-hour public hearing last week, after introducing the cap-and-trade extension bill. “Can democracy actually work? Is there a sufficient consensus that we can govern ourselves? That, I submit to you, is an open question.”

Brown has positioned himself as a buffer against President Donald Trump’s systematic unraveling of the Obama Administration’s climate regulations. In the wake of Trump’s decision to remove the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accord, Brown and a number of other governors and mayors have soothed concerns at home and abroad. Brown recently traveled to China to talk climate change, and will attend a climate summit in Germany later this year.

While other governors and mayors have pledged to double-down on green initiatives and other carbon-cutting regulations, Brown has remained steadfast in his cap-and-trade approach. Championed by those who would like to fight climate change with a market-based system, cap-and-trade issues limited permits to carbon-producing companies, dictating how much carbon they can emit in a given time period. Some permits are free, others are auctioned off; companies can then sell, buy, and trade permits among each other.

But Brown’s extension effort received pushback from environmental groups and state lawmakers. Senate Republicans sent a letter last week to Brown, expressing their opposition to the bill, which is paired with another measure that seeks to improve air quality.

“We are committed to protecting and enhancing California’s environment,” a group of state Republican lawmakers wrote, adding that the cap-and-trade program is a “crushing blow to California residents and small business negatively impacting their quality of life.”

California progressives have also criticized the plan, though for a vastly different reason: many say it does not do enough to halt carbon emissions. Environmental justice groups see Brown’s bill as a capitulation to the oil and gas industry, and argue it includes too many compromises to pro-industry Republicans and moderate Democrats.

“It’s California climate policy that’s been written by big oil,” Amy Vanderwarker, co-director of the California Environmental Justice Alliance, recently said about the bill. “At a time when all eyes are on California, we have to stand strong and say this is not something we can support.”

After the bill passed Monday night, Brown applauded Californians for standing against “the existential threat of our time” by extending the cap-and-trade program. He also thanked both Republicans and Democrats who “set aside their differences, came together and took courageous action.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post California Extends Cap-and-Trade Program Through 2030 appeared first on Law Street.

Oceana is challenging the Trump Administration’s withdrawal of a proposed Obama-era rule that would have limited the number of protected marine animals that could be “incidentally captured” by drift gillnets. Oceana, a non-profit ocean conservation and advocacy organization, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles on July 12 against the U.S. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).

In 2015, the Pacific Fishery Management Council introduced a proposal for hard caps, or limits, on the number of injuries or deaths of nine protected species allowed during a rolling two-year or four-year period.

The Obama Administration published a proposal of how to implement the caps in October 2016 that would temporarily close a thresher shark and swordfish drift gillnet fishery in California if that fishery reached the cap. According to NOAA, gillnets are walls of netting with holes that fish can fit their heads through, but not the rest of their bodies. When the animal tries to back out, their gills get caught on the net. The more the animal struggles to free itself, the more it becomes entangled in the netting.

In addition to the swordfish that are intentionally being fished off the coast of California, the nets also accidentally trap marine animals that are considered “protected species.” The regulation would have protected fin, humpback, and sperm whales; leatherback, loggerhead, olive ridley, and green sea turtles; short-fin pilot whales; and bottlenose dolphins. However, the Trump Administration withdrew the proposal in June after the NMFS decided that the proposed changes “are not warranted at this time.”

Oceana released a statement on July 13 regarding the lawsuit. It said the proposed rule would have been an opportunity for the fishery to reduce “bycatch,” or species being caught inadvertently, and adopt “cleaner fishing methods” such as deep-set buoy gear or harpoon gear. Oceana attorney Mariel Combs said in the statement that “the withdrawal of this important protection … is plainly illegal.”

“Drift gillnets are a dirty and unsustainable way to catch swordfish,” Combs said. “Incremental steps, like limits on bycatch, are important tools to help move toward cleaner fishing. The Fisheries Service has supported these measures in the past, and its change of course is both disappointing and illegal.”

This isn’t the first time the Trump Administration has reversed some of the Obama Administration’s environmental decisions. In June, six environmental conservation groups sued the Environmental Protection Agency for suspending Obama-era regulations that limited leaks of harmful toxins during oil and gas production.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Oceana Sues Government for Withdrawing Proposed Rule to Protect Marine Life appeared first on Law Street.

It’s one of the most controversial topics of the last 20 years. And before you ask, yes it is a matter of life and death.

Physician-assisted suicide is expanding in the United States. Last year after a statewide referendum, Colorado became the sixth state to allow assisted suicide, with 65 percent of Colorado voters casting a ballot in favor of the measure. According to Compassion & Choices, an advocacy group that supported the ballot initiative in Colorado, so far 10 people have received prescriptions from doctors giving them access to the life-ending drugs. So far there is no data on whether those who received prescriptions for the life-ending medication have actually gone through with the procedure.

But the practice, which was taboo to even discuss 25 years ago, enjoys a large base of support in the United States. According to Gallup, physician-assisted suicide is supported by nearly 70 percent of the population.

Just last year, California passed the End Of Life Option Act. The first analysis of the law, which the California Department of Public Health recently released, indicates that 173 doctors had prescribed life-ending drugs to 191 patients. Out of those 191 patients, 111 have used the drugs to end their lives since the law was passed in June of 2016. However, Compassion & Choices, says it knows of 500 deaths in California as of this year. We will not know the full information until California releases the data for 2017 next year.

Physician-assisted suicide is an issue that has been debated for a long time. It has been subjected to rounds of philosophical, ethical, and moral debate. But the issue came into the spotlight in the United States in the 1990s with the legal battle between the State of Michigan and Dr. Jack Kevorkian, aka “Doctor Death.”

Jack Kevorkian was a pathologist who wanted to challenge the status quo of the ethical guidelines of a doctor. He contended that if a doctor had a patient that was truly suffering in pain from a terminal or debilitating illness for which there was no cure, then why couldn’t that doctor help end their suffering? He contended that it a doctor’s moral duty to focus on the welfare of the patient, and if the option of death presented itself as a suitable form of welfare for the patient than it should be allowed.

Kevorkian invented his own “suicide machine” in 1989 and assisted over 130 patients in assisted suicide. However, the Michigan legislature made it illegal to perform an assisted suicide in 1998, but Kevorkian continued to practice and was arrested after he allowed “60 Minutes” to air a video that showed him injecting life-ending medication to a man with ALS. He was convicted in 1999 of second-degree murder and served eight years in prison.

While Kevorkian was controversial, particularly because in at least one case he administered the procedure himself, experts agree that he brought assisted suicide into the forefront of public debate.

Since Kevorkian’s conviction, five states and the District of Columbia have passed assisted suicide legislation. Only three of these states have voluntarily provided data on physician-assisted suicide so far. Since Oregon legalized the practice in 1997, 1,127 patients have died. In Washington, where legalization was approved in 2009, there have been 917 reported deaths. And in Vermont, physicians have filed reports for 53 patients seeking life-ending medication.

While assisted suicide has made great progress over the years, many still have issues with the way it is practiced.

Marilyn Golden, a Policy Analyst for the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund opposed California’s law for a variety of reasons. She says that in theory it could discourage medical insurance companies from paying for new and expensive experimental treatments when providing assisted suicide medication is a cheaper option. She also argues that people in a vulnerable state of mind could be manipulated by heirs and caregivers to end their life, and that there is a lack of oversight for the current process–citing the fact that there is not an independent individual who is there that can confirm that the person who is taking the medication wants to end their life.

It should also be noted that assisted suicide can be a particularly expensive process. A pharmacist in California told the San Diego Tribune that doctors’ preferred drug, which makes the process of assisted suicide quick and painless, costs as much as $3,400 per dose. While the cost of life-ending medication is not cheap, it can be significantly cheaper than what it takes to provide care to someone with a terminal illness.

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Colorado and the Rising Trend of Assisted Suicide appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this week, Rob Kardashian published explicit photos of ex-fiancee Blac Chyna on Twitter and Instagram. Now, lawyers and experts say he could face criminal charges for revenge porn.

On Wednesday, Kardashian uploaded a series of posts to Instagram, accompanied by nude photos of Chyna, accusing her of cheating on him, taking advantage of him financially, and using drugs and alcohol in the presence of their seven-month-old daughter, Dream Renee Kardashian.

Instagram shut down Kardashian’s account almost immediately, but the reality star quickly moved to Twitter to continue the rant.

I truly thought Chyna wanted to be a family and that’s why I was so loyal to her but I learned my lesson and everyone else was right

— ROBERT KARDASHIAN (@robkardashian) July 5, 2017

The public feud quickly entranced all of Twitter, with the least-famous Kardashian sib’s tweets receiving hundreds of thousands of likes and retweets. “Poor Dream” even became a trending topic along with both of her parent’s names.

Chyna used social media to respond to Kardashian’s attacks, sharing since-deleted accusations to her Snapchat story that Kardashian physically abused her.

“Rob u did all this but u beat me up and try act it never happen!!!!!” Chyna wrote on Snapchat. “U put hand on me I swear on god!!!! On my kids but I’m supposed to be quiet because you’re a Kardashian.”

Kardashian and Chyna’s tumultuous relationship has been the primary source of their fame over the past year and a half. The pair first went public as a couple in January 2016, and Kardashian proposed three months later. Soon after, the couple announced they were expecting a child. Chyna has a child with rapper Tyga, who dated Kardashian’s sister, Kylie Jenner. Part of Kardashian’s Twitter post accused Chyna of having their child “out of spite” over Jenner’s relationship with Tyga.

Reports surfaced in February that the on-and-off-again couple had called off their engagement. The couple’s unlikely pairing and tumultuous relationship was the basis of their reality show spin-off “Rob & Chyna.” The show has been renewed for a second season, but it’s unclear how this development will affect it.

Was it Revenge Porn?

The nude photos Kardashian posted online without Chyna’s consent could be considered revenge porn, especially if Kardashian’s intent was to “cause substantial emotional distress or humiliation” to Chyna. Revenge porn is illegal in two-thirds of the U.S., including in California, where both celebrities reside. The misdemeanor crime carries a penalty of up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine.

Revenge porn is also known as non-consensual pornography, or cyberexploitation, since it does not always involve an act of “revenge,” like in Kardashian’s case. Several instances have involved hackers leaking nude photos of victims, which can also fall under the revenge porn laws.

Though no charges have been officially brought as of yet, several experts have said Kardashian’s posts were most definitely an act of revenge porn.

Chyna’s lawyer Lisa Bloom, who represented actress Mischa Barton in a similar case, warned Kardashian on Twitter that revenge porn is a crime and a form of violence.

Note to Rob Kardashian: revenge porn is a crime. And in my Mischa Barton case judge agreed it’s a form of domestic violence. Knock it off.

— Lisa Bloom (@LisaBloom) July 5, 2017

“It’s disgusting,” Bloom told the Washington Post. “It’s a very modern way of being misogynistic.”

“The main point of it is that even if Chyna sent him nude photos, if she didn’t want them posted publicly, the law protects her,” Bloom told The Post.

Carrie Goldberg, an attorney who specializes in sexual privacy and started a firm dedicated to the topic, told the Post that Kardashian’s “slut shaming” posts show that he intended to harm Chyna.

“With the accompanying words, there can be no misgivings about his intent,” Goldberg said.

Chyna’s lawyers are reportedly exploring “all legal remedies and protections available,” and are pursuing a restraining order against Kardashian.

I represent Blac Chyna. I just gave Rob Kardashian notice that we’ll be in court Monday seeking restraining orders against him. More to come

— Lisa Bloom (@LisaBloom) July 7, 2017

Avery Anapol

Avery Anapol is a blogger and freelancer for Law Street Media. She holds a BA in journalism and mass communication from the George Washington University. When she’s not writing, Avery enjoys traveling, reading fiction, cooking, and waking up early. Contact Avery at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Rob Kardashian Could Face Revenge Porn Charges, Experts Say appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Trump Claims “Everyone” is Talking About John Podesta

Today is the first day of the G-20 summit in Hamburg, Germany. And this morning President Donald Trump tweeted: “Everyone here is talking about why John Podesta refused to give the DNC server to the FBI and the CIA. Disgraceful!” But it seems highly unlikely that world leaders gathered in Hamburg would all be talking about John Podesta, and Trump got his facts wrong. Podesta was Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman; he didn’t have the authority to hand DNC files over to law enforcement. Podesta actually fully cooperated with the investigation into the Russian hacking, and the DNC did give information to the FBI that pointed to Russian interference in the election. Also, the FBI was in charge of the investigation, not the CIA. Overall, this wasn’t a particularly factual tweet from Trump.

1) This wasn’t Podesta’s decision 2) It was the FBI, not FBI and CIA 3) There is a 0% chance foreign leaders brought this up at the G20 https://t.co/zlwrnD8WOT

— Daniel Dale (@ddale8) July 7, 2017

Also on the docket for the G-20: Trump will meet Russian President Vladimir Putin face to face for the first time. Expectations are high, and many hope Trump will bring up the Russian hacking into the U.S. election. The two leaders met briefly this morning for a handshake, and the proper meeting will take place later today.

First handshake between Trump and Putin is posted by Angela Merkel on Facebook https://t.co/woi4FuDoHz pic.twitter.com/oS7Pxqm9er

— Gizmodo (@Gizmodo) July 7, 2017

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 RantCrush Top 5: July 7, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

A man in California thought he was burying his son. Frank J. Kerrigan spent $20,000 on the funeral ceremony and accepted that his son, Frank M. Kerrigan, was gone. But 11 days after the funeral he found out the person in the casket was someone else. Understandably, he was shocked when a friend called and put his son on the line

The Orange County coroner misidentified Kerrigan’s son, who is 57 and has a mental illness and is living on the streets. Police said he was identified through fingerprints, and so identification by family members was unnecessary. But the Kerrigan family’s attorney said the fingerprint identification failed, so officials instead used an old driver’s license photo.

“When somebody tells me my son is dead, when they have fingerprints, I believe them,” Kerrigan said.

Apparently the men must have looked very much alike, as the family did not realize the mistake despite having an open casket at the funeral. Now family members are planning to sue the coroner’s office, saying that authorities didn’t care much about making a positive identification of Kerrigan because he is homeless.

Father buries his son in $20k funeral – then told days later that the coroner made a mistake and his son is ALIVE! https://t.co/Qr0cpWM5La pic.twitter.com/Qzv8hNR2BI

— Daily Mail US (@DailyMail) June 24, 2017

Frank’s sister Carole Meikle visited the scene where she believed her brother had died. “It was a very difficult situation for me to stand at a pretty disturbing scene. There was blood and dirty blankets,” she said.

It is unclear how the man passed away, but the bloody scene did not match what officials had told the family–that Frank passed away “peacefully.” The dead man’s identity is unknown.

Frank chose to go back to the streets. But because of the authorities’ mistake, federal agencies also think Frank is dead and have stopped providing his disability payments. The family is currently working on straightening the situation out.

The Kerrigans informed the authorities of the mix-up, and the Sheriff’s Department extended regrets for “any emotional stress caused as a result of this unfortunate incident. As part of the internal investigation, this incident and all identification policies and procedures will be reviewed to ensure no further misidentifications occur.”

A lot of people came from as far as Las Vegas and Washington to attend the funeral, and the dead man was buried close to Frank’s mother’s grave, in a spot reserved for family members. “We thought we were burying our brother,” said Meikle. “Someone else had a beautiful send-off. It’s horrific.”

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 Family Buries Wrong Person After Coroner Mix-Up appeared first on Law Street.

California’s economy, the sixth largest in the world, could receive a $5 billion boost from legal recreational marijuana sales, according to a new state-sponsored study.

The study, as reported by the Los Angeles Times, projects that the share of illegal sales will decline from 75 percent of the total market to 29.5 percent after the legal framework goes into effect. California is expected to issue the first licenses to recreational marijuana businesses at the top of next year.

California’s Bureau of Marijuana Control commissioned the study, which was conducted by the University of California’s Agricultural Issues Center. The study examined the expected impact of Prop 64, which legalized recreational marijuana throughout the state in November, on California’s marijuana market.

According to the LA Times, recreational marijuana use will make up over 61 percent of the overall market. However, the costs associated with legal regulations–legal marijuana will be taxed at 15 percent–will encourage people to, at least initially, remain in the illegal market. Still, for a variety of reasons, a large chunk of Californians are expected to shift to the legal, regulated market for their pot fix.

The study said:

We projected that when legally allowed, slightly more than half of the demand currently in the illegal adult-use segment will quickly move to the legal adult-use segment to avoid the inconvenience, stigma, and legal risks of buying from an unlicensed seller.

According to Lori Ajax, the director of the Bureau of Marijuana Control, the nearly 30 percent of people projected to resist the legal market will eventually enter the regulated marketplace.

“It’s going to take some time,” Ajax told the LA Times. “While it’s unlikely that everyone will come into the regulated market on Day One, we plan to continue working with stakeholders as we move forward to increase participation over time.”

Legalization will also affect the medical cannabis market; legal medical marijuana sales will drop from 25 percent of the market to 9 percent, or from $2.6 billion to $600 million, the study found. As fewer people need to obtain a medical marijuana license, more will simply purchase cannabis through the regulated market.

“Revenues for medical cannabis in Washington State, for instance, fell by one-third in the first year after the legal adult-use cannabis system took effect, and by more subsequently,” the study said.

Some who are opposed to California’s legalization effort see the study, and its finding that 29.5 percent of people will still purchase pot from the black market, as justification that a legal market is little more than a smokescreen.

“We have seen this in other states too, that the legal market is easily undercut by the well-established underground market,” Kevin Sabet, president of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, which opposes legalization of the drug, told the LA Times. “This is unsurprising. It is just one more unrealized promise from the marijuana industry.”

But the study pointed to another potential boon to California’s economy that legalization might provide: marijuana tourism. The study found:

Given that adult-use cannabis remains illegal in most other states, California’s legalized adult-use industry may attract some new visitors whose primary reason for visiting the state is cannabis tourism, as has been observed in Colorado.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post California Legal Marijuana Market Could Generate $5B, Study Finds appeared first on Law Street.

All Cannabis in America coverage is written by Alexis Evans and Alec Siegel and brought to you by Law Street Media.

State of Weed: Watch

Don’t Give Up on Recreational Marijuana, Vermont!

Vermont still has a chance to become the ninth state, in addition to the District of Columbia, to legalize recreational marijuana, even after Governor Phil Scott’s down-to-the-wire veto last month. The Republican governor told the Associated Press that negotiations are currently in the works to address his concerns regarding public safety. If the governor strikes a deal with legislative leaders, he says he’ll reach out to House Republicans to encourage them not to block the passage of the bill.

California Could Become a “Sanctuary State” from Federal Pot Law

California just became that much closer to becoming a safe haven for legal marijuana users. The state assembly approved a bill Thursday that would make California a “sanctuary state,” where local and state police would be barred, without a court order, from helping federal drug agents arrest people complying with state laws. Despite some opposition from law enforcement, AB 1578 managed to narrowly pass with a majority 41-32 votes. The bill is now awaiting the Senate’s consideration.

Nevada’s Weed Launch Date in Peril Thanks to Liquor Lawsuit

If you have dreams of smoking legal marijuana in Sin City, I wouldn’t plan on booking a Las Vegas vacay anytime soon. Nevada’s July 1 recreational marijuana launch date is in jeopardy after a district judge prohibited the Department of Taxation from issuing cannabis distribution licenses under the adopted regulations. The order comes in response to a lawsuit filed by liquor wholesalers, who claim the legislative measure gives them exclusive rights to marijuana distribution licenses for the first 18 months of sales.

All links are to primary sources. For more information on state laws for possessing, selling, and cultivating marijuana, click here to read “The State of Weed: Marijuana Legalization State by State.”

Law Street Cannabis Coverage

What is a Marijuana Lawyer?

Three Questions: Exclusive Q&A

Each month, the Cannabis in America team interviews influencers in the cannabis industry and gives you an exclusive look into their work, motivations, and predictions for the marijuana marketplace.

There is no question the cannabis industry is growing rapidly, and as more states legalize marijuana, more business will crop up. For Michah Tapman, the Managing Director of Canopy, a Boulder-based venture capital firm that invests in cannabis-related technology and services, the future is here now. Law Street’s Alec Siegel spoke with Tapman about what he looks for in a potential investment, the future of the cannabis industry, and more.

AS: What do you look for in a cannabis start-up?

MT: The number one investment criteria for us is the people. Because laws and regulations are changing so quickly, people need to be flexible, very well educated, coachable, and willing to make changes. One thing we know about the industry is that it won’t look tomorrow like it does today. Like any high growth industry, you need to know how to adapt.

AS:  Have you or the companies you work with adapted in any way since the Trump Administration came into office?

MT: The Administration definitely has scared a lot of people. Personally, [Attorney General] Jeff Sessions is opposed to marijuana. But from a policy point of view, neither Trump nor Sessions has made a policy statement indicating that they’ll crack down. They have concerns about medical marijuana, but those are personal statements. That doesn’t mean my business and my policy is going to change.

AS: How do you see the cannabis industry changing over the next five to 10 years?

MT: I see a seismic shift in the level of sophistication for cultivation. Drastic price reduction both in production costs and retail pricing, consolidation, and then fragmentation. [The cannabis industry] is not going to have a lot of mid-market players in my opinion. That will be driven by efficiencies. [Cannabis] is going to legalize. The question is when. As an investor what I’m betting on is people that are able to adapt to changing environments.

Cannabis Culture

Americans Buy More Marijuana Than Ice Cream

By Alexis Evans

Believe it or not, but Americans will probably spend more money on weed this year than ice cream. A new report from Marijuana Biz Daily expects retail sales to increase by more than 30 percent, hitting somewhere from $5 billion to $6 billion in 2017. The estimated total demand, however, for marijuana in the United States, including the black market, is around $45 billion to $50 billion. Find out more here.

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 Cannabis in America June 2017: Check Out This Venture Capitalist’s Take on Cannabis appeared first on Law Street.

On today’s list of super strange legal battles, a California woman named Jessica Gomez has filed a class action lawsuit against popular jelly bean manufacturer Jelly Belly. She purchased one of their products, Jelly Belly’s Sport Beans, which the company advertises as an “exercise supplement.” The company marketed the beans as containing “carbohydrates, electrolytes, and vitamins.” One of the listed ingredients was “evaporated cane juice,” which is just another term for sugar. But Gomez claims that the fact that the beans contain sugar was not made clear, and has filed a class action suit alleging fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and product liability.

I have a lot of questions. Why would anyone want to eat jelly beans as an exercise supplement? Why would Jelly Belly try to break into the supplement market, of all things? How did Gomez not assume that there was sugar in a product that displayed its sugar content on the nutrition label? Did these weird jelly beans even taste good?

TIL Jelly Belly makes jelly beans… for sports. pic.twitter.com/FJgjiB6jrt

— danielle kefford (@quephird) September 10, 2016

Gomez claimed that by listing the sugar as “evaporated cane juice” instead of sugar, as well as the other advertising that went into marketing the beans, Jelly Belly misled consumers into thinking they were healthy. To be fair to Gomez, the FDA actually recommends that companies not list evaporated cane juice on ingredients lists for this exact reason, something that her lawyers are likely to cite if this case moves forward.

In a motion to dismiss the case, Jelly Belly argued that Gomez couldn’t have thought the beans were sugar-free because the amount of sugar per serving was clearly stated on the product’s nutrition label. The company called the lawsuit “nonsense.” The lawyers representing Jelly Belly also pointed out that the “Plaintiff also does not explain why an athlete–or anyone–would be surprised to find sugar in a product described as ‘Jelly Beans.'”

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 Sues Jelly Belly After Finding Out Jelly Beans Contain Sugar appeared first on Law Street.

Some convicts in California who have been charged with marijuana-related felonies are seeing their fortunes change with the state’s passage of Prop 64 last November. According to partial state data, since the ballot measure passed legalizing recreational marijuana in California, thousands of people charged with felonies for marijuana-related crimes filed requests to reduce their sentences from a felony to a misdemeanor.

Many have been granted a sentence reduction–and some first-time offenders have seen their records expunged.

California voters overwhelmingly backed Prop 64 in the November election, with 57 percent, or nearly eight million people, supporting it. While its main purpose was to legalize recreational marijuana in California, the first state to legalize medical marijuana in 1996, Prop 64 contained an equally impactful clause for people who had been charged with marijuana-related felonies under the previous sentencing laws.

Prop 64, according to the measure’s language, “authorizes resentencing and destruction of records for prior marijuana convictions.” People have been taking advantage of that overlooked part of the measure. Through March, 2,500 requests were filed to reduce sentences from felony charges to misdemeanors, according to the partial state data.

Bruce Margolin, an attorney that has worked with a number of people seeking to reduce their marijuana-related charges, told an NBC affiliate in Los Angeles that judges and prosecutors “were totally unprepared” for the flood of reduction requests since Prop 64 passed. “It’s amazing,” he added. “You would have thought they should have had seminars to get them up to speed so we don’t have to go through the process of arguing things that are obvious, but we’re still getting that.”

Prop 64 is not the only ballot measure in California that allows nonviolent offenders with marijuana-related felony charges to seek a reduced–or completely expunged–sentence.

In November 2014, California passed Prop 47, which “allows people who are already serving a felony conviction for [a marijuana crime] to petition in the court for resentencing.” For convicts who have already completed their sentence, Prop 47 permitted them “to file an application before the trial court to have the felony conviction reduced to a misdemeanor.”

San Diego County is leading the charge in reducing marijuana-related sentences, according to Rachel Solov, who works in the district attorney’s office in San Diego. She told NBC that 400 people in San Diego have already had their sentences reduced, which she said is “the right thing to do.” Solov added: “If someone’s in custody and they shouldn’t be in custody anymore, we have an obligation to address that.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post California’s Prop 64 Will Reduce Sentences for Some Nonviolent Offenders appeared first on Law Street.

After 100 days of aggressive anti-immigrant action, the Trump Administration may be approaching a stumbling block: keeping American farms running without immigrant farmworkers. At a roundtable last month, American farmers explained to Trump that they are dependent on immigrant labor as local hires are rarely willing to work the farms.

Farms across the country, but especially in California, have faced labor shortages for years and as immigration restrictions tighten, the labor supply is quickly dwindling. The White House declined to discuss the specifics of the conversation but Trump reportedly said that he was focused on “criminals” rather than farmworkers and that he won’t destroy the labor force for American farms. However, it is difficult to make such a promise when more than half of American farmworkers are undocumented.

The H 2-A visa program provides agricultural guest workers with legal entry into the United States and as use of the program has risen over the past several years, fewer agricultural workers have been entering the country illegally. However, the H 2-A visa is only a temporary permit. Senate Democrats are currently sponsoring a “blue card” bill that would protect undocumented farmworkers who have worked at least 100 days in each of the past two years from deportation. A “blue card” is a modified green card, designed specially for agricultural workers to fast-track them toward permanent residency in the U.S.

Unfortunately, the bill lacks bipartisan support and there is little incentive for Republican senators to reach across party lines as the majority of their farming constituents voted for Trump, despite the fact that his administration plans to gut spending for farms across rural America. The blue card bill is a viable path to citizenship that will keep farms running and actually stabilize the labor market. Farmers often lose seasonal workers after they return home in the off season and don’t want to risk the passage back into the U.S., but with blue cards, the farmworkers could stay legally and work multiple seasons in a row.

Farmers only stand to benefit from having a steady labor supply but their loyalty to the Trump “pro-business” platform might push them to act against their own self-interest and be satisfied with the empty promise he made at last month’s roundtable. Even if Trump expanded the H-2 visa program, without a path to permanent residency, it is only a Band-Aid over a much more serious labor shortage. The blue card bill could be the path to citizenship that keeps farms running but it’s flown pretty much under the radar up to this point and without a grassroots campaign pushing for it, it will fade before it ever gets close to becoming a law. Undocumented workers do not always have the resources to speak for themselves and fear of deportation after a spike in arrests only makes speaking out seem more dangerous. It is up to the farmers, who have organized unions, lobbying groups and above all, stock with the Republicans, to fight for the blue card bill. If they let this bill fade into obscurity, their farms could take a hit.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Why Farmers Must Support the “Blue Card” Bill appeared first on Law Street.

Albany Unified School District in California was just hit with a lawsuit over its officials’ choice to suspend students who interacted with racist images on social media. More than a dozen students at Albany High School, near San Francisco, allegedly liked and posted racist images on Instagram. In response, some were suspended. Now, four of the students have filed a lawsuit against the school district, claiming that their suspensions are a violation of their First Amendment rights.

The images in question included photoshopped pictures of some of the black female students at the school, posted on Instagram. The photos were photoshopped to include nooses and other racist symbols. At least a dozen students liked or commented positively on the posts. The four students who are suing fell into that category–the kid who originally created the posts is not party to the lawsuit.

The lawyers of the four students who filed the federal lawsuit claim that in addition to violating the students’ freedom of speech, what the students did outside of school was none of the school’s business. The lawsuit reads:

This action arises out of a private online discussion between friends that the Albany School system has pried into without authority. All conduct at issue in this matter occurred off school property, were conducted off school hours, and were otherwise completely unrelated to school activity.

The plaintiffs also claim that the school officials made a spectacle out of them by bringing them through the hallways and allowing them to be berated by other students.

The parents of the students who were the victims of the photoshopping disagree with the First Amendment claims, pointing out that the images constitute hate crimes. One of the fathers of the girls told a local outlet: “This is a hate crime. You don’t have a First Amendment right to promote a hate crime against a group of people based on their skin color.”

The students are suing for damages, but they haven’t specified how much they’re asking for. They’re also asking to have the incident removed from their records. The school has said that it will be reviewing the lawsuit, but it’s unclear what move it will make from here.

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 California School Sued for Suspensions of Students who “Liked” Racist Images appeared first on Law Street.

Ever since his campaign days, President Donald Trump has pledged to build a wall that will cover the border between the United States and Mexico, as a means of cracking down on illegal immigration. But those promises seem less certain each day, with Congressional Republicans hesitant to allocate billions of dollars to fund the wall and Mexico’s president denying Trump’s claims that his country would fund the project.

Now, the state of California is also pushing back against the wall by weighing the possibility of a blacklist against any contractors that Trump would hire to work on the structure.

California state Sen. Ricardo Lara, a Democrat who represents Los Angeles County, introduced a bill on Tuesday that would block companies that participate in construction of the wall from being hired by the state of California in the future. The state currently shares a substantial border with Mexico. Lara compared businesses that would potentially assemble the wall to those that would help build internment camps or segregated schools.

However, construction businesses don’t want to politicize the issue. Felipe Fuentes, a lobbyist for the state’s contractors, warned that the measure could set a precedent of “hand-picking projects that are not politically favorable to the California Legislature”–and could affect construction of everything from Planned Parenthood facilities to prisons.

Financial resistance to the wall could be the latest growing trend among mainly-Democratic states and cities looking to hit back at Trump on the local level. Soon after he resumed office, a number of mayors and governors across the country vowed that their cities would be “sanctuary cities,” in which undocumented immigrants would be protected from deportation.

Now, in addition to California, legislators in at least four other states have proposed indirect ways of opposing the wall. A public advocate in New York City introduced a bill that would blacklist contractors hired by Trump, and would require the city’s largest public pension fund to divest from participating companies. A Rhode Island representative has called for his state to withdraw its investments in businesses working with Trump. A proposed bill in New Mexico would prevent the state from selling 22 miles of land that it owns to the federal government for the purposes of building the wall. Meanwhile, legislatures in Arizona and Illinois are considering similar blacklist and divestment measures.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will California Say “You’re Fired” to Companies That Build Trump’s Wall? appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

White House Criticized for Promoting Mar-a-Lago

In a blog post from April 4, the U.S. State Department promoted Mar-a-Lago as “Trump’s Florida estate,” and claimed that by visiting “this ‘winter White House,’ Trump is belatedly fulfilling the dream of Mar-a-Lago’s original owner and designer.” After Trump was elected president, the Florida resort doubled its membership fee to $200,000. The blog post received renewed attention on Monday after it was featured on the website of the U.S. embassy in London, as well as several other U.S. embassies. Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden asked on Twitter why taxpayer money is “promoting the president’s private country club.” President Obama’s chief ethics attorney, Norman Eisen, called it “exploitation” and said that this behavior needs to be stopped. Eisen is also part of a group of attorneys who have already sued Trump for an alleged violation of the emoluments clause, which states that a president can’t accept gifts or payments from foreign states without approval from Congress.

Yes, I am curious @StateDept. Why are taxpayer $$ promoting the President’s private country club? pic.twitter.com/IlPhUlvMwa

— Ron Wyden (@RonWyden) April 24, 2017

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 RantCrush Top 5: April 25, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

A bill introduced last month in California would bar state agencies from cooperating with federal law enforcement in cracking down on marijuana in the state. Marijuana is legal, both medically and recreationally, in the Golden State. That legalization is at odds with the federal marijuana ban and its classification of marijuana as a Schedule I substance. If the bill passes, California could become a sort of sanctuary state for marijuana growers, much like certain cities are sanctuary cities for undocumented immigrants.

Introduced by Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer, a Democrat, the bill states:

This bill would prohibit a state or local agency, as defined, from taking certain actions without a court order signed by a judge, including using agency money, facilities, property, equipment, or personnel to assist a federal agency to investigate, detain, detect, report, or arrest a person for commercial or noncommercial marijuana or medical cannabis activity that is authorized by law in the State of California and transferring an individual to federal law enforcement authorities for purposes of marijuana enforcement.

Many marijuana advocates, users, and distributors are worried that the new administration, and a Justice Department led by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, will harshly enforce the federal ban. Sessions has made incendiary remarks about marijuana–“good people don’t smoke marijuana,” he once said–but he also signaled enforcement won’t radically change under his watch. He recently said that the Cole Memo, an Obama-era directive to prioritize state marijuana laws over the federal prohibition, was still “valid.” But a handful of California lawmakers are not taking their chances; the proposed bill is a pre-emptive defense mechanism in case Sessions does step up enforcement.

To Donny Youngblood, the president of the California State Sheriffs’ Association, the bill is “quite offensive.” In an interview with the LA Times, Youngblood, the sheriff of Kern County, said growing and selling pot “is still a federal felony and we are still in the United States of America, and the state of California cannot take over the United States.”

The contradictory marijuana laws in the U.S. have sowed confusion in states that have legalized the drug in some form. Archaic practices, like marijuana businesses operating on a cash-only basis, are also a result of the tension between state-level and federal laws. Twenty-eight states and Washington D.C. have medical marijuana laws in place; eight states and D.C. have passed some sort of recreational marijuana legislation. Last November, California passed Prop 64, which legalized recreational use.

For Hezekiah Allen, the executive director of the California Growers Association, the bill is meant to provide a sense of security for California’s marijuana businesses. Allen, in an interview with the LA Times, said that due to the election of President Donald Trump, and the new anti-marijuana attorney general, businesses “will need to feel confident that the state will protect them from the federal government.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Could California Become a Sanctuary State for Marijuana Businesses? appeared first on Law Street.

Terminal illnesses are a heartbreaking reality of life–in many cases, doctors can only provide care to help patients feel less pain in their remaining days. But, some activists believe that it doesn’t have to be that way, and that patients with terminal illnesses should be able to have control over their deaths. Physician-assisted suicide is legal in six states in the United States, and multiple states have weighed whether or not to allow it in the last few years. Read on to learn what physician-assisted suicide is, where it’s legal, and the arguments for and against the controversial practice.

What is Physician-Assisted Suicide?

Physician-assisted suicide is the prescribing of some sort of life-ending drug to a patient by a doctor. The patient then takes the steps to end their own life. Physician-assisted suicide should not be confused with euthanasia–in euthanasia, the physician physically performs the death-causing act. There are other names for physician-assisted suicide, including “physician-assisted death,” “aid-in-dying,” “right to die,” and “death with dignity.”

Across states that have legalized the practice of physician-assisted suicide, the process varies. But there are some consistent elements–only licensed medical doctors (M.D.s) or doctors of osteopathy (D.O.s) can issue the prescription. Additionally, doctors must be willing to issue the prescriptions–by no means are they obligated to do so. Many of the states that have legalized physician-assisted suicide also require that there’s some sort of waiting period between when a patient requests the procedure and when it’s granted, and that multiple doctors are consulted in the decision.

Where is Physician-Assisted Suicide Legal?

Currently, there are six states where physician-assisted suicide is legal: Oregon, Washington, Vermont, California, Colorado, and Montana. It is also legal in Washington D.C.

Oregon legalized physician-assisted suicide in 1994, with 51 percent of Oregon voters voting for it. However it wasn’t enacted until 1997. That was just a few months after the Supreme Court decided in Washington v. Glucksberg that state laws banning physician-assisted suicide are not unconstitutional. This meant that the decision of whether or not to legalize physician-assisted suicide would be left up to each state to determine; other Supreme Court rulings have since continued to validate that it’s a matter for states to decide.

In 2008, Washington became the second state to legalize physician-assisted suicide, via a voter referendum. In Washington, terminally ill residents who have less than six months to live may request drugs that would end their lives.

In 2009, the Montana Supreme Court ruled on Baxter v. Montana, and became the first case to essentially legalize physician-assisted suicide through a court case. Although there was no regulatory framework for physician-assisted suicide set up in the state, it ensured that a doctor cannot be prosecuted for the act.

In 2013, Vermont became the first state to legalize physician-assisted suicide through its state legislature. Like many of the other laws, it includes caveats, including that terminally ill patients need to make multiple requests and wait 15 days after their initial request.

Then, in 2015, the California legislature passed the End of Life Option Act. Like the other states, California put certain restrictions on physician-assisted suicide. The patient must be at least 18, must have a diagnosis that will–within reasonable medical judgment–result in death within six months, and be deemed competent to make medical decisions, among other restrictions.

On November 8, 2016, Colorado voters voted in favor of Proposition 106, which legalized physician-assisted suicide in the state. Almost two-thirds of Coloradans voted in favor of the proposition, which like other states’ legalization measures, requires that the patient has less than six months to live, and is deemed competent to make a decision to end their life.

In late 2016, Washington DC’s council approved a Death with Dignity law, and Mayor Muriel Bowser signed it into law. However, based on the way that DC is set up, Congress has the ability to block laws enacted by the district. While Congress did not succeed in blocking this particular law, it has been known to prevent the city from setting up successful regulatory frameworks through budgetary measures, which could still happen.

Have Other States Tried to Legalize Physician Assisted Suicide?

Many states have introduced some sort of law or measure to legalize physician-assisted suicide recently, with most floundering. Michigan lawmakers proposed a physician-assisted suicide bill in late March 2017. Hawaii’s House of Representatives “deferred” a physician-assisted suicide bill, essentially killing it for now. New Mexico’s Senate just voted down a physician-assisted suicide bill. Other states have considered or may consider bills soon, including Maine, while others, like Kansas, are considering resolutions that would ban physician-assisted suicide. For many of the states considering legalizing physician-assisted suicide, it’s not the first time. In the mid-1990s, when the debate about physician-assisted suicide first began to heat up, measures failed in many states.

Arguments in Favor of Physician-Assisted Suicide

Most arguments in favor of physician-assisted suicide cite humanitarian arguments. Advocates of physician-assisted suicide argue that if an individual knows he’s going to die within the next six months, it’s cruel to force him to suffer through it. Instead, physician-assisted suicide allows him to end his life on his own terms, humanely and peacefully. Currently, mentally-competent people have the ability to refuse potentially life-saving treatments. Those in favor of legalizing physician-assisted suicide argue that it’s a similar concept.

Real Life Example: Brittany Maynard

In 2014, the story of Brittany Maynard captivated the nation. Maynard, a 29-year-old California woman, was diagnosed with an aggressive form of brain cancer. After trying treatments, none of which were successful in the long term, Maynard decided to end her own life. She became an advocate for physician-assisted suicide, and in many ways, a modern face of the movement. Maynard and her family moved to Oregon from California, as this was before California had legalized the practice. Maynard wrote an op-ed about her decision, explaining why she believed that physician-assisted suicide was the right choice for her, and explaining that her decision wasn’t about being “suicidal,” but about having an option at the end of her life:

I’ve had the medication for weeks. I am not suicidal. If I were, I would have consumed that medication long ago. I do not want to die. But I am dying. And I want to die on my own terms.

I would not tell anyone else that he or she should choose death with dignity. My question is: Who has the right to tell me that I don’t deserve this choice? That I deserve to suffer for weeks or months in tremendous amounts of physical and emotional pain? Why should anyone have the right to make that choice for me?

Now that I’ve had the prescription filled and it’s in my possession, I have experienced a tremendous sense of relief. And if I decide to change my mind about taking the medication, I will not take it.

Maynard did take her own life, in November of 2014, and remains a face of the movement to extend physician-assisted suicide.

Arguments Against Physician-Assisted Suicide

Those who disagree with the legalization of physician-assisted suicide argue that suicide, regardless of the reasons, is immoral and should not be condoned by the government in any way, shape, or form. Many religious institutions argue against physician-assisted suicide; in some ways, it’s become linked to the pro-life movement. Others argue that physician-assisted suicide inherently creates issues for doctors, as the Hippocratic Oath essentially prescribes that doctors are not supposed to harm their patients. There are also concerns about a slippery slope–if we make any sort of physician-assisted suicide legal, we may open up the door to euthanasia or other harmful practices. Some who advocate against physician-assisted suicide argue that there’s no way to definitively guarantee that it’s completely a patient’s choice to request medicine that would end his life–they worry that a doctor or family member could pressure a patient.

Real Life Example: Dr. Jack Kevorkian

Dr. Jack Kevorkian was known as an advocate for physician-assisted suicide, but was found guilty of second-degree murder for actually administering drugs to one patient himself, and served eight years in prison. Dr. Kevorkian, nicknamed Dr. Death, was believed to have assisted in over 130 suicides throughout his career. He used multiple methods, including setting up ways for patients to inject drugs into themselves, carbon monoxide poisoning, and his infamous “suicide machine,” which was built into the back of a van.

There were claims that Dr. Kevorkian crossed serious ethical lines with his practices. An analysis conducted by a team at the University of South Florida at Tampa of 69 assisted suicides supervised by Dr. Kevorkian claimed that 75 percent of his patients were not terminally ill.

While some defend Dr. Kevorkian as a pioneer, his methods remain controversial, and are often cited as an argument against physician-assisted suicide.

Conclusion

In addition to ethical and moral arguments, there are many other concerns that come to mind when considering physician-assisted suicide. For one, the drugs that are used for physician-assisted suicide are very expensive, and not necessarily easy to get. A patient looking to move forward with physician-assisted suicide must find a doctor willing to help, which can pose challenges, even in states that have legalized the practice. And while the publicity surrounding Brittany Maynard certainly garnered attention for the physician-assisted suicide movement, she died in 2014, and momentum for state laws may be waning. But one thing is certain: the debate over physician-assisted suicide is very far from over.

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 Right to Die?: The Argument Over Physician-Assisted Suicide appeared first on Law Street.

UC Berkeley used to provide thousands of free lectures and podcasts to anyone who was interested. But now, the school has decided to bar the public from accessing 20,000 videos and podcasts in response to complaints that the content did not meet the needs of vision or hearing-impaired students. Last August, the Department of Justice found that UC Berkeley had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, which requires public universities to provide equal education access to students with disabilities.

Officials say that their decision to restrict access to the videos will allow them to focus their resources on creating newer and more accessible material. In a statement, the university’s vice chancellor for undergraduate education Cathy Koshland said:

This move will also partially address recent findings by the Department of Justice which suggests that the YouTube and iTunesU content meet higher accessibility standards as a condition of remaining publicly available. Finally, moving our content behind authentication allows us to better protect instructor intellectual property from ‘pirates’ who have reused content for personal profit without consent.

The DOJ’s review, prompted by complaints from two Gallaudet University employees and members of the National Association of the Deaf, found incomplete or inaccurate closed captioning on videos that would pose challenges for those with hearing disabilities. Low color contrast in some videos would make them difficult to watch for vision-impaired viewers as well.

Berkeley isn’t the only institution where lectures have presented difficulties for disabled students. Two years ago, Harvard University and M.I.T. both faced discrimination lawsuits from advocates for the deaf for not including closed captioning on their online lectures.

But other universities say that removing content altogether isn’t the answer. Inside Higher Ed reached out to the University of Minnesota, M.I.T., Georgia Institute of Technology, Stanford University, and the University of Texas at Austin, almost all of which replied that their lectures meet accessibility standards and that they have no intentions to keep the public from viewing their content.

But the UC Berkeley videos are not lost forever, thanks to one website’s decision to make them available to the public again starting in April. LBRY, a “digital marketplace” where users can publish their content and set a price for other users to view their content, announced the site would re-publish the lectures and make them viewable for free.

LBRY CEO Jeremy Kauffman wrote that uploading the files would be legal because they are under a Creative Commons license that permits non-commercial redistribution with attribution. This means LBRY will not charge for the access to the material or make a profit, and will give credit to UC Berkeley. He told UC Berkeley’s campus newspaper, The Daily Californian, that he is open to collaborating with someone who could add subtitles to the videos that LBRY will publish.

“What motivated our community is that we saw information disappearing that shouldn’t disappear, and our technology is designed to keep information around,” he told the paper.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post UC Berkeley Lectures Removed After Disability Discrimination Complaints appeared first on Law Street.

Startling viral video footage of an off-duty LAPD cop firing his gun during an altercation with teens prompted about 300 outraged demonstrators to protest in the streets of Anaheim, California late Wednesday night.

What Happened?

The confrontation erupted Tuesday outside of the cop’s home. Cellphone footage captured the unnamed officer grabbing onto 13-year-old Christian Dorscht, as a group made up mostly of young boys wearing backpacks stood nearby.

A physical scuffle ensued as a few of the teens attempted to fight back, until the cop dragged the boy over a hedge before pulling out his weapon and firing it. No one was injured by the gunfire.

JUST IN: Hundreds protest in Anaheim after an off-duty LAPD cop grabbed a teenager and fired his weapon during a scuffle on his lawn. pic.twitter.com/ry6W56fkh1

— Fusion (@Fusion) February 23, 2017

The LAPD officer was not arrested, but the 13-year-old boy and another 15-year-old boy were taken into custody and later released. Some early reports said they have been charged, but the details are unclear at this point. Photographs of Christian taken after he was released show bruises on his wrists and other markings on his neck from the cop pulling and dragging him.

LAPD Launches Investigation

The cop is on administrative leave while the LAPD launches an internal investigation into the officer’s actions. The department is insisting that it “began over ongoing issues with juveniles walking across the officer’s property.”

Christian’s father, Johnny Dorscht, says the scuffle actually began after the cop began swearing at one of Christian’s female friends for walking on his yard.

“My son defended her and said, ‘don’t talk to a lady like that,’” Johnny told Fusion. “That’s when the cop got mad and confronted my son, and threw him on the floor. The cop was choking him out. He got away, the cop pulled him back, and that’s when the video started.”

In one part of the uncut video, Christian is heard pleading “stop grabbing me” and “I didn’t do anything to hurt you, all I said was respect a girl.” The cop responds, “You shouldn’t have said you were going to shoot me.” Christian protests, “I didn’t say that, I said I’m going to sue you,” as he’s dragged across the lawn.

It may be some time before the LAPD announces its findings, and whether or not the officer involved will be charged with a crime.

Protesters Take to the Streets

About 300 marchers began protesting late Wednesday night. They began in the west Anaheim neighborhood where the shooting took place, before moving into the streets.

Video of hundreds protesting in #Anaheim overnight after video of #LAPD off-duty officer’s altercation with teen surfaces. @WPTV pic.twitter.com/dJssQGUXJO

— Chris Stewart (@CStewartWPTV) February 23, 2017

Protesters kneel with their hands up, in front of the police formation on Palais and Euclid in Anaheim. pic.twitter.com/RAjhJKwarl

— Marcus Yam (@yamphoto) February 23, 2017

A young demonstrator in #Anaheim wraps an American flag around himself as police stand nearby #anaheimprotest pic.twitter.com/X3CBHcl3Ok

— Melissa Etehad اتحاد (@melissaetehad) February 23, 2017

Police reported several acts of vandalism, including broken windows and anti-police graffiti. Authorities arrested 24 people–10 men, eight women and six juveniles.

Social Media Reacts

Many people also posted about the incident on social media

Keep in mind this all started cuz an off-duty cop was ready to shoot children over walking in his yard. https://t.co/Efm3d4bssc

— X (@XLNB) February 23, 2017

Yet they ask why Blacks and Latinx don’t trust the system? They’re shown at an early age that police can’t be trusted. #Anaheim

— Nathan Mousa (@nathanmousa) February 23, 2017

When I’m feeling “threatened” I always hold a kid hostage, pull out my gun, & literally drag them back to my property like prey. #Anaheim

— NaijaKingCharles (@ChuckAkpan) February 23, 2017

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 Protests Erupt in Anaheim After Off-Duty Cop Fires Gun in Altercation With Teens appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Protests After Off-Duty Cop Fires Gun During Altercation with Teens

On Tuesday, an off-duty LAPD officer seems to have lost it in an altercation with some kids who walked on his lawn in Anaheim, California. A video that went viral on social media yesterday shows a group of young teenagers outside a house and the cop pulling the limbs of a 13-year-old boy. When the boy’s friends start pulling him in the other direction, the cop fired his gun. No one was injured, but photos surfaced of the boy with bruises on his neck.

JUST IN: Hundreds protest in Anaheim after an off-duty LAPD cop grabbed a teenager and fired his weapon during a scuffle on his lawn. pic.twitter.com/ry6W56fkh1

— Fusion (@Fusion) February 23, 2017

The boy, Christian Dorscht, allegedly stood up for a 13-year-old girl after the officer started shouting profanities at her for walking on the lawn. According to Dorscht’s father, the boy said he was going to “sue” the cop, which the cop allegedly misheard as “shoot,” and decided to arrest him. The incident ended with Dorscht being charged with criminal threats and battery while the cop walked free. Hundreds took to the streets of Anaheim to protest and the ACLU of Southern California said it is deeply disturbed by the video and demanded a full explanation. The LAPD will conduct an internal investigation of the unnamed officer.

Keep in mind this all started cuz an off-duty cop was ready to shoot children over walking in his yard. https://t.co/Efm3d4bssc

— X (@XLNB) February 23, 2017

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 RantCrush Top 5: February 23, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Despite criticism from law school deans across the country, the American Bar Association will meet on February 6 to discuss a proposal that would establish stricter bar passage requirements for school accreditation.

The proposal mandates that 75 percent of an accredited school’s graduates must pass the bar within two years of graduating. But deans have opposed the measure over concerns about California’s declining bar passage rate and diversity within the profession.

More than 90 deans signed a letter from the Association of American Law School’s Dean Steering Committee on January 13, asking for a year to review the proposal before the ABA’s House of Delegates considers it.

That period of time, they wrote, would allow them to understand how the measure might affect a school’s accreditation. In California, where the state bar passage rate has dropped from 56 percent to about 43 percent over the last three years, a handful of schools could lose their accreditations.

The letter notes:

The California bar results, if they become the ‘new normal’ for graduates of ABA-accredited law schools in California, could potentially imperil the accreditation of a very large number of law schools–law schools whose history and profile have demonstrated over many decades an ability to educate successful law students by any reasonable measure.

The letter also included concerns about diversity. More difficult standards could keep minority students–who, on average, score lower on the Law School Admission Test–from being admitted to schools if officials fear they won’t pass the bar.

Most of California’s law school deans, a handful of deans from law schools with connections to historically black universities, and the deans of Harvard and Yale law schools all signed the letter.

At the same time, the ABA risks losing its authority to accredit schools if it does not pay greater attention to student achievement. In June, the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity urged the Department of Education to suspend the association’s accreditation power for one year.

The ABA’s Council of the Section of Legal Education voted to adopt the proposal’s requirement changes in October, but the proposal must still pass through the House of Delegates. If they approve the new rule next month, it will apply to graduates taking the bar exam this July, part of a broader Department of Education crackdown on accreditors.

In a January 19 statement, the council’s managing director Barry Currier said, “There is no reason to delay the effectiveness of this new standard,” which he said the council has been discussing and revising for several years. “The fact remains that to become a lawyer in a jurisdiction, a law school graduate must pass that jurisdiction’s bar exam. The standard that the council adopted holds schools to meeting graduates’ expectations in the jurisdictions where the school’s graduates choose to locate,” Currier said.

He added that the council would continue working with state supreme courts, bar examiners, deans, and diversity groups to ensure diversity and fair exams. He also said the new standard “is not at odds with any of those concerns and objectives.”

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ABA Will Consider New Bar Passage Requirements for Law Schools appeared first on Law Street.

A California woman is suing the popular fast-casual burrito chain Chipotle, alleging that the company used a photo of her in its advertisements, but that she never gave it permission to do so. Leah Caldwell, the plaintiff, is asking for over $2 billion, specifically $2,237,633,000, arguing that the company has made that much money off of the use of her photo that was taken in 2006.

Caldwell claims that she was sitting down to eat at one of the chain’s stores in Colorado, when a photographer snapped her photo without asking permission first. While he then asked her to sign a release to use the photo,  Caldwell claims that she left the store without signing it, thereby preventing Chipotle from using the photo. That photographer, Steve Adams, is also listed as a defendant, along with the food chain.

Caldwell says that she then saw the photo of her in multiple promotional materials in Florida and California in 2014 and 2015, and that alcohol had been photoshopped onto the table in front of her. While the photo was taken in 2006, she didn’t see the picture being used in any promotional materials until 2014, so she didn’t sue before then. She has filed the suit in the U.S. District Court in Colorado.

Some of the news outlets who picked up the story pointed out–perhaps rightly so–that Caldwell’s estimate for how much she is “owed” for the picture is a bit high. Caldwell got the $2 billion-plus number by adding up the total of all of Chipotle’s profits from 2006-2015, and believes that Chipotle’s 2016 profits, when they are calculated, should be added to her paycheck as well. But that would mean that all the profits the company made in that eight year period were attributable to her photo. As Lee Morris pf FStoppers–a site dedicated to providing news for photographers–pointed out:

I don’t think there is any doubt that Caldwell should be compensated for this error, but $2.2 billion may be a bit high. Ten thousand dollars and a year’s supply of burritos would be more than enough to compensate for the error, don’t you think?

Chipotle has not made a statement about the lawsuit yet, except to say that it does not comment on pending cases.

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 California Woman Files $2 Billion Lawsuit Against Chipotle After Company Uses her Photo appeared first on Law Street.

About a decade ago, public health researchers started advocating for implementation of a soda tax to combat consumption of sugary drinks. Soda intake has long been linked to the exacerbation of a series of potentially avoidable health problems including: obesity, diabetes, and tooth decay. After the recent election, four more U.S. cities voted to adopt a soda tax, spreading this new “sin tax” to more areas across the country. With more than one-third of American adults currently classified as obese, soda taxes could become a go-to method for combatting obesity, while simultaneously generating revenue for state budgets to fund local programs.

What are Sin Taxes?

Sin taxes are state-sponsored taxes that are added to specific products that are generally seen as vices, such as gambling, alcohol, and tobacco. In essence, by utilizing financial means, the government attempts to discourage individuals from engaging in a specific activity or using specific products without actually making those products or services illegal. Sin taxes are often compared to Pigovian taxes, which are taxes that generate negative externalities. In tax policy, a Pigovian tax is a fee assessed against private individuals or businesses for engaging in a specific activity; a negative externality occurs when an economic actor does not fully internalize the cost of activity. A simple example of a Pigovian tax is a pollution-related tax.

Currently, sin taxes are employed in a variety of sectors. Typically, they are added to liquor, tobacco, gambling, and other non-luxury items. There tends to be a decent amount of public support for sin taxes, as they are indirect and only affect those who use the specific products. Sin taxes are also extremely popular when trying to close large state budget gaps. Employing sin taxes for soda and sugar-sweetened beverages can help generate revenue and encourage public health initiatives. One research economist from the Research Triangle Institute has modeling data that suggests a six-cent tax on a twelve-ounce bottle of soda would lead consumers to drink 5,800 fewer calories from sugary drinks per year.

Using Soda Taxes to Combat Obesity

In 2014, voters in Berkeley, California passed the nation’s first soda tax, which went into effect in 2015. Additionally, in 2014, Mexico passed its own soda tax. After one year, sales of soda in Mexico fell as much as 12 percent, while bottled water purchases rose four percent. The researchers also found that while decline was seen across all socioeconomic groups, it was greatest among those who were low-income, with consumption falling 17 percent.

In the U.S., Berkeley’s tax was largely successful; research showed that soda consumption dropped in the city a staggering 20 percent. Philadelphia was the next city to follow suit, passing a soda tax earlier this year–thus becoming the first major city in the U.S. to do so. The tax, which is expected to generate $91 million annually, will be spent on pre-kindergarten programs in the city, creating community schools, improving parks and recreation centers, and libraries.

The beverage industry has fought extensively to keep soda taxes from passing elsewhere in the country. Advocates from the American Beverage Association, which represents all major soda brands, responded to the Philadelphia policy by arguing that the tax was regressive and unfairly singled out “low” and “no-calorie” beverages. In an effort to combat the tax, companies in the roughly $100 billion industry have focused their efforts on reformulating existing drinks to make them more healthy for consumers. However, even “diet” sodas are experiencing a sharp decline in sales, particularly because of increased suspicion regarding artificial sweeteners.

Soda Taxes Passed in November 2016

The World Health Organization recently recommended that governments impose soda taxes in order to combat a variety of diet-related diseases exacerbated by high soda consumption. Soda taxes were on the ballot in early November of this year in  three California cities–San Francisco, Albany, and Oakland–as well as Boulder, Colorado. The soda taxes passed in all four cities with fairly large margins of support, much to the dismay of the beverage industry. The American Beverage Association spent upwards of $9.5 million on an ad campaign opposing the measures entitled “Don’t Tax Our Groceries.”

The amount of tax in each city, however, varies. In San Francisco, Albany, and Oakland, the tax is one penny per ounce of soda. In Boulder, the tax is two pennies per ounce of soda, and the soda tax that passed earlier this year in Philadelphia was set at 1.5 cents an ounce. The disparities in the amount of tax per ounce are likely to continue as more jurisdictions follow suit.

These laws are also coming into effect at a time when soda consumption is down among Americans. In a 2014 Gallup poll, nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of Americans reported avoiding soda in their diet; in 2002 that number was only 41 percent. Moreover, over the last 20 years, sales of full-calorie soda have dropped by more than 25 percent. “Big Soda” is experiencing a substantial and sustained decline, while bottled water remains on track to overtake soda as the largest beverage category. The changing soda consumption patterns are noticeable in schools, where cafeterias and vending machines have stopped carrying regular sodas, and in many workplaces and government offices that have similarly limited sales. Soda, it seems, has now become the new tobacco: an unhealthy product that should be limited, if not outright banned, and taxed significantly.

“Soda” Image Courtesy of Rex Sorgatz : License (CC BY 2.0)

Issues with Soda Taxes

Not everyone is a fan of soda taxes. While the American Health Association has touted the win as a huge victory, many argue that the taxes affect low-income populations the most. Sin taxes arguably have a disproportionate effect on poor and less educated communities. Since sin taxes are typically regressive in nature, the less money a person makes, the larger percentage of his or her income the taxes take. Essentially, if comparing two “pack-a-day” smokers–one lower-income citizen and one high-income citizen–one can see that the two are spending the same amount of money on cigarettes and taxes each year. The taxes on those same cigarettes, however, are taking up much more of the lower-income citizen’s paycheck.

Additionally, the beverage industry contends that more taxes are not ideal when pursuing public health initiatives. Susan Neely, CEO of the American Beverage Association, stated that consumers don’t want these taxes. She also added that the industry is committed to reducing the amount of calories and sugar in these beverages and combating diet-related issues in a variety of manners. This includes partnering with Alliance for a Healthier Generation in order to try to change behaviors of people who may be receiving far too many calories from beverages. Other strategies include an ad campaign called “Balance What You Eat, Drink & Do” that encourages people to think more readily about the calories they are consuming. The beverage industry is also working with retailers to put more low-calorie choices at eye-level, so consumers will be more likely to pick those choices.

Conclusion

Whether you see soda taxes as a necessary movement or not, the U.S. is certainly grappling with an obesity epidemic. Educating the public about calorie and sugar consumption is critical to combating this public health crisis, in addition to making a myriad of low-calorie, no-calorie, and low-sugar choices more readily available in a variety of communities across the country. Sometimes, the easiest way to help people make changes is by utilizing financial means, and soda taxes may be an effective way to incentivize healthier behaviors. The law of demand works in practice, not just theory: when prices go up, people buy less.

For now, soda taxes seem to be here to stay, as they find their way into more cities across the country. “Big Soda” does appear to be in serious decline, and unless the industry can find a way to keep up with the public’s changing preferences, the downward trend may continue into the future. While the amount of a given tax will continue to vary depending on the jurisdiction, the long-term effects of taxes may be even more effective if taxes are increased and become more widespread. The amount of money generated from soda taxes has the potential to be large, and using the revenue to fund desperately-needed or underfunded programs, like Philadelphia intends to do, may be an ideal solution.

Nicole Zub

Nicole is a third-year law student at the University of Kentucky College of Law. She graduated in 2011 from Northeastern University with Bachelor’s in Environmental Science. When she isn’t imbibing copious amounts of caffeine, you can find her with her nose in a book or experimenting in the kitchen. Contact Nicole at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Are Soda Taxes the New Sin Tax to Combat Obesity? appeared first on Law Street.

Imagine being arrested for a crime you didn’t commit–let alone even know about.

Now, imagine being arrested four times for crimes you didn’t commit.

That was the reality for an Orange County, California man whose ex-girlfriend had been impersonating him online. She had been sending herself messages from an account she created on Facebook in his name threatening to harm and kill her, according to a statement from the Orange County District Attorney’s Office.

Authorities arrested Tyler Parkervest, between the months of September and December 2015, four times in connection to the claims of harassment and stalking. According to the statement, he was subsequently charged with multiple felonies.

Stephani Renae Lawson Gets Jail for Creating Ex’s False Facebook Threats https://t.co/HxC0yJqNjQ via @ocweekly

— OC Weekly (@OCWeekly) December 1, 2016

“The OCDA investigation revealed that the true victim was John Doe and he was not guilty of the crimes,” the statement said.

Stephani Lawson, 25, “pleaded guilty to one felony count of false imprisonment by menace, violence, fraud, or deceit, and one felony count of perjury,” according to the statement.

Lawson created the fake profile and claimed that her ex-boyfriend, referred to as John Doe in the DA statement but identified as Parkervest by The Washington Post, had broken a restraining order, stalked, and threatened her life on multiple occasions. Lawson would report to the authorities that she had been receiving these harmful messages from her ex-boyfriend and subsequently have him arrested.

Lawson drew suspicion after she testified under oath about the messages she had been receiving in May 2016. Something about the evidence and the Facebook messages seemed off for some at the DA’s office. Turns out, the Facebook threats made to her had been sent using her own devices and her own IP address. The Orange County District Attorney’s Office conducted an investigation of the comments she made and of the messages themselves and concluded that she was responsible for the wrongdoing.

After exhaustive attempts, the Orange County DA’s Office was able to obtain cell phone records from T-Mobile and information from Facebook. This information gave the office what they had suspected: it had been Lawson all along.

“The T-Mobile records showed that Lawson disguised herself as Parkervest with a similar Facebook account,” Orange County District Attorney investigator Loren Dawson told the The Washington Post. “Lawson sent herself numerous criminal threats from the phony ‘Tyler Parker’ Facebook account and reported to law enforcement that Parkervest sent her the messages. Lawson had Parkervest arrested four times for crimes that he did not commit.”

Authorities arrested Lawson in Las Vegas on September 28 and dismissed the charges against Parkervest shortly after. She has since been sentenced to one year in county jail, three years of probation, and ordered to pay restitution, according to the Orange County DA.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Woman Impersonates Her Ex on Facebook, Sends Threats to Herself appeared first on Law Street.

The California Bar Association really doesn’t seem to like fraternization between lawyers and their clients–so much so that it’s considering a rule to punish sexual relationships between the two groups as it reworks the state’s ethics rules for attorneys.

While California attorneys can obviously get in trouble for coercing or demanding sex from a client as a quid pro quo, the new rules would potentially discipline attorneys who engage in any sex with clients. The argument in favor of the ban is that any relationship between a client and an attorney is unequal, as the attorney presumably holds the cards. But attorneys who are opposed to this proposed new rule argue that it’s invasive and doesn’t respect their privacy or judgment as consenting adults.

The California Bar Association–the largest in the country–is rewriting its ethics rules for the first time since 1987. Some of the 70-odd proposed changes are a long time coming, and will bring California in line with other states. For example, under the new rules, according to the Associated Press the state will begin “subjecting prosecutors to discipline for failing to turn over evidence they know or reasonably should know would help the defense.” There are also new guidelines being considered for certain instances, like when a lawyer is working with a client who has a “diminished mental capacity,” among others. The new rules are expected to be finalized in the spring of 2017 by the rules commission, and then will be sent to the California Supreme Court for final approval.

Nationwide there’s been a split on whether or not to institute a sex ban between attorneys and clients. Seventeen states have taken the plunge, but California would obviously be a big one to join.

There are, of course, some exceptions that would be in place–like for individuals who are already in a personal relationship prior to the attorney-client relationship. But of course, not all lawyers are happy with this proposal. James Ham, one of the lawyers on the commission, wrote a dissent that included:

Proponents of a complete ban cannot articulate why a lawyer should be disciplined for sexual relations with a mature, intelligent, consenting adult, in the absence of any quid pro quo, coercion, intimidation or undue influence.

But those in favor of a ban argue that the issue is that it’s difficult to tell whether coercion or consent are present–and the potential for coercion creates the problem.

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 California Bar Association May Ban Sex Between Attorneys and Clients appeared first on Law Street.

One California city, Santa Monica, is taking quite a dramatic step to make sure that new single-family homes built there don’t add any more stress to the environment–beginning in 2017, any house built in the city will have to be “net-zero” energy (ZNE). That means that it cannot use more energy than it produces, a hugely ambitious move in California’s quest to get greener.

There are a few different ways that a house could fit ZNE rules. Houses that produce their own energy, such as through solar power, are able to achieve that distinction. The new houses built in the town will also likely be seriously efficient, in an attempt to reduce the amount of energy needed.

ZNE technology is certainly not new. The EcoTerra House in Quebec, Canada, opened in 2007 and is a landmark ZNE building. Kentucky was the first state to build a ZNE-friendly public school, the Richardsville Elementary School in Warren County. The first retail store that is ZNE is a Walgreens in Evanston, Illinois. But Santa Monica is believed to be the first city worldwide to implement this kind of measure.

Mayor Tony Vazquez said in a press release after the ordinance was passed by the City Council:

Santa Monica is proud to take a global lead in zero net energy building standards that put the State’s environmental policy to action. Council’s adoption of this new ordinance reflects our city’s continued commitment to the environment. ZNE construction, considered the gold standard for green buildings, is a major component that will help us reach our ambitious goal of carbon neutrality by 2050.

And Dean Kubani, Santa Monica’s Chief Sustainability Officer, spoke about the benefit to the homeowners in the city, saying:

This ordinance makes environmental and economic sense. With the price of utility power continuing to rise, ZNE homeowners will avoid those escalating costs while benefitting from local renewable power for all of their energy need.

If Santa Monica’s idea works as plans, it could contribute to California’s attempts to cut emissions, and provide inspiration for cities both domestically and worldwide.

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 Building a New House in Santa Monica? It Will Need to be Very Green appeared first on Law Street.

It’s probably safe to say that the creators of California’s Prop 64 probably didn’t intend to cost the state millions–before earning it billions–with the legalization of recreational marijuana. But that’s exactly what may have happened thanks to a legislative blunder that will give medical marijuana patients a lengthy tax holiday.

Prop 64 was designed to apply a 15 percent excise tax to all recreational and medical marijuana sales starting January 1, 2018. The excise tax would be tacked onto a 7.5 percent sales tax for recreational marijuana, but Prop 64 repealed that tax for medical marijuana.

According to the Washington Post, the tax exemption was intended to give medical marijuana users a tax break beginning in 2018, but the January 1, 2018 target date was regrettably omitted from the 62-page initiative. Therefore, the tax exemption went into effect this week once the initiative passed. The initiative’s creators argued that it wasn’t their intention to grant a 14-month tax holiday to medical marijuana users, but California’s Board of Equalization ruled otherwise.

“The resulting revenue loss for 2017 is estimated to be as much as $49.5 million,” said board member Jerome Horton, citing the total tax revenue collected from 1,632 dispensaries in 2014. “Local cities who anticipate preserving their revenue from medical marijuana may get nothing since Proposition 64 provides for a complete exemption from medical marijuana.”

There are precedents for ignoring legal provisions that clearly contain clerical errors, but the Board didn’t see fit to invoke them. That means the provision is legally binding, despite its financial implications.

This marijuana loophole has many people who were interested in using recreational weed considering medical marijuana cards as a more cost-effective alternative.

David Goldman, a medical marijuana patient and president of the Brownie Mary Democratic Club–the first politically affiliated Cannabis club in California–told the San Francisco Chronicle that he intends to keep using his medical card despite Prop 64 being passed.

“I purposely renewed my registration this month,” said Goldman. “If you spend more than $100 on cannabis in a month, you will probably do better if you get the state card.”

In order to become a medical marijuana patient in California, individuals must first obtain a recommendation from a doctor before applying for a Medical Marijuana Identification Card or MMIC with the California Department of Public Health, which includes a $100 fee.

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 California Could Lose Millions in Tax Revenue Due to This Prop 64 Blunder appeared first on Law Street.

The water crisis in southern California is far from over. The reservoir that provides Santa Barbara County with its drinking water reached its all-time low at 7 percent capacity this summer. The Lake Cachuma reservoir is supposed to hold drinking water for half a million people. But at this rate, it will be unable to provide water as soon as January.

Lake Cachuma is 3,000 acres and provides the surrounding valley with half the amount of water that it needs to refill an underground aquifer that everyone living there uses. Households, businesses, and farms use this water. If California doesn’t get the same amount of precipitation as it did last year, the wells will go dry. The only hope for inhabitants is a winter with a lot of snow and rain, which would also extend into the spring. But if that doesn’t happen, the state needs to step in. And the country has just elected a president who doesn’t believe in climate change. “There is no drought,” Trump claimed at a rally in Fresno in May.

You could solve the California water crisis using all the tears shed over Trump’s election.

— Mounir Lynch (@DoctorMounir) November 10, 2016

“There is very much a drought in California, and it’s been going on for approximately five years. It doesn’t look like there’s an end in sight,” said Emilio Huerta, a California attorney who was running for Congress, to CNBC, earlier this month. He also said there is a “fear of cancer clusters and people being exposed to dangerous toxins” in the water.

Some cities are investigating alternative water sources. In Santa Barbara there are ongoing discussions of whether to ban outdoor use of water, and plans to desalinate ocean water to make it drinkable. The area is known for its huge mansions owned by movie stars, golf courses in constant need of watering, and vineyards that attract tourists from all over the world, and none of this could exist without fresh water. A year ago, water suppliers ordered Californians to cut their water use by 35 percent, something that made many people feel unjustly treated as they let their gardens and trees die at the same time while major construction projects went on as usual.

The city of Santa Barbara released an aerial video to show how much the water level has gone down.

Santa Barbara will spend $61 million to get the desalination plant going, which could provide the city with a third of its water needs. Though it is an amazing invention that can turn seawater into drinking water at a rate of 3 million gallons per day, environmentalists say it’s harmful to the environment. It works by sucking in saltwater through tiny holes in the machine, which can harm ocean creatures, and the salty water that is later pumped back into the ocean pollutes it. The operation also demands a lot of electricity that will contribute further to the emission of carbon dioxide unless it’s generated via renewable energy.

Adam Scow from advocacy group Food & Water Watch believes that to solve the problem, California must change its whole mindset. There are a lot of things that are just not sustainable there–the golf courses, the nut trees, and the overuse of groundwater, to name just a few. “California cannot sustain this type of production with this mantra that we need to dominate all agricultural markets. We’re losing our water with that mindset,” he said to CNBC.

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 California Drought Watch: Santa Barbara County’s Reservoir Almost Dry appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

So…I Guess Nike’s Stock is Up?

Executives from Boston-based sportswear company New Balance told the Wall Street Journal that they believe Donald Trump will get things moving in the right direction. Consumers reacted with fury and by setting their shoes on fire.

@SoleCollector @newbalance good to know. I made a little bonfire tonight pic.twitter.com/yOdCTbQgac

— skreetware (@milftears) November 10, 2016

Hundreds of people posted pictures of their burning shoes or of throwing them in the garbage. Some others said they would keep buying stuff from NB because the company opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement. But the ones who dropped their support of the brand were more visual.

@SoleCollector @newbalance pic.twitter.com/i8IdsxzMu4

— gay boots (@omaha_trash) November 10, 2016

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: November 11, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

While people anxiously awaited the results of the 2016 presidential election, Marijuana legalization–one of the nation’s top categories of ballot measures–had a strong and decisive night. Four states joined Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, Washington, and the District of Columbia in legalizing recreational marijuana for adults 21 years and older. Find out how America voted below!

Arizona

“Arizona” courtesy of Gordon Wrigley; License: (CC BY 2.0)

Results: Rejected

Proposition 205 would have legalized recreational marijuana for those over 21. It would have also created a 15 percent sales tax on marijuana that would be distributed to public health and education services.

Analysis: Arizona rejected Prop 205 with 52 percent voting against the measure and 48 percent voting in favor, as of Wednesday morning with 98 percent of the votes reported.

Opponents took issues with the measure’s caveat that would have created a monopoly on the marijuana industry in Arizona. Others argued that the legalization would increase drug trafficking and cause an increase in teen use and deadly car crashes tied to marijuana.

For more information on marijuana legalization state by state, click here for “The State of Weed.”

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 Election Results: How Did States Vote on Recreational Marijuana? appeared first on Law Street.

Marijuana legalization is set to be one of the biggest ballot measure topics to watch in this election, as nine states are ready to vote on legalizing recreational or medical marijuana in less than a week. In California, a host of artists, including Pusha T, have rallied to show support for Prop 64, which could legalize the recreational use of marijuana for adults aged 21 years or older.

Pusha T filmed a PSA Tuesday announcing his support for the proposition, claiming “[legalizing weed] is an important step in ending mass incarceration across the country.”

The rapper, who doubles as president of Kanye West’s G.O.O.D. Music record label, considers marijuana arrests to be the driving force behind the antiquated War on Drugs and a top reason for recidivism, or relapse, in the nation’s justice system.

Watch Pusha T’s PSA Supporting Prop 64

Pusha T joins actress Shailene Woodley, music mogul Jay Z, rapper and actor Common, comedian Sarah Silverman, and many others in supporting the measure as part of the celebrity coalition Artists for 64.

“I’m not a California voter, but I know when good legislation passes in the biggest state, other states follow,” said Pusha T. “That’s an important step in ending mass incarceration around the country.”

The topic of mass incarceration appears to be of great importance to the rapper, who recently spoke about its rates and the rights of ex-felons with Stephen Colbert, after campaigning in Florida for Hillary Clinton with vice presidential candidate Tim Kaine.

Prop 64 would also create two new taxes, according to Ballotpedia. That revenue would be “spent on drug research, treatment, and enforcement, health and safety grants addressing marijuana, youth programs, and preventing environmental damage resulting from illegal marijuana production.”

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 Pusha T Joins Coalition of Artists Voting “Yes” on California’s Prop 64 appeared first on Law Street.

Scooping up a recent bundle of investments worth $13 million, marijuana delivery app Eaze is officially the highest-funded pot startup in the world. The new infusion of cash–courtesy of Fresh VC, DMC Ventures, Tusk Ventures, Winklevoss Capital and more–brings the young firm’s capital to nearly $25 million. Eaze, based in San Francisco, and active in 100 cities in California, connects medical marijuana patients to local dispensaries. Some call it the “Uber for Weed.”

“Eaze remains committed to providing the best patient experience and will use the latest financing to accelerate product innovation, grow its world-class team, and expand its technology to additional markets,” the company said in a press release announcing its  new investments.

The funding comes at a potentially lucrative time for the cannabis industry in California. On November 8, California residents will vote on Proposition 64, a ballot measure that, if passed, would legalize recreational marijuana in the state. If the drug is legalized, some predict that the legal marijuana market in California will grow from $2.8 billion today, which only includes medical marijuana, to $6.5 billion in total by 2020. Early polls indicate the legalization measure will likely pass.

Eaze CEO Keith McCarty is looking forward to the marijuana market’s future growth: “We’re thrilled with the growth we’ve achieved and are poised to accelerate as the market hits an inflection point,” he said.

The federal designation of pot as an illicit substance and a Schedule I drug renders any pot delivery service illegal. And even according to local laws, only some of the areas where Eaze delivers is technically legal. (At the local level, at least. Federally, delivering pot is illegal and will remain so until the government legalizes it). Delivery services like Eaze, which launched in July 2014, had a bigger gap to fill in California’s medical market after voters passed a measure that banned dispensaries in Los Angeles from delivering their products.

Despite the legal contradictions of marijuana laws at the federal and state level, McCarty is excited about the opportunities moving forward. “This is a critical time for the marijuana industry. Adult use is on the precipice of becoming legal in California, the largest marijuana market in the United States,” he said, adding that his firm is “best positioned to educate and service the future market.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Delivery App Becomes Highest Funded Marijuana Startup in the World appeared first on Law Street.

In the weeks leading up to November 8, America’s attention remains squarely on the presidential race. But Election Day will bring scores of ballot measures to voters across all 50 states as well. In nine states, voters will be weighing in on legalizing marijuana in some form, either medically or recreationally.

Early polls in California–one of states to include a full-tilt legalization measure on its ballot–indicate that it will join the handful of states where marijuana is currently legal in all forms. Opponents and proponents of the California measure, Proposition 64, have their sights set on the next battlefield once legalization becomes a reality: marketing.

Proposition 64, or the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, contains a number of provisions aimed at ensuring marijuana will be safely marketed. These include:

• All marijuana product labels must include a government warning that includes the phrase, “please use extreme caution.”
• Billboards can portray marijuana advertisements, but must be located further than 1,000 feet away from a day care, school, playground, or youth center.

But even with the safe-marketing measures baked into Prop. 64, some opponents of legalization remain worried that as the drug is legalized, companies will commit to mass marketing strategies aimed at turning a profit.

Once cannabis is legalized in California, opponents see a period of experimentation, as brands are weeded out and the big players emerge, perhaps paving a landscape similar to Big Tobacco. This would include a landscape consisting of mass marketing campaigns fueled by a few dominant companies.

Prop. 64 contains additional stipulations aimed at preventing a monopolistic environment. For the first five years of legalization, producers are only allowed to cultivate up to 22,000 square feet.

Though Prop. 64 contains measures safeguarding against marketing, and especially marketing to children, the federal classification of marijuana as an illegal substance and a Schedule I drug will prevent marijuana from being marketed on television or radio in California, even if the measure passes on Election Day.

In an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, California’s Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom, a legalization supporter, noted how federal law will block many marketing efforts at the state level for the time being. He said:

Oregon, Washington, Alaska, and Colorado have legalized cannabis for recreational use for adults. None of those markets have any advertising, because [marijuana] is federally prohibited. You cannot legally advertise [marijuana] on our airwaves, radio, or TV.

Brands, he said, will design their products to appeal to people. “But targeting our kids,” Newsom said. “Absolutely not. And we’re going to keep an eye on that, and we’ve got to hold ourselves accountable.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Will Marijuana Be Marketed if it’s Legalized in California? appeared first on Law Street.

Over the weekend two police officers were shot and killed in Palm Springs, California. The suspect is 26-year-old John Felix who was taken into custody early Sunday morning after a standoff with police that lasted for several hours. The officers were responding to a disturbance call when the suspect allegedly started firing at the officers.

One of the officers killed was 63-year-old Jose Vega who had been in the force for 35 years and was two months away from retirement. The other was 27-year-old Lesley Zerebny who had just come back from maternity leave after giving birth to a daughter four months earlier. A third officer was injured but released from the hospital the same day.

According to a neighbor who spoke with the Associated Press, Felix’s father told her, “My son is inside and we’re scared, he’s acting crazy.” He added that they had called the police and that the son said he was going to shoot them. According to Police Chief Bryan Reyes, Felix refused to open the door for the officers and threatened to shoot through it. As they tried to speak to him he opened fire. More officers in tactical gear and an armored vehicle arrived and Felix barricaded himself inside the house. After a failed attempt to try to locate his exact position using robots, officers sent in a chemical agent that finally made him surrender. When he came out, he was wearing light body armor and carrying ammunition.

John Felix was a gang member who lived with his parents. He previously spent four years in prison for a gang-related murder attempt in 2009, for which he took a plea deal and admitted to assault with a firearm and connections to a gang. Felix was arrested three years ago at the same house as the one where the incident on Saturday occurred. He will be charged with two counts of first-degree murder as well as several additional felony counts.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch said in a statement on Sunday:

Our nation’s heart is broken yet again by the appalling act of violence that claimed two brave law enforcement officers on Saturday. Officers Jose Gilbert Vega and Lesley Zerebny were at opposite ends of their careers, but they shared a steadfast devotion to the people they had sworn to serve.

According to AP, it had been 54 years since the last uniformed police officer killing in Palm Springs. Officer Vega was supposed to have the Saturday off but worked anyway. Officer Zerebny had returned early from maternity leave. It was just a matter of bad timing and bad luck that made the difference between life and death.

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 Father of Suspect in California Police Killings: He Wanted to Shoot the Police appeared first on Law Street.

California Governor Jerry Brown has signed legislation ending the state’s 10-year statute of limitations on rape.

Senate Bill 813, filed by State Senator Connie Leyva (D-Chino) amended the penal code so that some sex crimes, including rape, forcible sodomy, and molestation of a child, can be be prosecuted, regardless of how long ago the crime occurred.

Leyva praised Brown’s decision, saying it told every rape and sexual assault victim in the state “that they matter.” “It shows victims and survivors that California stands behind them, that we see rape as a serious crime, that victims can come forward and that justice now has no time limit,” she said.

The sexual assault allegations against scandal-plagued comedian Bill Cosby inspired the bill. Cosby’s accusers testified before the California Legislature to support the bill, dubbed the Justice for Victims Act, before it made its way to Brown’s desk. Dozens of women have accused the comedian of sexual assault dating from the 1960s to the 1990s.

“The Cosby Show” star has denied the accusations, saying his sexual encounters were consensual.

Attorney Gloria Allred, who represents some of the accusers, stated that this was a positive step. “It puts sexual predators on notice that the passage of time may no longer protect them from serious criminal consequences for their acts of sexual violence,” she said.

The new law will not work retroactively, or help those who accuse Cosby of crimes committed more than 10 years ago. It will go into effect January 1, 2017.

Bryan White

Bryan is an editorial intern at Law Street Media from Stratford, NJ. He is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Broadcast Journalism. When he is not reading up on the news, you can find him curled up with an iced chai and a good book. Contact Bryan at BWhite@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post California Ends Statute of Limitations on Rape with Senate Bill 813 appeared first on Law Street.

Ageism is a prevalent problem in Hollywood, especially for actresses. Many, many actresses–Maggie Gyllenhaal, Patricia Arquette, Meryl Streep, Zoe Saldana, Sarah Silverman, Jane Fonda, Cate Blanchett, and others–have spoken out against sexism and ageism in Hollywood. But what if actresses were able to obscure their age on sites like IMDB? Would that give them a leg up when it comes to  landing parts? California just passed a law that would allow actors and actresses to remove their ages from their IMDB and similar professional entertainment pages, potentially putting that question to the test.

The text of the law, signed by Governor Jerry Brown, “will force subscription websites used by casting services and entertainment employers to remove age information in online profiles if asked.”

This comes after a lawsuit last year in which actress Junie Hoang sued IMDB for revealing her age. She claimed that her age being published hurt her career, and that IMDB breached her privacy by publicizing it. While she lost the lawsuit, it was certainly an interesting question, and opened up the conversation that this new law sort of stemmed from.

However, it’s not necessarily that simple. They Hollywood Reporter’s Jonathan Handel brought up the fact that the new law could violate First Amendment rights. First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams told the Hollywood Reporter:

The statute seems to me of the most dubious constitutionality. Birth dates are facts. It’s hard to see how the government, consistently with the First Amendment‎, can bar or punish their disclosure.

However Democratic Assembly Majority Leader Ian Calderon, who sponsored the bill, argued that it wasn’t censorship. He said:

Requiring websites to remove all age information from profiles would seem to run afoul of the First Amendment restrictions on the regulation of commercial speech. Limiting the bill to only subscribers makes it clear that the bill advances an important government interest — that of reducing age discrimination in a manner that is substantially related to that interest and no more extensive than necessary to achieve that interest.

Obviously this won’t make much of a difference for already established actresses, whose birthdays are quite easy to figure out. But it may make a difference for up-and-coming talent, or at least let actresses (and some actors) take the emphasis off their ages and let their work stand on its own. There’s still a lot of work to do to fight ageism in Hollywood, but maybe this will serve a tiny first step.

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 Can a New California Law Help Stop Ageism in Hollywood? appeared first on Law Street.

The 2013 documentary “Blackfish” portrayed the chilling reality of orcas in captivity, including the tragic death of one orca trainer who was pulled underwater by a stressed and depressed whale. Now California has become the first state in the country to ban breeding and performances by captive orcas.

State Assemblyman Richard Bloom from Santa Monica first introduced the bill in 2014 and expressed his joy on Twitter on Tuesday.

Very pleased to announce that my law protecting #orca from captive breeding in California was signed by @JerryBrownGov today

— Richard Bloom (@RichardBloom) September 13, 2016

The “Blackflish” documentary opened many people’s eyes. SeaWorld faced massive protests after it aired. The company voluntarily announced in March 2016 that it would stop captive breeding and “repackage” orca entertainment into featuring only the “natural behavior of the whales.”

PETA had worked on behalf of the orcas for a long time and was delighted by the news:

Considering what we know now about orca intelligence and sensitivity, there’s no justification for letting businesses breed more of these animals to endure chronic deprivation in tiny concrete tanks.

BREAKING VICTORY: #California has just become the first state to ban captive orca breeding! https://t.co/LoBCdqPwgz pic.twitter.com/NpVaOrOddX

— PETA (@peta) September 14, 2016

The new bill was signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown on Tuesday and will ensure that SeaWorld and other parks will never begin the captive breeding practices again. But a loophole in the bill allows parks to still use whales for “educational orca encounters,” which means they could technically keep doing what they’ve been doing until now.

Former orca trainer John Hargrove, who participated in the Blackfish documentary, celebrated the new law.

California Governor Signs Bill Banning SeaWorld Orca Shows- This feels WONDERFUL! https://t.co/WO1lEWEcvS

— John Hargrove (@johnjhargrove) September 14, 2016

The law will prohibit keeping genetic material for the purpose of breeding and selling orcas to other states or countries. Facilities that keep orcas captive can only keep them for scientific, educational, or rescue purposes. Breaking the new law could result in a fine of $100,000.

Dr. Toni Frohoff from In Defense of Animals told the Dodo:

This is a momentous decision that reflects established science on orca well-being, and also public opinion that increasingly demands that these majestic, highly intelligent beings should not be held captive.

Considering the massive criticism that SeaWorld has faced, and that the new bill is the first of its kind to protect orcas, it seems like it can only get better for the whales from here.

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 California First State to Ban Orca Breeding and Performances appeared first on Law Street.

Brock Turner was released last week from a California jail after serving just three months of a six-month sentence. He was convicted of sexually assaulting an unconscious woman on Stanford University’s campus last year. His release was immediately met with outrage from people around the country who believed that both his sentence and his time served should have been longer.

Twitter users vented their frustration by mocking the sex offender’s plight with the tongue-in-cheek hashtag #ThingsLongerThanBrockTurnersRapeSentence. While Turner was never convicted of rape–prosecutors dropped the two rape charges after a preliminary hearing–the hashtag uses the term to reinforce the popular opinion that Turner’s assault was tantamount to rape. Here are some of the top tweets from the trending hashtag.

10 Things Longer Than Brock Turner’s Rape Sentence

1. Rogue Hairs

#ThingsLongerThanBrockTurnersRapeSentence — the piece of hair on my ankle i always miss when I shave.

— Kirsten King (@KirstenKing_) September 9, 2016

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 Here are 10 Things “Longer Than Brock Turner’s Rape Sentence” Via Twitter appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been over a year since New York Magazine enlisted the help of 35 women to blow the lid off Cosby’s decade-spanning sex scandal. Unfortunately, California’s 10-year statute of limitations for prosecuting rape meant many of these women would never face their alleged abuser in court. And that didn’t sit well with Golden State lawmakers.

On Thursday, the California Assembly passed a bill to eliminate the time limit for prosecuting rape and other felony sex crimes. Now the bill referred to as SB 813 is on its way to the state Senate, which passed an earlier version of legislation 33-0 in June, according to the LA Times. If it is successful there, it could be signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown before the session ends.

Nearly half of the states in this country have a statute of limitations for these crimes. Understanding where each state stands can be confusing at times since the U.S. hasn’t standardized its terminology for what is considered sexual assault (some states define it as: Sexual Offense, Forcible Rape, Criminal Sexual Conduct, Sexual Battery, etc.) Many states do, however, make exceptions when the victims happen to be minors. But even in these cases many victims must report their attacks before they reach a certain age.

Opponents of the bill, which included the California Public Defenders Association and some victims’ rights groups, spelled out a list of reasons for why statute of limitations exist for rape cases. They say the time limits are meant to decrease the chances of wrongful convictions due to inaccurate memories, deaths of witness, and lost or tampered evidence.

According to the Daily Mail, three of Cosby’s alleged victims spoke before the California Senate in June to support the bill. They include Victoria Valentino, a former Playboy Model who claimed Cosby raped her in Hollywood in 1969; “Kacey,” who said the comedian sexually assaulted her 20 years ago in Bel-Air; and the actress Lili Bernard, who claimed she was raped by Cosby in the ’90s in Atlantic City, New Jersey.

“War criminals, no matter how many decades have passed, cannot evade prosecution,” Bernard told the Senate committee. “I am asking you to do the same thing for us, rape survivors, who survived the war upon our body.”

Unfortunately for her, if the bill passes, California won’t be prosecuting Cosby for any former allegations, since charges cannot be brought retroactively. The bill would only apply to crimes committed after January 1, 2017, or to incidents where the statute of limitations hadn’t run out by that date.

Click here to learn more about your state’s laws governing sex crimes using Rape Abuse Incest National Network’s database.

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 California Aims to Eliminate Time Limit on Prosecuting Rape Cases appeared first on Law Street.

If you watch a lot of “Law and Order” you might be under the impression that courtroom stunts are common–that pulling out props or making grand gestures are the norm. But in reality, stunts are relatively rare, and successful stunts are rarer, which makes the fact that attorney Nick Rowley dressed up in a chicken suit during a closing argument and won a lawsuit brought against the Kern County School District in California, all the more impressive.

The case was Mitchell Carter v. Kern County School District and focused on the events that transpired at Bakersfield High School in 2010. According to Courtroom View Network, Mitchell Carter, a student at the time, dressed up in a chicken suit at a football rally to make fun of their rival Clovis West High School, which has a golden eagle mascot. He was encouraged to do so by the administration. When Carter went out in the suit the first time, he was attacked by students from Bakersfield. Carter tried to back out of entering the rally a second time, but says that he was compelled to go back out by the administration. Carter claims that a school administrator warned that he may have to pay the chicken suit’s rental fee if he didn’t go back out.

When Carter, dressed in the chicken suit, entered the rally the second time he was rushed by Bakersfield High School students and suffered a traumatic brain injury. He now suffers from psychological problems, has a hard time keeping up with college classes, and will need to pay for growth hormone therapy for the rest of his life because his pituitary gland was damaged. In addition to accusing the school of pushing him to do the stunt, Carter also claimed that the school didn’t break up the fight that caused his brain trauma in a timely fashion.

Rowley said: “He was put in the most hated, personified figure at that time: the opposing team’s mascot…They dressed him up and had him play the fool.” Here’s a video of Rowley explaining the situation, chicken suit and all, courtesy of Courtroom View Network:

While the school district’s attorneys tried to argue that Carter picked fights with members of the team, the jury sided with Carter, finding the school district “100 percent liable for the student’s injuries.” The school district’s settlement with Carter totals $10.5 million.

Rowley donned the chicken costume about 20 minutes into his closing argument, to make a point about why Carter put his suit on in the first place. Rowley pointed out it wasn’t for personal glory, or attention, but because of his school spirit–Carter went through the humiliating act of wearing a chicken suit because his school asked him to. While the defense objected to Rowley’s use of the chicken suit, its rhetorical heft was undoubtable. While props in the courtroom don’t always work, Rowley’s calculated risk clearly paid off. After all, it’s not every day you see an attorney put on a chicken suit in the middle of a courtroom…at least not outside of a TV show.

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 No Clucks Given: Attorney Dresses up in Chicken Suit During Closing Argument appeared first on Law Street.

Californians will have the opportunity to vote to legalize recreational marijuana in November now that the proposed ballot measure officially meets the state’s signature requirement. California was the first state in the country to legalize medical use of the drug in 1996. If Californians vote to allow recreational use it could have a big impact on the rest of the country, considering the size of the state and the existing momentum behind legalization.

Six years ago, Californians voted against Proposition 19, a similar initiative that would have made California the first state to legalize recreation marijuana use. But since then, more states have opened up to marijuana use and California recently enacted new rules to regulate medicinal marijuana. This time around, the campaign to legalize has several prominent backers such as Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, billionaire Sean Parker, the California Democratic Party, and the California Medical Association.

To put the issue on the November ballot, pro-Marijuana groups needed over 365,000 signatures, but the campaign collected over 606,000.

Dr. Jill Stein, the Green Party’s presidential candidate, voiced her support for the measure on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/DrJillStein/status/748202943170682884

What Would This Mean?

If the Adult Use of Marijuana Act is passed, it would basically mean that anyone over 21 would be allowed to buy, use, and possess up to one ounce of marijuana and grow up to six plants.

It would also entail huge savings for the state considering all the marijuana related offenses and incarceration of users that no longer would have to be enforced. The savings could be as big as over $100 million per year according to a statement from California Secretary of State Alex Padilla.

Jason Kinney, a spokesperson for the campaign behind the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, said in a statement:

Today marks a fresh start for California, as we prepare to replace the costly, harmful and ineffective system of prohibition with a safe, legal and responsible adult-use marijuana system that gets it right and completely pays for itself.

The anti-Marijuana bloc consists of the California Republican Party and representatives from police and hospitals. Opponents argue that legalization would not change the black market or criminal activity, such as driving under the influence.

But if the ballot measure passes, marijuana businesses would have to be 600 feet away from any school. Related advertising would not be allowed to target kids and marijuana products could not be easily confused with candy or other products that to not contain the dr.

The ballot measure currently has a broad base of support. A recent poll conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California found that 60 percent of California voters favor of legalization.

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 Californians to Vote on Recreational Marijuana in November appeared first on Law Street.

After years of debate, California Governor Jerry Brown has finally given in to liberal legislators and advocates of the poor by eliminating a California welfare rule that many believe inordinately targets poor mothers of color. The rule goes by many names–the “Welfare Queen” rule, the family cap, and formally in California as the Maximum Family Grant Policy–and prevents families from receiving more benefits if they have additional children while receiving benefits.

California’s revocation of the policy is projected to cost the state a projected $220 million each year, and will eventually be funded by an account for inflationary increases to welfare benefits. With Brown’s decision, California joins a list of seven other states to repeal the rule, which once existed in some form or another in nearly half of U.S. states.

The rule is a byproduct of the criminalization of welfare recipients that began in part with Ronald Reagan’s 1976 presidential campaign rhetoric:

Reagan ran a campaign largely based on the anecdotal evidence of a few criminals who defrauded the U.S. welfare system, with the conclusion that welfare fraud was a pervasive plague in the U.S. that could only be eliminated by cracking down on the “welfare state.”

The stereotype of the “welfare queen” has persisted as a woman, usually black, on welfare who persistently has children, does not work, and lies to receive greater handouts.

“Welfare queen” rules emerged in the early 1990’s as a solution, with the belief that if women were to not receive additional benefits for additional children, that they would stop having additional children. Not only have studies found that the rules have no distinguishable impact on birth rates among mothers who receive benefits and are subject to a family cap, but the rules have been criticized as degrading and dehumanizing to poor mothers.

Opponents have long held that children shouldn’t be penalized just because they were born into a poor family, while advocates of the policy claim that the estimated additional $130 families will be receiving will not be enough to lift families out of poverty. But ultimately, California legislators decided that the policy was ineffective in its goals, perpetuated unfair stereotypes, and punished children in deep poverty for elements out of their control.

However, this is just a first step to de-constructing the “welfare queen” image, which is unfairly projected on poor mothers.

There are still many other states with family cap rules. Additionally, public perception of mothers and families on welfare is often flawed. For example, pervasive myths such as welfare recipients buying alcohol, cigarettes, and fast food with SNAP benefits are simply untrue. SNAP benefits only apply to non-ready-to-eat food items with small exceptions for eligible disabled, homeless, or elderly recipients who can purchase select restaurant items in a few states.

Similarly, one of the most common welfare recipient stereotypes is the lazy non-working adult who is on welfare for years without ever working. Contrarily, 20 states have work requirements for TANF (the program for cash welfare assistance) recipients, including California.

The myth that most people using welfare stay on it for years also isn’t true. Many areas only allow single adults to receive SNAP for three months while unemployed, and many places have a lifetime limit on how long an individual can receive welfare benefits–California’s is 48 months.

California and many other states have a long way to go in deconstructing the harmful stereotypes of poor mothers and families they have perpetuated. But California has shown that the first step is possible, and that strong legislatures and citizens prioritize the livelihood, dignity, and opportunity of poor communities.

Ashlee Smith

Ashlee Smith is a Law Street Intern from San Antonio, TX. She is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Journalism. Her passions include social policy, coffee, and watching West Wing. Contact Ashlee at ASmith@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Fall of the “Welfare Queen” in California appeared first on Law Street.

If you keep up with the latest exercise trends at all, you’ve certainly heard of SoulCycle. It’s a New York based fitness company that operates in many major cities and the classes are based on indoor cycling or “spinning.” The company promises “at SoulCycle we believe that fitness can be joyful. We climb, we jog, we sprint, we dance, we set our intention, and we break through boundaries. The best part? We do it together, as a community.” But one woman doesn’t appear to feel particularly welcomed by that community–a Los Angeles woman Carmen Farias is suing the exercise company after she dislocated her ankle during a 2014 class.

Farias claims that she went to the class in July of 2014, as part of a free promotion from her workplace. But she had never been to a spin class before, and alleges that she was not given proper training. She also claims that she didn’t sign the waiver that SoulCycle provides, which includes some basic bike riding instructions.

According to Farias, she had a hard time keeping up with the rather intense exercise class. She then claims that her instructor, Angela Davis, mocked her and told her that “we don’t take breaks.” Farias kept peddling, and eventually lost control and fell off the exercise bike. According to Buzzfeed News, the complaint reads:

Carmen was in serious peril. With the music blaring and in the shadowy darkness, Carmen was isolated on her spinning cycle. Her feet were locked to the pedals and the pedals just kept turning. Fatigue and disorientation overcame Carmen and she fell to her right and off of the saddle of the spinning cycle.

Her complaint alleges that she was “catastrophically injured” at the class. It also posits that her fall and subsequent injury were as a result of the negligence of both SoulCycle and her instructor. SoulCycle doesn’t appear to have returned requests for a comment to other news outlets, but it’s doubtful that this incident will slow the number of celebrities who frequent the exercise establishments.

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 Sues After Falling off SoulCycle Bike appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to the RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through the top five controversial and crazy stories in the world of law and policy each day. So who is ranting and who is raving today? Check it out below:

North Korea Says Trump Is The Bomb

An op-ed in North Korea’s state sponsored DPRK Today had nothing but glowing praise for Republican nominee Donald Trump. It called him a “wise politician” and “far-sighted presidential candidate.” This may have a lot to do with Trump’s serious proposal to remove American troops from South Korea if the country does not pay defense costs. The paper encouraged South Korea to avoid paying costs so that the countries may unify in the future without Washington’s meddling. North Korea also urged Americans not to vote for Hillary Clinton and criticized her nuclear weapon policy.

When the US is being trolled by North Korea, you know that it is a rather odd election season. https://t.co/RAWfHsrEj7

— Charles Hawley (@charles_hawley) June 1, 2016

Was Jerry Brown’s Clinton Endorsement Genuine or Desperate?

Answer: genuinely desperate. California Governor Brown delivered a “lukewarm” letter supporting Hillary Clinton for president. He said she was the only one who could defeat Trump. Jerry also gave a sincere nod to Sanders, quoting his “1 percent” platform. All in all, the governor seems to be echoing the same sentiments as many voters: “Hillary is experienced and I am feeling the Bern but we can’t let Trump win.”

Jerry Brown’s endorsement of Hillary is based on a simple calculation: She’s going to win. https://t.co/GdlzV1cgoM

— Chris Cillizza (@TheFix) May 31, 2016

People have feelings about this Texas town selfie statue

America’s new favorite pastime has been immortalized with this “selfie statue.” The statue, located in Sugarland, Texas, cost a smooth $35,500. And many were left wondering if there was a better use for those funds like, IDK, making texting while driving illegal, as the town of Sugarland is apparently having problems making that a priority. In the meantime, people are hitting up the selfie statue for selfies at lunch.

THERE’S A SELFIE STATUE IN MY TOWN. pic.twitter.com/hEV0MLM04L

— ¯\( ˘͡ ˘̯)/¯ (@Gemrick) May 28, 2016

Meet David French, Bill Kristol’s Third Party Write In

His name has been floating around and rumors say he could be our chance for a third party candidate. David French was recently called upon by Bill Kristol to enter the 2016 race as an independent. Move over Trump, looks like we have another winner on the stage. That is if David French, a conservative lawyer and National Review columnist, decides to take on the challenge. Looks like he’ll be facing some tough questions, though:

But what would David French have done about the gorilla?

— daveweigel (@daveweigel) May 31, 2016

Soccer Drama…Again

What the flying f***? The U.S. Soccer Federation has asked the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to dismiss a complaint made by the National Women’s Soccer team over unfair wages. The Federation claims that the wage difference is based off of factors other than discrimination. Popularity and fandom play a role in how much soccer teams are paid. Which really shouldn’t make a difference because the women’s team plays just as much as the men’s, and have often won more.

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 1, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

New York may become the first state to ban cat declawing. A bill is being debated in Albany that would make the practice illegal–but not everyone is on board. The move has pitted animal advocates and some veterinarians against each other over whether or not we should be able to declaw our four-legged friends.

The bill is sponsored by Assemblymember Linda Rosenthal, D-Manhattan, who sees it as an issue of treating cats humanely. Rosenthal claims that people only really declaw their cats as a matter of convenience; the state’s Veterinary Medical Society points out that sometimes declawing is the only way that a cat can remain in a family home if it has a habit of scratching and hurting members. According to a memo the society issued opposing the bill:

Clawing and scratching can be highly dangerous and detrimental to families with immunocompromised members or family members with other health issues; as such, declawing is one method to allow a beloved feline companion to continue to live in a household rather than relinquishing the family pet to a shelter. Declawing should remain a viable alternative to euthanasia if all other options have failed.

The society also claims that declawing is done in a way that does not hurt the animal, saying:

The surgical performance of an onychectomy by a licensed, trained veterinarian is done with proper anesthesia and multimodal pain control, making it indistinguishable from other surgical procedures performed on cats and other animals. In addition, when done properly, it should never damage the sensitive foot pads of a cat or result in nerve damage or intense and chronic pain.

However the Humane Society and other advocates in favor of the bill point out that “declawing” a cat isn’t as simple as cutting the claws, but instead requires a number of steps. According to Eileen Jefferson, a veterinarian and member of Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association:

This always includes the pain of having 10 to 18 separate amputations performed in one day and, in addition to that, it can include other effects such as limping, hemorrhage, chronic pain and infection.

The bill is in somewhat beginning stages, and no vote has been scheduled yet. While New York would be the first state to outlaw cat declawing, a few cities, including San Francisco and Los Angeles, have already taken the plunge.

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 Will New York Become the First State to Outlaw Cat Declawing? appeared first on Law Street.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is making a big push to regulate e-cigarettes, cigars, and other non-cigarette smoking devices for the first time. The FDA has been working on these rules for a while, but finalized them on Wednesday. Most of the regulations pertain to smoking via means that aren’t traditional cigarettes, cigarette-related products, or smokeless tobacco–such as hookah, e-cigarettes, and cigars.

One of the most noteworthy new policies is that the FDA will ban the sale of e-cigarettes to individuals under the age of 18. Additionally, the way that e-cigarette manufacturers are allowed to market the e-cigarettes already on sale will require federal permission. The other regulations that will be placed on e-cigarettes include:

A prohibition on distribution of free samples; a ban on selling e-cigarettes in vending machines unless they are in secure places that never admit young people; and a requirement that e-cigarettes carry warnings that they contain nicotine, which is addictive.

Additionally, the regulations will ban the sale of cigars, pipe tobacco, and hookah tobacco to minors under 18.

The FDA put out a statement about its new regulations, stating:

This action is a milestone in consumer protection — going forward, the FDA will be able to review new tobacco products not yet on the market, help prevent misleading claims by tobacco product manufacturers, evaluate the ingredients of tobacco products and how they are made, and communicate the potential risks of tobacco products.

The FDA has been attempting to regulate e-cigarettes for some time. In 2009, the FDA tried to regulate e-cigarettes as drug-delivery products, but a court ruling struck those provisions down in 2010. The newly announced regulations have been two years in the making, as the FDA has sought to deal with the new influx of e-cigarettes on the market and in popular culture.

The federal government isn’t the only one cracking down on e-cigarettes (or vaping–the act of using e-cigarettes or other electronic smoking devices). California’s governor Jerry Brown just signed a law that, in addition to changing the legal smoking age to 21, will restrict the use of e-cigarettes in some public places. According to the Los Angeles Times:

Electronic cigarettes are considered to be tobacco products and cannot be used in restaurants, theaters, bars and other places where smoking has long been banned. They also cannot be marketed to minors.

E-cigarettes are certainly more popular than ever, but as various federal and state regulations crack down, that popularity may not be permanent.

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 FDA Moves to Regulate E-Cigarettes: Is the Vaping Honeymoon Over? appeared first on Law Street.

Uber recently reached a settlement with its drivers in California and Massachusetts in two lawsuits that could have derailed the company’s entire business model. While both sides gave important concessions in the settlement, Uber maintains the ability to classify its drivers as independent contractors in both states, a win that will prevent the company’s costs from skyrocketing.

If approved by a district court judge, the settlement will resolve two class action lawsuits against Uber that originated in California and Massachusetts. Drivers will remain independent contractors and Uber has agreed to pay the plaintiffs $84 million with an additional $16 million contingent upon the company going public and increasing significantly in value.

If Uber drivers were granted employee status, Uber would have been required to pay minimum wage, reimburse expenses, provide health benefits, and pay the employer portion of social security. A report from the National Employment Law Project estimates that classifying workers as contractors can save companies as much as 30 percent on payroll and related taxes and can significantly reduce the amount they are paid.

The settlement will also require Uber to change its driver deactivation policies. The issued a deactivation policy explaining what factors can lead to deactivation and will provide additional information to drivers in Massachusetts and California about their rating and how it compares to other drivers. With the settlement, Uber agreed to create and help fund a drivers association that will meet quarterly and function somewhat like a union. Drivers will also be allowed to put up signs asking riders for tips.

However, the court’s approval of the settlement is not guaranteed. In fact, a similar settlement involving the company’s competitor, Lyft, was recently rejected by a judge. That settlement was rejected because the proposed amount, $12.25 million, was based on an outdated expense reimbursement estimate. The judge argued that the settlement would need to increase significantly to meet estimates from more recent data. Underlying that case are similar questions: should drivers be considered employees and are they entitled to reimbursements?

Overall, the recent settlement appears to be a large victory for Uber. The company was valued at $62.5 billion in December, making the $100 million settlement relatively manageable in the context of the company’s size. Uber will also continue to keep its costs remarkably low as it continues to classify its drivers as independent contractors. Drivers will get some important concessions from the company and Uber is openly acknowledging that it needs to evolve in the way it manages its drivers as the company grows.

In a blog post after the settlement was reached, Uber CEO and Co-Founder Travis Kalanick wrote,

Six years ago when Uber first started in San Francisco, it was easy to communicate with the handful of drivers using the app. Austin Geidt, who ran marketing, called each one regularly to get their feedback and make sure things were working well. It was clear from those early conversations that drivers really valued the freedom Uber offered.

Kalanick also notes that the company now has over 450,000 drivers using the app each month. Given the dramatic increase in the company’s size, it is seeking to improve the way it receives and responds to feedback from drivers while clarifying its deactivation policies.

Despite the settlement, many questions remain about worker classification for so-called “gig economy” jobs. The settlement resolves a dispute between drivers in the two states, but it doesn’t answer the question altogether. Moreover, a settlement will not leave a precedent in the way a decision from a federal judge would. Regulators also retain the ability to change classification standards, which would have a dramatic impact on these businesses.

Kevin Rizzo

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

The post Uber Agrees to $100 Million Settlement With Drivers appeared first on Law Street.

The city of San Francisco recently approved a measure guaranteeing fully paid parental leave for the birth or adoption of a child for up to six weeks. With this new policy, San Francisco becomes the first city in the United States to offer 100 percent of a worker’s salary during parental leave. While this is a major step for the “City by the Bay,” the fact that San Francisco is the first to make paid leave mandatory is also a troubling sign for the rest of the country.

Read on to find out what exactly San Francisco’s law means, who is following the city’s lead, and why the United States lags so far behind other countries.

San Francisco’s Parental Leave Policy

San Francisco’s policy guarantees an employee his or her full salary during the six-week parental leave period. However, this policy actually builds on a plan that already exists within the state of California. California’s state policy guarantees 55 percent of an eligible worker’s salary for the same period, funded using employee contributions and administered using an insurance fund. Essentially, San Francisco’s policy promises the other 45 percent, but this time, the employer pays the cost.

Like minimum wage increases, San Francisco’s new policy will not take effect immediately. Instead, it will be phased in beginning in 2017, when companies with 50 or more employees will be required to meet the new standard. Companies with 35 employees will follow in July of the same year and finally those with 20 or more employees in 2018. Eligible workers will have to work at least eight hours a week, spend at least 40 percent of their work week in San Francisco, and wait 180 days after being hired in order to be covered by the policy.

The video below provides some additional detail on San Francisco’s new policy:

Similar Programs

While San Francisco and California’s system is the most comprehensive, other states and cities have similar plans. Three states have long had their own policies in place: New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Washington. Like California, New Jersey’s policy covers six weeks while Rhode Island’s guarantees only four.

Like California, these states, with the exception of Washington, created their policies as an extension of existing short-term disability programs. The programs are largely based off of short-term disability programs that only five states have in place. The programs are funded by withholding a small portion of employee wages each paycheck, much like Social Security. Washington  passed a law for paid family leave but state legislators have yet to fund the effort, which has prevented its implementation.

In addition to these states, New York recently passed a program of its own. New York’s policy covers employees, both part-time and full-time, for up to 12 weeks. Furthermore, there will be no exemptions for small businesses and employees will only need to be with a company for six months to be covered. The program is funded through an insurance model, which involves taking small payments for the program from each worker’s paycheck. In this sense, the policy is a lot like the ones in states that built on existing short-term disability insurance programs.

New York’s paid leave plan will, like San Francisco’s, be implemented gradually–the full 12 weeks of leave and 67 percent of pay will not be guaranteed until 2021. One of the New York plan’s greatest strengths is its job protection component, which prevents someone from losing his or her job for taking leave. This expands on current federal law, which guarantees full-time employees’ job protection and 12 work weeks of unpaid leave.

The accompanying video looks at New York’s policy:

While these programs are a start, only five states have them and the programs that do exist still leave the United States behind most of the developed world. Even Bangladesh, which is not a country typically associated with progressive social rights, has a mandatory 16-week policy. However, for stronger programs to be enacted in the United States, it will likely have to start on the federal level and right now that doesn’t seem probable.

Problems with the System

There are several problems with the current state of family leave in the United States beyond the lack of paid leave in most places. This starts at the federal level with the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which was passed back in 1993. While the FMLA does guarantee up to 12 weeks of leave for parents for childbirth or adoption, to care for an ill family member, and for an illness that prevents someone from working, the leave is unpaid. Even this unpaid leave comes with caveats, as it only applies to employees who have worked at their current company for over a year, have worked more than 1,250 hours in the past 12 months, and work at a company with more than 50 employees.

Democrats in Congress have proposed a law that they hope will fill in the holes left by the FMLA. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand introduced the Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act last year. This bill calls for the federal government to guarantee up to 66 percent of a worker’s income for 12 weeks in the case of serious illness or a new child. This would cover all workers regardless of how long they have been employed, the size of the business, or any of other existing limitations. To fund this leave the bill proposes a new payroll tax of 0.2 percent, which would be about $1.50 for a typical worker based on an estimate from the National Partnership for Women & Families.

Unfortunately, it is pretty unlikely that this bill will make its way through Congress, especially with a Republican majority in control of both houses that seems unlikely to take up the bill. Even a Republican alternative, proposed by House leader Paul Ryan, seems unlikely to gain traction due to Congressional Democrats’ criticism that it would attack essential worker’s rights.

The following video looks at some of the problems with the existing system:

Resistance

The United States is the only industrialized country and one of just three countries in the world to not guarantee some type of paid parental leave. Attempts to change the status quo in the United States have often been met with backlash. In California, for example, the Chamber of Commerce labeled it as potentially the number one killer of jobs when the bill was passed. The National Federation of Independent Businesses and the Society for Human Resources management are also opposed to forcing companies to offer paid leave. This sentiment has been echoed all over the U.S. by many small businesses as well, where fears of costs are too great to garner support.

All this negativity, though, may not be well-founded. A 2011 survey in California, taken six years after the state implemented a family leave program, found that 90 percent of companies felt that the policy had either a neutral or positive impact on the work environment. Even more telling, this positive effect was seen at higher levels among small businesses relative to large ones, despite fears of overwhelming costs.

Gender Bias

Another major issue in the fight over paid parental leave is that it is seen as a women’s issue, and not an issue for both parents. Unsurprisingly, in a country that does not offer paid leave to mothers, the United States does not give the option to new fathers either. This is another characteristic that sets the United States apart from the rest of the world–47 percent of countries offer leave to fathers as well as mothers.

Giving men time off allows them to help with childcare duties and also enables women to improve their health and sustain their careers, as evidenced in countries with well-established programs like the ones in Norway and Sweden. Without paid leave for men, most of the childcare responsibility is placed on mothers, often forcing them to take more time off from work, which can make returning to the labor force even more difficult. Unpaid leave also has a significant effect on single mothers who must both care for their children and work in order to make ends meet.

Without the option to take paid leave, some women and men are forced to put off having children until a later age when they are more financially established. However, waiting longer to have children risks increasing fertility problems. While these concerns have been somewhat reduced through improved egg-freezing methods, which companies like Facebook have promised to help pay for, in-vitro fertilization is still not always effective and can be particularly expensive.

Conclusion

Efforts to implement a more comprehensive family leave system have regularly run into a number of arguments for why it should not be done–it will hurt small businesses, it is too expensive, and so on. The issue has also become increasingly gendered, as opponents claim that only women need time off. However, none of these arguments hold water. Paid time off is important for both men and women and most plans also seek to cover medical and family emergencies as well.

Yet the resistance remains, and the United States remains an outlier among developed countries. Part of this is due to an antiquated piece of federal legislation that offers time off but little else, including no pay. While many state and local governments have taken it upon themselves to address the issue, these policies are far from widespread in the United States. In order to implement a comprehensive paid family leave program, Congress will need to take action at the federal level. This will inevitably require more taxes, but a program of this nature may be necessary to ensure the United States remains competitive in the world economy.

Resources

Proskauer: San Francisco Approves City Ordinance Providing For Fully Paid Parental Leave

United States Department of Labor: Family and Medical Leave Act

New York Magazine: New York Just Created a Revolutionary New Family-Leave Policy

NPR: Is It Time To make Medical and Family Leave Paid?

Govtrack: Summaries for the Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act

Time: Company-Paid Egg Freezing Will Be the Great Equalizer

Bustle: Paid Paternity Leave Is Essential For Gender Equality. Why Is The United States Taking So Long To Catch On?

The Atlantic: Work in the Only Industrialized Country Without Paid Maternity Leave

Michael Sliwinski

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

The post It Takes a Policy: The Fight Over Paid Family Leave in the United States appeared first on Law Street.

Plastic bags have been demonized by the environmental movement for years. They are considered to be wasteful and unnecessary–why opt for plastic when you could have a reusable grocery bag? Yet within the battle to end the use of plastic bags, there is a camp that often goes unnoticed–animal rights activists. In coastal communities, plastic bags pose a major threat to marine life as animals  can get trapped inside of them and injure themselves. Plastic bags are often mistaken for jellyfish by sea turtles, who harm themselves by eating the bags, and large swaths of plastic bags floating on the ocean’s surface block the sunlight that algae and plankton need to survive.

California and Hawaii have already banned large retail stores from using plastic bags, and activists have now set their sights on Florida. Floridian cities are currently not allowed to control the sale of plastic bags but there are half a dozen online petitions to either ban them entirely or to initiate taxes on plastic bags. Officials from Miami Beach have mentioned several times that they would like to have a bag ban but cannot under Florida law as it stands today. A representative from Miami Beach sponsored a bill to ban plastic bags in certain regions of the state last year, but the bill has yet to get off the ground. Take a look at where plastic bags have been banned and what these laws signify for the potential bag ban in Florida.

Bans in California and Hawaii

In 2015, Hawaii banned the use of plastic bags in grocery stores across the state, encouraging shoppers to choose paper or to bring their own reusable bags from home. Hawaii’s ban came not from the state government but from the county level, as each of the four counties decided separately to enact a ban. Unfortunately, there was a small loophole in the ban that allowed thick plastic bags to be considered “reusable,” which means that the ban is often more theoretical than realistic. There are also exceptions for restaurants, pharmacies, and dry cleaning operations, which are still allowed to use plastic bags for their products. Hawaii’s bag ban, though viewed as well intentioned and unprecedented, has come under fire for not enforcing a drop in plastic use across all sectors of the community.

Meanwhile in California, activists spent years lobbying for a plastic bag ban and thought they had secured a law that would go into effect in the summer of 2016. However, after major pressure from the plastics lobby, the ban has been pushed back–citizens will vote on it during a referendum this coming November. According to NPR, a poll conducted late last year by the University of Southern California and The Los Angeles Times  found that California voters plan to uphold the bag ban by a margin of 59 to 34 percent. Yet in the months before the November referendum, any number of roadblocks could emerge to enacting the ban. Plastic bag manufacturers in other states have a strong interest in retaining the California market and have committed funding to lobbyists looking to further stall the bag ban.

Opposition

It is not only plastics lobbyists who stand against the ban though. San Jose resident Don Williams created the website stopthebagban.com because he considers it an “eco-fad” that inconveniences the public and doesn’t make a substantial contribution to conservation efforts. Although Hawaii and California have led the effort to implement state wide bag bans, their efforts have been stymied to the point that the bans may never have the impact that they were designed to. Plastic bags continue to pile up in landfills–and in the case of these coastal communities, ocean fills. Massive floating islands of garbage have built up in the center of major oceans, leaching toxins into the sea and poisoning sea life. Ocean currents move the plastic bags around the world, spreading pollution and endangering animals across the globe. The British Antarctic Survey reported that it found plastic bags as far south as the Falkland Islands and as far north as Spitzbergen, an island inside the Arctic Circle.

Banning Bags in Florida?

Although individual cities in various states have banned plastic bags, Florida state law prohibits individual cities from doing so. However, as of this January, cities along the Treasure Coast region with less than 100,000 residents are allowed to experiment with plastic bag control. Multiple cities in the region have signed up for a two year pilot program designed to decrease the use of bags, the first such program to emerge in the state. The Florida Retail Association has stated that a bag ban would not be practical. General counsel Samantha Padgett argued that:

‘Millions of visitors come to Florida each year. They are going to purchase items and they have to have some means of carrying those items.’ Reusable bags collect germs. And paper bags ‘can be very inconvenient for consumers on a rainy day.’

Proponents of the bag ban also have latched onto the tourism argument, claiming that when Florida’s famous beaches are covered in litter and the flora and fauna are suffering from being choked by plastic bags, no one will consider Florida to be worth visiting. North Shore Hawaii Turtle Tours is one of a dozen businesses that asks visitors to support the bag ban. The Florida Keys have attempted to get citizens to phase out plastic bags without legislation by launching the “Got Your Bags?” campaign, which asks Florida Keys residents to carry biodegradable and reusable bags with them every time they go shopping. Florida Keys Wildlife Rescue has gone so far as to call plastic bags a “cancer.” According to a study in the Journal of Environmental Research,

About 44 percent of all seabirds eat plastic fragments; 267 marine species (sea turtles, seabirds, marine mammals, and fish) are affected by plastic garbage. From Planet Ark, about 100,000 whales, seals, turtles, and other marine animals are killed by plastic bags each year worldwide. These numbers do not include the land-based victims; even cows have been known to eat plastic bags. Dead and surviving fish and animals, now laced with chemicals from eating plastic, transfer those chemicals to the food chain when other animals (including humans) eat them or their products.

In Cedar Key, volunteers pick up plastic bags off the beach and deposit them in dog curbing stations, so that dog owners can reuse them to pick up after their pets. This practice does not eliminate plastic bags but it does make sure that they are more than single use objects. Creative methods of reusing and recycling are important for communities hoping to limit littering but they do not provide an effective solution to the effects of plastic bags on wildlife. Without a significant reduction in plastic bag use, Floridian animals remain will remain in danger for the foreseeable future.

Conclusion

Although coastal and island communities have the greatest incentive to ban bags because of the potential harm to their wildlife, multiple landlocked states have also expressed interest in a bag ban. In Arizona, Missouri, Idaho, Indiana, Wisconsin and Utah, several Republican lawmakers have moved to block regulation of plastic bags because of the groundswell of support for bag bans. Grassroots movements to decrease or eliminate use of plastic bags operate in all fifty states but coastal communities are particularly crucial battlegrounds. Plastic bags are not simply artifacts of unsightly littering. They also harm sea creatures, block flood control systems and breed mosquitoes. Past bans on plastic bags have been partially successful at best, largely due to the difficulty of monitoring and enforcing the ban on a state-wide level.

Banning plastic bags is a challenging task but that does not mean it is not worthwhile, nor does it mean that there is not a sizable portion of the population that supports the ban. As the United States becomes more aware of its environmental footprint and actively seeks to create useful conservation laws, cities should be granted the autonomy to make their own laws regarding bag bans. Building a consensus on the local and regional level will make it easier to construct bag bans on the state level–perhaps eventually we could even graduate to a national ban. For the moment, states like Florida that prevent communities from cutting down on plastic are only harming themselves, setting up their cities for increased pollution and endangering indigenous wildlife.

Resources

Aljazeera America: Miami’s Plastic Vice: Bagging the Ban on Bag Bans

Huffington Post: Loophole Undermines Hawaii’s Historic Plastic Bag Ban

HuffingtonPost: This Is How Your Plastic Bag Ends Up In Massive Ocean Garbage Patches

Tree Hugger: Hawaii’s Plastic Bag Ban Goes into Effect, But…

NPR: California Plastic Bag Referendum Could Spark Environmental Showdown

TC Palm: Treasure Coast Communities May be Able to Ban Plastic Bags

The Miami Herald: South Florida Officials Seek Help Controlling Plastic Bags

New York Magazine: The Fight Over Plastic Bags Is About a Lot More Than How to Get Groceries Home

Florida Keys Wildlife Rescue: Plastic–A Cancer in Our Environment

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Ban the Bag: Getting Plastic out of Coastal Communities appeared first on Law Street.

With many states and cities around the country passing legislation to increase the minimum wage to $15, most recently in California and New York, it is easy to be really excited. It has become a hot topic in the election and #Fightfor15 has been gaining traction among many groups around the country.

However, there are some issues that we need to keep in mind as we consider going from $7.25 to $15 an hour. Here are some of the most pressing:

Not all states are created equal

Obviously in many places in the U.S., it is almost necessary for lower skilled workers to earn a livable wage, especially if that is the only money their family is bringing in. However, not all states have the same cost of living, so a federal minimum wage may not be the best idea. According to Reihan Salam of Slate:

This makes poor consumers worse off [in Mississippi] in a direct sense, in that they can purchase less with their earnings. And if consumers are at all sensitive to prices, at least some of them will choose to spend less on labor-intensive goods and services now that they are more expensive. That could reduce the number of minimum wage jobs available.

Not every state needs to pay their workers as much in order to live comfortably, especially for jobs that pay minimum wage. In addition, a salary (or any earned money) in one state isn’t equal to another state when it comes to what you can get with it.

This discrepancy, though, could also pose issues because while raising minimum wage in some places to $15 and not other places could cause businesses to move across state lines to be able to spend less money.

It could cost people their jobs

It is estimated that under a $15 minimum wage, around half a million jobs will be cut by employers. Obviously, this is dependent on the area as well because in certain states or cities companies can afford to pay more or fewer workers.

In economic terms, human labor is considered a good or service, which means that when the price increases, the demand drops. The more we ask companies to pay their lower-level employees, the fewer they will be able to pay with the funds they have allocated to go to payroll, thus, they will either hire fewer people or nix some jobs.

If a firm has $500 an hour to go toward employees and they pay at $7.25/hr, they can pay 68 employees (68.9). If they pay them $10.10/hr, which is what the proposed federal minimum wage is, they can pay 49 employees. This is only a drop of 19 employees. However, if a firm is forced to pay $15/hr, they will only be able to pay 33 employees with $500; a loss of 35 employees. These numbers are obviously different depending on context, but the core economic principle still stands. If something costs more, demand will go down. People could be out of jobs.

Companies may look for cheaper options

There are places in the U.S. that have already begun looking at robots and machines to replace the work of humans because the price of human labor has been increasing too much for some places. This is no surprise, though, this has been happening for years.

According to a recent study by Oxford University, automation may claim as many as 47 percent of current jobs by 2033.

In addition, they are becoming more cost-effective. According to The Boston Consulting Group (BCG), robots in auto manufacturing have been operating at a cost barely over federal $7.25/hr minimum wage. The rise of machine work is expected to speed up as the wages across the nation increase rapidly.

The idea of a proposed $15/hr minimum wage is an amazing thought–but it is just that–a thought. A livable minimum wage is ideal, especially for those who only have one source of income, but the wider consequences could cause issues for the very people that the raise is intended to help, and we need to keep those issues in mind moving forward.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is a $15 Minimum Wage Really What is Best for the Country? appeared first on Law Street.

Since 1977, unions that have been designated as the exclusive bargaining representatives for both private and public sector employees have been allowed to require all employees, union and non-union members, to pay union dues. These union dues, paid by both union and non-union members, cover the designated union’s “agency” costs, which in return, obligates the union to represent and bargain for benefits and working conditions for all workers in that unit, including non-union members. The Supreme Court has recognized that this involves “close questions under the First Amendment,” and the Court has made it clear that forcing non-union members to pay dues that would cover the union’s political or ideological activity violates the First Amendment.

Over the past four decades, this ruling of mandatory union dues found in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education has been constantly criticized and challenged in the Court. Recently, in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association the Supreme Court was posed with the question by a group of California teachers on whether requiring non-union members in the public-sector to affirmatively opt out of paying nonchargeable portions of the agency fees each year violates their First Amendment rights. Read on to learn the effects of the Supreme Court issuing a decision with only eight justices, and to take a look at the court’s decision

Changes in Public Sector Labor

In 1977, the Supreme Court unanimously held in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, that public workers have the right to join together and form a union that exclusively represents them in collective bargaining negotiations. The court also ruled that union members can vote to collect a “fair share” fee from all workers who receive union benefits “germane” to collective bargaining, which are “service charges used to finance expenditures by the union for collective bargaining, contract administration and grievance adjustment purposes.” This means that when workers vote to form a union, they can also decide that “all workers, regardless if they are union members, should share the cost of union representation, since all workers benefit from the bargaining agreements” according to AFSCME. However, the Court did determine that the First Amendment requires unions to provide workers with a means of opting out from dues that are not “germane” to collective bargaining. Meaning, workers must have a means to opt out of paying for dues related to political activities, including, activity related to political views, on behalf of political candidates, or toward the advancement of other ideological causes. According to SCOTUS:

The Constitution requires that a union’s expenditures for ideological causes not germane to to its duties as a collective bargaining representative be financed from charges, dues or assessments paid by employees who do not object to its advancing such causes and who are not coerced into doing so against their will by the threat of loss of governmental employment.

Following this decision, in 2012, in Knox v. SEIU, the Supreme Court determined that the longstanding precedent that the First Amendment demands that non-union members covered by union contracts be given the chance to “opt out” of special fees, was insufficient.  In a 7-2 decision, the majority ruled that it’s unconstitutional to allow a “public-sector union to impose a special assessment without the affirmative consent of a member upon whom it is imposed.”

The next major case heard in the Supreme Court in 2014, Harris v. Quinn, the Court held that “personal assistants” that provide homecare services cannot be compelled to pay dues to a union they do not wish to join, since they are hired and fired by individual patients and work in private homes. Since these home health care workers are not truly state employees, yet they are “partial-public employees,” Abood should not apply, and thus these partial-public employees are not required to pay partial dues known as “agency fees.” This Court’s decision led some unions to believe that the Court may be ready to overturn Abood and free all public-sector workers from compulsory dues. To gain a perspective of the effects of this ruling, the year following this decision, SEIU Healthcare Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Kansas, which originally claimed about 60 percent of the caregivers in the state subsidy programs covered by this case, later reported that it only represents 30 percent of the state subsidy caregivers (about 13,000 in-home Illinois caregivers left SEIU) and cost the SEIU an estimated $5 million in member dues.

Recent Challenge to Union Dues 

#SCOTUS signals support for plaintiffs in Friedrichs v. CTA case, via @politico: https://t.co/ptGIJ5S9cB pic.twitter.com/6Znbe1mcWR

— 50CAN (@FiftyCAN) January 12, 2016

The most recent case heard in the Supreme Court, Friedrichs v. the California Teachers Association et al., challenged Abood and compulsory agency fees.

This case was brought by 10 California teachers, including Rebecca Friedrich who was the lead plaintiff, and a teachers group, Christian Educators Association International in California. According to California law, public employees who refuse to join unions must pay a “fair share service fee” typically equivalent to the dues members pay. The fees are meant to pay for some of the costs of collective bargaining.

Oral Arguments with Scalia; Court’s Ruling Without Scalia

In January 2016, the oral arguments were delivered for this case.

The plaintiffs tried to convince the Court to overturn Abood by arguing that agency fees violate their First Amendment rights, because bargaining with the state is no different from lobbying, as it is “inherently political.” They further argued that California Teachers Association does not “represent their interests on bargaining issues covered by fair-share fees.” Thus, California should not force them to financially support a union they disagree with. The Center for Individual Rights, who represented these plaintiffs stated that:

Typically, California teacher union dues cost upwards of a $1,000 per year. Although California law allows teachers to opt-out of the thirty percent or so of their dues devoted to overt political lobbying, they may not opt out of the sixty to seventy percent of their dues the union determines is devoted to collective bargaining. Requiring teachers to pay these “agency fees” assumes that collective bargaining is non-political.  But bargaining with local governments is inherently political. Whether the union is negotiating for specific class sizes or pressing a local government to spend tax dollars on teacher pensions rather than on building parks, the union’s negotiating positions embody political choices that are often controversial.

On the other hand, the defendants in this case, California Teachers Association, argue that, according to Huffington Post, that:

Since unions must represent members and non-members, it’s appropriate to require all who benefit from negotiations to share the costs. The loss of money from “free-riders” – those who benefit without paying – would threaten a union’s ability to effectively represent employees.

Furthermore, the defendants argued that they represent the views of the majority, and anyone who disagrees can speak up. They also say the plaintiffs:

Are simply wrong in declaring that it ‘does not make a First Amendment difference’ whether speech is part of lobbying the Legislature to enact a law or of negotiating a contract with the public employer. […] unlike lobbying, collective bargaining is a process of making binding collective agreements with obligations on both sides.

During and after the oral arguments, the court’s conservative majority appeared “ready to say that forcing public workers to support unions they had declined to join violates the First Amendment.” Justice Antonin Scalia was said to be the swing vote for this case. He had a history of endorsing union’s positions, but during the oral arguments for Friedrichs, Scalia “tore into core arguments made by the union and government attorneys.” Despite Scalia’s passing in February, the Court moved forward and handed down their decision at the end of March, with a 4 to 4 tie. A split decision at the Supreme Court level means that the lower court’s ruling will be upheld and the laws will be left in place until a future case challenges this issue. Thus, in the meantime, Abood will not be overruled and the 25 states and D.C. that require compulsory union dues can lawfully continue to require non-members to pay agency fees to support union’s collective bargaining agreements.

Conclusion: What’s Next?

The Center for Individual Rights announced that it will request a rehearing. According to the Supreme Court rules, a rehearing request must be filed within twenty-five days following the March 29th ruling. According to SCOTUSBlog: “It would require the votes of five Justices to order such a reconsideration, and one of the five must have been one who had joined in the decision.”

Though this is a grand victory for unions, the future of unions is still up in the air and largely depends on who replaces Scalia. Until then, the tension will continue between union supporters and anti-union advocates.

Resources

Primary

SCOTUS: Abood v. Detroit Board of Education

SCOTUS Blog: Opinion Analysis: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association

Brief of Respondents

Additional

SCOTUS Blog: Argument Preview: Is Abood in Trouble? 
The Atlantic: What will become of Public-Sector Union’s Now?

The Center for Individual Rights: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association

Huffington Post: This Supreme Court Case Could Significantly Weaken Teacher Unions

On Labor: Cases in the Pipeline: Challenges to Union Security Clauses

Editor’s Note: This post has been updated to credit select information to the Huffington Post.

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 Friedrichs v. CTA: A Big SCOTUS Win for Unions, But Not Over Yet appeared first on Law Street.

Whoopi Goldberg is the latest celebrity to try to get in on the legal marijuana market. She has started the “Whoopi & Maya brand,” which will produce marijuana-infused products advertised as solutions for pesky period cramps.

Whoopi Goldberg partners with Maya Elisabeth, And announces launch of @whoopiandmaya. A product line for women. pic.twitter.com/sUC5N8rs8r

— _DCNetwork_ (@_DCNetwork_) March 30, 2016

Goldberg is teaming up with Maya Elisabeth from Om Edibles, an all-female edibles company, hence the company name. They plan on starting with four products, available this April. The products will only be sold in California right now due to complicated legal restrictions in other states. According to the Daily Beast, the product line will include:

A ‘raw sipping chocolate’ infused with CBD or THC, a tincture (liquid extract) for ‘serious discomfort,’ a THC-infused bath soak, and a topical rub for localized pain.

Goldberg has been transparent about her marijuana use, particularly the fact that she uses a vape pen to help her with pain relief and dealing with stress. Goldberg explained her motivation for creating these products, highlighting the difficulties that are inherent in using medical marijuana:

For me, I feel like if you don’t want to get high high, this is a product specifically just to get rid of discomfort. Smoking a joint is fine, but most people can’t smoke a joint and go to work.

This, you can put it in your purse. You can put the rub on your lower stomach and lower back at work, and then when you get home you can get in the tub for a soak or make tea, and it allows you to continue to work throughout the day.

It makes sense that Goldberg wants to tap into the rapidly-growing marijuana market. The results of early legalization in states like Colorado and Washington look very good, the market is growing annually by 31 percent, and some experts estimate that it could become a $20 billion market by 2020.

While others have called their product niche, Goldberg and Elisabeth disagree, given that women do make up a little over half of the United States population. If the marijuana industry grows as quickly as is expected, and these products catch on, Goldberg and Elisabeth could have a total winner on their hands.

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 Whoopi Goldberg is a Ganjapreneur Who Wants to Help Treat Your Period Cramps appeared first on Law Street.

We get it, life can be hectic. Between work, family, and Netflix binging it can be hard to find enough time to devote to staying up on the news. To make things easier we’ve compiled a digest of some of the top stories from last week–so you don’t have to.  ICYMI keep reading to learn more about Law Street’s best of the week.

1. We Have Obama to Blame for Cat Videos & Drake v. Meek Mill, Says Twitter

Being the president of the United States comes with quite a few perks. For example, exclusive access to Air Force One, 24-7 cooking staff, and the ability to meet with Beyoncé and Jay Z at the drop of a hat.

However, with great power also comes great responsibility–and the major downside that everyone can now blame you for just about anything. Read the full article here.

2. 10 Reasons Law School Students Should Consider a Summer in Boston

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

James Deen is back in the news for yet another not-so-good reason after his porn production company was slapped with an almost $78,000 series of fines for multiple health and safety violations.

California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) received a complaint about James Deen Productions, also known as Third Rock Enterprises, last December, and began investigating the production company owned by Deen. The violations that were discovered by Cal/OSHA include not mandating that performers wear condoms. The use of condoms in pornography is required by Los Angeles County law. According to the head of the agency, Juliann Sum:

Cal/OSHA requires condom use in adult films to protect workers from exposure to HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. Third Rock Enterprises failed to protect employees from illness and injury while on set.

The production company also violated laws by not providing vaccines or medical examinations to performers who were potentially exposed to diseases, including Hepatitis B. All said and done, the company racked up nine violations, four of which were determined to be so dangerous that “death or serious harm” could have resulted. The fines associated with all those violations combined total $77,875.

Deen responded to the news of the agency’s decision; according to a press release sent to ATTN:

At no point was any adult performer exposed to any disease while working for James Deen Productions. At no time did any performer contract any illness or suffer any injury while working for James Deen Productions. […] I am not ok with the government dictating what people are allowed to watch in the privacy of their homes. This is a case of an outside organization pushing their personal desires and agenda on the viewers of adult entertainment. Just because the AIDS Healthcare Foundation decides they are not comfortable with certain sexual acts does not mean is should be deemed illegal.

James Deen has been under a lot of criticism over the last few months. In December, he was accused of sexual assault by nine different female adult performers, including his high-profile ex-girlfriend Stoya. After the allegations surfaced, a few different porn companies dropped Deen as a performer.

A law that requires the use of condoms by porn performers in Los Angeles County, known as “Measure B”, was certainly controversial when it passed in 2012–although in this case, Deen was cited under existing Cal/OSHA regulations. However Measure B led to concerns of an exodus of porn companies from Los Angeles when it was first passed. Deen was opposed to that law from the beginning–seems like he’s about to put his money where his mouth is when it comes to regulations in porn.

Editor’s Note: The last paragraph has been updated to more clearly reflect the language of the Cal/OSHA regulations.

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 James Deen’s Porn Company Faces Hefty Fine for Health Violations appeared first on Law Street.

California passed landmark ‘right to die’ legislation last October that will allow terminally ill patients to receive life-ending drugs from their doctors. Now, those who want to request these drugs have an official date when they can do so. California joins Vermont, Oregon, Washington, and Montana to become the fifth state to pass this type of legislation.

The End of Life Option Act will go into effect on June 9, per the 90-day waiting period after the legislative “extraordinary session” adjourned Wednesday.

“Now that the Second Extraordinary Session has been adjourned, terminally ill Californians will finally be able to exercise this right in the State of California,” Senate Majority Leader Bill Monning said. “Californians will no longer have to leave the state, their families, and their friends if they choose to exercise the end of life option in their final days of life.”

The law requires those seeking end of life treatment to be cleared by two physicians who agree that the patient has six months or less to live. It also requires patients to be able to swallow the medication themselves and affirm in writing that they will do so 48 hours prior to taking the medication. This ensures that the individual is aware of the decision that they are making.

This issue gained notoriety following the case of Brittany Maynard, a 29-year-old California woman with terminal brain cancer who moved to Oregon in order to legally end her life in 2014. She created a video documenting her experience leading up to her death and impassioned many lawmakers and citizens to consider the issue. 

Opponents of the law, however, believe that this legislation could lead to premature suicides. The Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund (DREDF), an advocate against legalizing assisted suicide, cites many reasons and alternatives that can be done instead of turning to right to die laws:

It is legal in every U.S. state for an individual to create an advance directive that requires the withdrawal of treatment under any conditions the person wishes and for a patient to refuse any treatment or to require any treatment to be withdrawn… And perhaps least understood, for anyone who is dying in discomfort, it is currently legal in any U.S. state to receive palliative sedation, wherein the dying person is sedated so discomfort is relieved during the dying process. 

The group also argues that the legalization of assisted suicide will lead to premature suicides of individuals suffering from mental health issues. It is important to note, though, that an individual requesting these services must be cleared by two physicians certifying that they are terminally ill, not just suffering from certain mental health problems.

“We are looking ahead at measures to protect people from abuse,” Marilyn Golden–a policy analyst at DREDF–told the Associated Press, “and to explore and inform doctors, nurses, and pharmacists that they don’t have to participate.”

Her statement is true; religious institutions, like Catholic hospitals, can opt out and ban their physicians from administering medications for assisted suicide, according to the law.

However, many were very happy with the outcome, which was long awaited. “It gives me a great peace of mind to know that I will not be forced to die slowly and painfully,” Elizabeth Wallner said in a statement from Compassion & Choices, an aid-in-dying advocacy group. She is a single mother with stage four colon cancer that has spread to other organs.

Christy O’Donnell, a former LAPD Sergeant and activist who worked hard to get the legislation passed, died of lung cancer last month. Senator Monning thanked her and others who helped support the bill now that the legislation is scheduled to take effect. “I really believe we use today to mark and dedicate the memory… of some true champions,” Monning said.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post California Becomes Fifth State to Pass Right to Die Legislation 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.

Have you ever gone to check out of your hotel room, maybe after a nice relaxing vacation, only to discover that there are “resort fees” that you owe? Resort fees can include things like use of the pool, wi-fi, housekeeping, or “complimentary” breakfast. But they usually aren’t advertised up front, so these fees come as an unpleasant surprise to the guests when they try to check out. But, if Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chairwoman Edith Ramirez gets her way, Congress will do something to protect consumers from these tricky hidden fees.

Ramirez wrote a letter to 10 members of Congress, asking for them to draft legislation to prevent hotels from charging these expensive, and hidden fees. She specifically targeted representatives who had previously spoken out against the fees. Last year Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) called on the FTC to investigate online hotel booking sites and the hidden fees they may have that “push the price of the hotel room beyond what the actual hotel would charge.” Senators Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri) and Bob Casey (D-Pennsylvania)  have also encouraged the FTC to look into these fees. Right now, the FTC looks into each allegation individually, on a case-by-case basis, and has warned different hotels that their hidden fees may “violate the law” in the past.

A study by a non-profit consumer advocacy group called Travelers United recently found that these kinds of fees have been increasing in California, with “nearly 200 hotels in California charging an average mandatory resort fee of $17 per night.”  However, a hotel trade group, the American Hotel and Lodging Association, has stated that the number of hotels that charge these fees is on a decline overall. Rosanna Maietta, a spokeswoman for the group, stated:

The lodging industry provides guests full disclosure for resort fees charged upfront. Those fees, in addition to the base travel and hotel charges, remain transparent whether consumers book online or with the hotel directly.

However, that hasn’t stopped people from getting surprised with resort fees, and many Americans believe that fees should be disclosed before guests book anything. A poll commissioned by Travelers United found that 80 percent of respondents want resort fees included in advertised pricing, and 87 percent would be less likely to stay at a hotel if they were charged fees for amenities they did not use or want.

Whether Congress will actually take action will be interesting to watch–given that a few congresspeople have already been talking about the issue it certainly bodes well, but only time will tell.

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 FTC Chairwoman Goes After Pesky “Resort Fees” at Hotels appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been a bad few months for everyone’s favorite fast casual burrito chain–Chipotle. There’s been a lot of bad press about the company after numerous instances of food-borne illnesses across the country broke out, and Chipotle’s sales have taken a sharp dive. And most recently, it was announced that there will be a criminal investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California, in conjunction with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Office of Criminal Investigation, into the handling of a Norovirus outbreak in Southern California.

Chipotle’s food safety issues in 2015 included multiple instances of E.coli as well as Norovirus and salmonella. For example, during the second week of December, almost 150 Boston College students came down with Norovirus after eating at the chain. A large E.coli scare in October forced restaurant closures in Washington and Oregon. There were additional cases of E.coli tied to Chipotle in pretty much every corner of the United States, including California, Ohio, New York, and Minnesota. Earlier last year, in August, Chipotle customers in Minneapolis/St. Paul area fell sick with salmonella after eating at the chain.

The most disturbing part of these outbreaks, however, is that Chipotle doesn’t appear to be able to trace what is going on. Credit Suisse analysts told CNBC that Chipotle’s issues look different from other chains’ food scares in years past–including issues at Jack in the Box, Taco Bell, McDonalds– because the cause of the outbreaks have yet to be determined. The analysts said:

In all of the five historical cases just mentioned, the cause of the food safety issue was determined relatively quickly. As such, if CMG were able to identify the source of the E coli outbreak, that could help sales recover more quickly than we have modeled.

The health scares have also led to bad financial health for the Mexican chain–sales in the fourth quarter plummeted 14.6 percent, and sales at stores that have been open for at least a year fell 30 percent in December alone. Over the last year, the company’s stock has fallen by almost a third.

The criminal investigation is going to be focused specifically on a Norovirus outbreak in Simi Valley, California, and Chipotle has said that it will comply with the investigation. But it’s going to be a long road and a lot of work for the restaurant chain if it ever hopes to regain the trust it formerly had among its customers.

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 Grand Jury Probing Chipotle’s Handling of Norovirus Outbreak in California appeared first on Law Street.

It may be the happiest place on earth, but it’s also one that needs serious security. Officials at Disney World just announced that it’s upping both visible and behind-the-scenes security measures, and other theme parks nationwide are taking similar actions.

One of the most visible new measures added to the Disney World parks located in Orlando, Florida will be metal detectors. Guests won’t be allowed to bring toy guns, including squirt guns, inside, and Disney is also stopping the sale of such products. For example, the Pirates of the Caribbean theme shop used to sell plastic guns–those will be removed from the shelves. The parks will also no longer allow anyone over the age of 14 to walk around in costumes or masks (besides, of course, employees.) Disney World has also beefed up security overall–placing additional law enforcement officials within the parks, and using dogs on patrol. Disneyland, located in California, is also upping its security. 

Disney isn’t alone in instituting new security measures. SeaWorld has also begun using metal detectors to screen entering guests, and Universal Studios is testing wand detectors. Officials at Disney and Universal have said that the new security features weren’t sparked by the actions of the San Bernardino shooters, or any other threat of terror. In fact, Universal spokesman Tom Schroder told the Orland Sentinal:

We want our guests to feel safe when they come here. We’ve long used metal detection for special events, such as Halloween Horror Nights. This test is a natural progression for us as we study best practices for security in today’s world.

Disney and Sea World spokespeople echoed similar sentiments.

However, these announcements do come right after a statement from the Department of Homeland Security that instructed Americans to expect more security and police presence at big gathering locations, stating it was: “especially concerned that terrorist-inspired individuals and homegrown violent extremists may be encouraged or inspired to target public events or places.”

It makes sense that Disney World, SeaWorld, and Universal are instituting more robust security features, and it doesn’t look like any of these new features will really affect guests’ experiences. But if anything they’re a sad reminder of the violence–particularly gun violence–that has become increasingly commonplace in the United States.

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 Disney World Announces an Increase in Security Features appeared first on Law Street.

When Snapchat first burst onto the social media scene in late 2011, it was widely viewed as a limited and silly app with few practical uses. While news outlets pushed splashy headlines about it being a “sexting app,” most thought that sending temporary pictures to friends was a fad that would run its course. But Snapchat has grown by leaps and bounds, and has become so much more than just a portal for nude photos and silly videos. And yesterday, during its coverage of the San Bernardino shooting, it became a breaking news platform.

Details are still being unraveled about the tragic events in San Bernardino, California yesterday that led 14 dead and many injured. But as with almost every mass shooting or highly publicized tragedy since the dawn of the internet age, viewers from across the country and world checked news sites and social media platforms for the latest explanation on what was happening. Snapchat joined that fray by creating a “California Shooting” live story that allowed users to upload the photos and videos they had to the app. The Snapchat team then selected which ones to feature in order to create a full picture for viewers, in addition to writing news commentary that appeared over the pictures and informed viewers even further.

Interesting to watch how @Snapchat has become a gatekeeper of the news. #SanBernardino pic.twitter.com/Akctc8fwnr

— Josh Solomon (@therealjsolo) December 3, 2015

Snapchat’s story of #SanBernardino pulls you in close and suggests the potential of stitched real-time documentary. pic.twitter.com/i3HbeSH4Kh

— Hamza Shaban (@hshaban) December 3, 2015

People are tweeting about @Snapchat‘s special #sanbernardino news roundup for good reason. Very compelling. pic.twitter.com/K8oPM7xoB3. — Danny Sullivan (@dannysullivan) December 3, 2015

This isn’t the first time that Snapchat has featured live coverage of an event. It covered the Pope’s highly publicized visit to the United States this fall, as well as the GOP debates. But this is the first time that Snapchat has really extended its coverage to breaking news, especially with such a somber and serious subject.

While many have applauded Snapchat for its breakthrough and revolutionary approach to covering real time news, others have expressed concern. After all, despite what Snapchat is evolving into, many still use it for purely entertainment purposes. Advertising coverage of a mass shooting may be disturbing to some browsing the app and unaware of the situation. Others have posited that it’s disrespectful to the victims.

While those are all incredibly valid points, real time coverage of breaking news stories isn’t going to end any time soon. Whether or not Snapchat is the appropriate vehicle for that coverage is certainly a fair discussion, but Snapchat’s drive to continue monetizing its app, and Americans’ vociferous appetite for breaking news probably mean that this new feature is here to stay.    

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 Snapchat Covers San Bernardino Shooting, Becomes Serious News App appeared first on Law Street.

After the documentary “Blackfish” made waves, there was substantial outcry about SeaWorld’s actions, particularly as they related to orcas. Now, federal lawmakers are working to end some of SeaWorld’s most predatory practices.

Representative Adam Schiff (D-California) announced a bill, the Orca Responsibility and Care Advancement Act (ORCA), on Friday that would prohibit the breeding of captive orcas, as well as prevent the wild capture of the animals for exhibit purposes. This would essentially lead to a phase-out of Orcas being used for show at SeaWorld parks.

Orcas are too socially complex, too intelligent, too long-lived and simply too big to thrive in confinement #ORCAacthttps://t.co/pZmeg8hgsO

— Adam Schiff (@RepAdamSchiff) November 6, 2015

The controversial “Shamu Shows” have been under particular scrutiny since the release of “Blackfish” in 2013, which shed light on the way that the orcas are treated at SeaWorld, as well as the death of trainer Dawn Brancheau. Despite the $15 million that the company has spent trying to decry the movie as propaganda and promote its supposed good work instead, it has been hurting as a result of the negative scrutiny. For example, at its San Diego park, attendance fell 17 percent last year. Overall, SeaWorld’s profits have fallen by almost half since the film’s release.

Gabriela Cowperthwaite, the director of “Blackfish” explained the reason that so many were drawn to the film, saying:

I just think the movie struck a nerve. I think it has galled people to learn that a beloved cultural icon, an institution we think is dedicated to teaching our children, is the opposite of what it pretends to be. The whales aren’t happy and the trainers aren’t safe. It’s as simple as that.

Schiff”s motivation for introducing the bill was much along the same vein; in a statement he explained: “the evidence is very strong that the psychological and physical harm done to these magnificent animals far outweighs any benefits reaped from their display.”

Schiff’s bill is supported by a number of advocacy organizations, including the Animal Welfare Institute, the Humane Society of the United States, the Humane Society Legislative Fund and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animal.

Although Congress’s near-constant gridlock nowadays may mean that the bill doesn’t go anywhere, SeaWorld isn’t in good shape. The consistently bad PR, falling profits, and now the threat of damaging legislation doesn’t bode well for the entertainment destination.

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 Post Blackfish: A Push to Change SeaWorld’s Practices appeared first on Law Street.

This weekend was a huge win for Native American activists across the country after California became the first state in the nation to pass a law banning schools from using “Redskins” as a team name or mascot.

The measure, which was signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown on Sunday, will force the four schools in the state still using the nickname to drop the offensive moniker by January 1, 2017, or risk losing public funding.

THANK YOU @JerryBrownGov ! #Wehaveavoice #thenamehaschanged #ChangetheMascot pic.twitter.com/SeDPyqpl0b

— trumpetnative (@trumpetnative) October 12, 2015

This is a big victory for groups like Change the Mascot, who have campaigned for years to rid the racial slur from sports organizations. In a joint statement Oneida Indian Nation Representative Ray Halbritter and fellow Change the Mascot leader National Congress of American Indians Executive Director Jackie Pata praised California for “standing on the right side of history by bringing an end to the use of the demeaning and damaging R-word slur in the state’s schools.” They wrote, 

They have set a shining example for other states across the country, and for the next generation, by demonstrating a commitment to the American ideals of inclusion and mutual respect.

Their historic step to build a better future stands in stark contrast to the dogged inaction of Washington’s NFL team, which in the face of all the evidence that this term degrades and offends Native Americans, continues to defend and promote the slur for its own financial gain.

The most populous state in the country has now taken a stand against the use of this insidious slur in its schools, and Change the Mascot expects more states to follow. This landmark legislation eliminating the R-word in California schools clearly demonstrates that this issue is not going away, and that opposition to the Washington team on this issue is only intensifying. The NFL should act immediately to press the team to change the name.

The message effectively called out the Washington Redskins football franchise for its refusal to change its name despite protests from Native Americans warning that the name is offensive and essentially the same as calling an African-American person the “n-word.” The four California schools that would be forced to change their mascots don’t agree with this argument, calling the decision a “disappointment.” The schools include Gustine High School in Merced County, Calaveras High School in Calaveras County, Chowchilla Union High School in Madera County and Tulare Union High School in Tulare County. Tulare’s Principal Michelle Nunley was clearly upset with the ruling according to the Los Angeles Time. Nunley, who is part Ottawa Indian and also happens to be the mother of the Redskin Warriors star running back Mello Harris tole the Times,

We took students to the Senate education committee. We thought it would be a great educational experience. We had a letter from our local tribe saying they supported us. If they don’t have a problem how can we be causing offense? The senators were rude. They called us insensitive and racist.

It’s clear that there are still mixed feelings about the ruling, but California’s decision does appear to be a step in the right direction. It will be interesting to see if this new law has any impact on the football team in our nation’s capital.

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 California Bans Schools From Using “Redskins” as Team Mascot or Name appeared first on Law Street.

Just two days after the horrific mass shooting at Umpqua Community College, where nine people were killed and nine were injured, four California high school students were arrested after their detailed plan to shoot students and faculty members at Summerville High School in Tuolumne, California was uncovered.

Officials say the plot was revealed on Wednesday when a group of students alerted a teacher that they overheard several students discussing a plan to open fire on the school at an upcoming event. The sheriff’s department was contacted by Summerville High School administrators regarding the students who were making threats. The high school officials reported to authorities that three students were planning to carry out an attack on them. During their investigation, detectives discovered that a fourth student was involved in the plot as well.

Authorities found a list of names that the students had of who they planned to kill. Tuolumne County Sheriff Jim Mele said the students confessed “that they were going to come on campus and shoot and kill as many people as possible.” The students were taken into custody on Saturday. Police officials say that the students’ plan was in its beginning stages and they were in the process of obtaining the weapons that they wanted to use. The sheriff’s department said in a Facebook post:

The suspects plan was very detailed in nature and included names of would be victims, locations and the methods in which the plan was to be carried out.

Because the students are juveniles, their names will not be released, but they were identified as all male. The four students have been arrested for conspiracy to commit an assault with deadly weapons. This is a very terrifying time for the students and faculty at Summerville. Parents are terrified as well for the safety of their children. Kristin Wilson, who has a daughter attending Summerville High, stated,  “I can’t imagine getting a phone call that something like that had happened at that school.” Luckily the plot was caught in its beginning phase and no one was harmed.

Summerville High parents, however, are still unhappy about the situation because they were not notified of the incident until the following day. Shannon Duckworth has two children who attend Summerville High and only knew about the incident because her son told her through a text message. Duckworth stated, “I got a text from my son who lives in Washington asking me what’s going on about this shooting plot. What shooting plot?…We should’ve had full disclosure.” Other parents expressed similar concerns.

A motive for the shooting at Summerville has not yet been determined. Authorities plan to talk more with the teens who created the plot to get further information. Eric Hovatter, an assistant district attorney, stated,

It is clear from past history such as Columbine and Sandy Hook, as well as other recent events in Oregon, that children are willing and capable of planning and carrying out acts of violence against students and teachers on school grounds. While it is easy to say that could never happen in Tuolomne County, the public and local law enforcement must remain vigilant, as they did here. That the suspects are young does not minimize the gravity of the conduct nor the potential for great harm to many innocent people.

There have been 45 school shootings in 2015 alone, many of which didn’t make the news. Gun violence is affecting students everywhere–thankfully this story didn’t end in tragedy.

Taelor Bentley

Taelor is a member of the Hampton University Class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Taelor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post School Shooting Plot Discovered: Four California High School Students Arrested appeared first on Law Street.

Last week’s top stories ran the gamut from cheating spouses to the best places to get a joint J.D./M.B.A degree. The top story of the week was a breakdown of the strangest arrests making the news, followed by a look at the Ashley Madison hack and the future of online privacy. The #3 story was the J.D./M.B.A. ranking for the University of California-Berkeley School of Law. ICYMI, check out the top posts from last week:

#1 Weird Arrests of the Week

It’s the end of the week, which means its time to relax and reflect on all the stupid things people have done this week. Specifically, some fantastically odd arrests. Check out the slideshow here.

#2 Ashley Madison Hack: The Future of Online Privacy Doesn’t Look Good

A few weeks ago, a group of hackers called the “Impact Team” threatened to expose the profiles of people who had accounts on Ashley Madison, a dating site specifically aimed at married people who are looking to cheat. The hackers threatened to “release customer records, including profiles with all the customers’ secret sexual fantasies and matching credit card transactions, real names and addresses, and employee documents and emails” if the site was not taken down. The parent company–Avid Life Media–did not comply, and now that data has been released to the public. Read the full story here.

#3 Top 10 Schools for J.D./M.B.A. Programs: #9 University of California-Berkeley School of Law

The legal industry is changing and law schools are no exception. Applications and enrollment are both down, and the value of the traditional legal education with its current price tag is the subject of continual debate. Law Street Specialty Rankings are a detailed resource for prospective law students as they consider the many law schools across the country. Law Street Specialty Rankings blend the quantitative and qualitative in a way that accurately highlights the top law schools based on specialty programs. Check out the University of California-Berkeley School of Law’s ranking here.

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

It’s been just over a year since the shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO, but the United States is still reeling from the revelations about police brutality and the issues in our criminal justice system. One of the most controversial aspects of Brown’s case involved the choice of the local grand jury not to indict the police officer who shot him, Officer Darren Wilson. The aftermath of that non-indictment, among others, sparked a new law in California that was just signed by Governor Jerry Brown. Under the law, grand juries will no longer be used to investigate the deaths of people allegedly killed by police officers.

Although processes differ from state to state, as well as on the federal level, traditionally there are two different ways that suspects can be indicted. In California, either a prosecutor can files charges and then bring the case before a judge in a preliminary hearing, or they can present evidence and seek an indictment from a supposedly unbiased grand jury. The new law, which will go into effect next year, eliminates the latter option.

The reason that California is eliminating the use of grand juries in police-involved deaths comes directly from concerns about transparency that are inherent in the grand jury system. The process usually just involves a group of private citizens receiving evidence from a prosecutor, without a judge or defense attorney present. The prosecutor essentially controls the flow of evidence–yet it’s the grand jury’s decision whether or not to indict. So, if a grand jury fails to do so, the ire falls on them, not the prosecutor. While this is supposed to protect witnesses and keep the presumption of innocence, critics of the process believe it favors the police and allows the prosecutors to avoid responsibility for their actions.

Under the new California law, however, the decision will be made by the prosecutor–and the hope is that they conduct fair and unbiased investigations and file charges if they’re needed. The move is supposed to foster transparency and accountability.

California state Senator Holly J. Mitchell, who wrote the bill, stated:

The use of the criminal grand jury process, and the refusal to indict as occurred in Ferguson and other communities of color, has fostered an atmosphere of suspicion that threatens to compromise our justice system.

However, not everyone is as optimistic that the change will help make sure that officers who do use force inappropriately are held accountable. In fact, another state, New Jersey, has taken literally the opposite approach to ensure that proper oversight is given to police-involved deaths. New Jersey has mandated that civilian grand juries be used in those cases, and created some guidelines and parameters for that use in order to ensure that cases are presented uniformly.

It is very clear that there are certain aspects of our justice system that warrant a re-examination; police-involved killings certainly make the list. While California’s move away from grand juries could end up leading to more transparency, more change may still be needed to make sure that the prosecutors on whom the burden now falls are subject to fair oversight. It’s a step in the right direction, but let’s just hope it’s a big enough step.

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 California Bans Grand Juries in Police-Involved Deaths: Will it Be Enough? appeared first on Law Street.

What’s for dinner tonight? Perhaps steamed corn, infused with some delicious dichlorophenoxyacetic acid. Or maybe, if you’re feeling bold, you’ll eat some tofu bites containing glyphosate, which the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified in March as “probably carcinogenic in humans.” Corn, soy, sugar, papayas, milk, zucchini—the list goes on; the number of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, is multiplying. The U.S. House of Representative’s decision on Thursday to pass a law that would block states from mandating GMO labels only contributes to the danger that these GMO or genetically engineered (GE) foods inflict on farmers, on the environment, and on consumers.

So what are GMOs exactly, and why are they causing such a scene on Capitol Hill? Genetically modified organisms are plants or animals that are genetically altered to exhibit traits that are not natural, primarily a resistance to pesticides and herbicides. It may sound brilliant to have developed crops that can withstand the chemicals necessary to cultivate large amounts, but GMOs are often untested, require dangerous chemicals in their farming, and may be a threat to organic foods and to the environment. In the United States, GMO foods require no pre-market testing. Unlike with drug production, where there is mandatory testing on animals, mandatory human clinical trials, mandatory tests of carcinogenicity, fetal impact, neurological impact, and at least some limited allergy testing, none of those steps are required for these crops.

The American Medical Association has stated that mandatory testing should be required before GE foods and ingredients are introduced on the market, but lawmakers continue to ignore medical research centers, farmers, and constituents who oppose or at least want labels on GMOs. Maine, Connecticut, and Vermont have all passed laws mandating the labeling of genetically modified foods for consumers but unfortunately these three states are the exception, not the rule. Last week, a majority of Representatives voted in favor of a law that prevents states from mandating GMO labels, stating that labeling GMO foods is “misleading.” Supporters of the bill said that labeling foods that contain GMOs sends a message to consumers that the products are risky, and that according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), GMOs are not dangerous. However, that information is based on testing by scientists who are funded and influenced by the companies who own GMOs. Opponents of the bill called banning the labeling of GMOs “an infringement of the public’s right to know what’s in their food.”

Currently, 64 countries worldwide require the labeling of GMOs, including all 28 nations of the European Union, Russia, and China. Our lack of GMO labels is not only causing us to fall behind most other developed countries, but is also failing the satisfy a vast majority of Americans who support GMO labeling. A total of 92 percent of Americans want GMO foods to be labeled and in the past two years, more than 70 labeling bills or ballot initiatives were introduced across 30 states.

In 2012, some of America’s most profitable chemical companies teamed up with large food companies to defeat California’s Proposition 37, an initiative that would have required labeling of genetically engineered foods. Monsanto, PepsiCo, CocaCola, Nestle, and several other companies spent over 45 million dollars to block the legislation. Why? Because keeping consumers in the dark about the dangers of GMOs can be profitable, and requiring labels would allow consumers to question what they’re consuming before they buy. The companies that own GMO seeds, which are patented, sell their seeds to farmers who then buy herbicides from the same companies who also own the chemicals. This brilliant business model is racking up millions for these corporations, but is causing people to consume more and more dangerous herbicides.

Another concerning symptom is that weeds are becoming resistant to the hazardous chemicals. Genetically engineered crops are designed to survive weed killers. Corporations like Monsanto that create these herbicides and pesticides claim that herbicide use has decreased since the introduction of GE crops; however, before GE crops were cultivated, weeds resistant to Roundup did not exist. There are now 14 known species of Roundup-resistant weeds in the U.S. alone, known as “super weeds.” Super weeds have been reported on half of all U.S. farms and cost farmers millions of dollars a year to control. With more weeds becoming resistant to Roundup, farmers now have to spray larger quantities of even more toxic herbicides on their crops to kill weeds, like 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-d), a component of the poisonous Agent Orange used during the Vietnam War. GMOs intensify the problem of herbicide use and create more super weeds that are immune to harsh chemicals, disrupt the environment, and contaminate water systems.

In 2010 the President’s Cancer Panel reported that 41 percent of Americans will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetime. The panel pointed to chemicals, primarily herbicides in our air, water, soil, and food as the primary cause of this increased cancer rate. Later that same summer, the journal Pediatrics reported in a peer-reviewed study that there is a direct correlation between pesticide exposure and increased ADHD diagnoses. In 2011 a study revealed that the insecticide in GMO corn was detected in the umbilical cord blood of pregnant women. With 90 percent of soy and 85 percent of corn now genetically engineered, and super weeds on the rise leading to harsher chemicals being used on our food, GMO consumers are being exposed to more and more dangerous chemicals. And without GMO labels, shoppers have no idea if the foods they are eating are a part of that group.

Congress’s decision last week to block any mandatory labeling of foods made with genetically engineered crops proves that corporate influence in Washington is taking away our right to choose what we consume. Genetically modified foods can and should be labeled, and Congress has an obligation to listen to the 92 percent of Americans who support the right to know what they are consuming via GMO labels. The FDA’s Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act states that the consumer has a right to know when something is added to food that changes it in ways a consumer would likely not recognize, and that indicates labeling should be required. Just like juice from concentrate, wild versus farmed, country of origin, and many other mandatory labels we see on our foods, GMOs should also be visible, since the chemicals that come with them are not. We have a right to know and a right to choose. It’s time to question whether the FDA and Congress are here to protect us, the people, or to protect a handful of chemical companies that want to keep us in the dark.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post GMO Labeling: The American People Have A Right To Know appeared first on Law Street.

You may have noticed lately that the prices at your local grocery store have been going up, and we tend to chalk it up to many things: rising gas prices, season, time of the month, or even the moon. Many of us will even pay more to shop in certain stores. When you think of grocery stores that cost a little for the ambience, you might think of Whole Foods. Just last week, the upscale grocery chain hit a rough patch when it was discovered that it has been overcharging its customers by a lot–and it has created problems for the grocery giant.

The Problem With Whole Foods

New York City’s Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) is investigating the grocery chain for “systemic overcharging for pre-packaged foods” that affected several branches of the store. It was something that they had been monitoring for a long time, and had even warned the stores about; however, they found on multiple trips that there were many problems and incorrect markings.

Some of these problems were outlined in the DCA’s report, including packages that were labeled with heavier weights than they actually were:

• Vegetable platters that were priced at about $20 a package. The packages were all different sizes, averaging about $2.50 over. One package in particular was overpriced by a whopping $6.15.
• Chicken tenders, a staple in many households, were priced at about $9.99 per pound, but were marked up by an average of $4.13.
• Berries, currently in season, were priced at $8.58 a package, but customers were overcharged by $1.15.

These charges were widespread, and though they may only look like a few dollars, they likely added up quickly over time. The DCA concluded that “New York City stores routinely overstated the weights of its pre-packaged products — including meats, dairy and baked goods — resulting in customers being overcharged.”

However, Whole Foods spokesman Michael Sinatra says that the DCA hasn’t actually confronted the store:

Despite our requests to the DCA, they have not provided evidence to back up their demands nor have they requested any additional information from us, but instead have taken this to the media to coerce us.

This isn’t the first time this has happened. Just last year, Whole Foods had to pay an $800,000 fine in California for overcharging customers. So what can we do about this problem?

Rising Prices

The prices of different foods aren’t set by the government, like many think, but instead are a result of supply and demand. While the U.S. government does track prices, they are instead set by the wholesalers and growers of food.

One of the biggest causes of rising grocery costs is the prevalence of drought throughout the United States, especially in California. Drought affects everything from the crops that need water to survive to the cows that eat the grass. However, what the government can do is make sure that grocery stores are truthful when it comes to what they charge–and they can penalize those who don’t fall in line. In fact, that is exactly what they did to Whole Foods, which was fined “$950 for the first violation and up to $1,700 for a subsequent violation. The potential number of violations that Whole Foods faces for all pre-packaged goods in the NYC stores is in the thousands.”

Other Issues

Think the problem of overcharging is limited to just Whole Foods? There are a litany of other offenses that grocery stores have committed. In 2012, the Los Angeles Superior Court handed out a settlement of $1.1 million from Ralphs Grocery Co. because it overcharged its customers at the deli stand.

Some states, like North Carolina, allow for a small over- or under- charge on deli or weighted items. North Carolina allows a 5 percent discrepancy, but that hasn’t stopped the problem of overcharging. In fact, since November 2014, nine stores were fined by the state, including Dollar General, CVS, Target, and Walgreens, according to the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.

What Can You Do?

Apart from reporting any discrepancies that you think you see to the management of your local grocer, what are some of the things that you can do to keep yourself from being taken advantage of?

There are multiple things you can do to check whether or not you are being charged too much at the grocery store. The New York Department of Consumer Affairs suggests checking your receipt for what can and cannot be taxed. They even offer a quick link to a hot list of items that can be taxed.

The Today Show, which did a whole segment on the charges, suggests that you should actually weigh items yourself just to make sure. Most grocery stores will have electronic scales that are fairly easy to work and will help you out. They also suggest that you should make sure you are paying for the things you actually get, and not things like ice on frozen fish or packaging.

Another suggestion is that instead of focusing on getting your money ready or looking at the candy bar display, you should watch as the cashier rings up your food items. You will catch many mistakes that way, and often they will be corrected without a fight.

Conclusion

At the end of the day, grocery stores are in the same market that everyone else is in: they want to make money. While there are governmental teams out there that can help with these problems, it is largely up to consumers to make sure that everything’s kosher.

When you are at the grocery store, try to be present and pay attention to the things you are purchasing. Understand that sometimes prices will rise and fall, but they should always be around the same price. Don’t be afraid to ask workers if something seems off, as you might just save yourself a few bucks and the company thousands in fines.

Resources

CNN: Whole Foods Accused of Massive Overcharging

New York City Consumer Affairs: Department of Consumer Affairs Investigation Uncovers Systemic Overcharging for Pre-packaged Foods at City’s Whole Foods

Salon: Whole Foods is Ripping You Off (And it Has Been For Years)

Amarillo Globe-News: Several Factors Determine Food Prices at Grocery Stores

Class Action: Court Hands Victory to Workers in Wage and Hour Lawsuit

Fox News: New York City Says Whole Foods is Overcharging Customers

Journal Sentinel: State Fines Four Stores For Overcharging Customers

NY Eatery: City Sting Reveals Whole Foods Has Been Overcharging New Yorkers Since 2010

,Today Show: Not Just Whole Foods: Beware Supermarket Overcharges

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Your Grocery Bill Breaking the Bank? It’s Not Just Whole Foods appeared first on Law Street.

A landmark bill was just passed in California which will make vaccinations necessary for all students, unless they have a medical exemption or the parents choose to homeschool their children. This law eliminates the personal and religious belief exemptions completely, and was met with overwhelming praise, although not without protest. It has been the subject of heated debate for the past few months, although it was finally approved last Tuesday. The Golden State has been forced to take extra precautions after a measles outbreak at Disneyland wreaked havoc on the public, leaving over a hundred people infected.

California Legislature passes mandatory public school vaccination bill #SB277 http://t.co/Rpt3bJvNPI pic.twitter.com/wepXmF011C

— Los Angeles Times (@latimes) June 29, 2015

The bill passed with bipartisan support in the Assembly before it was sent to California Governor Jerry Brown, who hastily signed it, enabling it to finally become a law. Politicians have mixed views on this topic, although it seems that the consensus is that vaccinations are necessary to protect the health of the general public. Recent events have caused numerous bills to be proposed throughout the country, although California’s is one of the first to be set in motion.

Two other states, West Virginia and Mississippi, have already imposed similar laws, and they have proven to very successful so far. California made a wise decision in following the lead of its southern counterparts and given how prominent a state California is, it will likely be a model for other states to follow if all goes well. Many states seem to be interested in implementing similar legislation, and so all eyes will be on California to see just how such actions impact its citizens.

This preventative measure is aimed at schools–both public and private institutions–as well as day care centers. This law also creates clear guidelines for future requirements regarding vaccines so that there are no questions of procedure or exemption. There will now be two vaccination checkpoints for children, one at the kindergarten level, and one in seventh grade. A grandfather clause was also created, which will allow children to wait until the next checkpoint to be vaccinated if they missed the first one due to a personal belief exemption before this change was instituted.

The subject of vaccination has proven to be a very contentious topic in the United States in recent years. But what’s most important is the science behind this decision, and the experts believe that this law is imperative for preventing future outbreaks. Pediatricians in California have high hopes for this new policy, announcing their beliefs that it will most likely increase immunization rates and stop diseases from spreading. The goal is to protect the masses, not only children, but entire communities. So long as the vast majority of people are vaccinated, then the chances of another outbreak are astronomically low. Research has proven that such stringent rules help to create safer environments, so why do so many still have a problem with vaccines?

While the reasons for the opposition to vaccines do merit some recognition, since there is always the microscopic chance of complications, it is obvious that the pros far outweigh the cons in this situation. Many people believe that they can cause disorders such as autism, despite most research debunking this theory. Most other objections are due to personal or religious reasons. Parents used to be able to simply check a box to decide whether or not to inoculate solely based on their beliefs. While this law makes vaccinations mandatory for the majority, there will still be a few opportunities for exemptions. If parents completely refuse to vaccinate their children, then they must pledge to homeschool their children. Medical exemptions will still be available to those with serious health conditions, although this decision will be left up to the professionals. It was also announced that an amendment might be added to the law, and if passed, would make it so that doctors can use family medical histories of patients when evaluating children for medical exemptions.

Actor Jim Carrey made headlines for speaking out in disgust against the new law, even going so far as to call Brown a fascist. In his infamous Twitter rant, he accused the California legislature of being corrupt and knowingly poisoning children by requiring vaccinations. Carrey is only one of many to voice his furor, although it seems that there are far more supporters than protestors for this law.

Numerous groups have also announced their opposition, including the California ProLife Council, California Nurses for Ethical Standards, and the National Vaccine Information Center. Angry parents joined these groups in posting on social media to express their outrage. There have been many disputes between parents regarding this new legislation, and thousands have even stormed the capitol in protest. One major argument that protestors use against this law is that it takes away a parent’s ability to control what goes into their children’s bodies.

No one died during the measles outbreak at Disneyland, although it was still extremely scary for everyone involved and brought much unwanted attention to California. Disneyland is a major tourist destination that attracts millions of visitors a year, and so such a powerful disease infiltrating this popular institution seemed shocking at the time. Such an outbreak in California was upsetting to many after the disease was supposedly eradicated years ago. This was only the latest event in American history to trigger a national debate on the necessity of vaccines. There was also a recent outbreak of whooping cough in a Los Angeles school district where 90 students were infected, although experts believe that this incident could have been prevented. Officials of this district are praising this new law, as they believe that it will definitely help combat future outbreaks.

This law will not take effect until July of 2016, so those who are unhappy have time to move to another state. Some parents find it to be too drastic and have said that they will sue school districts just to get their child admitted without being vaccinated, although it does not seem that they will be triumphant. This law would mandate the entire state to follow through with the law, with very few exceptions. The hope is that given all of the research and findings associated with the benefits of vaccinations, parents will open their minds to the possibility of vaccines benefiting the public.

Toni Keddell

Toni Keddell is a member of the University of Maryland Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Toni at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Controversy in California: Childhood Vaccines Now Mandatory appeared first on Law Street.

Given the amount of security guards and surveillance cameras located in prisons there shouldn’t be inmates doing drugs or dying from drug-related causes. But in California prisons, that’s exactly what’s happening. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is spending $8 million this year on drug-detecting scanners and new drug-sniffing dogs. Officers have also conducted strip searches on visitors suspected of carrying drugs. These new procedures were born out of the shocking revelation that inmates in California prisons are dying from drug overdoses at three times the national rate. But is increased scrutiny of visitors really the best course of action?

Officials have hopes that these new methods will lead to a decrease in the death rate. But despite officers’ opinions that the efforts are discouraging drug smuggling, reports show that might not be the case, and that instead these policies just create problems for visitors. There have been more than 6,000 scans on visitors and employees at eleven different prisons and no drugs were found. Mohamed Shehk, an Oakland-based spokesman for Critical Resistance, stated, “The statistics — $8 million, 6,000 scans and nothing to show for it — show that these are intended to intimidate and criminalize people who are going to see their loved ones inside.”

More than 150 California inmates have died due to drug overdoses since 2006, with a high of 24 deaths in 2013. Sharing needles, which often leads to the spread of Hepatitis C infections, killed 69 inmates in 2013 alone. Corrections Secretary Jeffrey Beard is determined to change this high rate and is modeling California’s new procedures after those that were successful in the Pennsylvania Corrections Department, which he led for a decade. Pennsylvania’s annual rate of drug or alcohol deaths per 100,000 inmates is one, while California’s is eight per 100,000 inmates.

But while officers may feel like these new methods are helping, many visitors disagree and have begun to criticize them, especially the strip searches. “It’s a humiliating process, that can be easily used to humiliate and demean people, and was only for visitors, often women,” said Democratic Senator Loni Hancock. Tania Gamboa, a visitor at Kern Valley State Prison in California, was visiting her brother when an ion scan machine tested her positive for exposure to heroin. She felt humiliated after she was required to strip naked in front of two female correctional officers and squat to demonstrate that she was not concealing drugs. “It doesn’t make sense for me, knowing that I don’t do all that and I got detected for it,” Gamboa said. The big problem is that these procedures are beginning to make visitors feel like suspects.

Along with the strip search complaints, there have also been complaints about the dog searches. Wayne Conrad, the department’s statewide canine program coordinator, resigned last fall after the correctional facility decided to use dogs to search humans. Conrad explained his problem with the procedures, saying that there’s potential for false positives that could lead to lawsuits.

In order to mitigate those concerns, there are changes being made to the breeds of dogs used to search visitors. German shepherds in California prisons have been effective at finding hidden drugs. But as a result of these complaints, the department is now turning to less intimidating and more approachable dogs such as Labrador Retrievers–“fluffy, friendly dogs,” Northern California canine program coordinator Sgt. Brian Pyle called them. While this is an understandable move, it doesn’t change the fact that the dogs are searching these visitors can be read as upsetting or demeaning in some cases.

Concerned lawmakers that oversee state prisons included language in the California budget plan passed this week that would put an end to the searches and require an evaluation of the department’s other efforts. Correctional facilities do not want drugs brought into prisons that could lead to inmates deaths, but visitors do not want to feel embarrassed or humiliated as they are being searched. Officials are going to have to find an effective way to lower the death rates of the inmates and stop drug smuggling with procedures that do not leave the visitors feeling violated.

Taelor Bentley

Taelor is a member of the Hampton University Class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Taelor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Do We Solve the Drug Overdose Problem in California Prisons? appeared first on Law Street.

An aide for Democratic California Attorney General Kamala Harris has been arrested for posing as a police officer while heading a  mysterious “Masonic” police force that he claims dates back 3,000 years.

Brandon Keil, 31, was placed on administrative leave from his position as deputy director of community affairs for the California Justice Department, which Harris heads, after news of the scandal broke. According to the LA Times, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department claims that he along with two others, David Henry and Tonette Haye, were arrested last week after suspicions came to light that the trio was illegally impersonating police officers through their roles in the Masonic Fraternal Police Department.

Aide to state AG Kamala Harris , 2 others arrested after allegedly creating fake police force http://t.co/L6AYHtP0b9 pic.twitter.com/mldidpa8t0

— KTLA (@KTLA) May 6, 2015

According to site claiming to be the Masonic Fraternal Police Department’s official site, the force claims to have traced its origins back to 1100 BC when it was created by a medieval Christian military order, the Knights Templar. The group claims they have jurisdictions in 33 states and Mexico and that the only difference between them and other police departments is that they “were here first.” The site goes on to say,

We are born into this Organization our bloodlines go deeper then an application. This is more then a job it is an obligation.

However it seems like the real police disagreed. The trio first appeared on the police’s radar after letters were reportedly mailed to various police chiefs in Southern California announcing that Kiel had been named the police force’s “chief deputy director.” Kiel apparently even called various law enforcement agencies to schedule in-person meetings, a bizarre move that clearly led to his arrest. The LA Times writes,

Sheriff’s Capt. Roosevelt Johnson, who heads the department’s Santa Clarita Valley station, met with members of the group and became wary after they could not provide rudimentary information about the group’s aims, the officials said.

When sheriff’s investigators searched the homes of the three they apparently found badges, weapons, uniforms, and law enforcement paraphernalia.

In January Harris announced she planned to run for Senate in 2016, vying for the seat that will soon be vacated by Senator Barbara Boxer. It’s highly unlikely her aide’s odd fake-police pastime will affect the Democratic rising star’s Senate run, but all this weird negative press is certainly far from ideal.

Featured image courtesy of [Steve Rhodes via Flickr]

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 Kamala Harris Aide in Trouble for Bizarre Pastime appeared first on Law Street.

West Coast anti-vaxxers beware! After an initial voting delay, a California Senate committee overwhelmingly approved a bill Wednesday that will require schoolchildren in the state to be vaccinated.

According to the Herald, the Senate Education Committee voted 7-2 on the bill proposed by Senator Richard Pan, a Democratic pediatrician from Sacramento. It’s now being passed along to the Senate Judiciary Committee for a hearing next week that will surely be part of a drawn out legislative process.

Lawmakers had reportedly delayed a vote on the bill last week after some on the Education Committee worried it would potentially deprive unvaccinated children of an adequate education.

Pan’s proposal is one of many national vaccination initiatives that were born out of the Disneyland measles outbreak, which sickened more than 100 people in both the U.S. and Mexico. Presently, parents who are opposed to vaccinating their children can abstain by obtaining exemptions for “personal-belief and religious” reasons. Pan’s bill would prevent children with these kind of exemptions from being able to attend public or private schools. Only children with health problems would be allowed to obtain exemptive medical waivers.

Democratic Senator Ben Allen of Santa Monica helped Pan craft amendments to the bill which expand the home schooling and independent study programs available to children who are not vaccinated and therefore cannot go to public or private schools. Allen told the Sacramento Bee,

While this bill won’t reach everyone, it will increase everyone’s safety against vaccine-preventable diseases. We think we’ve struck a fair balance here that provides more options to parents who are concerned about not vaccinating.

The bill’s amendments would allow unvaccinated children to still be able to get an education through “private home schools that cover multiple families or through independent study programs that are overseen by school districts and given access to public school curricula.” According to the Bee, in the bill’s former version only those serving a single family or household had qualified.

Opponents of the vaccine bill are already vowing to continue their fight against the bill. Jean Keese, a spokeswoman for the California Coalition for Health Choice said,

We will continue to show our strength, and we will continue to educate lawmakers and the public about why this is a bad bill.

These individuals who oppose mandatory vaccinations, sometimes nicknamed “anti-vaxxers,” often have the belief that modern vaccination methods cause a wide range of health problems, despite evidence to this effect being debunked by both medical and scientific experts and dubbed a pseudoscience.

If approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee, this bill would provide peace of mind to concerned parents in the state who are fearful of another large-scale outbreak like Disney’s potentially affecting their children. However official approval of the bill will likely be unsuccessful in squashing all anti-vaccination efforts.

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 California Schoolchildren Vaccination Bill Moves Forward appeared first on Law Street.

This week’s weird arrests involve some misbehaving adults, and a few misbehaving young people as well. Check out the slideshow below:

[SlideDeck2 id=37708 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.

California is in the midst of one of the worst droughts we’ve ever seen. The demand for water is exceeding the actual supply of water in the region, leading to big problems. The Southwest region of the United States has always been a dry area, and previously most Southwestern states nursed from the same water supply. Due to a decline in the water supply, those same procedures will not work in 2015 and beyond. Read on to learn about the changing policies for California relating to its water supply, and the potential effects of California’s drought.

Colorado River Sources

In order to understand the water problems occurring in California and the American Southwest as a whole, it’s important to understand the overall state of water in the region. The Colorado River and other water sources in the area play an important role, both historically and today.

According to the Glen Canyon Institute, here’s the background of the area: Seven states in the Colorado Basin signed the Colorado River Compact in 1922. The agreement allocated water rights between New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, Arizona, and California.

But now the Colorado River Basin is experiencing a natural disaster and water supply tragedy. That agreement almost 100 years ago was reached based on an overestimation of river flow, and an underestimation of water demand. As a result of the growing demand and unyielding drought, there is a water deficit of almost 1 million acre-feet a year in the Colorado River system.

To provide water for over 40 million people, the Hoover and Glen Canyon dams were built as a part of the Colorado River water management system under the 1922 agreement. This created the Lake Mead and Lake Powell reservoirs. But now, both the Lake Powell and Lake Mead reservoirs are half empty. Environmentalists doubt the reservoirs will ever naturally fill again.

As a result, the conservation and fate of the Colorado River system is directly linked to the environmental health of the Southwest.

How did this problem begin?

During the last century, more than a dozen dams were built which negatively affected the flow of the Colorado River, as a result, “hundreds of miles of canyon and countless archaeological sites have been flooded, and dozens of wildlife species have been endangered.” Glen Canyon Dam is one of the largest contributors to these issues.

The Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992 was meant to alleviate the negative effects the Glen Canyon Dam had caused; specifically to, “protect, mitigate adverse impacts to, and improve the values for which Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area were established.” Despite the fact that this act was passed 23 years ago, little implementation or success has been seen.

Lake Mead & Lake Powell

In Lake Mead, water levels have dropped to 1,085 feet above sea level, the lowest in 75 years, and only 10 feet above the level that would trigger cuts in water deliveries by the federal government to Arizona and Nevada.

The purpose of building the dams was to keep the lake reservoirs full. Some strategize to “Fill Lake Mead First” arguing it would benefit the people who depend on Lake Mead in major cities like Los Angeles and Las Vegas. However, this strategy appears to be largely going unnoticed by policymakers.

 California Water Policies

It was only in 2014 that the California government began to recognize the severity of the drought and began to enact serious policy changes. Governor Jerry Brown and California Democratic lawmakers “enlisted business support of a $7.2 billion plan composed mostly of new bonds for water storage and delivery to drought-stricken cities and farms.”

California Governor Jerry Brown signed three bills designed to regulate the pumping of water from underground aquifers. An aquifer is an underground layer of materials such as sand, silt or gravel from which groundwater can pumped up. Habitual digging for water has led to sinking–nearly 30 feet in some areas. Previously, aquifers provided 30-40 percent of California’s water supply. Since the drought, nearly 60 percent of the state’s water comes from underground. Scientists worry that it is possible to completely deplete the underground supply. Currently, there is no method to replace the underground water. In addition, a lack of underground water affects the species of animals who depend upon it. Without a diverse ecosystem underground, the quality of the dirt is also weakened over time.

Governor Brown first politely asked Californians to reduce their water consumption by 20 percent, but instead consumption rose. A water board survey of 267 water providers found consumption in the Bay Area dropped five percent. But in coastal California, consumption rose eight percent, leading to an overall one percent increase of water usage statewide.

As a result, Governor Brown ordered mandatory water use reductions –the first time such an action has been taken in California’s history. An executive order directed the State Water Resources Control Board to enforce a “25 percent reduction on the state’s 400 local water supply agencies, which serve 90 percent of California residents.” However, owners of large farms, who obtain their water from sources outside the local water agencies, will not be subject to the 25 percent mandate.

The agencies are responsible for creating ways to monitor compliance and enforce restrictions to cut back on water use; some hypothesize there should be fines from $500-$1000 per violation. 

The federal government has made a contingency plan as well. According to Nova Publishers, the U.S. Department of Agriculture offers programs to help farmers nationwide “recover financially from a natural disaster, including federal crop insurance, the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP), and emergency disaster loans.” These loans are typically less than $100 million per year.

Although state officials do not expect the executive order to result in an increase in farm or food prices; these assumptions can only apply to the immediate future. Long-term effects are still unforeseen.

What are the consequences of California’s water shortage?

Environment

While the entire Southwest region of the United States is facing challenges, California is seeing the most the extreme. Combined with extreme heat, and less circulation, the lack of rainfall has triggered a dangerous increase in wildfires and air pollution across the state. The smog is sticking around due to high-pressure systems, setting California back decades in terms of clean air and creating new health risks.

Jobs

A University of California-Davis research report estimated there would a direct cost to agricultural industry totaling $1.5 billion, a statewide economic cost of $2.2 billion and the loss of 17,100 jobs related to agriculture–rendering a 3.8 percent farm unemployment rate.

Prices

Observers are divided on whether California’s drought will make food prices rice. It seems logical that as farm acres become less useful, food would be more difficult to produce, thus making popular crops like tomatoes, artichokes, and broccoli more expensive.

The most affected crops will most likely be be rice, cotton, hay and corn silage. But crops like avocado, and mangoes which are mostly imported shouldn’t be affected.

Some retailers believe one of California’s signature products, wine, will see price increases in the coming months. The scarcity of water will likely increase prices for wines, especially some of the cheaper ones.

The U.S. is a geographically diverse nation, and does not solely depend on the Southwest for food production. For now, the globalization of food along with the nation’s agriculture industry has helped American consumers mostly escape higher food prices. These two factors continue to work to limit impacts on total food production and costs.

Why doesn’t Silicon Valley help?

What about reverse osmosis? Recycling water? All of those other terms we learned in biology? Technology should be able to solve this problem right? Well some efforts have begun.

California has started the Water Recycling Funding Program (WRFP) to promote the beneficial use of water recycling in order to add to fresh water supplies in California. State funding is going towards water treatment facilities, while most of private and outside funding is going towards the tech community innovations.

Or take Tech startup TerrAvion. According to CNBC it “flies manned aircraft over farmland and gives growers thermal images that can show farmers potential trouble spots when it comes to irrigation” and give tips on how to manage water more effectively.

WaterSmart Software works with water utilities to supply easy-to-understand information to customers on their water use–for example, showing how much water their home may be using compared to another home of the same size.

Conclusion

According to National Geographic, “for many years, California’s powerful agricultural lobby resisted any and all legislative attempts to regulate water restrictions, or groundwater withdrawals.” But, the extent of the current drought, combined with the state’s increasing demand for water has led to new support for change. We are in a new era and California may actually start to look like a desert. Even with the 25 percent reduction push, and the possibility of tech companies saving the day, Californians still must make behavioral changes to reduce water consumption. Even if Californians do make these changes, saving 25 percent of the water supply is not a long-term solution. It’s time for real change in California.

Resources

Popular Mechanics: 6 Radical Solutions for U.S. Southwest Peak Water Problem

National Geographic: Record Drought Reveals Stunning Changes Along Colorado River

Stanford: Causes of California Drought Linked to Climate Change, Stanford scientists Say

National Geographic: Amid Drought, New California Law Will Limit Groundwater Pumping

New York Times: California Imposes First Mandatory Water Restrictions to Deal With Drought

Glen Canyon: Fill Mead First

Arizona Central: States Expected to Reduce Water Taken from Lake Mead

CNBC: Silicon Valley Seeks to Help California

Fortune: The Consequences of California’s Severe Drought

Mercury News: California Drought Conservation Efforts Failing

KTLA: Heat, Drought Causes Significant Increase of Wildfires

LA Times: Heat, Drought Worsen Smog in California, Stalling Decades of Progress

Editor’s Note: This post has been updated to credit select information to The Glen Canyon Institute and National Geographic. 

Jasmine Shelton

Jasmine Shelton is an American University Alumna, Alabamian at heart, and Washington D.C. city girl for now. She loves hiking, second-hand clothes, and flying far away. Contact Jasmine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post California’s Drought: Costs and Consequences appeared first on Law Street.

Is teaching yoga in school a violation of students’ and parents’ religious rights? An appeals court in San Diego says “No,” deciding to uphold a ruling against a lawsuit brought by a California family who claimed yoga promoted Hinduism and inhibited Christianity, reports the Guardian.

According to the article, Stephen and Jennifer Sedlock and their two children attempted to stop the Encinitas Union School District from teaching yoga as a gym class, because they felt it was a gateway to Hinduism, and thus inhibiting Christianity. A lawyer for the family, Dean Broyles, stated:

No other court in the past 50 years has allowed public school officials to lead children in formal religious rituals like the Hindu liturgy of praying to, bowing to, and worshipping the sun god,

Despite that argument, the court saw things differently. The court decided in a 3-0 opinion that:

While the practice of yoga may be religious in some contexts, yoga classes as taught in the district are, as the trial court determined, ‘devoid of any religious, mystical, or spiritual trappings.’

The district said it was teaching yoga in a secular way as a means to promote strength, flexibility, and balance. Paul V Carelli IV, a lawyer for the district, reiterated that there were “no rituals occurring in the classroom and no one was worshipping the sun or leading Hindu rites.”

Thanks to Indiana Governor Mike Pence and his “anti-gay bill,” there’s been a lot of national controversy in recent weeks regarding the protection of citizens’ rights to religious freedom. While helping to prevent individuals from being forced to violate their religious beliefs is ultimately a good thing, it becomes a problem when people begin to use it as a defense for banning rather innocuous forms of exercise. While Pence and others hammer out the details of their religious bills, lets hope they at least leave yoga out of the equation.

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 California Court: Yoga Classes Allowed in Schools appeared first on Law Street.

Watching Rosamund Pike deliver a creepy performance of a psychotic, scorned wife who concocted her own kidnapping in Gillian Flynn’s movie adaptation of bestseller “Gone Girl” was thrilling. Her performance may have been so good, in fact, that it acted as inspiration for a California woman who was located after being reported kidnapped, in what police are now calling a hoax.

Denise Huskins, 29, was reported as having been kidnapped from her boyfriend’s home early Monday for an $8,500 ransom demand, and then inexplicably surfaced Wednesday, 420 miles south in Huntington Beach. The attorneys of Huskins’ boyfriend, Aaron Quinn, said the ransom demands were made only to him. They also stated that the abduction occurred between 3 and 5 a.m., but Quinn did not report it until noon because he had concerns for his girlfriend’s safety.

After interviewing both Quinn and Huskins, police issued a statement Wednesday stating that they have found “no evidence to support the claims” that the physical therapist was abducted. According to ABC News Vallejo Police Lt. Kenny Park said during a news conference Wednesday night:

All indications initially were that she would be cooperative with the investigation,but as of right now, we have not heard from Ms. Huskins.

“This is no hoax,” insists lawyer for Denise Huskins, but police suggest abduction was staged http://t.co/wi17vvxRbn pic.twitter.com/kJWMur5qoq

— Yahoo News (@YahooNews) March 27, 2015

Huskins’ lawyer Douglas L. Rappaport is adamant that his client really was kidnapped, telling the LA Times:

She is a victim, and she is a woman who has been the victim of a violent crime and to a certain degree is being re-victimized.

Attorneys for Huskins’ boyfriend, Quinn, have also denied that the kidnapping was a hoax. Quinn told investigators that there were two kidnappers, and that they forcibly drugged and bound him. According to the LA Times, Quinn provided blood samples to the police to prove that he was truly drugged. He also provided his email account passwords and ended up being interrogated for 17 hours by FBI and police.

Police have referred to the incident as a “wild goose chase,” saying it was a complete waste of resources. Investigators are unsure of the couples motives for perpetuating the hoax, but the FBI is reportedly searching financial records for clues.

If this was, in fact, a kidnapping hoax, what kind of legal ramifications could Huskins and possibly Quinn face?

In other cases where individuals have faked their own kidnappings for various reasons, police have been known to charge them with making false alarms or making false claims, which can result in either a large fine and/or some jail time. Huskins’ case, however, is still developing and potential charges, if any, cannot yet be determined. One thing’s for sure, if Huskins did in fact fake her kidnapping, she could have learned a thing or two from Flynn’s “Gone Girl” character about meticulous planning.

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 Gone Girl: Police Say California Woman’s Kidnapping Wasn’t Real appeared first on Law Street.

We have all seen them, whether we are sitting in a doctor’s office in the middle of the day, home sick during the week, or just because they’re kind of fun. Either way, court shows like “Judge Judy” and “Judge Joe Brown” seem to have captured the world’s attention. Recently, Judith Sheindlin–Judge Judy–signed on for her eighteenth season of the show, earning herself $47 million a season for what is famously known as just “52 days of work a year.”

Judge Judy, and all of the others–Brown, Lane, Mathis, Hatchett, Alex, Rinder, etc.–are all practicing lawyers. Most were retired or on the way to retirement when they were discovered by a television producer. But that still begs the question: how exactly do TV courts work, what are their legal implications, and are they at all real?

 What are Court TV shows?

Court television shows are usually on in the middle of the day, often right when people are getting home from work and starting to cook dinner. The topics usually aren’t heavy things like murder, drugs, or assault cases. Instead they consider lighter issues like rent problems, car damages, or theft. Judges tend to be funny and lash out with zingers toward the people involved in the case. It is all about entertainment, not a real legal process.

However, the shows are among the highest watched for their time slot, which means that if one judge isn’t connecting with the audience, another one is right in line to take that spot.

Infographic courtesy of Online Paralegal Programs.

 How do you end up on TV court?

Getting onto a court show is actually one of the smartest things a person can do, even if he ends up being portrayed as the “villain” in the narrative. Why? Participants all stand to make money.

In general, most of the cases that end up going on to TV shows are cases that would otherwise be heard in small-claims court. According to FindLaw, there’s only a certain amount of money litigants can receive. For example, individuals who appear on “Judge Judy” would be able to receive a maximum of $5,000. It’s safe to assume that the rest of the shows have relatively similar limits.

According to FindLaw, regardless of the outcomes on any of the shows that play nationally, there are benefits to both parties in the case. The shows actually pay for the arbitration awards, which may be why people don’t always seem to be too worked up at the end in the cool down interviews. They also pay for the litigants’ airfare and hotel expenses.

In other cases, there have been situations where producers have found people who were popular or characters already and they have actually been courted into doing the show. For example, local Cleveland celebrity Colin Dussault was asked to be part of a newer judge show called “Hot Bench.”

A Hollywood producer contacted Dussault after “field researchers” came across his small-claims lawsuit against his sister, which he filed in Lakewood Municipal Court in January. In a nutshell, they’ve got issues with who should pay the ongoing bills for a double they inherited and both live in. (Double Trouble?)

In addition to prompt payment of any settlement, the producer promised, Dussault would get an additional “guaranteed minimum payment” just for being on the show!

 What happens on a TV court show?

Court shows like Judge Judy aren’t actually court cases, but instead they are an arbitration process, which is a way to resolve disputes without actually going to court. An arbitrator, always some sort of neutral party, hears a case and makes a binding decision. It’s less formal than a court case, but it does require training

The shows are all filmed at studios in Los Angeles near many different studios that also happen to film television shows. In fact, “Judge Judy” is filmed right next to “Judge Joe Brown.” In order to ensure a full audience, the producers of all of the shows will hire extras who comprise the entire gallery and who sign waivers to stop the disclosure of any details. However, they also take visitors who are willing to sign similar forms.

What happens after the show?

As a general rule, arbitration awards cannot be appealed. But there have been a few cases in which, according to The New York Times,  TV judge rulings have been overturned through other court systems. This can be because the artbitration didn’t cover everything necessary or if the case was found to be beyond the scope of arbitration.

According to FindLaw:

For example, a New York family court in 1999 overruled part of a “Judge Judy” decision because it went beyond the scope of the arbitration, the New York Law Journal reports. The parties in that case had agreed to arbitrate a dispute over personal property — but Judge Judy’s ruling also granted child custody and visitation rights.

In 2000, Judge Judy had one of her decisions overturned…In the case B.M. v. D.L., the parties appeared in front of Sheindlin to solve a personal property dispute. Sheindlin ruled on that dispute, but also made a decision on the parties’ child custody and visitation rights. One of the parties appealed in court, and the family court overturned the custody and visitation part of the decision because they weren’t covered by the agreement to arbitrate.

Ethical Concerns

For people who have never really been in a court room, it can seem like there aren’t really any ethics that exist when it comes to television court. For one, there are no lawyers even present on the television shows. There are problems, of course, with the editing and the way people are portrayed by the producers of the show.

Recently a committee was formed to discuss the problems with court television shows and the impact they have on the lives of those who appear–often people who are young and trying to avoid paying costs that they can’t afford. The committee, comprised of retired judges, said:

In this modern media culture once the taping is done and it is released into the public domain it is there forever and can come up from time to time during this defendant’s entire life. It could be used against this person in a personal, political, economic or social situation to his or her extreme detriment. Your recitations that the videos in your court are a number one rated show broadcasted to 200,000 households in three counties speak volumes in this regard. How might it appear to a defendant that he or she must be asked by the judge to waive any objection to appear on television? Would they be intimidated by the question knowing that the judge encourages this production?

These cases are often straight forward, but played up for laughs, drama, and a clear-cut decision. There have been many questions about the fates of people who end up on reality shows, and that is a question that exists with the “reality” of court shows as well.

Conclusion

So yes, the decisions on TV court shows are a reality–someone has to pay (usually the show) and someone is in trouble (usually younger-skewing teens or adults who can’t afford much else). You’re getting, in essence, a half-truth of what the court process is actually like.

One final word of caution to anyone who found this on a search: Appearing on a TV court show like “Judge Judy” involves signing off on a lot of legal fine print. You may want to consult an attorney to make sure your rights are protected before you pursue your 15 minutes of fame.

 Resources

Futon Critic: Ethics Panel Rips TV Drug Court

Mental Floss: What Legal Authority Does Judge Judy Have?

Cleveland.com: Playing Hard to Get When Courted by Reality TV Court Show

Fact: Judge Judy Overruled by Judge Jeffrey

Futon Critic: Judge Judy Sheindlin, Host of Syndication’s #1 Rated Show “Judge Judy,” Signs Multiyear Deal Through 2020

Frugal Confessions: It Pays to Have Your Small Claims Case on a Court Television Show

Washington Post: The Lasting Appeal of TV’s Top Woman: Judge Judy

Vice: These Guys Made Up a Fake Case to Get on ‘Judge Judy’

Editor’s Note: This post has been revised to credit select information to FindLaw. 

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What’s the Verdict? The Truth Behind TV Court Shows appeared first on Law Street.

The State Bar of California is considering a proposal requiring that law students provide 50 hours of legal work free or at very low rates to low income clients. The proposal is designed to use law students to combat the problem of a growing number of California residents who need legal advice but cannot afford to hire an attorney.

This trend started during the economic recession that began in 2007, when funding to provide legal aid to the poor plummeted just when many needed it the most. Many California residents were falling into poverty and needed help with matters such as evictions and foreclosures. With decreased funding came increased selectivity on the part of cheap legal resources, which meant that most of the people who needed it did not receive legal aid. Even though the economy has improved, the state bar still believes that over one million California residents seeking legal aid are turned away each year.

One California resident who has been able to take advantage of free legal services is Carlis Pegues, a 64-year-old woman who is claiming that her landlord is trying to evict her. Buried in paperwork and plagued with the thought of losing her home, Pegues found herself at the free legal clinic in Skid Row. Now, every Wednesday, she takes the bus from her home in the Baldwin Village area of South Los Angeles to the clinic. There she is greeted by a group of attorneys and law students who provide free legal advice for one hour per week to anyone who seeks it.

Pegues is certainly grateful for these weekly meetings. She told the Los Angeles Times:

It’s a traumatic, mind-boggling experience trying to get out of this situation when everything is closing in on me, If I have a problem, they don’t look down on me here. They just step up and help.

While one goal of the proposal is to help more people like Pegues, it is also aimed to give law students hands-on experience before they obtain their licenses to practice law. Supporters of the proposed 50-hour requirement say that they hope this experience would help prospective attorneys gain experience and gain a sense of appreciation for how important it is to provide legal aid to low-income residents in California.

However, not everyone is in support of this proposal. Many, particular those who currently work in legal aid, are concerned that the legal aid organizations don’t have the resources necessary to absorb the influx of a large number of volunteers wishing to fulfill their 50 hours. They claim that this is due to a lack of attorneys who can take the time to help these law students, as they are not allowed to represent these clients in court or offer them any legal advice without the supervision of a licensed attorney. On top of this, many organizations have stressed that they simply don’t have the space for these student volunteers to work.

For example, the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles is one of the largest of its kind in the state, yet they only accept roughly 10 percent of the law students who apply to work there because they cannot accommodate any more. Phong Wong, the director of the foundation, said:

The need is definitely there. We turn away so many low-income clients because we don’t have the support, the resources to help them. At the same time, there are all these law students who can be put to use. We just need to figure out how to make it work for the clients that we serve.

If organizations such as the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles can find a way to successfully integrate more volunteer law students into their daily operations, then this proposed 50 hour requirement has the potential to benefit everyone involved. If not, a different sort of solution to California’s legal woes may need to be discussed.

Brittany Alzfan

Brittany Alzfan is a student at the George Washington University majoring in Criminal Justice. She was a member of Law Street’s founding Law School Rankings team during the summer of 2014. Contact Brittany at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New California Proposal: Law Students Must Volunteer in Legal Aid appeared first on Law Street.

Common Core State Standards have been a matter of controversy for a few years now, garnering opposition from both sides of the aisle. Common Core in some ways saw its inception in the George W. Bush era and serves as a predecessor to the No Child Left Behind Act. But what exactly is Common Core, why was it launched, and what is the opposition? Read on to find out.

What is Common Core?

The Common Core State Standards “aim to raise student achievement by standardizing what’s taught in schools across the United States.” They include a particular focus on language arts and mathematics. The objective is to universally prepare students from Kindergarten to high school to be successful for entry-level college courses or to enter the workforce. It lays out what students should know and be able to do by the end of each specific grade. The standards are results driven, but the methods used to achieve the set results are chosen by local teachers and facilities.

The History Behind Common Core

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) was first signed into law by President Bush in January 2002. The next decade was spent revising the law’s requirements and attempting to create more successful “adequate yearly progress” reports. However, people quickly realized that NCLB was in need of serious reform itself. In November 2007, state chiefs first brainstormed Common Core standards at the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) Annual Policy Forum. The following year, the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA), CCSSO, and education nonprofit Achieve released Benchingmarking for Success: Ensuring U.S. Students Receive a World-Class Education. In it they recommended the common standards. In April 2009, the NGA and CCSSO officially invited states to commit to the Common Core standards, and by June 49 states and territories announced commitments. After public feedback, a final draft was released in June 2010.

The NGA and CCSSO  led the development of the standards and actively advocated for their implementation. They also sought input from teachers, parents, school administrators, and various state leaders in “how the standards are taught, the curriculum developed, and the materials used to support teachers.” Implementation, however, is completely up to the states. Once a state adopts the Common Core standards, it is delegated to local teachers, principals, and superintendents to introduce the standards into school curriculum.

 Why was the Common Core program started?

It has long been a bipartisan view that the U.S. needs education reform. Common Core was started to allow high school graduates to be competitive in college, but also in “the rapidly changing American job market and the high tech, information-based global economy.” It is widely believed that U.S. students are falling behind their counterparts in other countries. Standardized tests in countries like China and Singapore have advanced well beyond the U.S. over the last few decades. Bill Gates, a heavy investor in the Common Core, advocated,

Our nation is one step closer to supporting effective teaching in every classroom, charting a path to college and careers for all students, and developing the tools to help all children stay motivated and engaged in their own education. The more states that adopt these college and career based standards, the closer we will be to sharing innovation across state borders and becoming more competitive as a country.

In Gate’s interview, he repeatedly noted that the standards are not based on curriculum. They are “solely” milestones for where the students should be at each grade level.

How much does Common Core cost?

The cost for implementing Common Core will vary from state to state, but will undoubtedly be expensive. Training teachers and buying new materials will take a substantial amount of money. In 2011, California estimated that replacing its current standardized tests with Common Core standards would cost taxpayers approximately $1.6 billion. In Texas, the estimate is upward of $3 billion dollars.

According to the Common Core Initiative however, the implementation will allow for states to eventually save on resources, materials, and “cross-state opportunities that come from sharing consistent standards.” The cost-benefit ratio should end favorably. As of 2014, 43 states, Washington D.C., Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands adopted the Common Core.

What are some characteristics of Common Core?

English and Language Arts

Generally, the standards call for “regular practice with complex texts and their academic language.” They demand a steady increase in complexity and progressive reading comprehension. There is to be an emphasis on academic vocabulary, focusing on meaning, nuances, and range. There isn’t a required reading list; however, categories of literature are required. Examples include classic myths, foundational U.S. documents, works of Shakespeare, and staples of American literature.

Students should know how to provide evidence from the text when forming analyses and arguments at different levels. The standards call for text-dependent questions on assessments as opposed to questions based on student experiences and/or opinions. The objective is for students to be able to effectively inform and persuade, and for these skills to become stronger as students move up in grade levels.

There is also a larger focus on nonfiction. For grades K-5, there is a 50/50 ratio between informational (history, social sciences, etc.) and literary texts. In grades six through 12 there is substantially increased attention to literary nonfiction.

Mathematics             

In mathematics, the standards call for a “greater focus on fewer topics.” The standards aim to narrow and deepen lessons on concepts, skills, and problemsolving depending on grade level. For example, K-2 will focus on addition and subtraction, while grades three through five will focus on multiplication and division of whole numbers and fractions.

There is an overriding theme across grades of linking topics and thinking. A standard at any grade level is designed to build upon the standard of the previous grade and act as an extension. This consistently reinforces major topics, which are used to support grade-level word problems that need mathematical applications to solve.

Finally, the mathematics standards aim to pursue conceptual understanding, procedural skills and fluency, and application with equal force. The idea is to deepen the understanding of concepts as opposed to memorizing rules. If the building blocks of complex math concepts are completely understood by students, that will eliminate degrees of future difficulty. Speed and accuracy are both to held in high importance.

What are the arguments against Common Core?

The goals of the Common Core seem to have U.S. students’ best interests at heart. So why is there so much opposition? Here’s a look at some of main challenges.

National Standards

First, some argue that the name “Common Core State Standards” is misleading. Since they have been adopted by 43 states, they are truly national standards. Detractors worry that states didn’t necessarily adopt the Common Core by choice, but were strong-armed by conditions ascribed by federal Race to the Top grants and the No Child Left Behind programs. Prior to the implementation of Common Core, all 50 states–whether on board or not–adopted NCLB or revised standards under the threat of losing federal funding.

More of the Same

Many see the Common Core as round two of No Child Left Behind. NCLB failed in both “raising academic performance and narrowing gaps in opportunity and outcomes.” This propagated the notion that American schools need to be fixed. Test results from NCLB did not meet expectations. After the first ten years, more than 50 percent of the nation’s schools were categorized as failing. Many of these same schools never received the support or resources necessary to stand a chance. In the same respect, will all schools be supplied with the needed computers required to take the Common Core tests?

Too Curriculum Based 

There are also worries that Common Core has become more curriculum based than originally intended. In the video below, a seven-year public school teacher discusses why the Common Core is not good for kids and dictates curriculum. She argues, “when the standards are tested that’s what you are going to spend your time on…[there is] no room to teach anything else.”  Her job security is based on meeting the standards. As a result, she’s concerned that the standards must be taught 100 percent of the time, and don’t allow flexibility or creativity.

She continues to argue that the material is not condensed, using the 93 elements of the third grade reading standard as an example. Her largest problem with Common Core is its age appropriateness. Although she advocates pushing students, she doesn’t believe seven year olds should be expected to master the difference between an adjective and an adverb. She labels the standards as a  “race to the middle” with “mediocre teaching.” Using a uniform approach, the faster learners are bored, while the slower learners are under immense pressure.

There is plenty of concern on the length and difficulty of the assessments as well. In the first round of distribution of the Common Core tests in New York, students, parents, and teachers strongly voiced their concerns. Many students felt immense pressure and were scared of failing, and teachers complained about the atmosphere the tests created.

Opting Out

Some children have started to opt out of the tests, often with parental support. The “opt out movement” has grown in popularity–thousands of students nationwide have chosen this route. Opt-outs protest the Common Core standards and the overemphasis on testing in public schools. There is even a National United Opt Out group comprised of parents, educators, students, and social activists. The legality of opting out seems to be a gray area, varying from state to state. In an extreme case, the Illinois State Board of Education sent a letter stating students opting out would be breaking the law and teachers refusing to administer the test would face legal consequences.

There are a variety of other arguments as well. One other concern is that corporate businesses are behind the standards to create a marketplace for Common Core resources. Others argue that electives like music and art will be sidelined. Finally, many teachers and parents don’t approve of the “one-size fits all” approach to teaching children.

Conclusion

It’s hard to say what is in store for U.S. education reform. We do need a change, but is Common Core the right one? There aren’t any studies regarding Common Core’s success to fall back on. Only time will tell. There are convincing arguments on both sides. Ultimately, everyone involved wants the same thing: U.S. students to be as educated and prepared for the world as possible.

Resources

Primary

Common Core State Standards Initiative: About the Standards

CCSSO: National Governors Association and State Education Chiefs Launch Common State Academic Standards

U.S. Department of Education: No Child Left Behind

Additional

Washington Post: The Common Core’s Fundamental Trouble

EdWeek: Ensuring U.S. Students Receive a World Class Education

U.S. News & World Report: Who is Fighting for Common Core

Truth in American Education: State Costs for Adopting and Implementing the Common Core State Standards

U.S. News & World Report: The History of the Common Core State Standards

U.S. News & World Report: The History of the Common Core State Standards

U.S. News & World Report: Opt-Out Movement About More Then Test, Advocates Say

U.S. News & World Report: Who is Fighting Against the Common Core

Why Science: A Historical Timeline of No Child Left Behind

Jessica McLaughlin

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

The post Common Core: A Solution to America’s Education Problems? appeared first on Law Street.

The workers’ compensation system around the nation has been complicated for decades. Particularly in California, a measure from the early 2000s is now coming to light as more and more women are trying to get workers’ compensation. There’s a battle raging over whether or not there’s an inherent gender bias in the handling of workers’ compensation claims in California; the concern is that women who try to get workers’ compensation are “penalized” for gender-related conditions like pregnancies and menopause. Read on to learn about the gender bias in worker compensations claims in California, what’s being done, and a look at the discussions happening in other states.

What is workers’ compensation?

Workers’ compensation is a form of insurance provided in the workplace that can consist of wage replacements and medical benefits for employees who were injured while working. Usually by accepting these funds, employees acknowledge that they will not sue their employers for negligence. Workers who are permanently disabled while on the job receive compensation from insurers based on a calculation of the level of disability and what portion of the injury is linked to their jobs. Insurers may also weigh the worker’s previous health conditions or prior injuries. In California specifically, the process is overseen by the Division of Workers’ Compensation which:

Monitors the administration of workers’ compensation claims, and provides administrative and judicial services to assist in resolving disputes that arise in connection with claims for workers’ compensation benefits.

DWC’s mission is to minimize the adverse impact of work-related injuries on California employees and employers.

State of Workers’ Compensation

If you were to look at the statistics, it looks like fewer and fewer people nationwide are getting hurt at work, though that isn’t exactly the case.

A report came out recently about how the system is reporting very low numbers. The real reason? Changing the circumstances for what qualifies as a workplace injury, and the simple dissolution of programs that pay for such accidents. According to the Washington Post, the number of people injured at work is probably twice what is reported because people fear losing their jobs. Or people, like those in the construction industry, are misclassified as independent contractors.

The Washington Post recently discussed the national state of workers’ compensation problems, saying:

Since 2003, the investigation found, 33 states have weakened their workers’ compensation regulations, scaling back the procedures that will be covered and the duration for which benefits are offered. In addition, while businesses often push for reforms on the grounds that workers’ compensation costs are out of control, data shows that premiums are lower than they’ve been at any point since the early 1990s.

California’s Belabored Workers’ Compensation Program

Workers’ compensation programs have received complaints that they are inherently flawed throughout the United States. Lately the debate has been particularly focused in California. Complaints come from the fact that outside medical reviewers look at the cases and after brief exams or only by reading the medical records can deny recommended treatments or rule that injuries aren’t work-related.

Reform Under Governor Schwarenegger 

Some problems with the California system can be traced back to a bill that reformed the program, which was signed in 2004 by then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. It changed what types of injuries qualified under the program, how long certain employees would receive coverage after being injured, and required the injured employees to choose from a specific pool of independent doctors. At the time, Schwarzenegger said:

This bill completes a process that brought together Republicans and Democrats, business and labor, and all the affected parties to produce billions of dollars in savings, protect workers, and root out fraud and waste in the system. No longer will workers’ compensation be the poison of our economy. Our message to the rest of the country and the world is that California is open for business. We are making our state once again a powerful, job-creating machine.

At that time, California employers were paying the highest workers’ comp rates in the nation: $6.33 for every $100 in payroll, compared to a national average of $2.46.

Although the bill was supposed to save Californians money, there were some problems with it. The new bill made it more difficult for workers to get in to see doctors and left them waiting for months without any answers to their problems.

Reform Under Governor Brown 

In 2012, Governor Jerry Brown put some of the power back in the hands of the state, deciding that disputes should be handled by independent medical reviewers whose decisions cannot be overturned. The law was a bit quirky, as this didn’t just apply to the new cases, but also retroactively to past requests, and it impacted everything from already-scheduled doctor’s visits to prescription refills. In some cases, treatments were stopped in the middle with little more than an official notice.

This new system also has problems, however, as in recent years reviewers have denied treatment in up to 91 percent of the cases. People who were receiving treatment for years suddenly found themselves left out in the cold, and many had to return to work to continue to pay for the medication they needed.

Christine Baker, who oversees workers’ compensation in California, has stated that the reform is “speeding up the decision making process” and taking the aid away from people who are using it for prescription abuse.

Many of the judges, including John C. Gutierrez, a workers’ comp jurist since the 1980s, are some of the biggest adversaries of the law. According to Gutierrez, “the only interest that’s being protected here is industry and I feel that their financial influence has had an impact on how this legislation came out.” He went on to say that he felt like workers “are losing their voice.”

This is a problem in the state regardless of gender, but when it comes to comparing women and men, there is an even bigger problem looming.

Gender Bias in Workers’ Comp Rulings

California Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez introduced a bill (AB305) on March 4, 2015 that aims to eliminate the gender bias in workers’ compensation rulings.

This comes after a Bay Area woman who suffers from Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, which damages the nerves in the hands and often limits movement, was denied workers’ compensation for a strange reason: she was postmenopausal, which meant that she was predisposed to nerve damage. 

The woman enacted the help of attorney Sue Borg who says that she sees many cases where a woman who is injured on the job and files a claim for compensation is “penalized” for things like pregnancies and menopause. “It seems like it should be obvious that we shouldn’t see this, but it happens in insidious ways all the time,” Borg said.

Gonzalez aims to ensure that being female does not constitute a preexisting condition, and hopes to stop the reduction of compensation for female workers based on pregnancies, breast cancer, menopause, osteoporosis, and sexual harassment. All of this discrimination is happening, even though there are laws against gender discrimination in the workplace.

Breast Cancer

One of the biggest problems facing women seeking workers’ compensation is breast cancer. There have been numerous reports of how breast cancer is treated among firefighters and police officers. According to the Corporate Counsel:

Gutierrez reports that the bill’s supporters claim gender bias in workers’ compensation is a big issue, and one that is “especially evident in the way breast cancer is treated among firefighters and police officers.” For instance, female police officers who have to undergo double mastectomies for breast cancer linked to hazardous materials on the job are considered 0 to 5 percent disabled, Gutierrez reports, whereas a male officer with prostate cancer is considered 16 percent disabled and would be paid for the injury.

One such case involves a San Francisco firefighter who was denied permanent disability after having to undergo a double mastectomy, as well as an Orange County hotel housekeeper who was injured on the job but only received two percent payment on her claim–despite doctors putting her disability level at 100 percent–due to prior conditions “related to childbirth, obesity, age and naturally occurring events.”

Pregnancy

Pregnancy has always been a fairly controversial issue when it comes to the workplace, but many women are now being denied workers’ compensation due to it, or facing claims that it is the “cause” of the problem. Things like back pain, muscle strain, and injuries caused by fatigue have all been attributed to pregnancy and not the workplace. “I’ve had a child, and if now being a mother is a pre-existing condition in California, I find that unacceptable,” said Christine Pelosi, chair of the California Democratic Party’s women’s caucus.

State Fires Back

The claims were immediately disparaged by the Workers’ Compensation Action Network, which said that payment decisions were never a result of discrimination. According to the Sacramento Business Journal: “A spokesman from Industrial Relations could not immediately produce data on gender-related bias or discrimination, but the agency will look into the matter and respond with its findings.”

Conclusion

The nation, and particularly California, has a lot of work to do in the coming months to try to look at reports and see if there is a problem. If there is, it could mean an inundation of old cases that may be able to be retried, meaning companies could owe a lot of money to women all over the state.

Surely California is only the beginning and more and more states, as well as the federal government, will have to look at their workers’ compensation laws and see if there are problems lurking in them. In the end, the people who don’t get covered by workers’ compensation won’t always work through their pain; many will end up on government subsidies, which means that the tax payers will have to cover the costs.

Resources

Primary

Department of Industrial Relations: Division of Worker’s Compensation California

Department of Industrial Relations: A Guidebook for Injured Workers

Additional

Corporate Counsel: Charges of Gender Bias in Workers’ Compensation

NPR: Injured Workers Suffer as ‘Reforms’ Limit Workers’ Compensation Benefits

Heartland Institute: Schwarzenegger Signs Workers Comp Reform

The New York Times: A Racy Silicon Valley Lawsuit and More Subtle Questions About Sex Discrimination

SF Gate: Gender Bias Rampant in Workers’ Comp Cases, Women’s Groups Charge

ProPublica: The Demolition of Workers’ Comp

NPR: As Workers’ Comp Varies From State to State, Workers Pay the Price

Property Casualty 360: California Workers’ Comp Bill Passes Legislature; Insurer Groups Cautious

BradBlog: Schwarzenegger’s Workers’ Comp ‘Reform’ Killed My Client

“

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post California Workers’ Compensation: A Flawed System? appeared first on Law Street.

Like anything with a life, survival is a germ’s end game. When it faces a challenge, it will adapt. Some germs adapt alarmingly well to the challenge of modern medicine. They’re called superbugs because they’ve evolved to survive the challenges we throw at them, including antibiotics.

Do we have a counterattack against these superbugs? Let’s find out.

Superbugs in the News

Superbugs have been making headlines lately. Here’s what’s happening in case you missed it.

CRE Outbreaks

CRE stands for carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, a type of bacteria resistant to carbapenem antibiotics. CRE resists nearly all antibiotics and can cause death in about 50 percent of infected patients because most people who become infected are already sick and have weakened immunity. Most recently, CRE killed two people in an outbreak at the Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles and one person in a Charlotte, North Carolina hospital.

A duodenoscope, a device that drains fluids from the pancreatic and biliary ducts, stands out as the main suspect in the UCLA outbreak. Duodenoscopes probe the body, making infection easier for hitchhiking germs, especially superbugs like CRE. The particular duodenoscope implicated in the UCLA outbreak boasts an intricate design that unfortunately makes it difficult to clean properly even through reprocessing, the multi-step sanitation process designed for reusable devices. So this particular model of duodenoscope picked up some potent CRE that withstood reprocessing and infected several patients.

C.difficile Infections on the Rise

C. difficile infections happen when the harmful bacterium Clostridium difficile (C.diff) overpowers the otherwise harmless and helpful bacteria living in the intestines. Antibiotics kill bacteria, including the good kind that help fight off C.diff, so sick people who have taken antibiotics for long periods of time become especially vulnerable to C.diff. Since C.diff resists antibiotics, once good bacteria succumbs, zero defenses stand between it and the multiplication that causes deadly intestinal infections. C.diff preys on the sick and spreads wildly through hospitals. It ranks as one of the three most common infections acquired in hospitals and still cases are growing. Confirmed C. difficile infections doubled from 2000-2009 according the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In Short, Superbugs Threaten Hospitals

As you can see from the cases above, superbugs thrive in hospitals where sick people with weakened immune systems squeeze together in close contact. Our usual sanitation tricks don’t stop them. Even when healthcare workers practice sanitation that could kill the flu virus, these superbugs stick around, hiding out in bathrooms, hospital beds, and on medical equipment. Since superbugs resist antibiotics, once the inevitable infection does occur, it’s extremely hard to fight and could lead to death. For example, CRE kills almost half the people it infects.

Public health officials working on the UCLA outbreak have sprung to action to contain the spread. They’re finding people who might have been exposed to CRE via use of the potentially faulty duodenoscope. They’ve issued warnings about the devices so other hospitals don’t run into similar problems.

But after two deaths in California and one in North Carolina in 2015 so far, many have asked: how can we prevent superbug outbreaks in the first place?

Preventing Superbug Outbreaks

To fight superbugs, experts recommend combating the antibiotic resistance that produced them in the first place, becoming better at monitoring and controlling them, and developing innovative techniques for prevention and control.

Combating Antibiotic Resistance

The CDC’s report Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States, 2013, inspired government action that fights the antibiotic resistance that produces threats likes superbugs. Their recommendations include prevention, tracking, changing antibiotic use, and developing new drugs and diagnostics.

In actual practice, the CDC has encouraged hospital antibiotic stewardship programs, which combat overprescribing and incorrect prescribing of antibiotic drugs. The programs push for evidence-based assurance that antibiotics are necessary and effective for the condition in question. For example, in antibiotic “time-outs,” doctors revisit the need for antibiotics after receiving diagnostic lab results. Often antibiotics are prescribed as a precaution while waiting for medical tests, but this practice encourages doctors to reassess the need for the drugs with medical test results in hand. These programs are voluntary, and so far California is the only state that requires antibiotic stewardship programs by law. Experts, including President Obama’s science advisers, are pushing to make stewardship programs a requirement for hospitals and nursing homes that want to receive Medicare payments.

Additionally, President Obama’s FY 2016 budget shoots to double federal spending to fight antibiotic resistance that would help move the National Strategy for Combating Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria along.

Read More: Are We Doing Enough to Prevent Antibiotic Resistance?

Monitoring the Spread of Superbugs

Tracking is crucial to understanding where superbug infections might happen and what efforts might be needed to control them.

One recommended control measure requires all patients admitted to hospitals be screened for CRE. CRE squats in the guts of many people, but only creates problems when they’re weakened by sickness or too many antibiotics. Knowing who carries CRE would help control potential problems before they happen.

In terms of general tracking, there’s no requirement that state health agencies track and monitor antibiotic-resistant bacteria, but luckily, many of them do. According to an Association of State and Territorial Health Officials survey of antibiotic resistance-related state health agency activity, about half of them collect surveillance data about occurring infections. Federal requirements could lead to all states performing valuable surveillance activities.

Implementing Innovative Practices

Superbugs challenge our sanitation practices and antibiotic use. The race is on to develop new techniques to fight them so we can replenish our defenses instead of relying on old practices. Here are a few new interventions considered for fighting superbugs. Warning…don’t read this while eating.

• Fecal transplants: Nope, that’s not a typo. This procedure is exactly what it sounds like. Fecal matter is collected from an ideal donor and placed into the gut of another individual whose population of good bacteria might have been compromised through antibiotic use. In the case of C.diff, a fecal transplant can replace good bacteria that keep infection at bay. It might seem strange, but the procedure has proven 90 percent effective at curing C.diff infections. These unorthodox transplants work better than many other cures.
• Sanitizing robots: A concentrated hydrogen peroxide solution poses a threat to superbugs. It can be toxic to humans, so at Johns Hopkins University Hospital they’ve enlisted impervious robots to help them sanitize hospital rooms. After a human technician seals the room, a bot blasts the air with 35 percent hydrogen peroxide solution that reaches every inch of the room, even cracks and crevices. A second bot dries up the room so no residue remains. This results in a completely pristine hospital room, medical equipment and all.

• New antibiotics and alternative therapies: Superbugs grow accustomed to existing drugs and we haven’t created new ones that shock their systems. This is partly because 99 percent of living species (plants and fungi) that produce promising new antibiotics will not grow in lab conditions. If they can’t grow in a lab, scientists can’t study them to make them into medicine. Recently, scientists tapped into this 99 percent horde of potential antibiotics by tricking the microbes into thinking they were in a natural environment by stuffing dirt in between two membranes. The extracted antibiotic is known as Teixobactin and has proved successful in battling antibiotic resistant MRSA and TB in mice. It hasn’t been tried on humans yet, but the methods scientists used to grow “ungrowable” cultures in laboratory conditions hold promise for the future.

Antibiotics are also overused in agriculture to treat animals raised in conditions that lead to persistent infection. Hyun Lillehoj, an avian immunologist at the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, has discovered promising new treatments for diseases affecting poultry that would render antibiotics unnecessary. She’s found promise in using food supplements, probiotics, and phytochemicals to enhance a bird’s natural immunity and ward off infection in the first place.

On a sweeter note, Lund University found promise in the lactic acid bacteria hiding in honey bee stomachs. Lactic acid bacteria contains antimicrobial properties and has proven effective in fighting resistant MRSA. Honey processing kills the good bacteria, so store-bought honey has no antibiotic properties. The researchers reintroduced the natural bacteria into honey and used it on horse wounds. All horses were healed when no other antibiotics or steroids had worked.

Legal Challenges of Superbugs

Superbugs involve a liability hotbed because they’re changing the rules. Healthcare professionals adhere to strict rules and protocols proven to prevent the spread of infection. Unfortunately, following those rules doesn’t prevent the spread of infection from superbugs. So when something goes wrong, who is liable? The new proliferation of superbugs presents a legal problem without precedence. Courts will look at whether a hospital has taken reasonable actions to promote safety, unfortunately with a lack of history in the case of antibiotic resistance laws, what actions might be considered reasonable are not yet clear. Upcoming decisions might afford more clarity.

California Congressman Ted W. Lieu requested a hearing from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (OGR) to discuss the sterilization issues with duodenoscope that led to the UCLA CRE outbreak. Family members of affected patients are also filing suits against the manufacturer of the duodenoscope that led to their infections, citing grievances like negligence and fraud. Decisions in these cases could influence future arguments.

Are superbugs under control?

As alarming as recent superbug growth might be, so far the situation is under control. However, the outbreak and C.diff growth calls attention to the need to prepare our defenses for the growing threat of superbugs. Antibiotic resistant germs prey on the weak, making hospitals and nursing homes vulnerable targets for devastation.

The government and medical professionals have jumped on the case with their efforts to combat antibiotic resistance, stop the spread of superbugs, and develop new treatments. While antibiotic resistance presents a challenge, consider how antibiotics themselves have been around for less than a hundred years. While their invention was considered a medical miracle, we surely have more miracles up our sleeves to get past this new challenge.

Resources

Primary

CDC: Lethal, Drug-Resistant Bacteria Spreading in U.S. Healthcare Facilities

FDA: Design of Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) Duodenoscopes May Impede Effective Cleaning

U.S. National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health: Clostridium Difficile Infection: New Insights Into Management

CDC: Vital Signs: Preventing Clostridium Difficile Infections

California Department of Public Health: The California Antimicrobial Stewardship Program Initiative

CDC: Core Elements of Hospital Antibiotic Stewardship Programs

USDA ARS: Alternatives to Antibiotics in Animal Health

Additional

Network for Public Health Law: Superbug Prevention and Hospital Liability

Kaiser: UCLA Bacteria Outbreak Highlights the Challenges of Curbing Infections

USA Today: Dangerous Infections Now Spreading Outside Hospitals

International Business Times: Drug-Resistant Bacteria A ‘National Security Risk’

US News & World Report: Patients File Lawsuit Against Medical Scope Maker in Hospital Superbug Infection

Washington Post: New Class of Antibiotic Found in Dirt Could Prove Resistant to Resistance

CNN: Superbug Cases Reported in North Carolina; One Dead

Food Safety News: The Search For Alternatives to Antibiotics

Food Safety News: White House Wants to Nearly Double Funding for Antibiotic Resistance Fight

Nature: A New Antibiotic Kills Pathogens Without Detectable Resistance

ASTHO: State Strategies to Address Antimicrobial Resistance

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 Superbugs: How to Fight the Evolving Menaces appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

Yet again I have to question what is wrong with the female teachers in this country. Back in January, two teachers were arrested for allegedly having a beach sex party with five male students in California. Yesterday these two sick, sad teachers were hit with new charges. Melody Lippert, 38, and Michelle Ghirelli, 30, are both charged with a felony count of unlawful sexual intercourse and a felony count of giving a controlled substance to a minor. Ghirelli has also been charged with a felony count of oral copulation of a minor.

According to Ghirelli’s attorney, Stephen DeSales:

We intend to plead not guilty and intend to vigorously defend this case. What you will get from the district attorney is what they think they can prove. There’s two sides to every story.

I’m sorry, how is there a second side to this story that would make sense? These two women had sex with young boys at a beach and supplied the booze and drugs to go along with it.

I’m a few months shy of 30 and the idea of sex with a teenager is just repulsive, not to mention wrong. How do teachers and administrators at schools expect parents to feel comfortable sending their kids there when there is the possibility that their child is being preyed upon by the very people who are supposed to be protecting and teaching them?

I hope these women are convicted swiftly and thrown in jail. Registered sex offenders immediately!

I’m so disgusted by the number of female school teachers who have been arrested and convicted of sexual encounters of some kind with their students. It is unreal. I used to always suspect male teachers more than anyone, wrong I know but true. Nowadays you can’t go a month without hearing about some female teacher having some kind of sexual encounter with a student. Something is fundamentally wrong with these women and clearly the punishment is not strict enough to deter any of them from doing what they are doing. Perhaps the laws need to be revisited and a harsher punishment should be considered. These women are predators. These women are pedophiles. Desperate, pathetic disgusting pedophiles.

Allison Dawson

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

The post Felony Charges For Teachers Involved in Cocaine & Sex Trip appeared first on Law Street.

There’s long been a debate in this country over soft drinks. Health advocates see soft drinks as liquid fuel for our national obesity epidemic, but many freedom loving Americans don’t like being told what chemically engineered beverages they can or can’t pour into their bodies. Hell, we as a country can’t even decide what to call it. Is it pop, soda, or coke? The answer to that question depends on what part of the country you’re from. But don’t expect the battle over sugary soft drinks to fizz out anytime soon. There’s now a new battleground for that fight in California.

It’s been a long time coming. First, ex-New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg tried to limit the size of sodas sold in NYC establishments to no more than 16 oz. Beverage buffs nipped that mandate in the bud, and it was declared unconstitutional in court. Next, in an effort to curb unhealthy diets while funding the city, 75 percent of Berkeley, California voters approved the country’s first soda tax last fall. That tax took effect at the beginning of the new year. It imposed a tax of one cent per ounce on distributors of specified sugar-sweetened beverages such as soda, sports drinks, energy drinks, and sweetened iced teas.

Now the California legislature is on the offensive. California Senate Majority Leader Bill Monning introduced a proposal Wednesday to put warning labels (similar to those already on alcohol and cigarettes) on any beverages containing added sweeteners with at least 75 calories per 12 ounces. According to the Huffington Post, the labels would read:

STATE OF CALIFORNIA SAFETY WARNING: Drinking beverages with added sugar(s) contributes to obesity, diabetes, and tooth decay.

Tooth decay. Obesity. Diabetes. Yeah, seeing that every time I look at a can of coke might make me pick up a bottle of H2O instead. This isn’t the first time Monning has tried guilt his constituents into making healthier choices. Last year, his warning label bill narrowly passed the Senate but died in the Assembly Committee on Health after a strong lobbying effort from the soda industry. However, this time his bill may see fruition.

In a press release Monning states:

Given the rock solid scientific evidence showing the dangers of sugary beverages, the State of California has a responsibility to inform consumers about products proven to be harmful to the public’s health. This bill will give Californians the at-a-glance information they need to make more healthful choices every day.

Some opponents don’t see the necessity of the warning labels when ultimately the decision to drink or not drink is up to the individual. CalBev, the California arm of the American Beverage Association, said in a statement:

Putting government warning labels on more than 500 beverages will do nothing to change personal behaviors or teach people about healthy lifestyles. The last thing California needs is more warning labels.

Soda companies will likely try to block the bill once more rather than face any potential loss in sales, but stopping it yet again may prove harder with the added momentum garnered from Berkeley. I’m putting my bets on California adding these labels to sugary drinks eventually.

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 California Bill Aims to Put Warning Labels on Sugary Drinks appeared first on Law Street.

Conversion therapy is a discredited practice that has been used on those who identify as LGBT. California has banned conversion therapy–even though challenges to the ban made it all the way to the Supreme Court. New Jersey has also outlawed the practice. Now, conversion therapy has hit a bump in another court, albeit a very interesting one. Conversion therapy practices are going to have a very hard time operating in New Jersey after a ruling by the consumer fraud court.

Conversion therapy is based on the idea that homosexuality, or basically anything that is not heterosexuality, is a “disorder” that can be cured. That’s, of course, an antiquated, unscientific, and horrifying view. Homosexuality was removed from the DSM (the guide to classifying psychological disorders) in 1973, but that just means that people can’t be diagnosed with any sort of disorder related to homosexuality.

What the DSM removal didn’t do was prevent anyone from calling homosexuality a disorder–there was no law against that. So conversion therapy practice capitalized on that discrepancy and advertised that they could “cure” anyone who identified as LGBT. In a lawsuit that was decided this week, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) filed a suit against the New Jersey-based Jews Offering New Alternatives for Healing (JONAH). SPLC brought the suit on behalf of four men who claim that they were subjected to awful treatment by JONAH. They report details incidents of abuse, or reenacting past abuse, and role-playing abuse.

The suit was brought under the contention that JONAH advertising classified homosexuality as a disorder, which violates the Consumer Fraud Act. Superior Court Judge Peter F. Bariso Jr. ruled that it did violate the CFA. This is a groundbreaking ruling in an interesting context because it is the first time that an American court of any kind has ruled that homosexuality isn’t a mental disease. Bariso also ruled that in addition to incorrectly characterizing homosexuality as a mental illness, JONAH also defrauded consumers by advertising that they had “success” statistics. He had earlier ruled that JONAH could not bring forward expert witnesses who would argue in favor of conversion therapy, because their theories would be outdated and refuted.

The SPLC applauded Bariso’s decision; David Dinielli, the SPLC’s legal director stated:

For the first time, a court has ruled that it is fraudulent as a matter of law for conversion therapists to tell clients that they have a mental disorder that can be cured. This is the principal lie the conversion therapy industry uses throughout the country to peddle its quackery to vulnerable clients. Gay people don’t need to be cured, and we are thrilled that the court has recognized this.

This judgment was made as part of an ongoing lawsuit in which the plaintiffs are seeking damages for the abuse levied against them. The trial will be this summer; this ruling is just part of preliminary matters. Eventually it will be up to a jury to decide. That being said, these preliminary matters are a great step in the right direction. Hopefully the men wronged by JONAH will get the ruling they deserve.

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 Landmark Ruling Against Gay Conversion Therapy in NJ Court appeared first on Law Street.

Bruce Jenner, the Olympian and former patriarch of the Kardashian/Jenner clan, was involved in a car crash in Malibu, California yesterday. The four-car pile up left one driver dead and a few others with minor injuries. While it seems like the crash itself is a pretty routine, although tragic, reality of driving a car in the United States, there may be more to it than that.

The story is a sad one–a white Lexus stopped short in front of Jenner’s car on a road in Malibu after stopping to avoid another car in front of it. Apparently it was on a part of the road that is difficult to navigate. According to evidence from the scene of the accident, Jenner appeared to slam on the brakes in an attempt to avoid the Lexus; however, he wasn’t able to stop his car in time, and hit the back of the Lexus, pushing it into oncoming traffic. The Lexus was hit by a Hummer, and the resulting impact left the driver of the Lexus dead.

The Sheriff’s department has opened a vehicular manslaughter investigation. The department has said that everyone involved–including presumably, Jenner–is cooperating with the investigation.

There have been many rumors floating around about what exactly happened during the accident. Jenner is claiming that members of the paparazzi were following him; however, the police say that’s simply not true. In response to the paparazzi rumors, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Lt. John Lecrivain said:

That is a very regular occurrence, and (there is) no indication at this time it was a contributing factor of the crash.

If Jenner was trying to get away from the paparazzi, it makes sense that he would be driving too close to the car in front of him, maybe trying to get around the Lexus, or just in a frustrated rush. There’s also the chance that it wasn’t a member of the paparazzi following him, but Jenner just thought the paparazzi was after him. In the age of smartphones and easy-to-access cameras, passersby could have seen Jenner and tried to grab pictures of him. In addition, Jenner has been in the news a lot lately–an amateur paparazzo could have fooled him.

There are also rumors that he may have been using his cell phone at the time of the crash. According to news reports earlier today, the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department started looking into Jenner’s phone records to see if he was texting and driving at the time of the collision; however, even if they do find something, it might be hard to prove that the phone played a factor. It’s difficult to determine if a phone was actually being used at the exact time of the collision.

Whether or not there will be any legal ramifications for Jenner remains to be seen. It’s obviously good that he’s cooperating with the police, but that doesn’t guarantee that he’ll come out scot-free. While it may have been a total accident, if there was anything that Jenner did that contributed to it, he may be on the hook.

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 Will There Be Legal Charges for Bruce Jenner After Car Crash? appeared first on Law Street.

It was probably only a matter of time, but vaccination has officially become a political issue. The particular hot topic at the moment is the vaccination of measles. Despite the fact that the virus had been declared “eliminated” from the United States in 2000, there have been approximately 100 cases recently stemming from outbreaks at Disney theme parks–particularly Disneyland in California. Public health officials are encouraging parents to make sure that their children get vaccinated. But that doesn’t mean that it’s not becoming a political conversation–while some politicians like President Barack Obama have encouraged parents to get their children vaccinated, others, like New Jersey Governor Chris Christie have continued to emphasize that it’s an individual choice to be made by parents.

There are plenty of reasons why children don’t get vaccinated–for an in-depth look, check out our issues brief on the topic–but at the most simplistic level, they can get sorted into two camps. The first group are children whose parents choose not to vaccinate them, whether it be because of religious beliefs, concerns about the side effects of vaccines, or whatever other personal reason. The other group is children who physically can’t be vaccinated, usually because they have some sort of allergy to the vaccines, or some illness or condition that would it make it unsafe to be vaccinated. This also includes children who are too young to receive the vaccine–although that’s obviously only a temporary situation. Basically since the measles vaccine became mainstream, those who actually can’t be vaccinated are protected, because those around them can’t get or spread the disease. Unfortunately, as fewer people are vaccinated, that becomes less true, and the spread of measles becomes a legitimate concern.

That being said, it’s not illegal to not vaccinate your child in most places–some states, such as California, are pretty generous when it comes to granting exceptions. Particularly under fire right now are the loopholes that California allows when it comes to its exemption laws, which do require that parents wishing to forego the vaccines undergo “counseling” and get signatures from healthcare professionals. According to Mercury News, those parameters aren’t actually that strict, because:

Counseling can be given by naturopaths, who practice alternative medicine and typically oppose vaccination.

In addition:

People who oppose vaccination because of religious beliefs can skip counseling, a policy change that Gov. Jerry Brown instituted when he signed the updated law.

This has led to a concerning number people in California being unvaccinated–in 2014, 2.5 percent of kindergartners had vaccine exemptions. That doesn’t sound like that many out of context, but that’s pretty much one unvaccinated kid for every other classroom. Children and teens who are unvaccinated are being sent home from school, and there’s a real worry that measles could continue to spread among the unvaccinated population, much of which is clustered into specific schools and neighborhoods.

The CDC put out a statement a few days ago urging any Americans who aren’t vaccinated to do so as soon as possible. President Barack Obama echoed the CDC’s comments on the Today show. However, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie came under fire for a statement he made in response that said that the government should “balance” government and parent interests when it comes to vaccines, saying:

Mary Pat and I have had our children vaccinated and we think that it’s an important part of being sure we protect their health and the public health. I also understand that parents need to have some measure of choice in things as well, so that’s the balance that the government has to decide.

Christie has since clarified that statement, releasing a statement as follows:

The Governor believes vaccines are an important public health protection and with a disease like measles there is no question kids should be vaccinated. At the same time different states require different degrees of vaccination, which is why he was calling for balance in which ones government should mandate.

Obviously this is a clear example of a big difference between Democrats and Republicans–a federal approach vs. a more state-based one is certainly open for debate. That being said, it’s important that our elected officials stay strong and and stand together in encouraging all Americans who are able to get vaccinated or vaccinate their children to do so. There’s a time for politics, but now, with this topic, isn’t it.

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 Christie, Obama Weigh in on Measles Vaccine appeared first on Law Street.

California legislators are currently mulling legislation that would change the minimum smoking age in the state from 18 to 21. The bill was filed this week in the California Senate, and in addition to raising the minimum age, it would allow the State Department of Public Health to conduct random inspections of cigarette retailers.

This bill was filed by Democratic State Senator Ed Hernandez, who represents a part of Los Angeles County. His bill is supported by many prominent health advocacy organizations, including the American Cancer Society, the Cancer Action Network, and the American Lung Association.

Although the bill would legalize alcohol and cigarettes at the same age for young people–21–the motivations seem to be different. While alcohol-restriction laws are mostly based on developmental health and public safety, the attempt to restrict cigarettes to only those over 21 seems to be more focused on preventing teens from smoking young and getting addicted. President of the California Medical Association Luther Cobb explained “that increasing the age at which people can purchase tobacco from 18 to 21 will help reduce tobacco use in young people, hence reducing the number of preventable diseases.”

Although this would be a great step toward reducing the prevalence of teenagers beginning smoking habits at younger ages, Hernandez realizes that his bill means standing up to the powerful tobacco companies–and their lobbying forces. Hernandez said in a statement:

Tobacco companies know that people are more likely to become addicted to smoking if they start at a young age. We can no longer afford to sit on the sidelines while Big Tobacco markets to our kids and gets another generation of young people hooked on a product that will ultimately kill them.

California isn’t the only state to move toward changing the rules when it comes to smoking. Earlier this month, Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson proposed legislation that would raise the minimum smoking age to 21 in that state as well. Ferguson cited the fact that 90 percent of those who are smokers began the practice in their teens as his reasoning for pushing this bill. In addition to preventing teenagers from smoking, Ferguson pointed out that it would save Washington money in healthcare costs. Two Washington state legislators, Republican Senator Mark Miloscia and Democratic Representative Tina Orwall, stood with Ferguson in a bipartisan effort, although like in California, it’s expected that getting such legislation passed will require a fight against tobacco companies and the politicians they fund.

While Washington and California are certainly getting in on this movement earlier, they aren’t alone. Most states require that residents be 18 to smoke, though some have set the age at 19. Utah, New Jersey, Alabama, and Alaska, as well as the District of Columbia, all have minimum smoking ages of 19.

There are also cities and counties that have made the move. For example, Hawaii County, also known as the “Big Island” of Hawaii, has raised its smoking age to 21, as well as select counties in other states such as Massachusetts. Even more notably, New York City raised its legal smoking age to 21 at the beginning of 2014.

While it will certainly be an uphill battle given the money in Big Tobacco’s coffers, the moves to up the smoking age in California and Washington are encourging. While the percentage of young smokers has fallen dramatically in the last 50-odd years, hopefully bills like these will continue to drop that number even further.

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 California, Washington Aim to Raise Smoking Age to 21 appeared first on Law Street.

For those of you keeping track, Chris Brown has landed himself in legal trouble for at least the third time since his assault of then-girlfriend Rihanna in 2009. This time the R&B singer found himself in court because of a recent performance he gave at the Fiesta Nightclub in San Jose, California. The terms of Brown’s probation require him to get permission before leaving Los Angeles County; however, he didn’t do that, and instead traveled over 300 miles outside of the county for the January 11 show.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge James R. Brandlin revoked Brown’s probation yesterday in light of the unapproved travel, as well as the fact that Brown is still 200 hours short of completing the required community service component of his plea agreement. Probation revocation isn’t necessarily a go-directly-to-jail card; judges have several different options at their disposal in this type of situation, including requiring entry into some type of treatment program or adding additional time onto the length of probation, among other things. In Brown’s case, Brandlin is allowing the singer to remain free at least until March when another hearing in the matter is scheduled.

Brown’s attorney Mark Geragos–known for representing celebrity defendants, including Michael Jackson and notorious wife-killer Scott Peterson–claimed that Brown’s unauthorized travel was not in fact the singer’s fault, but rather that Geragos’ office provided him with bad information on this particular term of his probation.

Brown’s probation dates back to the infamous incident with Rihanna following the Grammys in 2009, when he choked, punched, and bit her. Since his arrest and subsequent plea agreement in that case, Brown has not stayed out of legal trouble. He pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault last year after being arrested for punching a man outside his Washington, DC hotel. He was sentenced to time already served after spending two days in jail; however, because he was already on probation for assaulting Rihanna he received 131 days in jail as a result of the new guilty plea. He was also ordered to enter rehab as a result of this incident, but he was kicked out for violating the center’s rules before finishing the four-month program. He was also charged in a hit-and-run incident in early 2013, but the charges were later dropped.

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 Chris Brown is Back in Court…Again appeared first on Law Street.

On January 12, 2015, the State Bar of California Commission on Access to Justice awarded UCLA School of Law, Southwestern Law School, and Pepperdine University School of Law a one-year grant to establish a modest means incubator. This pilot program will be designed to help new attorneys develop and launch viable practice models for serving modest means clients. This project was one of four chosen out of two dozen applications received by the commission. While the Commission awarded $185,000 total in grants to four projects throughout California, the grant given specifically to these three law school for the modest means incubator totals $45,000.

These three law schools have partnered with local legal aid organizations and the Los Angeles County Law Library in order to develop the Los Angeles County Incubator Consortium. This consortium will prepare 12-15 recent law school graduates–four or five from each of the schools–for working with and providing legal services to low and modest income populations through training in establishing law practices.

According to California Supreme Court Justice and Chairman of the Access Commission’s grant review committee  Goodwin Liu:

This is a wonderful first step in nurturing the next generation of lawyers providing legal services for everyday people with modest means. The unmet legal needs in our communities are well-documented, and this could serve as a model for incubator projects throughout California and nationwide.

The goal of this one-year program is to provide these graduates with the tools for effective solo practice management. These include client communication, case management, and business opportunity development. Additionally, program participants will receive training in various substantive areas of law in exchange for providing 200 hours of pro bono representation. In order to get the most out of this program, participants will receive guidance and mentorship from lawyers and retired judges on legal strategy.

Other members of the program, including Bet Tzedek, Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, Community Legal Services, Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles County, and Public Counsel, hope to develop a successful incubator program that can serve the legal needs of low and modest income populations throughout all of Los Angeles County in the long run.

Overall, this program will be beneficial to everyone involved. It will allow new law school graduates the opportunity to do meaningful work while learning from experienced members of the legal field, and it will give lower income families access to the legal services that they need, but would otherwise be unable to afford. Hopefully, the first year of this modest means incubator will be successful, and the program will continue to provide these services for years to come.

It would also be ideal to see this program used as a framework for incubator programs across the country, and not just in Los Angeles. Those everywhere earning low and modest incomes could benefit from pro bono legal services, as it is unlikely that they would be able to afford them otherwise. Other law schools can model programs after this one, while tailoring their individual programs to the specific needs of the city where they are located. While upfront these programs will cost a significant amount of money, the benefits that they will bring to everyone involved will make them worth it in the long run.

Brittany Alzfan

Brittany Alzfan is a student at the George Washington University majoring in Criminal Justice. She was a member of Law Street’s founding Law School Rankings team during the summer of 2014. Contact Brittany at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Los Angeles Law Schools Create Program to Help Low Income Clients appeared first on Law Street.

The disasters involving the cruise ship Costa Concordia in 2012 and the ferries Norman Atlantic and Sewol in 2014 all have one thing in common: they were recent sea disasters in which lives were lost. While the Costa Concordia and the Sewol disasters were caused by human error and the Norman Atlantic is still under review, there is one question that’s looked at very closely anytime a disaster happens on the high seas: was the ship in full compliance with the  Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS)? Read on to learn a basic understanding of SOLAS, what led to its creation, and what else exists in terms of safety for cruise passengers.

What is SOLAS?

SOLAS is a comprehensive set of rules that guide all cruise ships, cargo ships, oil tankers, and even the small boats that sit in marinas around the world. This document, which has been used for more than 100 years in a few different versions, has been generally regarded as the most important of all international treaties concerning the safety of merchant ships; however, SOLAS in its current state is actually a fairly recent product, given that it just entered into force in 1980.

What existed before SOLAS?

Before SOLAS was conceived, nations had rulemaking bodies pertaining to the high seas, though each nation operated independently of others. One of the better known lawmaking bodies was the British Board of Trade. It maintained standards for British shipping with legal updates until the last decade of the nineteenth century. While the technology had improved and the ships had gotten larger, no updating of the rules was undertaken until SOLAS.

The Ill fated R.M.S. Titanic. Image courtesy of Cliff via Flickr

Why the Change?

The main factor in the change to SOLAS was the disaster in which Royal Mail Steamer (RMS) Titanic sank. To explain why it turned into such a disaster, it’s important to know that the British used a very complex set of rules to determine how many lifeboats a ship needed. This formula is as follows: any ship over 10,000 tons must carry 16 lifeboats with a capacity of 5,500 cubic feet of space plus enough rafts and floats to equal 75 percent of the lifeboat capacity. This was based on the assumption that a human being needed ten feet of cubic space.

Now let’s apply this formula to the Titanic. The Titanic weighed in at a massive 46,000 tons, putting her well over the 10,000 ton mark. This meant that to be certified, she needed at least 16 lifeboats. The Titanic was equipped with 16 lifeboats able to carry 65 people each, meaning that she could carry a total of 1,040 people. Titanic’s owner, the White Star Line, showed that they had done better than minimum requirements by adding four collapsible boats, each able to hold 47 people. That gave the Titanic enough space to rescue 1,178 people.

Now let’s take a look at Titanic’s total passenger number. About 700 people survived the sinking, while roughly 1,500 died. That makes a grand total of approximately 2,200 passengers and crew, meaning that even if the rescue boats were filled to capacity, people were going to die. The only way they could have been saved was if another ship was close enough to the Titanic that she could perform a rescue attempt.

That led to the second problem behind the Titanic’s sinking. According to various reports from survivors, they could make out the lights of a ship on the horizon, and data tells us that was correct. That ship was the liner Californian, and she suffered two misfortunes. The first was that her officers misread Titanic’s visual calls and the second was that at 11:30pm, ten minutes before the Titanic hit the iceberg, the Californian’s only wireless operator, shut down the ship’s wireless communications device and went to bed. This meant that the Californian had no clue what was going on with other ships outside of where officers could see from the ship’s bridge.

SOLAS’ Inception

SOLAS was created as a response to issues from the Titanic disaster. The deaths of more than 1,500 passengers and crew raised many questions about the safety standards that were in force at that time. To answer those questions, delegates from Europe and America met to create worldwide standards. The work of these delegates led to the adoption of the first SOLAS convention on January 20, 1914, although it never entered into force due to World War I.

A second edition came out in 1933 in response to a number of ships that were catching on fire. The results lead to some 60 articles on ship construction, lifesaving equipment, fire prevention, and fire fighting, wireless telegraphy equipment, navigation aids, and rules to prevent collisions.

The third, fourth, and current fifth editions were made in response to changes in the shipping industry. The third edition was designed to update the 1933 convention, which had been overtaken by technical developments. The fourth edition was another update, though it also represented a change in leadership. Up until that point, Great Britain had been taking the leading role in the conventions. After this point the creation of SOLAS and all other international sea-related law was put under control of the United Nations through an agency called the International Maritime Organization (IMO).

The current SOLAS regulations were introduced into force in 1980; however, due to the voting process that was implemented with the law, these regulations are more flexible to changes in shipping than any of the previous conventions. It is also predicted that these regulations will not be replaced by newer standards anytime soon, due to a process known as Tacit Acceptance Procedure (TAP).

How does TAP work?

In short TAP works in the following manner: an amendment shall enter into force on a specified date unless, before that date, objections to the amendment are received from an agreed number of parties. To explain this, here is a hypothetical situation. An amendment has been passed using knowledge learned from the Costa Concordia disaster, stating that cruise ships should not get within 70 feet of any shoreline that is not a port, unless in an emergency situation. The member states of the IMO have a designated period of time to state any objections that they have. IMO currently has 170 member nations and a number needed to stop a motion is agreed upon by the member nations. For this example we will say that only 40 need to state an objection in that amount of time. If that number is reached, the amendment does not pass. If only 30 have issues, the amendment becomes law.

So, who do shipping companies answer to?

Despite the IMO making the rules, they have no direct control over the implementation of them. That role falls on the shoulders of the member governments. Most governments do take this role very seriously and do their best to keep their own companies in line; however, there is another method to keeping another nations’ members in check. Member governments can also put pressure on each other by inspecting foreign ships that visit their ports to ensure that they meet IMO standards. If they do not they can be detained until repairs are carried out. This will cost a company more money than if they do it right in the first place.

Is SOLAS the highest standard in the ship industry?

No, the main objective of the SOLAS Convention is to specify minimum standards for the construction, equipment, and operation of ships; member nations are encouraged to go above and beyond these regulations. Though a prime example is not in service today, there is one example from history that illustrates this point. That ship is the ocean liner S.S. United States, pictured below. Entering into Trans-Atlantic service in 1952, the United States, which was formerly owned by the United States Lines, was built to a high standard of fire proofing, which has yet to be surpassed by any ship. Her designer, William Francis Gibbs, was paranoid about the United States catching on fire due to having witnessed or read about several fires on other ships throughout the course of his life. As a result, the United States was made from materials that would not burn and carried no products made from wood except for a fireproof piano and the breadbox, which was far higher a standard than the SOLAS convention laws in place at the time.

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

Are there other documents that ships have to follow in addition to SOLAS?

The short answer is yes, because in addition to IMO requirements, every ship operates under the maritime laws of a specific country, referred to as the ship’s flag state. For example, the United States does have other documents that American-owned shipping companies are required to follow and are enforced by the United States Coast Guard. The most recent act is the Cruise Vessel Security and Safety Act of 2010. This added several new passenger rights laws that help in cases of theft and rape on board ship. The laws, however, do not give any directions for what to do in the event of a ship disaster. Some European  nations, such as the Netherlands, on the other hand, follow the code of laws laid out in Lloyd’s Register. Despite the differences the unique law sets are designed to work with each other to help further safety on board for passengers and crew.

So, what happened to the recent boat disasters?

Costa Concordia

The Costa Concordia was a cruise ship that ran aground on an undersea hazard after sailing too close to the coast of Giglio Island near Italy, causing a gash in her hull and the ship to tip over. The Costa Concordia herself did not suffer from any SOLAS violations, other than the debatable issue of crew training; however, what is clear is that this disaster, which claimed 32 lives, was due to human error on the part of her captain. The video below explains how the Costa Concordia was wrecked.

Sewol

The Sewol was a South Korean Ferry that capsized and sank, taking the lives of 300 people with it. This disaster could have been prevented if the Sewol had not undergone an illegal redesign and was not carrying significantly more cargo than it was designed to accommodate. In addition, the Sewol’s owner skimped on safety features to save money.

Conclusion

SOLAS is a set of laws to help to keep people safe on ships. Through international cooperation these laws are kept up to date and nations are tasked with making sure that everyone is kept safe while traveling on the high seas. While disasters can still happen under these laws–often due to human error–SOLAS seeks to help ensure that there will never be another Titanic disaster situation.

Resources

Primary

IMO: SOLAS

IMO: History of SOLAS

IMO: List of Conventions

US Congress: Cruise Vessel Safety and Security Act of 2010

UN: International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 

Additional

David Allen Butler: Unsinkable

Titanic Facts: Titanic Lifeboats 

SS United States: Conservancy

Daily Mail: Titanic Needed 50% More Lifeboats

Chris Schultz

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

The post Safety on the High Seas: Who Makes the Rules? appeared first on Law Street.

Every year, eager, bright-eyed students enter law school with the hopes that in about three years time, they’ll be able to call themselves lawyers. Going to law school seems like a natural and crucial step for anyone that hopes to have success in the legal field. However, this was not the path that Marcos Camacho took–he became a lawyer in 1986 without taking a single law school course.

Camacho earned entry to the bar in California, one of the only states that allows students to “read law” and study as an apprentice under a veteran attorney. The program is called the Law Office Study Program, which is a three-year program run by the State Bar of California. At its core, the program involves a great deal of reading and self-teaching. In addition, students gain valuable hands-on experience as paralegals working on real cases. Rather than sitting in class every day and taking exams, students in this program learn the law through practice. While this concept may seem unconventional, it is actually very similar to the way that Abraham Lincoln became a lawyer.

Now, I’m sure that many of you are thinking the same thing right now, “a way to become a lawyer without paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for law school tuition? Sign me up!” However, it’s not that simple. This type of program requires extremely self-motivated individuals, because at the end of the day, you need to pass the bar exam whether you went to law school or not. There are no exams or deadlines–there is nothing to keep you on track or reinforce the material you are reading.

Camacho had the self-motivation to make the most out of this program, and passed the California bar exam on his first try. In 2002, he went on to become general counsel for the United Farm Workers Union, which at the time was headed by the late Cesar Chavez. Then in 2009, Camacho went into private practice in Bakersfield.

Just this past Christmas Eve, California Governor Jerry Brown called Camacho to inform him that he had been appointed to a judgeship on the Kern County Superior Court. Camacho considers this appointment to be a “tremendous honor,” and stated that he was “floored” when the governor called him and said that he had been appointed. According to the newly-appointed judge, he considered applying for a judgeship back in 2011 but decided against it when his wife of 20 years, Eva, was diagnosed with cancer. Unfortunately, Eva, who Camacho considered to be his biggest supporter, passed away the following year.

So while “reading law” worked for Camacho, how practical is this path? Are we likely to see people today foregoing law school and still becoming successful? At the moment, the only states to even offer such programs are Virginia, Vermont, Washington, and California. New York, Maine, and Wyoming offer programs that combine apprenticeships with law school. This is one of the several reasons that this path remains underpopulated. According to the National Conference of Bar Examiners, only 60 of the 83,986 people who took state or multi-state bar exams last year were law office readers.

In addition, finding someone that is willing to take responsibility for educating a new lawyer is no easy task. A major obstacle in choosing this path is that none of the states that offer this program provide any guidance or resources to help prospective law readers locate a supervising laywer that is willing to take someone on for an apprenticeship. All of the work must be done by the prospective student.

Additionally, bar passage rates for law readers are poor. Only 17 law readers passed last year, or 28 percent of the law readers that took the exam. When compared to the 73 percent of students that passed after graduating from institutions recognized by the American Bar Association, that does not scream success. Robert E. Glenn, who is the president of the Virginia Board of Bar Examiners describes these programs as “a cruel hoax.” He said of apprenticeships–“it’s such a waste of time for someone to spend three years in this program but not have anything at the end.”

However, there are upsides to these “law reader” programs. The first, and most obvious, is the lack of debt for students. While many law schools are making efforts to lower their tuition, law school is still a huge investment. Many today are questioning the value of a three-year legal education when considering the cost. An apprenticeship is an alternative that makes a legal education affordable and available to a more diverse population, which could be beneficial to underserved communities.

Without loans to pay back, lawyers won’t have to chase positions in big-name firms with big paychecks. Instead, they could focus on working in nonprofit, environmental, and community law. According to Janelle Orsi, the co-founder of the Sustainable Economies Law Center in California, “attorneys trained in this way will be able to be average people.”

While this may be appealing to some, it is not for everyone. Considering how competitive the legal field is today, passing the bar and securing a job at a top law firm seem to be on the forefronts of most future-lawyer’s minds. As a result, it is unlikely that we will see a rise in “legal readers” anytime soon.

Brittany Alzfan

Brittany Alzfan is a student at the George Washington University majoring in Criminal Justice. She was a member of Law Street’s founding Law School Rankings team during the summer of 2014. Contact Brittany at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Can You Become a Lawyer Without Going to Law School? appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all! Hope you’re having a great holiday season!

California Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill in September to remove plastic bags from checkout counters at grocery stores and supermarkets like Wal-Mart and Target starting summer 2015, and 2016 at convenience stores and pharmacies.

Many businesses don’t agree with this ban and have started to collect signatures in order to put a referendum on the ballot in November 2016. American Progressive Bag Alliance, a trade group for plastic bag manufacturing, claims to be turning in about 800,000 signatures. The group really only needs 500,000 valid signatures to qualify for the referendum but it could take several weeks for the counties to determine if all of the signatures are valid.

There are already about 100 counties in California that ban plastic bags, but it is not required for the whole state. It’s no surprise that San Francisco and Los Angeles are two of the cities that already have this ban.

I like the idea of banning plastic bags; it helps the environment. But I don’t like the idea that if you forget to bring your own cloth bags with you then you either have to purchase new ones or you pay ten cents per paper bag. That can start to add up after a while. When I go to the grocery store I go to get things to last me for a week or two, not just a couple of days. I tend to walk out with a ton of bags at once, not just two or three. I don’t imagine everyone shops for just a day or two in advance; grocery shopping takes time out of an already busy day for most.

The majority of Californians support the ban on plastic bags, but why not allow those people who do not support it to still use plastic without a fee? For everyone who likes the ban, continue using your cloth bags and doing what you do!

Allison Dawson

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

The post Californians Fighting Against Plastic Bag Ban appeared first on Law Street.

The 2014 midterm elections weren’t the only reason to pay attention to political news this year. Keep scrolling to check Law Street’s top 10 political stories of 2014.

1. BridgeGate: 7 Reasons to Watch the Chris Christie Scandal

This winter, revelations about Governor Chris Christie’s involvement in the shutting down of the George Washington Bridge came to light. The whole scandal raised a lot of questions about Christie’s ability to be a contender on the national stage, quite possibly as the 2016 Republican Presidential nominee. Whether or not Christie chooses to run, there will be a lot of eyes on his handling of “Bridgegate.”

2. Marijuana Legalization: Let’s Be Blunt 

The states of Colorado and Washington voted to legalize recreational marijuana in 2012, and the sale and use started moving into the public sphere earlier this year. However, given that Colorado and Washington were the first two states to do so, many were left with questions about how exactly the legalization worked, what affects it could have on society, and how the Washington and Colorado laws would interact with federal law.

3. Drone Rules: Are They Enough to Protect Civilians?

Drones have evolved from being a futuristic fantasy to real part of American military strategy. However, like any new innovation, the legality is developed after the technology itself. In early 2014, the Obama Administration’s drone strike policies were a hot topic of conversation, especially after the disclosures regarding a December 2013 strike in Yemen.

4. Hobby Lobby: They Want to Remove the Corporate Veil — and Your Birth Control Coverage

Image courtesy of [Annabelle Shemer via Flickr]

Another hot political topic in 2014 was the Supreme Court case that’s widely become known as Hobby Lobby. It questioned whether or not the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) required employers to provide contraception for their employees, regardless of the company’s religious beliefs. Concerns about the case extended far beyond whether or not those particular employees would get contraceptive coverage, as it could have set a dangerous precedent for all sorts of discriminatory policies.

5. Obamacare Is Here to Stay! But It Still Kind of Sucks

Image courtesy of [Daniel Borman via Flickr]

The much maligned Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) finally went into effect this year, with the first open enrollment period. The act provided healthcare for many who previously didn’t have it, but that doesn’t mean that it was anywhere close to perfect. Partisan bickering over the law remained steady, but the Affordable Care Act can certainly be considered a step in the right direction.

6. Stuck in McAllen: Jose Vargas and the Texas Immigration Crisis

This summer, the arrival of undocumented youth at the Texas border sparked political debates, some outrage, and acts of compassion. One of the biggest advocates for these young people was a man named Jose Vargas, a prominent undocumented immigrant who works as a journalist and advocate. When Vargas traveled to McAllen, Texas, one of the towns most heavily affected by the arrival of the children, he was briefly detained and then released–cementing his status as one of the lucky few.

7. Debating Minimum Wage in America

As the cost of living in the United States continues to creep upward, and the American economy rebounds from one of the worst economic crises in recent history, many people still struggle to meet ends meet. Minimum wage jobs are an important sector of our economy–but what exactly do we mean when we say minimum wage? It’s an important political question that has yet to find an exact answer.

8. “Gay Panic” Defense Outlawed in California

For some time, the “gay panic” defense served as a way to claim a sort of self-defense in regards to hate crimes. While it doesn’t have a strong track record of actually succeeding, there were no laws specifically forbidding it. This fall, California became the first state to actually ban the “gay panic” defense, an important step in the fight against homophobia.

9. Campaign Finance: Free Speech or Unfair Influence?

In the wake of Citizens United and other landmark court decisions, our rules about campaign finance have seen some extreme changes in the last few years. These changes will have a huge impact on the 2016 Presidential elections, and pretty much every election moving forward, unless more changes happen. Given the topsy-turvy world that is the debate over campaign finance, anything is possible.

10. Just Get Ready For It: Another Clinton in the White House

We’ve all barely recovered from 2012, not to mention this year’s midterms, but speculation about 2016 has, predictably, already begun. Probably the Democratic front-runner at this point, Hillary Clinton has a lot of support. There are many reasons to get on the Hills bandwagon–including feminism, foreign policy, and her awesome facial expressions.

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 ICYMI: Top 10 Political Stories of 2014 appeared first on Law Street.

If you live in a major metropolitan area, or honestly even a small one, there’s a very decent chance that you’ll see protests today. You probably saw some last night as well. For any of you who have been living under a particularly comfortable and sheltered rock lately, the protests focus on the cases of two black men killed by police officers. Michael Brown, an 18 year old in Ferguson, Missouri, was shot and killed by Officer Darren Wilson on August 9, 2014. On November 24 it was announced that a grand jury had decided not to indict Wilson. Next, there’s the case of Eric Garner in New York, who was killed by Officer Daniel Pantaleo on July 17, 2014. Pantaleo was filmed putting Garner in a chokehold, even though that tactic is banned by the New York Police Department.

Here’s an example of the “hands up don’t shoot” gesture being used in protest:

"Hands up, dont shoot!!" #NYC #FergusonDecision #justice pic.twitter.com/OwMfX72v4H

— Arnaud Montagard (@arnaudmontagard) November 26, 2014

And Garner’s last words, which have become a rallying cry:

I almost can't read this. So painful. So ugly. #ICantBreathe pic.twitter.com/KVVbK6Gf0A

— Tessa Francis (@tessafrancis) December 4, 2014

Those are the roots of the protests, the catalysts. But the protests aren’t just about these two men. They’re about the greater issue–or more appropriately issues. I’m not trying to make an exhaustive list here but these protests are about the national conversations we need to have on racism, racial profiling, police violence, police militarization, etc, etc, etc. The protests are about a broken system–the deaths of Brown and Garner are tragic symptoms of this system.

The protests have been taking place all over the United States. New York, where Garner was killed, was especially busy. There was a “die-in” at Grand Central Station yesterday evening; a “die-in” is when protesters lie on the ground, silently.

Hundreds of people staged a "die-in" at Grand Central in NYC after #EricGarner decision. http://t.co/che6tRNyli pic.twitter.com/8cNl2DsEUw

— Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) December 4, 2014

Protesters marched through New York City and temporarily blocked traffic at major transportation hubs, including the Lincoln Tunnel. One of the protesters explained her motivations, saying:

Every 28 hours a young black man is killed by police. Only 2 percent of police are indicted. Those numbers are crazy. It’s telling young black men that their lives don’t matter and their deaths can be passed over.

Protests were also very active in our nation’s capital. Last night, protesters flooded Dupont Circle and stopped traffic, as well as at some other locations in Northwest Washington. Today there will be a protest over by the Department of Justice at 4:00pm.

Protesters blocking DC intersection to protest non-indictment in #Garner case. Protest is peaceful. Cops standing by pic.twitter.com/j0JSd9B62O

— Athena Jones (@AthenaCNN) December 4, 2014

Cities all over the country look like this, and I’m going to leave these pictures and videos here, because I think they say more than words ever could:

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Philly protest at Tree Lighting event at City Hall #FergusonPHL #BlackLivesMatter #HandsUpDontShoot: http://t.co/FpDJKfBylC #EricGarner

— Daryel Jay (@DaryelJay) December 4, 2014

Oakland, California:

#EricGarner protest in Oakland. #NoJusticeNoPeace #BlackLivesMatter pic.twitter.com/0yxNmnJQQM

— Diana Saverin (@dianasaverin) December 4, 2014

Seattle, Washington

Seattle protests no indictment for NYPD officer whose chokehold led to death of #EricGarner >> http://t.co/nXEihNYg4p pic.twitter.com/I6PZktVbge

— KIRO 7 (@KIRO7Seattle) December 4, 2014

New York, New York

Garner widow on husband's killer: 'No I, don't accept his apologies’ http://t.co/NLncfA5Mft pic.twitter.com/pbkP6TCoVA

— Chicago Tribune (@chicagotribune) December 4, 2014

Those are faces of change. Faces tired of the way that our system has been failing. Faces that have had enough. Faces that deserve to be, finally, listened to.

If you’re interested in joining a protest, here’s where they’re happening today. They aren’t going to end anytime soon, because this crisis clearly isn’t ending anytime soon either.

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 #HandsUpDontShoot #ICantBreathe: Americans Continue Protests appeared first on Law Street.

The FBI’s recent crime statistics reveal a notable downward trend in violent crime across the United States. While most cities’s crime rates have followed suit, Stockton, California and Atlanta are two standouts that showed significant drops in violent crime. According to the FBI, Atlanta’s violent crime decreased by more than 11 percent last year, and in Stockton that decrease was nearly 22 percent.

Last year, Stockton and Atlanta had two of the highest violent crime rates per 100,000 people in the country, ranking fifth and ninth on Law Street’s list of Most Dangerous Cities Over 200,000. But when the FBI released the most recent data, both cities dropped out of the list of Top 10 Most Dangerous Cities. This begs the question: how did these cities manage to decrease their crime levels well beyond the national average?

Stockton

In 2012, the city of Stockton filed the largest municipal bankruptcy in history, prior to Detroit’s filing in 2013. In the years leading up to its filing, Stockton implemented steep budget cuts to try and get its financial house in order. The police department faced some of the largest cuts, which led to a significant drop in the number of officers on the beat. In 2008, the department budgeted for 441 officers, but by 2012 the total number fell to 331. That year, the violent crime rate reached an 18-year high, with 1,547 violent crimes per 100,000 people. The department’s decreasing budget and growing pension concerns among officers made it difficult both to hire new officers and to retain existing ones.

The chart below shows the change in Stockton’s violent crime rate by category.

The decrease last year brought Stockton’s violent crime rate to the lowest level that the city has seen since 1999. The primary focus of the Stockton Police Department has been to crack down on gangs and illegal guns while helping prevent youth from turning to crime and violence. An important aspect of the police department’s goal is the use of Operation Ceasefire, which reaches out to at-risk youth to prevent gun violence and provide alternatives to joining gangs. Last year Stockton began implementing the “Marshall Plan” for reducing crime, which is a community-wide effort. Eric Jones, Stockton’s Chief of Police, wants the city to prioritize gun violence in order to reduce crime. Jones told KCRA Sacramento, “First and foremost my focus is on guns and gangs, and the Ceasefire model, which is the stop the violence model, I think is extremely important.”

Stockton also reached a significant milestone in its number of police officers last year, as expanding its police force remains a key goal for the city. When the city hired its 346th police officer, the department became eligible for a federal cops grant that will fund the addition of 17 more officers.

Although preliminary statistics indicate that 2014 will have higher crime levels than last year, it will likely remain well below the peak in 2012. As the Stockton police force begins to stabilize after years of budget cuts, things may finally be looking up for the city and its violent crime rate.

Atlanta

The violent crime rate in Atlanta decreased for the second year in a row according to the most recent FBI statistics. A 16.6 percent decrease in the number of aggravated assaults was the largest driver of last year’s improvement. Atlanta’s recent violent crime reductions accompany an 18 percent decline in total crime since 2009, which fits into an even larger trend since the early 90s.

Atlanta’s violent crime rate peaked in 1993, which saw 4,041 violent crimes per 100,000 people. Last year, the city’s violent crime rate was 1,223 crimes per 100,000, reflecting a decline of nearly 70 percent. With the exception of recent increases in 2010 and 2011, violent crime in Atlanta has been trending downward for the last 20 years.

The chart below shows how Atlanta’s violent crime rate decreased over time.

Recent improvements to Atlanta’s police force and crime prevention methods may help continue the city’s downward trend in the future. Last year, the Atlanta police department reached a longstanding milestone of hiring 2,000 police officers. In 1977 Bill Campbell, the mayor at the time, announced the goal of “2,000 by 2000,” and it has since been an objective for all subsequent mayors.

Atlanta’s police department has also been making notable changes in the way it uses technology. From the addition of 1,400 surveillance cameras to the use of new crime statistics software, the police department has been working to improve the way it fights crime. One of the most notable improvements has been the use of“PredPol” software, which predicts areas where crimes are likely to occur next. The police department began testing the new program on two zones last summer, and after the results were deemed successful department-wide implementation began in November 2013. Mayor Kasim Reed praised the new program in a Wall Street Journal op-ed. He noted Atlanta’s recent success in decreasing violent crime and argued, “In the future, police will perfect the use of predictive analytics to thwart crimes before they occur.”

Kevin Rizzo

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

The post Stockton and Atlanta Drop Out of Most Dangerous Cities Top 10 appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marisa Mostek

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

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

Federal Drug Enforcement Agents (DEA) made unannounced visits on Sunday to multiple National Football League teams as part of a continuing investigation. Agents investigated the San Francisco 49ers, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, and Seattle Seahawks. This investigation was fueled by  a class action lawsuit brought against the NFL last summer.

In May 2014, the NFL painkiller lawsuit was brought by approximately 1,300 former players claiming in essence that the team doctors “intentionally, recklessly and negligently created and maintained a culture of drug misuse, substituting players’ health for profit.” Specifically, the plaintiffs claim that since 1969, team doctors have been supplying medications in ways that constituted a dangerous misuse, and that the doctors fraudulently concealed the dangers and side effects from players in order to keep them on the field. They believe that the NFL placed priority of profit before the health of the players. Plaintiffs claim that they have sustained severe injuries from this medical misfeasance, including but not limited to heart attacks, kidney failures, and addiction. The NFL has requested that the federal judge dismiss the suit.

Among other defenses, the NFL is likely to assert that the plaintiffs are barred by the statute of limitations, which is a legal device to ensure that claims are brought in an efficient matter. Specifically, these statutes set the maximum period in which a plaintiff can wait before filing a lawsuit. If the lawsuit is not brought within the time frame then the right to make a claim on that matter is lost. In some instances, however, a statute of limitations can be extended, or tolled, based on a delay in discovery of the injury. This would enable the plaintiff to have an extended period beyond the statute of limitations to bring such action upon the defendants once injury is discovered, and to prevent unjust enrichment.

In California, the statute of limitations for a personal injury suit is two years. In other words, from the time the cause of action occurred–in this case the date of injury–the plaintiffs’ have two years to bring forth a lawsuit. The NFL will likely argue that the statute of limitations has expired, and bar Plaintiffs from bringing the lawsuit. Specifically, it would argue that some of the specific actions brought within the complaint date back to 1969, which far exceeds the statute of limitations.

Under the delayed discovery rule, the statute of limitations deadline is tolled and time does not start to run until the Plaintiffs’ discover, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the injuries or harm and that it was caused by the wrongdoing of the defendants. The plaintiffs’ have argued just that. In their amended complaint, they claim that the statute of limitations should be tolled, on grounds that they had not discovered, and had no good reason to know of their injuries until recently. Specifically, they argue that league doctors did not reveal the names of medications, and there were poor records regarding dispensing medication. Thus, such acts constituted concealment, which ultimately caused the plaintiffs’ injuries.

The NFL is clearly under a lot of heat at the moment. It still has the NFL Concussion Litigation going on, and the DEA’s visits last Sunday only added fuel to the fire with the current lawsuit. This case is still being heard in the northern district of California on the ruling of NFL’s motion to dismiss, but my gut tells me that there will be no dismissal. If that is the case, it will be interesting to see how the statute of limitations arguments play out, and more importantly, what actions are implemented within the NFL.

Melissa Klafter

Melissa Klafter has a JD from St. John’s University School of Law and plans to pursue a career in Personal Injury Law. You can find her binge-watching her favorite TV shows, rooting for the Wisconsin Badgers, and playing with her kitty, Phoebe. Contact Melissa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NFL Painkiller Class Action Lawsuit is a Toss Up Between League and Players appeared first on Law Street.

Justin Bieber can’t seem to stop getting into legal trouble whether in the U.S. or abroad. Bieber now has to show his face in an Argentinean court to provide answers to some assault allegation, or face arrest. Now Interpol has gotten involved, and it seems like Bieber is caught in an interesting Catch-22.

The case started on November 9, 2013, when Bieber was partying in a nightclub in Buenos Aires called “Ink.” A paparazzo named Diego Pesoa was there and attempted to take pictures of the singer. Bieber’s bodyguards were not having that, and apparently chased and beat Pesoa, who is now claiming that his injuries were bad enough to require hospital attention. Bieber is being accused of sending the body guards to go beat Pesoa up.

Bieber has obviously since left Argentina, but the Argentinean courts are demanding that he provide information about what happened. Now, an investigative judge, Magistrate Facundo Cubas, has demanded that Bieber provide a statement about what happened, although no charges have been filed yet.

Bieber now has 60 days to return to Argentina and give his testimony. Interpol, the Argentinean branch of the international police force, is tasked with locating Bieber and notifying him of Cubas’s request.

This creates a weird choice for the singer though–if he does choose to go back and give his testimony, and it results in charges being filed against him,  and he is found guilty, he could spend up to a year in prison. If he doesn’t show up, an international arrest warrant will be issued.

This is by no means the first brush with the law for Bieber, nor is my money on it being the last. Consider the time that he was deposed as a result of a battery suit brought against him by a photographer. Said deposition led to one of the most spectacularly asshole-like performances of all time, chronicled in this excellent mashup video created by TMZ:

I have to say, my favorite part is right at the beginning when he pretends to not know what Australia is, but he also calls the lawyer deposing him “Katie Couric,” which is pretty good. He also appears to mix up the words “instrumental” and “detrimental.”

There was also a case earlier this year when a neighbor in Calabasas, California accused Bieber of egging their house. The neighbor claimed that the incident led to damage to the house to the tune of thousands of dollars. Bieber ending up pleading no contest to the charge of misdemeanor vandalism, and was put on probation, ordered to pay restitution, do community service, and go to an anger management course. He has also been caught drinking while driving, and plead guilty to a DUI.

Overall, Bieber is pretty much the living embodiment of what can happen when a young person gets way too rich way too young and never really has to deal with any consequences of their actions. Hopefully this Argentinean suit, as unlikely as it may be, will provide some real consequences for the singer.

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 Justin Bieber? His Legal Troubles Continue appeared first on Law Street.