The Mile-High City is on the cusp of reaching another milestone in its legal marijuana framework, as Denver voters appear to have voted to approve a measure that would allow pot consumption in approved public spaces. A week after Election Day, 53 percent of counted ballots support Initiative 300. Over 30,000 ballots still need to be counted, but The Denver Post said it would take a “supermajority” of opposition votes to keep the measure from passing.

Initiative 300 would “permit a business or a person with evidence of support of an eligible neighborhood association or business improvement district to allow the consumption of marijuana (“cannabis”) in a designated consumption area,” such as a bar or cafe. The four-year pilot program would stipulate that “consumption areas” would require the backing of neighborhood groups or a business improvement district, which would also draft the conditions the bar, cafe, or other space must operate under.

“We are truly grateful to the people of Denver for approving this sensible measure to allow social cannabis use in the city,” Kayvan Khalatbari, the leader of an Initiative 300-backing group said in a statement. “This is a victory for cannabis consumers who, like alcohol consumers, simply want the option to enjoy cannabis in social settings.”

Since Colorado legalized recreational marijuana in 2012, and the first state-licensed shops opened in early 2014, consumers have dealt with a hampering paradox. People 21 and over could purchase and possess pot in public, but could only smoke or consume it in their private residences, with the approval of a landowner. Proponents hope the measure will open a door for Denver residents and tourists to smoke pot or eat edibles in public without persecution. Currently, the only places outside of private dwellings that allow cannabis consumption are private cannabis clubs. Those are few in number and very exclusive.

Not everyone is on board with widening the scope of Denver’s weed legislation. In an editorial for The Denver Post in October, Rachel O’Bryan, campaign manager for Protect Denver’s Atmosphere: Vote No on 300, wrote: “Initiative 300 won’t end public marijuana smoking. Rather, it will spread the problem to all parts of Denver by permitting outdoor marijuana smoking on patios and rooftops of potentially any business. This is simply too much.”

Over 160,000 Denver residents disagree, and as final ballots are counted, it seems like Colorado’s largest city will continue to pave the way for marijuana legalization in the U.S.

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 Denver Residents Could Soon Be Able to Use Pot in Some Public Spaces appeared first on Law Street.

What is Duffgate 2016?

Misappropriation or mistake? Hilary Duff and her new boyfriend Jason Walsh wandered around town this weekend to take part in Halloween festivities. But when this picture hit the stands…it kind of sucked out all the fun.

Hillary Duff made her first public appearance with boyfriend Jason Walsh, but many questioned their costume choices. https://t.co/p2HpdDGt2Z pic.twitter.com/l0msDyRKIm

— EntertainmentTonight (@etnow) October 30, 2016

What could have been an innocent costume choice is not so innocent anymore because of these implications…

why did hillary duff and her boyfriend think it was a okay to dress up as a pilgrim and a Native American

— yesica (@yfjgtr) October 30, 2016

But are people really being too harsh?

Hillary Duff joins the ranks of T Swift and Amy Schumer in the “most tone deaf to privilege and racism” competition.

— Nat 8 Days Purser (@NatPurser) October 30, 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: October 31, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

In an attempt to get American cities thinking about the future of transportation, the federal government initiated a contest last December. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) launched the Smart City Challenge, which asked cities to come up with new and innovative transportation solutions, with particular emphasis on self-driving vehicles. The competition drew 78 different cities (or teams of cities) as applicants, and US Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx just announced seven finalists who will move on to the next stage of the competition.

The cities who made the finals are: Austin, Texas; Columbus, Ohio; Denver, Colorado; Kansas City, Missouri; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Portland, Oregon; and San Francisco, California. Although there were originally only supposed to be five finalists, these seven were chosen because of the strengths of their proposals.

Each city that made it to this level in the competition will receive $100,000 to further develop their plans, as well as DOT help. The overall winner could get up $50 million to implement their innovative transportation solution. The other 71 cities that entered the contest will also most likely get some federal funding help with their transportation systems as well.

There were a wide range of different proposals offered; according to the Washington Post’s Michael Laris:

The plans are ambitious and varied, from Columbus’s push to build a network of on-demand driverless shuttles to Portland’s plan to connect electric vehicle charging stations to its streetlight system.

The contest was inspired by the fact that a 2015 DOT study found that many American cities are unprepared for imminent transportation trends, including increased urbanization, denser neighborhoods, and an older population. According to a statement Foxx gave to Gizmodo:

For a long time these cities have felt very powerless seeing congestion and travel times going up and haven’t had the resources to aggressively tackle those things. We’re saying, if you’ve got a creative idea to answer those challenges, let’s see how we can help.

It will be interesting to see what kind of plans the seven finalist cities are able to implement. They could be the first steps in widespread transportation innovation in the U.S.

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 Smart City Challenge Finalists Announced appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

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

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

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

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

Allison Dawson

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

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

This generation is supposed to be apathetic, image-obsessed, and glued to their phones, right? Well some young people in Denver are proving that perception wrong. Students from Jefferson County left class today in protest of possible changes to their history curriculum. No one is exactly sure quite how many students skipped school to help with the protest, but estimates put the figure at around 700. The protest was short lived, ending around 10:15am, because the students did want to show that despite disagreements about the curriculum, they do respect their education.

While the exact changes that the curriculum would make appear to be unclear, we do know that there would be an intense focus on the positive aspects of American life, while downplaying some of the more negative periods of our nation’s history. According to the Denver Post:

Community members are angry about an evaluation-based system for awarding raises to educators and a proposed curriculum committee that would call for promoting ‘positive aspects’ of the United States and its heritage and avoiding material that would encourage or condone ‘civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law.’

The curriculum would also “promote citizenship, patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free-market system, respect for authority and respect for individual rights.”

So, the students are creating quite a meta-protest. They’re protesting the removal of conversations about civil disobedience by creating civil disobedience, albeit peaceful.

Revisionist history is tempting, and many countries, states, and groups are susceptible to downplaying negative aspects of the past. That’s tough to do though, because its important we learn from history. Furthermore, downplaying protests that have happened in the past de-legitimizes the rights of so many Americans that were won through our ability to stand together and lobby our government. Freedom of Assembly is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights for a reason, and our history shouldn’t ignore that.

This debate in Denver resembles many happening all across the country. What and how we teach our children is a constant argument. School districts are constantly arguing over the use of certain textbooks — like the case of the Texas history books earlier this year that critics were concerned put too large a focus on creationism. A system of charter schools in Texas was using books that question the age of the earth, links autism and vaccines, and claim that feminism makes women turn to the government to fill the place of a “surrogate husband.” The Denver case in particular seems to be a reaction to the Common Core stands that have drawn ire, particularly from conservatives, around the country. But the answer isn’t to rewrite history.

There’s a silver lining to this story though, and that’s the fact that those high schoolers recognize that there’s something foul afoot. As a country that consistently lags behind its peers in math, science, and pretty much everything else education-wise, getting kids interested in learning is way more than half the battle. While the Jefferson County school board’s attempt to mess with the curriculum is disappointing, something weirdly good is happening there. Because I can almost guarantee you that 20 years from now those kids aren’t going to remember what particular historical events they learned about in class. They’re going to remember the time they banded together and stood up for what was right, which is the perfect lesson.

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 Denver Students Walk Out to Protest County’s Attempt to Re-Write History appeared first on Law Street.

Stories of vicious dog attacks capture the imagination of concerned citizens and instill fear in communities. While dog-bite attacks are relatively rare, the viciousness of some attacks is enough to cause anyone concern. Localities turn to Breed-Specific Legislation (BSL) as a way to regulate aggressive dogs and prevent attacks. Here’s what you need to know about BSL, why groups increasingly oppose it, and what other alternatives exist to be proactive about dog attacks.

What Are Breed-Specific Laws?

Breed-Specific Legislation is a blanket term that refers to any type of law designed to regulate certain breeds with the goal of reducing dog attacks. These laws are typically instituted by city and municipal governments. In its most drastic form, BSL includes a complete ban on a specific type of dog. The laws typically target “pitbull” types and other dog breed that are considered aggressive. Pit bulls aren’t a specific breed, but are a set of dogs that can include American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, and other breed mixes. Bans in cities may also include bulldogs, rottweilers, and wolf-hybrids.

Other BSL has lesser requirements, such as mandatory spaying or neutering, muzzling, confinement, a minimum insurance, or preventing the chaining of dogs. Most BSL requires owners of dangerous breeds to carry liability insurance with coverage up to $500,000. If an attack does occur, victims can then receive medical payment. This also acts as a type of ban, since owners unable to afford such exorbitant insurance would not be allowed to own targeted breeds.

What is the reason for BSL?

The basis for these laws can be traced to numerous studies concluding pit bulls were implicated in a disproportionate number of attacks. A 20-year study (1978-1998) by the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) showed that pit bulls and rottweilers were involved in 67 percent of dog-bite related fatalities during that time period. Numerous studies reveal similar conclusions. Some of the grizzly statistics can be seen below:

BSL advocates point to features specific to certain dogs that make them prone to harmful attacks. Pit bulls derive their genes from “the Butcher’s Dog,” which was originally bred for bull-baiting before being used for dogfighting. The dogs were bred to be muscular, aggressive, and agile. Reports claim these dogs are unique since they give no warning signs before attacking and will not retreat from an attack even when considerable pain is inflicted. These dogs will attack deep muscles and then hold on with their teeth and shake, causing tissues to rip.

Attacks by aggressive dogs can pose a large threat to communities and are too expensive of an issue to ignore. The AVMA estimates hospital expenses for dog-bite related emergency visits to be $102.4 million. A 2010 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality study showed that the number of Americans hospitalized for dog bites almost doubled over a 15-year period. The study also concluded the average cost of a dog-bite related hospital stay was $18,200, approximately 50 percent higher than the average injury-related hospital stay. In 2012, more than 27,000 people underwent reconstructive surgery as a result of being bitten by dogs.

What arguments are made against BSL?

Numerous organizations, including the American Bar Association, American Humane Association, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publicly oppose BSL. Many opponents refer to the laws as “Breed Discriminatory Laws.”  In 2013 President Obama even issued an official response to the controversial laws:

“We don’t support breed-specific legislation — research shows that bans on certain types of dogs are largely ineffective and often a waste of public resources.”

Listen to a discussion from the American Kennel Club below:

State bans

Seventeen states ban legislation against specific types of dogs, and other states are considering similar legislation. An interesting case was made in Denver after Colorado approved legislation banning BSL. Denver passed its pit bull ban in 1989, repealed the ban in 2004 to comply with state law, but then reinstated the ban in 2005. The city’s challenge to the state’s BSL prohibition was ultimately ruled in Denver’s favor as a home-rule exception. The court ruled a state ban on BSL could not infringe on Denver’s right to enforce ordinances on matters of local concern. Most court cases have upheld the laws because localities enjoy widespread police powers. As long as cities can prove a BSL is related to improving public safety, it will be upheld. Even following Denver’s BSL, the county has dog bite rates many times higher than other Colorado counties without similar laws.

Profiling

Many take issue with BSL because it is difficult to predict a dog’s breed or behavior based on outward appearance. According to the American Pet Products Association, 31 million of 73 million pet dogs are classified by their owners as “mutts,” which makes them hard to classify as a specific breed. Laws banning “pit bulls” target a loosely-defined class of dogs or dogs with a similar appearance. In many localities, the decision of whether a dog is one of the prohibited breeds is left to a city manager or police who lack sufficient expertise in the matter. Other times animal control or a veterinarian will make the decision. The only certain way to tell a dog’s breed is by way of DNA tests, which can be very expensive. This means BSL is often difficult to effectively enforce.

Expense

The laws are typically enforced by animal control agencies on tight budgets. Counties rack up costs from enforcement, kenneling, euthanasia, and litigation. In 2008, Omaha proposed a BSL that would cost half a million dollars to enforce. A Baltimore auditor estimated it would cost $750,000 to enforce a breed-specific ban.

Nature v. Nurture

Owners of these “dangerous” breeds contend any dog can become vicious if it is not treated properly. Dog owners who do not appropriately care for their dog, abuse it, or treat it as a guard dog rather than a pet make the dog more prone to attacks. In contrast, a loving family training a pit bull would raise a well-behaved dog with no aggression problems.

Unintended effects

Others believe BSL has more dangerous effects. Owners intent on keeping the outlawed breeds may keep their dogs in hiding, meaning the dogs do not get proper socialization or visits to the veterinarian. Opponents also claim these laws encourage ownership by the most irresponsible people, who own pit bulls as a status symbol to show disregard for the law. If there is a ban on pit bulls or rottweilers, owners can still have other unregulated aggressive breeds. One dog owner created a video against BSL below:

Have these laws been effective?

One highly cited case study comes from Prince George’s County in Maryland, as it was one of the few places to examine BSL effectiveness. The county of more than 900,000 people banned pit bulls in 1996. Any pit bulls found in the county after the ban were either put down or sent to live with families in other areas. A 2003 task force found the 15-year pit bull ban cost the county more than $250,000 each year, with no measurable effect on safety. The cost to the county to confiscate and euthanize a single pit-bull is roughly $68,000. In fiscal year 2001-2002, the county spent more than half a million dollars enforcing the ban. Due to ineffectiveness, the task force recommended repealing the ban and found that other, non-breed-specific laws already were in place to cover vicious animals, leash laws, and other public health and safety concerns.

In 2000, the CDC looked at 20 years of data regarding dog bites and fatalities in the United States. The CDC concluded that fatal attacks represent only a very small proportion of total dog bite injuries, and that it’s impossible to calculate the bite rates of specific breeds. No evidence supports the idea that a specific type of dog is more prone to attacks. Furthermore, breed specific laws have not succeeded in reducing overall bite-related injuries in any area where they were implemented.

The U.S. Military also has contentious BSL. The Marine Corps, Army, and Air Force all ban large dogs with a predisposition for aggressive behavior. Dogs such as pit bulls and rottweilers are not allowed to live at base housing, and families wishing to have these dogs may be moved off base. Many feel this treatment is unfair to those who are fighting for their country.

Are there other alternatives to BSL?

Organizations who oppose BSL advocate a number of solutions they feel are more effective. The CDC proposes a community-based approach. This approach includes:

• Public dialogue identifying community issues
• Developing an advisory council
• Monitoring bite response
• Data reporting
• Public education campaign
• Businesses addressing prevention techniques
• Effectively conveying information through local media

The CDC reports that aggression in dogs is tied to a number of factors beyond breed. These factors include sex, socialization, heredity, and treatment. More than 70 percent of all dog bite cases involve unneutered male dogs. An unneutered male dog is 2.6 times more likely to bite than is a neutered dog. Eighty-four percent of bite cases involved dogs who were maintained by reckless owners — the dogs were abused or neglected, not humanely controlled or allowed to interact with children unsupervised. Seventy-eight percent of the dogs in bite cases were not kept as pets but as guard, breeding, or yard dogs.

The statistics show that rather than outlawing specific breeds, campaigns to prevent dog-biting should focus on creating caring owners and encouraging the spaying and neutering of dogs. Further, children must be educated to understand how to play with dogs and when to leave them alone. Dogs themselves may not be dangerous, but a bad situation can make any dog more prone to aggressive behavior. While pit bulls and other “aggressive” breeds can pose threats to a community, outlawing these dogs through BSL is not a surefire solution.

Resources

Primary

ASPCA: Breed Specific Legislation

DogsBite.org: Military Breed-Specific Policies

DogsBite.org: BSL by State

Additional

TIME: Obama Blasts Legislation Targeting Specific Dog Breeds

StopBSL.org: Expense of BSL

Animal Legal Defense Fund: Challenging Denver’s Pit Bull Ban

American Veterinary Medical Association: Community Approach to Dog Bite Prevention

Animal Legal Defense Fund: Pit Bull Bans: The State of Breed-Specific Legislation

National Canine Research Council: Denver’s Breed-Specific Legislation: Brutal, Costly, and Ineffective

Animal Law Coalition: Denver’s Holocaust: Call For an End to the Pit Bull Ban

United Kennel Club: Punish the Deeds, Not the Breeds

Alexandra Stembaugh

Alexandra Stembaugh graduated from the University of Notre Dame studying Economics and English. She plans to go on to law school in the future. Her interests include economic policy, criminal justice, and political dramas. Contact Alexandra at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bullying Pit Bulls: Do Breed-Specific Laws Work? appeared first on Law Street.