To boost recruitment, the Secret Service is altering its drug policy: now, applicants who have used marijuana at some point in their past can still be considered for a position. An initiative by newly appointed director Randolph Alles, who President Donald Trump appointed to the post at the end of April, the policy change is designed to infuse the agency with a couple thousand more officers. The policy went into effect last month.

“We need more people,” Alles said in a press conference last Thursday. “The mission has changed.” Pointing to threats like international terrorism, groups like al Qaeda and Islamic State, and homegrown actors, he added: “It’s more dynamic and way more dangerous than it has been in years past.”

According to its drug policy statement, the Secret Service “does not condone any prior unlawful drug activity by applicants, but it is recognized that some otherwise qualified applicants may have used or otherwise interacted with illegal drugs at some point in their past.” When examining an applicant’s eligibility, “any prior illegal drug activity along with various considerations associated with that activity will be weighed in that adjudication process.” the statement says.

The agency’s prior policy disqualified candidates who had used marijuana more than a certain number of times at some point in their pasts. The new policy, designed to be a “whole-person concept,” Alles said, will instead look at the time between an applicant’s last use of marijuana, and his or her application date.

For instance, if an applicant was 24-years-old or younger when he or she last used or purchased marijuana, they must wait at least a year before applying to the agency. That standard rises as the age of last use or purchase rises.

Alles, who previously led air and marine missions with Customs and and Border Protections, also underlined a non-terrorism related reality that is requiring the agency to bolster its ranks: the round-the-clock protection of Trump and his family, as well as his collection of properties, including Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach and Trump Tower in Manhattan.

“I think between that and the fact that he has a larger family, that’s just more stress on the organization,” he said.

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 New Secret Service Director Loosens Agency’s Drug Policy appeared first on Law Street.

In a rare show of bipartisanship, the Senate managed to pass a bill that would create new block grants for states and government agencies to fund prevention, education, and treatment for opioid addiction. These efforts come as drug overdose deaths reached the highest level in history in 2014, surpassing traffic and gun-related deaths. Opioid overdoses, which involve drugs like prescription painkillers and heroin, make up the majority of drug overdoses and were involved in 28,647 deaths in 2014 based on data from the CDC.

The increase in drug deaths has been driven by a rise in painkiller and heroin overdoses, which were the cause of six in 10 overdose deaths in 2014. Opioid-related deaths have been steadily increasing for over a decade, going up 200 percent since 2000. Heroin overdoses alone tripled between 2010 and 2014.

In light of the epidemic, Congress may now be taking important steps to prevent these deaths. The Comprehensive Addition Recovery Act (CARA) passed the Senate on Thursday with a 94-1 vote. The bill aims to help fund education, treatment, and prevention programs to combat overdose deaths. Senators Sheldon Whitehouse and Rob Portman have done much of the work to push the bill through the Senate and make drug addiction a national priority.

A central goal of CARA is to increase the availability of Naloxone, a life-saving medication that can counter the effects of an overdose. Expanding law enforcement and first responders’ access to Naloxone can have significant effects on efforts to combat overdoses. Based on the CDC’s analysis of Naloxone training programs, between 1996 and 2010 about 53,000 people were trained to use the drug, resulting in over 10,000 overdose reversals.

The bill also prioritizes aid to states with laws that reduce liability for people administering Naloxone, which may encourage states to adopt similar laws in order to encourage responders to use the drug without fear of a lawsuit in the event of complications.

Provisions in CARA also seek to reduce misuse and overprescription of painkillers, which is a large contributor to drug overdoses. The bill would create a task force to issue new standards for painkiller prescription as well as implement safeguards to ensure proper disposal of unused medications to prevent children from accessing them.

One of the most important aspects of the bill is its focus on treatment. Not only would it help increase funding for evidence-based treatment programs, it would also reinforce the idea that drug addiction should be viewed as a disease that should be treated rather than punished. By funding treatment alternatives to incarceration, the bill could help shift drug policy toward efforts that reduce dependency rather than merely penalizing it.

While CARA has broad-based bipartisan support, it still has some challenges. It initially faced difficulty in the Senate after New Hampshire Senator Jeanne Shaheen attempted to add a Democratic-backed amendment calling for $600 million in additional emergency funding. The Republican leadership in the Senate holds that sufficient funding already exists for the legislation. The bill will also need to pass the House, where an identical piece of legislation is currently in committee. Relative to most bills, CARA has a decent chance of passing as it has been well received by both parties and the White House, but election year politics could end up derailing these efforts.

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 Senate Passes Bill to Fight Opioid Addiction and Abuse appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

Anneliese Mahoney

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

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

Last Friday, July 25, 2014, three Central American leaders  — Presidents Juan Olando Hernádez of Honduras, Otto Pérez Molina of Guatemala, and Salvador Sánchez Cerén of El Salvador — convened at the White House to discuss with President Obama the recent wave of Central American immigrants, specifically unaccompanied minors, to the United States.

“Washington must understand that if you have a Central America with violence because of the drug traffic crime, a Central America without opportunities, without growth in the economy, it is going to always be a problem for the United States,” said President Hernández of Honduras. The root causes, Hernández went on, are not America’s lax border polices, but rather the demand for illegal drugs in North America, which fuels violence in Central America, causing migrants to flee their homes. In a joint statement on Friday, President Obama and the three Central American leaders pledged to address the “underlying causes of immigration by reducing criminal activity and promoting greater social and economic opportunity.”

What this estimation overlooks, though, are the perspectives of the immigrants themselves. What causes them to submit to a perilous exodus, vulnerable to a harsh desert climate, drug violence, and personal injury crossing rivers and fences, all at the likelihood of being detained by U.S. border security, and possibly being sent back? Drug violence may very well be a cause for the flight of immigrants, but I am skeptical to hear this from leaders of governments who have vested interests in the economic exploitation, and repression of their citizens. Rather, we should listen to the people.

In Central America, graffiti is a voice for a voiceless people: the agrarian peasants and the urban poor. Graffiti is an alternative medium of communication that broadcasts messages that corporate media outlets such as radio and television fail to incorporate. It is an open forum of dissent, writ large on the side of a government building, or across a freight car, traveling throughout the region. More importantly, graffiti is a vantage point from which we can discern the perspective of Central American immigrants, and the pressures behind their flight.

Ciudad de Juárez, the capital of Oaxaca, Mexico, six hundred miles from the Guatemalan border, is home to the Assembly of Revolutionary Artists of Oaxaca (ASARO). Comprised of multiple graffiti crews and independent artists, ASARO was forged in the summer 2006 following the violent state-oppression of teachers demanding better pay and working conditions. Forty-five hundred federal police forcibly removed the teachers from the streets, injuring 92 protesters and killing 17, including an American news correspondent. The brutal government crackdown on protests mobilized disparate activist groups against the government, which they saw as a common cause of their plights, and ASARO emerged as a visual amplification of their dissent through the streets of Ciudad de Juárez.

“Arte Del Pueblo y Para el Pueblo” (Art of the People for the People) courtesy of ian m via Flickr

What is more interesting, though, in regard to immigration to the United States, is the political motive and content of the ASARO graffiti. In their images and slogans, we find the root cause of strife afflicting the people in Mexico and Central America, and ultimately the systemic causes for the massive waves of immigration to the U.S. over the last five years.

“The assembly of revolutionary artists arises from the need to reject and transcend authoritarian forms of governance and institutional, cultural, and societal structures, which have been characterized as discriminatory for seeking to impose a single version of reality and morality[.]” – ASARO Manifesto

In Oaxaca, where 80.3 percent of the population lack sanitation services, street lighting, piped water, and paved roads, ASARO illuminated institutional prejudices against ethnicity, class, and sex, keeping eight out ten people in extreme poverty. Their graffiti critiqued the violence of the Mexican government in the 2006 uprising, but also demanded  equal rights for disenfranchised groups like farm workers, indigenous people, and women, as well as exposing the hypocrisies and corruption of the ruling elite. Slogans such as “Todo el Poder al Pueblo. Colonos en Pie de Lucha” (All the Power to the People. Neighbors on our feet to fight!) incited reflection and fiery debates on issues ranging from the privatization of public goods, to gender equality, democratic participate, and Indigenous rights. Moreover, images of the Oaxacan governor labeled “Cynic, Thief, Autocrat, Repressor, Murders,” and “End Fascism in Mexico!” rallied protesters against the government.

Courtesy of natarén via Flickr

“Todo el poder al pueblo. Colonos en lucha” (All Power to the people. Neighbors, on their feet for the fight). Courtesy of nataren via Flickr.

In addition to social struggles in Mexico, ASARO’s political graffiti illustrate issues that affect Central America broadly, such as the economic exploitation of natural resources and labor by transnational corporations, as well as documenting the physical and emotional trauma of immigration. ASARO’s political graffiti critiqued the extraction of oil and minerals from Oaxacan land, which is exported by the Mexican government at an exorbitant profit, without benefit to the Oaxacan people. One ASARO poster featuring a barefoot peasant tilling the land read, “La Tierra es de queen la Trabaja” (The earth belongs to those who work it); a wood-cut block print depicted Uncle Sam under an eagle drinking from an oil can, kicking miniature figures with guns, who represent the Mexican people.

These critiques of foreign exploitation not only speak to conditions in Mexico and Central America, but suggest a system of global colonization by transnational corporations. A block print called Body Parts on Railroad (2010) documents the perils of immigration. Body parts litter train tracks leading to the U.S.: a leg labeled “Salvador,” a finger labeled “Mexico,” a hand “Honduras,” and a head “Guatemala.” Similarly, another block print depicts small animals standing at the opening of a sewer drain like those used by some immigrants to enter the U.S., that runs under a border fence replete with police and an American flag.

In all, the political graffiti of Oaxaca, Mexico demonstrates that there is much more to the immigration debate than just the quips of politicians. In order to understand the root cause of the recent wave of unaccompanied child immigrants, and in order to address this crisis adequately, discussions must include the perspectives of the immigrants themselves. Drug violence is not the only cause for immigration from Central America; but rather a host of systemic issues force immigrants to travel to the U.S. Government corruption and economic exploitation are, perhaps, the most intolerable conditions for the people, as evidenced by the ASARO graffiti. Only from the oppressed can we fully understand their oppression; graffiti is the voice of the subaltern.

 —
Ryan D. Purcell (@RyanDPurcell) holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York.

 Featured image courtesy of [Fabricator77 via Flickr]

Ryan Purcell

Ryan D. Purcell holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York. Contact Ryan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Graffiti Describes the Struggle of Immigrants and Undocumented Minors appeared first on Law Street.

Mallory Loyola became the first pregnant woman to be arrested and charged with assault on her fetus under Tennessee’s new controversial law criminalizing the illegal use of drugs during pregnancy. Loyola was arrested July 8, 2014, one week after the law went into effect. The 26-year-old tested positive for methamphetamine (not technically a narcotic) before being released on bail. If convicted Loyola could be incarcerated for up to a year.

According to the new law, “a woman may be prosecuted for assault for the illegal use of a narcotic drug while pregnant, if her child is born addicted to or harmed by the narcotic drug.” If a woman does not enroll in a treatment program for the narcotic, she would be charged. According to RH Reality Check, a reproductive health news group, “the law was promoted by prosecutors against the recommendations of medical professionals.” Governor Bill Haslam says that the legislation is intended to encourage women to go to treatment centers; however, the effect of the bill may be different from its intended purpose.

Outcomes of Criminalizing Pregnancy

Imani Gandy of RH Reality Check suggests that Black women will be targeted by the law’s enforcement at a disproportionate rate. Based on ugly stereotypes with roots in Reagan-era “crack baby” rhetoric, more scrutiny would be placed on pregnant Black women, Gandy says. Whether or not these prejudices are acted on, there is a structural problem for disadvantaged, minority women.

State Senator Mike Bell explained that in his rural district “there’s no treatment facility for these women there, and it would be a substantial drive for a woman caught in one of these situations to go to an approved treatment facility. Looking at the map of the state, there are several areas where this is going to be a problem.” Healthy and Free Tennessee notes that the state has 177 addiction treatment facilities; yet only two “provide prenatal care on site and allow older children to stay with their mothers, and only 19 provide any addiction care for pregnant women.” For impoverished women, accessing and enrolling in treatment centers will be extremely difficult, if not impossible.

There is a discrepancy between the intention of the bill, as suggested by Haslam, and the likely effect of the bill. While it may have been passed to incentivize enrollment in treatment programs, it will likely result in the incarceration of women who cannot access those treatment centers. Because Tennessee did not expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, the costs of such treatment may be overwhelming. Women who know that they cannot access addiction services will be discouraged from seeking help, lest they be charged with assault and have their children taken away.

Other Approaches 

In response to prenatal substance abuse, Tennessee passed the Safe Harbor Act about a year ago. The 2013 legislation, also signed by Haslam, was designed to ensure that women can access treatment centers without fear of incarceration or having their children removed. The more recent bill not only negates the benefits of the Safe Harbor Act, but regresses Tennessee even further.

This heavy-handed approach to prenatal substance abuse hints at another discrepancy: addiction is viewed by some as a disease, and by others as a crime. While the state and the governor embrace the latter with the passage and enforcement of this law, the federal government has taken a different approach.

Michael Botticelli, acting director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, spoke about the federal government’s broad strategy in response to the recent Tennessee law: “Under the Obama administration, we’ve really tried to reframe drug policy not as a crime but as a public health-related issue, and that our response on the national level is that we not criminalize addiction.” The politics of considering substance abuse a criminal offense rather than a disease is amplified by the politics of federal-state relationships.

Support for the Law

The Tennessee Medical Association was supportive of the Safe Harbor Act, yet its president, Dr. Doug Springer, recently spoke out in favor of the new law. “The misdemeanor means it can be expunged by a judge, it means that the [Department of Human Services] doesn’t take your baby away. It has nothing to do with an application for a job because it doesn’t interfere with your job prospects, and that’s really important,” says Dr. Springer. Obviously, if a mother is incarcerated, she and her baby could not be together. But if the law makes it easy for the offense to be expunged, incarcerated mothers may not have to go through as many obstacles as other ex-convicts.

Because the law is so new, Mallory Loyola’s outcome will set precedent. The law is set to expire after two years, at which time Tennessee will evaluate its effects.

—

Jake Ephros (@JakeEphros)

Featured image courtesy of [Greyerbaby via Pixabay]

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post First Pregnant Woman Arrested Under Controversial Tennessee Law appeared first on Law Street.