While the United States remains locked in an impasse between state and federal law, Canada looks to pass nationwide marijuana legalization this year and begin recreational sales in 2018. How did Canada get to this point? The path to legalization in Canada has been a haphazard one, driven largely by legal decisions. To make the recent Canadian cannabis developments easier to understand, below are eight key court cases and regulations that shaped the current landscape:

1996: Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (“CDSA”)

Provided for limited exemptions for the medical use of cannabis in Section 56, but legal access to dried marijuana for medical purposes was not provided until 1999.

2000: R. v. Parker (Ontario Court of Appeals)

Section 4 of the CDSA was found to be unconstitutional because prohibiting cannabis possession forced people to choose between liberty and health. The medical marijuana exemption in place was found to be unconstitutional because of the Minister of Health’s discretionary power.

2001: Marihuana for Medical Access Regulations (“MMAR”)

R. v. Parker led to the MMAR, which enabled individuals with the practitioner authorization to access dried marijuana for medical purposes by producing their own marijuana plants, designating someone to produce for them, or purchasing Health Canada supply.

April 1, 2014: Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations (“MMPR”)

The MMPR replaced the MMAR, which was officially repealed on March 31, 2014. For the first time in Canada, the new system allowed for the production and distribution of cannabis for medical purposes, but still contained restrictions on certain types of marijuana.

June 2015: R. v. Smith (Supreme Court of Canada)

The Court decided the MMPR’s restrictions were unconstitutional and that individuals with a medical need have the right to use and make other cannabis products. To eliminate uncertainty, in July 2015 the Minister of Health issued section 56 class exemptions under the CDSA to allow licensed producers to produce and sell cannabis oil and fresh marijuana buds and leaves in addition to dried marijuana, and to allow authorized users to possess and alter different forms of cannabis.

February 2016: Allard v. Canada

A Canadian federal court found that restricting an individual’s right to home grow and requiring individuals to get their marijuana only from licensed producers violated liberty and security rights protected by section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court found that individuals who require marijuana for medical purposes did not have “reasonable access” under the MMPR’s restrictions. Instead of striking certain portions of the MMPR or reinstating the MMAR, the court called for a new legislative framework for accessing medical marijuana.

August 24, 2016: Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations (“ACMPR”)

The ACMPR, similar to the MMPR, provided for commercial production and distribution of quality-controlled fresh or dried marijuana or cannabis oil or starting materials (i.e., marijuana seeds and plants) and allowed for limited production by individuals. The two types of licenses to be aware of are: (1) Dealers License, issued under the Narcotic Control Regulations and permits activities with cannabis, including analytic testing and (2) Licensed Producers who are authorized to produce and sell cannabis under the ACMPR.

April 13, 2017: The Cannabis Act, Bill C-45 (the “Cannabis Act”)

On April 13, 2017, the Cannabis Act was introduced. If passed, it will provide Canadians with legal access to recreational cannabis nationwide. On June 8, 2017, after the second reading of the bill, the Act passed the House at a vote of 200 for and 76 against. The bill has now been referred to the Standing Committee on Health. The bill is widely expected to pass Parliament and take effect in the summer of 2018.

Canada is already a worldwide leader in the growing cannabis industry, with last year’s sales reaching over one billion Canadian dollars. With the passage of the Cannabis Act, annual sales are expected to increase to between five and eight billion in the first-year post-recreational legalization. And the total estimated annual economic impact could be as high as $23 billion. Given the size of the new market, anyone with an interest in cannabis should pay special attention to Canada and the eight key events listed above.

Amber D. Lengacher also contributed to this post.

Charlie Alovisetti

Charles Alovisetti is a senior associate and co-chair of the corporate department at Vicente Sederberg LLC. Prior to joining Vicente Sederberg, Charlie worked as an associate in the New York offices of Latham & Watkins and Goodwin where he focused on representing private equity sponsors and their portfolio companies, as well as public companies, in a range of corporate transactions, including mergers, stock and asset acquisitions and divestitures, growth equity investments, venture capital investments, and debt financings. He is a graduate of McGill University and Columbia Law School. Charlie is admitted to practice in Colorado and New York.

The post The Path to Cannabis in Canada: Eight Crucial Events appeared first on Law Street.

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.

Dennis Meehan, owner of Summit Medical Marijuana, offered the marijuana as a gift to adults over the age of 21. Citizens would meet Meehan at the park and get two trash bags to explore the city and collect any garbage they found.

If residents collected a full bag of trash from around the city they could bring it back and pick up their gifted weed. The exchange rate was one full trash bag for one gram of marijuana. Gifting weed to others became legal in Maine after recreational marijuana was legalized in January. Across municipalities with legalized weed, gifting weed has become a common method to circumvent rules against selling the product on the street.

For more information on the status of legalization in Maine check out our “State of Weed” map here. 

He was inspired to put the event together by a similar weed exchange community event he heard about in Colorado. “[I heard of it in] Colorado – there was a town that did this,” Meehan told the local NBC affiliate. “They had a great response to this. So I was hoping to do the same thing in Maine.”

Meehan advertised the event on the dispensary’s Facebook page. After seeing its success, Meehan hopes to expand the program and make it statewide. While there are certainly some business interests at play here, Meehan also said that he wants to promote the “life-changing” aspects of marijuana, according to the Associated Press.

The nascent marijuana industry has been, so far, considered a success. One important aspect is the massive tax influxes that states that have legalized it have seen. For example, Colorado pulled in $200 million in just tax revenue in 2016, according to MarketWatch. Meehan’s actions prove that there are even more interactive ways for the marijuana industry to engage with the community.

For an industry that faces plenty of criticism, working with local communities could have a huge impact on public perception and how quickly critics shift their views. Now, it’s time to see if other marijuana businesses engage their communities in a similar way to Meehan and his Colorado inspiration.

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 Maine Dispensary Trades Weed for Trash in Community Clean Up Effort 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.

I’m a little late for the gathering of the parade, but can still smell it from at least two blocks away. The cloudy New York sky matches the fumes from the joints as the 17th annual NYC Cannabis Parade marches south on Broadway toward Union Square. An enormous hot air balloon in the shape of a lit joint is carried along to the chanting of classic rock songs, with the lyrics replaced by one word–‘marijuana’.

The group in the parade was as diverse as New York itself–people of all ages, ethnicities and backgrounds, people wearing all green, people in one-pieces with weed patterns, and one group wearing t-shirts saying “Law enforcement for legalization.”

Image courtesy of Evershed Mattingly

“I’m in the long-term care field, and I see way too many people in jail for just using,” said Jeanette McDonald, one of the t-shirt wearers. She’s not a user herself, but is all for the medical use of marijuana for pain management. “To arrest them doesn’t make any sense, go after the terrorists instead.”

The medical use of weed to ease pain seemed to be the most important aspect for many people at the event. Beata Kosmik, dressed in a green creation with a crown of tulle on her head, is in a band that performs to raise awareness about the medical benefits of marijuana. She’s an eco educator–campaigning for a natural, green way of life. Her granddaughter has Dravet syndrome, a kind of infant epilepsy that can be alleviated by a drug containing cannabis but is still in the research stage here in the U.S., so she lives in London.

Image courtesy of Evershed Mattingly

Steven, who wore American Flag overalls and carried a Pride flag, told me he wants decriminalization of all drugs. “It’s corrupt–all these people that are incarcerated for using, it breaks up families, people go to jail for this. Weed doesn’t kill.” Steven also pointed out that so many Afro-American youths get locked up for something that now is considered cool by young white hipsters.

Marijuana was legalized for medical use in New York almost a year ago, and the law came into effect in January. But among the states that allow some kind of marijuana use, it’s one of the most restrictive, and it’s really hard for patients to gain access to legal pot. Classic smoking is actually still forbidden. But if the participants of the Cannabis Parade get their way, that will soon be changed.

To sum up the situation, Steven said: “America has bad fucking karma. The roller coaster is going downhill, and now it’s time to deal with it.”

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 The Fight for Total Legalization Continues at the NYC Cannabis Parade appeared first on Law Street.

When the topic of prostitution comes up in conversation, most typically do not consider it a potential career option. Instead, we tend to think of prostitutes as young girls who are exploited and forced into prostitution by older men. The victims and villains are clearly cast. This situation is all too common and many young women around the world– and yes, even here in the United States–are kept as sex slaves.

But there are also prostitutes who choose sex work as a profession: people, and not just women, who were not forced into becoming prostitutes but chose that as their career. And then there are people in the middle. People who were coerced into prostitution by economic circumstances but not outright force. Individuals who may want to leave but have no other options to fall back on and no social services to help them.

All three of these sets of circumstances need to be dealt with. Victims who have been enslaved, people who see prostitution as their vocation, and those in the middle. Policy initiatives and laws that attempt to deal with the sex trade need to come up with a way to address the needs of these three communities. Which policies provide the best supports for all three kinds of prostitution? Is there a way to eliminate abuse while empowering free choice?

Models for Prostitution

There are several different models to choose from in crafting legal and social policy to deal with prostitution. One method is to criminalize both the purchase and sale of sex. This approach is based on the notion that individuals on both sides of the issue are criminals and immoral actors. This view of prostitution, a Victorian morality model, is the least popular. People still often have a moral problem with prostitution but generally view the relationship as one of exploitation, rejecting the view that a prostitute is just as morally guilty as a pimp.

The more popular view of prostitution is that the purchaser and the facilitator (typically called a trafficker or a pimp) are the criminals and the person being sold for sex is the victim. This innocent victim model is the view that underlies efforts to either partially or completely decriminalize prostitution while promoting “end demand” initiatives. Those who hold this view want facilitators and purchasers to be punished in a variety of ways but would not punish prostitutes themselves.

This view is encapsulated by the following clip of a “20/20” documentary on prostitution. The prostitutes interviewed are portrayed as women who were victimized and ones we should be sympathetic toward.

The third model of prostitution is one that acknowledges the existence of non-victim prostitutes, an entrepreneur model, which therefore advocates for the legalization of prostitution. This model is the most controversial because it would place prostitution on the same moral footing as other “vice” crimes, such as gambling. This would mean viewing it as something we may not personally like, but isn’t quite immoral enough to justify banning entirely. The moral stigma against prostitution is so heavily ingrained in our culture that most people reject the argument like, ‘it’s okay, it’s just like cigarettes really,’ on their face. But, the argument that prostitution isn’t as morally bad as cigarettes would not get much traction either.

Models for Policy

Recent efforts have been made in the United States to decriminalize prostitution and to push new “end demand” initiatives. Most of these efforts are actually efforts to decriminalize the sale of sex, as was done in Sweden, but keep trafficking or purchasing as punishable offenses. “End demand” initiatives seek to increase the penalties for clients who buy sex in an effort to make its purchase so costly and difficult that clients stop engaging in it. The hope is if clients do not feel that they can safely purchase sex, the industry will starve. As the demand for these services decreases, the incentive for traffickers and pimps to exploit sex workers will also dissipate.

End demand policies use a variety of instruments to make purchasing sex more difficult or costly. Fines, jail time, rehabilitation for solicitors, and good old-fashioned shaming like publishing offenders names in newspapers have all been used. But there isn’t any clear and convincing evidence that these methods actually do reduce the demand for sex work. On the contrary, there is some evidence that it may be making conditions for sex workers worse. While ending demand may free a sex worker from fear of prosecution, it keeps the pressure on clients, which may actually drive the market for sex even further into the shadows.

In Illinois, advocates of these initiatives, such as the Chicago Alliance Against Sexual Exploitation, go further in their attempts to end the demand for prostitution by trying to instill in young men the belief that buying sex is wrong. These campaigns are part of a larger sex-education plan that seeks to make commercial sex stigmatic not only for the prostitute but for potential clients as well. Legal changes are an important component, but cultural changes are also emphasized.

The biggest criticism of these efforts is that they do not help sex workers. Making it more difficult for clients to purchase sex not only affects the buyer but also the seller. One drawback for the sex worker is less time and transparency to negotiate. Because the rationale behind these policies is based on a model of prostitution involving a pimp-victim relationship, the end demand efforts don’t want to facilitate better discussions between clients and prostitutes. Some sex workers argue that these laws make their conditions less safe.

The other option is to legalize prostitution entirely. The following interview with Maggie McNeill, author of the blog The Honest Courtesan, does an excellent job of summarizing the viewpoint of those who argue that some voluntarily engage in prostitution and think it should be legalized.

The argument in favor of legalizing prostitution is best viewed as an argument in favor of the freedom to contract. It removes the moral stigma from prostitution found in both the Victorian and the end demand models and replaces them with a model of prostitution that includes those who freely choose it as a career. The entrepreneur model would argue that if a person wants to sell a sex act they should be free to do so–just as they are free to sell other personal services. There is also evidence in places where prostitution was legalized, as we saw in Rhode Island from 2003 to 2009, that the conditions for sex workers improve and violent crime is reduced.

This view does not deny that there are people, particularly women and children, who are enslaved as prostitutes. There are significant issues with the rape and abuse of prostitutes globally and in the United States, but supporters of the entrepreneurial model argue that the legal framework for combatting these abuses already exists. For example, to form a contract to commission a piece of artwork the purchaser and the buyer both need to be able to consent. Those who can’t consent because of age or mental incapacity can’t form that contract for art. Similarly, they wouldn’t be able to form that contract to sell or buy sex.

But for those concerned about violence and exploitation, to say that contract laws are enough of a tool to protect children from rape and trauma is insufficient. In fact, the most compelling criticism of this approach is that it does not do enough to combat violence. Other approaches may over-correct by disallowing voluntary prostitution, but that may be a better alternative for those whose primary goal is to end sexual violence.

The Murky Middle

There is perhaps a middle ground between the view of prostitution as pure victimhood and prostitution as the empowered entrepreneur. It’s a model that acknowledges the murky middle in which people become sex workers out of economic necessity, not through enslavement, but who may still need additional protections that are not present in other service industries should also be explored.

In contract law, a contract that is entered into because the defendant coerced the plaintiff with the threat of economic harm can be voided under the doctrine of “economic duress.” It’s a form duress that isn’t quite duress, yet may still be grounds to void a contract. However, it isn’t a very popular doctrine because it is so vague.

The court can grant relief to the plaintiff if they can show evidence of coercion or intimidation. This is not saying that the person is incapable of entering into any contract or that they would always be the victim in a contractual exchange. Rather, it merely acknowledges that in this particular contract his or her consent was not freely given and some restitution should be made.

Similarly, a middle-ground approach would acknowledge that there are contracts for sex that are entered into where both parties provide full consent. Those contracts, like the vast majority of contracts that we engage in every day with varying degrees of formality, would not need to be challenged. They may need to be regulated or taxed, like any other business, but they are not inherently void because of their subject matter.

This approach would also acknowledge that many of these contracts may be the product of coercion. In those cases, legal remedies to prosecute crimes such as rape, kidnapping, and theft should be employed. If they aren’t yet tough enough to bring violent criminals to justice, or not written in such a way to include crimes against sex workers, then they should be strengthened. Societal remedies and safety nets also need to be expanded so that sex workers who were victims of crimes can get some help, and so those who are at risk of becoming the victims of sexual slavery are prevented from becoming victims. Any change in policy, whatever the moral model it is based on, needs to include more tools for law enforcement to combat sex slavery. But supporting a vigorous effort to punish traffickers and slave traders isn’t tied to one set of policies for prostitution.

A great example of a combination approach to prostitution is how New Zealand treated the issue in 2003. According to the New Zealand’s Prostitute Collective, the sex workers of New Zealand gave input on the new laws in a push to reform local laws and policies. The results are a mixed bag of protections for sex workers, which also presuppose that there is a unique ethical concern with selling sex. For example, a sex worker cannot be compelled to have sex with a particular client and cannot have pay reduced for refusing sex with a particular client.

The law also adds in protections for sex workers under the age of 18 while borrowing from the end demand legislation ethos. It is a criminal offense for a manager or brothel owner to hire someone under the age of 18 for sex, or to pay for their services as a client. But it isn’t illegal to sell sex if you are under 18, meaning that punishment rests solely on the purchasers and traffickers.

Conclusion

The debate over how to deal with prostitution is an ongoing policy problem for everyone concerned about human trafficking. It also is an example of how moral sentiments and the way they can clash with modern interpretations of personal freedom can impact policy decisions.

Our culture makes intense moral judgments about sex workers. When we refer to someone as a “whore” it usually is not a comment on that person’s actual profession but meant as an insult. These moral judgments are unlikely to change in the near future and certainly won’t change just because a law or policy changes. But changes in policy can have a profound impact on the lives and safety of our citizens as evidenced by the dramatic change in the number of rapes in Rhode Island when prostitution was accidentally legalized. Whether they represent a true reduction in violence or a shifting of violence from a non-paid victim to a paid one is still debated. But if the goal is to craft a policy that will reduce violent crime and end sexual slavery then these various methods of doing so need to be debated on their practical merits as well as their moral implications.

Resources

Law Street Media: Prostitution: Should It Be Legalized or Criminalized?

BAYSWAN: Initiatives to “End Demand” For Prostitution Harm Women And Undermine Service Programs

GAATW: Moving Beyond Supply and Demand Catchphrases

CAASE: End Demand Illinois 

The Stranger: Sex Workers Write Open Letters To Law Makers Over End Demand Bills

The Honest Courtesan

CATW International: Ending The Demand

Hughes, Hubbard, and Reed: The Economic Duress Doctrine- A U.S. Perspective

Cato Unbound: Perverse Incentives: Sex Work And The Law

The New York Times: A Misguided Moral Crusade

The Washington Post: When Rhode Island Accidentally Legalized Prostitution Rape Decreased Sharply

The Huffington Post: 9 Things You Did Not Know About American Prostitution

The New Zealand’s Prostitute Collective: The Prostitution Reform Act 2003

Mary Kate Leahy

Mary Kate Leahy (@marykate_leahy) has a J.D. from William and Mary and a Bachelor’s in Political Science from Manhattanville College. She is also a proud graduate of Woodlands Academy of the Sacred Heart. She enjoys spending her time with her kuvasz, Finn, and tackling a never-ending list of projects. Contact Mary Kate at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Prostitution: Should The “World’s Oldest Profession” Be a Profession? appeared first on Law Street.

Attitudes toward prostitution in the United States have long been based on the Judeo-Christian tradition arguing that selling sex is immoral; however, global trends arguing for sexual self-determination and changing attitudes toward the sex industry have become more popular. The United Nations Secretary General has even called for the decriminalization of sex work. These changes pose the question: how should the United States address the issue of prostitution?

The U.S. still criminalizes sex work, but the urgency of making changes in this sphere is evident in the growing sex worker rights movement that strives to define the legal status and rights of prostitutes. Read on to learn more about different models of regulating prostitution, and the arguments for and against them.

What are the real numbers behind prostitution?

Prostitution is “the act of offering one’s self for hire to engage in sexual relations.” In other words, it’s an exchange of a sexual act for money.

It’s hard to determine the real numbers behind prostitution due to the fact that sex work is criminalized in the United States. As most of the actors involved in this business operate underground, statistics are rather scarce. Some estimates of the current number of prostitutes range from 230,000 to 350,000, but others put the number closer to one million.

Prostitutes come from a variety of backgrounds. Indisputably, there are those who come from marginalized and impoverished environments, were sexually abused, homeless, poorly educated, or drug addicted. In addition, some women and men are coerced or trafficked into prostitution. Every year thousands of people are trafficked for the purposes of exploitation, including sexual exploitation. However, this doesn’t mean that all prostitutes are forced or trafficked. There are also those who chose to become involved in sex work of their own volition. These people can have different motivations to enter the sex industry, citing high earnings, flexible work hours, or genuine passion for this line of work.

Should prostitution be decriminalized, legalized, or none of the above?

Generally, you hear about three distinct approaches to prostitution: criminalization, decriminalization, and legalization. All of them are rooted in different ideological perspectives and include diverse goals and contrasting methods of achieving their desired objectives. Watch the video below to learn more about the ongoing debate over prostitution.

Criminalization

Prostitution is criminalized in most parts of the United States. Proponents of this view often believe that prostitution is immoral, and therefore label it as a criminal behavior. In their view, prostitution endangers marriages and is simply wrong. Prostitutes are viewed as criminals who behave illegally. The rhetoric of those who support criminalization is often centered on the notion that such alternatives as legalization will have devastating consequences on the American morale.

The supporters of criminalization also connect legal prostitution with increased sex trafficking, the spread of STDs, and a greater number of children being coerced into the sex industry. Watch the video below to learn more about Catharine MacKinnon’s arguments against the legalization of prostitution and its connection with human trafficking.

Decriminalization

Decriminalization means the removal of certain criminal laws related to the operation of the sex industry. When prostitution is decriminalized, consensual adult sexual activity in a commercial setting is no longer viewed as a crime. Decriminalization can be considered a half step toward legalization as individuals engaged in the business can be required to obtain a special permit or be subjected to penalties. Essentially, if a person is caught in the act, his punishment will be no more than a fine, something along the lines of speeding or a parking ticket.

At the same time, decriminalization doesn’t legalize sex work, but does instruct law enforcement to give low priority to prostitution cases. This approach intends to use the already existing legal mechanisms to support the health and safety of prostitutes. Many advocates of decriminalization cite labor and anti-discrimination laws as arguments to grant prostitutes certain rights, including freedom of choice and self-regulation.

Decriminalized systems often still impose criminal penalties for all other actors involved in the business, including clients and pimps. This perspective is rooted in the abolitionist movement that historically rescued women from prostitution and trained them for alternative careers. In this view, prostitutes are victims of male exploitation and supporters of this approach often consider prostitution demeaning to women.

The ultimate goal of decriminalization is to uproot the profession by targeting those who purchase sex in the first place. It’s believed that by eradicating the demand, the supply will subside on its own. The advocates of this form of decriminalization usually strongly oppose legalization that will make the sex business flourish instead of extinguishing the industry.

The Swedish Model

The Swedish model is the most influential decriminalization example. Since 1999, buying sex in Sweden is a criminal offense punishable by fines or up to six months imprisonment. Contrarily, selling of sexual services is not a criminal offense, meaning that prostitutes are not subjected to criminal law proceedings. The law is popular in Sweden–80 percent of the Swedish population supports the initiative, but many are still skeptical of its effectiveness.

The Swedish model was also adopted in Norway and Iceland. In 2014, Canada moved to this model of controlling public solicitation of prostitution and restricting demand on sexual services. In addition, similar decriminalization models were adopted in Nepal, India, American Samoa, Bhutan, Cambodia, China, Fiji, Guam, Republic of Korea, Palau, and Taiwan.

What are the arguments in favor of decriminalization?

Decriminalization of prostitution can arguably decrease violence against prostitutes. A study in San Francisco found that 82 percent of prostitutes have been assaulted and 68 percent were raped during their time working in the sex industry. Another study in Colorado Springs found that prostitutes were 18 times more likely to be murdered than non-prostitute women of their demographic. If sex work is criminalized, prostitutes are reluctant to ask for help or go to the police if victimized. If decriminalized, prostitutes and law enforcement will have an avenue for communication, and if a prostitute is victimized she can report the crime to the police without the fear of being charged and detained for prostitution.

Decriminalization can also benefit the investigation of sex trafficking cases as prostitutes can aid law enforcement with information from the inside. In addition, law enforcement can save valuable resources as police departments won’t need to deal with as many prostitution cases. In 2011, Texas alone spent $8 million on prison expenses related to prostitution. Decriminalization won’t eliminate the financial burden completely as pimps and johns are often criminalized in those countries who adhere to decriminalization model, but it can decrease expenses overall and re-direct resources towards other crimes.

What are the arguments against decriminalization?

Criminalization of sexual services for clients, and not for prostitutes, can be challenging as both those who purchase and provide sexual services are unlikely to admit to the transaction. Clients will be reluctant to do so due to the existing criminal laws, while prostitutes can lose their income and clientele if they aid law enforcement. In fact, several independent studies have shown that current laws have pushed some Swedish prostitutes underground, resulting in an increased danger of victimization.

Those who oppose the Swedish approach to prostitution are also concerned with its unintended consequences of stigmatization and marginalization of those who enter the sex industry of their own volition. The Swedish model doesn’t acknowledge that prostitutes can choose this occupation out of their free will, but view all prostitutes as passive victims of violence and abuse.

Overall, there isn’t much evidence that this approach improves the quality of work and life of sex workers, or decreases HIV or STD transmissions. Even through the Swedish model is popular around the world, both the Swedish and the international experiences don’t provide enough indications of decline in prostitution.

Legalization

Legalization usually involves a system of laws and government regulations that define the operation of the sex industry. Such a system can be highly regulated or merely define the legal conditions under which prostitutes can operate. Legalization is often accompanied by strict criminal penalties for those who operate outside the established framework. Prostitutes are often required to pay special taxes, can work only in specified zones, and to register with the government. In addition, prostitutes are often obligated to regularly undergo health checks, and to obtain special licenses to legally operate as a sex workers. Thus, the legalization of prostitution seeks to control, regulate, and define the rules of the sex industry.

The legalization model emphasizes freedom of personal choice and regards prostitution as a form of work. The supporters of this approach maintain the belief that sexual relations between two consenting adults should’t be criminalized as those who engage in this type of relations do so voluntarily. This rhetoric is centered on the notion that people are free to choose what to do with their bodies and, therefore, entering into contracts to provide sexual services is their right that shouldn’t be undermined by the views of those who don’t agree with their decision. At the same time, advocates for legalization acknowledge that people can be forced or coerced into prostitution. They also acknowledge the existence of trafficking and exploitation, but don’t believe that all women are victims, and that prostitution automatically leads to violence.

European Experiences

The Netherlands and Germany are, probably, the most prominent examples of legalization. The Netherlands legalized prostitution in 2000, and it’s now regulated by the country’s labor laws. Germany followed in 2002 by providing prostitutes with legal protections and social insurance. In both countries the sex industry boomed, resulting in increased numbers of legal brothels and prostitutes, but also prompted concerns over increased cases of human trafficking.

Nevada’s Legal Brothels

The state of Nevada has a long history of regulating prostitution in some counties, starting in  1937 when a law was enacted to require weekly health checks for all prostitutes. In 1971, Nevada began taxing brothels, thus legalizing the sex industry in rural counties of the state. As of now, there are around 500 prostitutes who are working in 30 brothels. A recent study found that 84 percent of the surveyed prostitutes in Nevada felt safe working in the legal brothels, and were not trafficked or coerced into prostitution. Contrary to the European countries that have legalized prostitution, Nevada’s sex workers are considered independent contractors. Consequently, they don’t receive unemployment, retirement, or healthcare benefits.

What are the arguments for legalization?

All arguments cited earlier in support of the decriminalization model, such as decreased violence, better cooperation with police, and re-direction of valuable law enforcement resources, can be relevant when taking about legalization, as well.

The advocates for legalization argue that such a model of regulating prostitution can provide even more safety for prostitutes. Legal brothels are often closely observed and monitored by the law enforcement agencies to ensure compliance with safety regulations and to prevent sex trafficking cases. Legalization can also completely eliminate  the financial burden from police departments as there will be no prostitution cases to pursue. It’s estimated that in 2010, California alone arrested 11,334 people for prostitution. In Texas, an average of 350 prostitutes are sentenced to serve time in state prisons yearly. Proponents argue that legalization can decrease the prison population and save state resources that otherwise would be used to investigate, prosecute, sentence, and house those who are charged with this “victimless” crime.

In addition, legalization advocates argue that condom requirements and mandatory HIV and STD testing can reduce health risks for prostitutes and clients alike. If sex work is criminalized, fewer prostitutes will have access to testing services and fewer of them will practice safe sex. It was found that in the United States only three to five percent of STDs can be attributed to prostitution, supporting the argument that prostitutes are not vehicles of HIV and STD transmissions. The number of prostitutes infected with STDs in New Zealand and New South Wales, where prostitution is legalized, is very low or non-existent. In Nevada, there were no registered cases of HIV among legal sex workers. Watch the video below to learn more about Nevada’s health regulations and condom requirements for legal prostitutes.

Another argument is the revenue that legalized prostitution can bring in the form of income taxes. According to some estimates based on the current income of Nevada’s legal prostitutes, legalization can generate $20,000 in federal income taxes per person per year. Not only could this money be used to provide more social and health services for prostitutes, but could be spent on other governmental needs as well.

Perhaps the biggest and the most controversial argument in support of legalization of prostitution is the extension of labor rights and other occupational benefits to prostitutes. If prostitution is treated as any other profession, legal sex workers can be entitled to minimum wage, freedom from discrimination, and safe work environments. They can claim benefits, form or join unions, and get access to medical insurance and pension plans.

Lastly, supporters of legalization believe that prostitution is no different than pornography, lap-dancing, tobacco, alcohol, and gambling, which are all legal in the United States.

What are the arguments against legalization?

The most common argument against legalization of prostitution is its close connection with human trafficking and organized crime. The Netherlands’ legalization of sex work is cited as an example of a failing experiment as Amsterdam became a hub for traffickers and organized crime groups. The Dutch Justice Ministry closed over 320 prostitution windows as a part of the initiative to curb violence against migrant women, who are often forced by traffickers and pimps to work as window prostitutes in the city’s Red Light District.

The increase in child sexual exploitation is another point of concern for those who advocate against the legalization of prostitution. The adult sex industry is viewed as perpetuating the recruitment of children as sex workers, who also could be trafficked and coerced into sexual exploitation.

Prostitution is also thought to increase crime rates as it is a magnet for ancillary crimes, including drug, sex, and violent crimes. In this view, with any form of legalization those crimes can only increase as pimps and traffickers would have more legal avenues to conduct their illicit businesses.

Together with increased crime rates and  human trafficking, legalization can give more power to pimps as they are transformed into businessmen. According to this assumption, working in legal brothels can increase the likelihood of victimization as women spend their time in closed spaces and have fewer resources to ask for help or seek protection against abuse. Prostitutes in one of Nevada’s brothels compared their working conditions to a prison environment as most of the time they were locked inside their rooms waiting for clients and could leave the premises only with their male pimps.

Those who oppose legalization of prostitution also state that prostitutes will continue to spread diseases, even if their services are legalized. As it can take up to two weeks to process STD tests, sex workers can continue to infect their clients, prompting the spread of infections and STDs, regardless of their legal status.

Conclusion

How to deal with prostitution is an endless topic of debate. As decriminalization has its benefits and pitfalls, so does legalization. Even though each model has a different set of goals, both converge on the opinion that prostitutes shouldn’t be criminalized. The United States needs to start participating in the international discussions and may soon consider an alternative to the outdated criminalization model.

 Resources

Primary

UNODC: Human Trafficking

Additional

RNW: FAQ – Prostitution in the Netherlands

Alternet: Should Prostitution be Legalized?

Business Insider: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Prostitution in Nevada

Business Insider: Seven Reasons Why America Should Legalize Prostitution

California State University Northridge: Should Contractual Sex Be Legalized?

CBS News: Prostitution Laws: Europeans Debate Whether Criminalization or Legalization Works Better

Difference Between Net: Difference Between Legalization and Decriminalization

Digital Journal: Amsterdam Courts Ready to Clean Up Red Light District

The New York Times: Labour Laws, Not Criminal Laws, Are the Solution to Prostitution

The New York Times: Legalizing Prostitution Leads to More Trafficking

The New York Times: Nevada’s Legal Brothels Make Workers Feel Safer

The New York Times: Nevada’s Legal Brothels are Coercive, too

Prostitution Education Network: Prostitution Law Reform: Defining Terms

The NAYked Truth: Prostitution: The Economic and Criminal Justice Benefits of Legalization

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Prostitution: Should it be Legalized or Criminalized? 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.

In December 2012, Colorado voters made history by approving Amendment 64, legalizing the use and possession of marijuana for anyone over the age of 21. Not long after, Washington voters followed suit, passing Initiative 502 in a state election and effectively legalizing recreational use of the drug.

Although Washingtonians will have to wait until roughly April 2014, pot can officially be sold in specially licensed stores in Colorado as of January 1, 2014. Now that you can legally buy, sell, and smoke marijuana in certain states, there are still questions that need answering.

First off, what exactly does legal mean?

In Colorado…

• Residents, of at least 21 years of age, can buy up to an ounce of marijuana at a time. If you aren’t a Colorado resident, the maximum amount that can be purchased drops to a quarter-ounce.
• Marijuana purchased in Colorado cannot cross state lines.
• The drug can be sold commercially – but only by specially licensed stores.
• It is illegal to consume marijuana openly or publicly. “Retail marijuana” is intended for private, personal use in locations not open to the public.
• The drug cannot be consumed in the vicinity of licensed stores, bars, and restaurants. Consumption in public transportation, cars, limos and taxis is also illegal.
• It is illegal to drive under the influence of marijuana. Anyone with 5 nanograms or more in their blood while driving can be arrested for a DUI, which could result in fines or jail time.

In Washington, although possession of marijuana is already legal, other significant parts of Initiative 502, namely selling marijuana commercially, will not go into effect for a few months. Like Colorado, however, some restrictions are already in place…

• Marijuana is prohibited in public settings.
• Drivers are prohibited from having more than 5 nanograms in their blood, an amount supposedly comparable to .08 blood alcohol content, while driving.
• Washington State universities can set their own rules regarding marijuana use. In an effort to avoid losing federal funding, University of Washington and Washington State University currently prohibit use and possession of pot on campus grounds.
• To deter underage use of the drug, Washington will adopt public health strategies similar to successful anti-tobacco campaigns. Specifically, retail outlets will not be allowed within 1,000 feet of schools and marijuana advertising will be tightly regulated.

Is legalization of marijuana technically unconstitutional?

Technically, the answer is yes.

Known as the “supremacy clause,” Article VI Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution establishes federal law as the “supreme law of the land” – hence the name. Seeing as marijuana remains illegal under the Controlled Substances Act, a federal law, the recent legalization of the drug in Colorado and Washington provides an interesting example of the interplay between state and federal laws. Attorney General Eric Holder has said the Department of Justice is taking a “trust but verify approach to the state laws.” In addition, Deputy Attorney General James Cole issued a memo to prosecutors across the U.S. 

The Department’s guidance in this memorandum rests on its expectation that states and local governments that have enacted laws authorizing marijuana-related conduct will implement strong and effective regulatory and enforcement systems that will address the threat those state laws could pose to public safety, public health and other law enforcement interests. 

Still, for those worried about (technically) violating federal laws, Alison Holcomb, author of I-502 in Washington and drug policy director for the Washington State ACLU, says not to worry.

“Federal law enforcement resources tend to be focused on major organized crime,” Holcomb said in an interview with CBS News. “It is very, very rare that marijuana use is subjected to federal enforcement, unless users are on federal lands like national parks. By and large, the DEA has much better things to do than go after the marijuana users.”

Can I lose my job for using marijuana?

Although it has yet to become a problem in Washington, Colorado’s recent legalization has created a dilemma for businesses and their employees. While Amendment 64 legalized weed, it also gave employers the right to drug test their employees and subsequently fire them if they test positive. Simply put, the new law does not “affect the ability of employers to have policies restricting the use of marijuana by employees.” 

Last April, the Court of Appeals in Colorado upheld the firing of Brandon Coats, a Dish Network employee who was let go after he tested positive for marijuana during a random drug test. Coats, a quadriplegic who has used a wheelchair since age 16, uses medicinal marijuana to control his muscle spasms. Coats sued Dish Network, arguing that his use of the drug was legal and that he was never impaired while at work.

The Colorado Court of Appeals ultimately decided Colorado’s Lawful Off-Duty Activities Statute, which prohibits employers from firing employees for participating in legal activities during their free time, does not include marijuana use. Because marijuana remains illegal under federal law, the judges ruled that the protections of the statute do not apply. Colorado’s Supreme Court announced it will review the case.

With the outcome of Coats’ case still uncertain, one can’t help but wonder: If smoking marijuana can result in a person losing his or her job, is it really legal?

In an interview with Buzzfeed, Harry Levine, a sociology professor at Queens College and operator of the website marijuana-arrests.com, said the conundrum is the result of clashes between state and federal law. “Everyone’s attention is focused on the shiny new post-prohibition legal marijuana industry, and how regulated, interesting, and cool it is,” Levine said, “but over here behind door number one is the still-existing structures of nationwide drug prohibition.” 

Can I fly with my marijuana?

Again, since federal law regarding marijuana remains unchanged, the drug will not be allowed on airplanes – even if you’re flying out of Colorado or Washington. On the “air side” of an airport, which begins at the security checkpoint, federal law reigns supreme. When it comes to possession of weed before going through security, airports have differing policies. The Aspen/Pitkin County Airport, for example, offers travelers “amnesty boxes” – a place where marijuana can be stashed or disposed of without legal consequences. At Denver’s Airport however, weed is banned entirely, even in the areas before security.

Because state law forbids any facility from setting any further regulations, airports in Washington are unable to ban the legal amount of cannabis.

What does legalization mean for prior offenders and those currently in prison for weed crimes?

Fair or not, it does not change a thing.

From 2006 to 2010, there have been more than 50,000 marijuana-related arrests in the state of Colorado. For those still serving time in prison, the new legalization will do nothing to free them or reduce their sentencing. In addition, those who have already served time will not have their records expunged.

The reasoning behind this is simple. Since the crimes were committed when possession or distribution of marijuana was against the law, the charges stick. According to Matthew Fleischer, an investigative journalist and contributor to TakePart.com, “whether or not the old law was unpopular or unjust is immaterial.”

Unfortunately for anyone sitting in prison for weed crimes, the United States does not guarantee “retroactive ameliorative relief” in sentencing. Although it’s a mouthful, the term simply means letting convicts out of prison after a law changes.

The U.S. is one of only 22 countries that fail to guarantee this relief. In an interview with TakePart, Amanda Solter, Project Director of the Human Rights and Criminal Sentencing Reform Project for the University of San Francisco School of Law, elaborated further. “The only other countries that do this are places like Myanmar, Oman, Pakistan, South Sudan, and a handful of countries in the Caribbean,” she said and added, “even Russia provides this right.”

Is marijuana legalization a continuing trend?

Most likely.

Brandy Zadrozny, a researcher and reporter for The Daily Beast, provides excellent insight regarding the future of legalization in her informative “Guide to State Pot Laws.”

According to Zadrozny, the National Conference of State Legislatures revealed that nine states –Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Vermont – and the District of Columbia have introduced some form of marijuana legislation. Alaska, Maryland, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin are likely to follow suit.

For the most part, state legislative action regarding marijuana legalization depends heavily on grassroots (no pun intended) support within the individual state. As Zadrozny cleverly puts it, “the data seems to support that if you smoke it, the laws will come.”

Everything considered, experts say Alaska will be the next state to join Colorado and Washington’s exclusive club.

[CNN] [CNTraveler] [The Daily Beast] [CBS News] [ABC News] [Take Part] [BuzzFeed] [Huffington Post] [Colorado State Legislature] [Washington State LCB] [U.S. Archives]

—

Matt DiCenso 

Featured image courtesy of [rafael-castillo via Flickr]

Matt DiCenso

Matt DiCenso is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Let’s Be Blunt: What Marijuana Legalization Actually Means appeared first on Law Street.