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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anneliese Mahoney

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

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

Winona, Minnesota native Thomas R. Page was charged last Tuesday in the U.S. District Court in St. Paul with illicit sexual conduct while overseas. For the past 25 years, Page has been a teacher in Cameroon, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Burkina Faso, Mali, Sudan and Togo. Homeland security started investigating Page in June 2012 in Togo, and discovered that he had assaulted young men while teaching in these countries.

According to the charging document, Page admitted to sexually assaulting two boys while in Cameroon during a 2012 interview with U.S. investigators. In the report, Page described knowing children from the beach and some would visit his house, often staying overnight. He added that he would swim with the children and have them sit on his lap. He also mentioned that he gave the children money, buying them food and paying for school as well. When authorities questioned Page about charges against him in Cameroon, he admitted to having oral sex with two boys and giving money to the boys’ family.

Often cases of sexual assault involving Americans abroad are talked about in the context of a consistent stereotype: a do-gooder or academic Western woman goes to a developing country and is tragically targeted and taken advantage of by a resident of that country, like the case of the American raped in India in 2013. While cases like these are a reality and deserve mass media coverage to spark important conversations, there are many other rape and sexual assault cases that occur abroad that are of equal importance in which the Western party is not the victim. Cases like Page’s are rarely covered in the media, although it is a significant issue in developing countries. Just a couple years ago, an American teacher was arrested in Japan, admitting to similar inappropriate relationships as Page. The nature of the relationship between Western volunteer teachers and their pupils can cause inappropriate situations like this to happen. The pupils often idolize their teachers and are mesmerized by their appearance, knowledge and kindness. Because of this dynamic and the lack of conversations in certain parts of the world about sexual assault in schools, it becomes easy for some predators to find victims.

Protection and education are the keys to remedying issues of sexual assault of children by these volunteer teachers. Educational philanthropic programs that send people abroad need to do just as extensive background checks and interview processes as they would for those applying to be teachers within this country. On the other end, rural schools abroad should be hesitant in accepting foreign teachers, and communicate to children what sexual assault is and means. Necessary action should be taken on both sides of this issue to protect children in developing countries around the world–Page’s case is just one of many.

Kui Mwai

Kui Mwai is a junior at American University, studying Law and Literature. She is from Nairobi, Kenya. Contact Kui at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Minnesota Native Charged with Committing Sexual Abuse While Overseas appeared first on Law Street.

Right on the heels of  the Ray Rice domestic violence incident, NFL star Adrian Peterson was charged with negligent injury to a child. Known for being the best running back for the Minnesota Vikings, Peterson allegedly punished his 4-year-old son by whipping him with a tree branch, leaving cuts and bruises on the boy’s legs, backs, buttocks, hand and scrotum.

This subject is something I am really passionate about, and I was in absolute shock when Peterson gave a statement to the police following the incident claiming he felt confident in his actions, and is thankful for what spanking has done to him in his life. Each parent is responsible for choosing the way he or she disciplines his or her child, but if we start to say spanking is acceptable, how will we ever be able to set boundaries and limits? In typical NFL handling of these cases, Peterson was suspended from a game and no further action is being taken until the official police investigation is complete.

Last week I referenced the punishment for the father of a child who died as a result of being left in a hot car. That father was charged with murder. In the case of Adrian Peterson, I ask you what would happen if Peterson gave one more hit as opposed to the 10-15 lashes his poor child received, and that final hit resulted in the child’s death? Would he be let off because he didn’t intend to hurt the child? Would it be accepted like it is now, because that’s the way he grew up and spanking does “good”? I find it appalling that excuses are being made to justify what allows parents to discipline their children in this way.

Legislation is proposed all the time to stop acts of abuse toward children, and yet this incident has the potential to make parents think it’s OK to discipline their children in this way. I do not doubt that Peterson is telling the truth when he claims his intentions were harmless, but I do doubt that he feels any kind of remorse or is aware that his actions were wrong. In 2013, Peterson’s other two-year-old son was killed by his ex-girlfriend’s partner. Although Peterson had only found out about the child three months prior to his tragic death, one would have thought it would make him change his own actions.

All it takes is one hit in the wrong area, or with a certain amount of force, to cause serious harm and fall under the realm of child abuse. NFL players have the responsibility not only to be great athletes but also to be good role models. With the influx of recent incidents involving NFL players and their mistreatment of the law, I worry what effect this will have on the general public. Yes people make mistakes, yes people can change, but we should not be encouraging this behavior by making excuses. Each article I read about Rice and Peterson is drenched in excuse after excuse, each justifying the simple fact that these acts are wrong. In my opinion, if these acts of abuse were done by anyone else not in the public eye, I can guarantee the punishment would be a lot different.

Hannah Kaye

Hannah Kaye is originally from London, now living in New York. Recently graduated with an MA in criminal justice from John Jay College. Strong contenders for things she is most passionate about are bagels and cupcakes. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post There Is No Excuse for Child Abuse, Not Even for Adrian Peterson appeared first on Law Street.

Despite the uproar about some of the Supreme Court’s latest rulings, there was also recently a lesser-known progressive SCOTUS decision that deserves applause. The court decided to not hear two related challenges–Pickup v. Brown and Welch v. Brown–to California’s ban on LGBT conversion therapy. The Pickup suit was brought by David Pickup, a therapist and spokesperson for the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH); the plaintiff in the Welch case was Donald Welch, a San Diego pastor. The two suits were backed by religious and anti-LGBT groups in California, but because of SCOTUS’s dismissal, the ban on conversion therapy will go into effect.

In both Pickup and Welch, the plaintiffs claimed that developing adolescents have the choice between heterosexuality or homosexuality. They not only see LGBT orientation as a choice, but also as one that can be corrected and changed with treatment. These suits attested that the minors this ban applies to can reject their unwanted urges. They argue that counselors can help these children in the same way that fitness trainers and nutritionists help people who struggle with their weight. From this point of view, the plaintiffs argued that the ban violated the “constitutional rights of the counselors or parents.“

But what about the rights of the minors? Why weren’t they the ones being discussed in the appeal? Overall, the cases seemed to bypass the minors, who would actually be receiving this conversion therapy, and discussed mostly the rights of their narrow-minded parents or “counselors.” The appeal did claim that the minors firmly believed their same-sex attractions were wrong, unwanted, and correctable. But that being said, those minors could have also been heavily influenced by their families, conversion therapists, and others. It’s easy to agree that your sexual attractions are wrong when the adults you look up to–parents, societal leaders, and religious authorities–are telling you that you’re wrong.

There are also many scientific flaws in conversion therapy. Dr. Jack Drescher MD, a distinguished Fellow of the American Psychological Association, states, “not only is homosexuality ‘not a choice,’ as most efforts to try and change a person’s sexual orientation fail, but some attempts to change can cause harm or damage to an individual’s well-being.” Studies have found that there are no “methodologically sound” studies to support the use of sexual orientation conversion therapy, thus discounting any scientific proof to support these practices.

Furthermore, science has proven that, besides being completely ineffective at converting someone’s sexuality, these therapy techniques can result in permanent psychological and emotional damage to LGBT youth. Instances of societal prejudice and familial rejection have resulted in LGBT youth being nearly six times as likely to report high levels of depression, and more than eight times as likely to have attempted suicide. The pressure that closeted LGBT kids face from family to reject their feelings can be confusing and traumatic. Openly gay youths, or those that have admitted their urges and sought advice from parents, can be met with furious disgust, and even disowned. These reactions, especially from the people that are supposed to provide unconditional love, can be heartbreaking and life-threatening. Conversion therapy only prolongs and falsely validates these reactions.

This issue is tied to the Hobby Lobby case in a way, because some critics were worried that the precedent set in Hobby Lobby would “open the floodgates” to suits from companies asking for religious exceptions to laws. Fortunately, the judges explicitly stated in their decision that their ruling was unique to the specific contraceptive case. The decisions in Pickup and Welch serve as some indication that that will hold true. The Court’s decision not to hear those cases was handed down just moments before the Hobby Lobby decision, possibly proving that religious challenges are not going to end up a SCOTUS free-for-all. While Hobby Lobby certainly made more headlines, Pickup and Welch are incredibly important as well.

The decision on behalf of the Supreme Court not to hear the religious appeal to the ban on LGBT conversion therapy was not only a victory for gay, lesbian and transgender rights advocates, but also set an important legal precedent. In refusing the appeal, the court allowed the official prohibition to finally be enforced in California after being held up by these law suits. This law was the first of its kind, signed back in 2012, and was followed by similar legislation in New Jersey about a year later. In my opinion, no one can use guilt and anxiety to induce change, and call it therapy or counseling. In my book, and fortunately the Supreme Court’s as well, they’re just plain wrong.

—

Erika Bethmann (@EBethmann) is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [@mjb via Flickr]

Erika Bethmann

Erika Bethmann is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Good Call, SCOTUS: Conversion Therapy Banned in California appeared first on Law Street.

Should a sexually abused minor be considered a criminal? This question is recently coming to the attention of the American justice system. Courts are now conscious of a new demographic within the legal system and are attempting to reform their ways to accommodate those members in need, particularly girls. Girls courts are being implemented around many counties within California, to the preexisting juvenile justice system. The courts are tailoring to the needs of at risk young women, specifically those recruited as child prostitutes, by providing not only judicial guidance but treatment facilities as well.

Statistics revolving around girls involved in criminal actions have recently been skyrocketing in certain counties such as San Mateo, Alameda, and Orange, causing a need for a change in the court system. One specific example of this recognition of at risk population and attempt to reform those involved, is the Alameda County in California. Between the years 1998 and 2007, there was a 45 percent increase in juvenile girls entering the justice system as well as a 49 percent increase for young girls committing non violent offenses. With such an increase in statistics, it was determined that a change was necessary and the Alameda County Girls Court was created.

The specific programs applied by girls courts are meant to aid victims of sexual assault, in combining the justice system with social services. Their focus and activities offered vary between specific courts. For example, the Alameda County Girls Court, provides a group of adults to gain the trust of young girls as well as offers Saturday sessions to discuss topics ranging from the legal system to body image. While this program is centered around young girls involved in sex trafficking, the Girls Courts of Orange County focus specifically on girls who have spent their lives in foster care.

While the Alameda Girls Courts are still relatively new to be measuring the effects of the system, girls courts in other areas have been making promising progress with their juvenile group members. Other girls courts within California have recently proven that they are making a difference, as the Girls of the Orange County program have presented an enhancement in the grades of the girls. Hopefully, the Alameda Courts will follow in close pursuit of this already established program. 

The previous judicial system resulted in a cycle of punishment rather than rehabilitation and treatment for the girls. In California, girl prostitutes were continuously adding to their criminal records, although in many areas an exchange of money for underage sex is a form of sex trafficking. Thus, the emergence of the girls court. This specific court became a pivotal aspect to the campaign to end sex trafficking. The main goal of this campaign is to label underage prostitutes as victims rather than criminals, and to offer these young girls treatment. The campaign is looking to make a change in the current judicial system, rather than convicting underage girls who have been abused.

Many of the young girls moving through the legal system have been sexually abused their whole lives and are unaware of the wrongdoings against them. By convicting these girls over and over the courts are not providing justice, but rather allowing them to continue on a downtrodden path. The introduction of girls courts is not an isolated case but has become key to a larger picture for many states, in changing laws involving sex trafficking and minors. In New York State, a system of 11 Human Trafficking Intervention Courts has spread across the state, for minors ages 16 and up. These courts remain similar to those labeled girls courts because they provide services to minors involved in the sex trade as well. However, the New York System has become a statewide campaign. Recently accompanying this new treatment of minors and sex trafficking, is an array of new Safe Harbor Laws enacted in states such as New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Illinois and several more. These laws are defined as preventing victims of sex trafficking from being prosecuted due to prostitution as well as protecting young children involved in sex trafficking by offering specialized services.

The beginning of girls courts is a representation of the change in how the justice system views minors involved in sex trafficking. This can reach back to the Supreme Court ruling, in Texas B.W. (2010) which ruled that children under the age of 13 could not be considered a criminal because of prostitution. Furthermore, children could not be guilty of an action that involved their own sexual exploitation. It can be seen that this ruling has come full circle, as court systems as well as the Safe Harbor Laws are attempting to aid those in need rather than convict them.

It is refreshing to see a change in the view of those involved in sex trafficking as well as an attempt to reform minors in need of help. Sex trafficking is an awful reality that is common throughout the United States, as over 300,000 children are involved in prostitution each year. Pimps specifically target children in need such as the homeless or abused. The Girls Courts, Safe Harbor Laws, and Human Trafficking Intervention Courts have taken the American justice system to a new level, in providing not only a court ruling but a service to push minors in the right direction. It is time that these efforts to end sex trafficking spread across the country to all states, rather than being isolated mainly to New York and California. The justice system needs to view these minors involved in sex trafficking as victims rather than criminals and to offer them the services they require.

 [National Center for Youth Law] [The New York Times] [Polaris Project]

—

Taylor Garre (@TaylorLynn013)

Featured image courtesy of [Blemished Paradise via Flickr]

Taylor Garre

Taylor Garre is a student at Fordham University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Taylor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Efforts to Reform Sex Trafficking Moving in the Right Direction With Specialized Courts appeared first on Law Street.