People in Oregon who are arrested while in the possession of small amounts of drugs will no longer face felony charges. Oregon Governor Kate Brown signed HB 2355 into law on Tuesday, reducing the classification of possession of certain quantities of drugs from a felony to a misdemeanor.

Individuals convicted of the misdemeanor now face up to one year in prison. Prior to this move, those same individuals faced up to five years in prison for possession of any amount of cocaine and methamphetamine, and up to 10 years for heroin and MDMA, according to the Huffington Post.

Per the new law, individuals may be charged with a misdemeanor if they are found to be in the possession of less than two grams of cocaine or methamphetamine, less than one gram of heroin, less than 40 pills of oxycodone, less than one gram or five pills of MDMA (also known as ecstasy), or less than 40 units of LSD. Individuals possessing larger amounts of those drugs can still face felony charges.

The law also contains a provision to combat profiling of people “based solely on the individual’s real or perceived age, race, ethnicity, color, national origin, language, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, political affiliation, religion, homelessness or disability.”

In 2014, California became the first state to defelonize minor drug crimes after voters approved Proposition 47. The ballot measure also included the reclassification of other felonies such as certain theft and fraud charges as misdemeanors.

In recent years, the U.S. federal government has begun to rethink sentences for some drug-related crimes. CBS reported in 2016 that more than 26,000 federal drug offenders had received shortened prison terms as a result of sentencing guidelines changes that the U.S. Sentencing Commission approved in 2014. The reevaluation of drug penalties is not just occurring in the U.S., but has become a global effort. Countries are working to lessen the power of organized crime and promote rehabilitative treatments for drug users.

Changes to federal drug policies in the U.S. may be slow to progress under Attorney General Jeff Sessions. But states like Oregon could play a significant role in ending the “war on drugs” through drug defelonization and rehabilitating drug users rather than imposing harsh penalties on them.

Marcus Dieterle

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

The post Possession of Small Amount of Drugs No Longer a Felony Offense in Oregon appeared first on Law Street.

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

STATE OF WEED: WATCH

Marijuana Possibly Coming “Very, Very Soon” to Michigan

A Michigan coalition is expected to have another go at legalizing recreational marijuana in the state in the next few weeks. “We’re right on the precipice of being ready to launch this thing. It’s going to be very, very soon,” former state Rep. Jeff Irwin (D-Ann Arbor) the political director for the Coalition to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol told the Detroit Free Press. The state-wide coalition also includes MI Legalize, a group that failed to get the issue on the ballot in 2016, and the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, or Norml. The coalition is gearing up to submit petitions for the 2018 ballot initiative soon, but does not have a formal date set.

Federal Bill Would Allow “SAFE” Banking for Marijuana Businesses

A new bill introduced last week aims to grant marijuana business owners full access to the banking industry. The Secure and Fair Enforcement Banking Act, also known as HR 2215, would allow state-licensed marijuana-related businesses the freedom to interact openly with banks without fear of repercussions from the federal government. Currently, hundreds of licensed organizations are unable to accept credit cards, deposit revenue, write checks for payroll, or claim tax deductions. Similar bills were introduced in 2013 and again in 2015. We’ll have to wait and see if the third time is a charm.

Jane Search Engine Launches to Help Cannabis Customers

A new online search engine launched this week that allows users to search for cannabis products with real-time inventory information. Jane cleverly taps into dispensaries’ POS systems to find out which locations have products available, and provides verified reviews of products for customers–including a THC rating. The company has already signed up eight stores in Santa Cruz, California, and has plans to add more dispensaries in the near future.

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

LAW STREET CANNABIS COVERAGE

Spiritual High: A Cannabis Church Opened Last Week in Denver

By Alec Siegel

From the outside, it looks like any other nondescript, brick-built church. But its stained glass panels, instead of biblical images, are adorned with a colorful array of planets–with wide, cartoonish grins–and stars. Welcome to Denver’s International Church of Cannabis, which had its grand opening last Thursday, on the unofficial weed holiday known as “4/20.” In a city where smoking marijuana in public is illegal, despite Colorado’s legalization of the drug in 2012, the church offers a holy refuge to those looking for a more spiritual kind of high.

Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly: Marijuana “Not a Factor” in Drug War

THREE QUESTIONS: EXCLUSIVE Q&A

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

In mid-April, Oregon’s legislature passed a bill that protects cannabis consumers’ private information from being stored by dispensaries and other marijuana businesses. As co-sponsor of the bill, State Rep. Carl Wilson (R-3rd District) said the bill is also meant to protect marijuana consumers against any potential crackdowns by the Trump Administration, which has toyed with the idea of enforcing the federal marijuana ban. Wilson spoke with Law Street’s Alec Siegel recently about the bill–which Gov. Kate Brown signed on April 19–and more.

AS: What was the primary goal of the bill?

CW: The goal of much of what we have done with cannabis is to try to normalize the product, and that is to make the purchase of it much like the alcohol side of things. We find that it is a fairly tall job to try to normalize [cannabis], but a substantial side benefit was to shield the names of cannabis purchasers should there be a [federal] crackdown.

AS:  What are some other changes you’d like to see in regards to Oregon’s marijuana legalization framework?

CW: One of the biggest battles we face right now is the collision between the medical program, which has been long established, and the recently established recreational program. Since the passage of Measure 91 [which legalized recreational marijuana], there has been constant pressure to fold the medical program in with the recreational program. I come from an area of the state where marijuana growing has been a time-honored tradition. I do believe that program should be retained, and should remain autonomous [from recreational regulations].

AS: Do your constituents express concern about how the Trump Administration will enforce the federal ban? Do you have concerns?

CW: It would be wrong for me to say I have no concerns. But I feel they have bigger fish to fry at this point, and I feel they’ll stick to those fish. This hasn’t been a highly charged subject for my constituents. The people I have heard from are in the growing community who are somewhat concerned and I think our [Joint Committee on Marijuana Regulation] saw to that.

CANNABIS CULTURE

Welcome to Tumbleweed Express: America’s First Marijuana Drive-Thru

By Alec Siegel

When Mark Smith realized that the residents of Parachute, Colorado craved a late-night marijuana fix, after his dispensary had closed for the day, he had an idea. Smith, 58, decided to re-brand the Valley Car Wash across the street from his dispensary as Tumbleweed Express, the nation’s first marijuana drive-thru business. Find out more here.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cannabis in America May 2017: Learn How Legislators Are Aiming to Protect Cannabis Customers appeared first on Law Street.

State lawmakers in Oregon passed a bill on Monday that would increase protections for the personal information of marijuana consumers. Oregon is the latest state to propose legislation intended to defend against stricter enforcement of the federal marijuana ban by the Trump Administration, something Attorney General Jeff Sessions has indicated is a possibility. The bill attracted bipartisan support, passing by a vote of 53-5.

If Democratic Gov. Kate Brown signs the proposal, which she is expected to do, marijuana shops would no longer be able to collect consumers’ personal information–names, birthdates, home addresses, and so on. Unlike Alaska, Colorado, and Washington State–the other three states where recreational marijuana is actively being sold–cannabis shops in Oregon can collect this information in a database without the customer’s consent. Businesses use the information largely for marketing purposes.

According to the bill, shops would have 30 days to destroy the information they have on record; they would be barred from collecting information in the future. States that have legalized marijuana in some form have taken steps in recent weeks to protect against any forthcoming crackdown by the Trump Administration. Last week, California–which legalized recreational marijuana last November–introduced a bill that would prohibit local law enforcement authorities from collaborating with federal drug agents.

Last week, the governors of Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington sent a letter to Sessions and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, asking for clarity on the administration’s enforcement stance. Sessions responded that marijuana will be included in a broad Justice Department crime-reduction initiative. While his past is littered with anti-marijuana comments, Sessions has not explicitly stated how he will enforce the federal ban. He recently said marijuana is “only slightly less awful” than heroin.

In addition to protecting consumers against an invasive business practice, the proposal is meant to curtail requests by federal authorities, who, if unleashed by Sessions, could penalize distributors as well as consumers, even in states where the drug is perfectly legal. “Given the immediate privacy issues … this is a good bill protecting the privacy of Oregonians choosing to purchase marijuana,” said state Rep. Carl Wilson, a Republican sponsor of the bill.

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 Oregon Passes Bill to Protect Marijuana Consumers’ Personal Information appeared first on Law Street.

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

President Trump Launches Missile Attack on Syrian Government

Last night, President Donald Trump ordered a missile strike on the Syrian government in retaliation for the chemical attack on civilians earlier this week. Almost 60 missiles were fired from warships in the Mediterranean, aimed at the airfield believed to be where the chemical weapons originated from. Russian forces were warned and no Russian soldiers died but President Vladimir Putin denounced the move this morning, calling it “an act of aggression” and claiming the strike violated international law.

First time I’m not totally opposed to Trump. Action needed to stop strikes on civilians. EU & US must continue to work for pol. settlement.

— Guy Verhofstadt (@GuyVerhofstadt) April 7, 2017

Trump announced the order right before his dinner with Chinese President Xi Jinping at Mar-a-Lago. Although an unexpected and seemingly rushed decision, NATO and international leaders have expressed their support for Trump’s move and said that it was an appropriate response to the horrifying chemical weapons attack. Trump previously blamed the Obama Administration for the chemical weapons attack, arguing that if Obama had intervened more thoroughly during his presidency, it wouldn’t have happened. But many people pointed out that Trump asked Obama to not intervene back in 2013. Also, a majority of Republicans in Congress disapproved of a military strike when Obama sought approval to conduct one.

President Trump repeatedly used Twitter to tell Obama in 2013: Don’t attack Syria https://t.co/1PNNa8SgAA pic.twitter.com/eJ3enCG2ru

— CNN International (@cnni) April 7, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: April 7, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

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

What is Physician-Assisted Suicide?

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

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

Where is Physician-Assisted Suicide Legal?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have Other States Tried to Legalize Physician Assisted Suicide?

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

Arguments in Favor of Physician-Assisted Suicide

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

Real Life Example: Brittany Maynard

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

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

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

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

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

Arguments Against Physician-Assisted Suicide

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

Real Life Example: Dr. Jack Kevorkian

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

Anneliese Mahoney

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

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

Two Oregon lawmakers introduced an ambitious trio of bills in the U.S. Senate and House Thursday that would drastically revolutionize marijuana reform and help legitimize the cannabis industry. Sen. Ron Wyden and Rep. Earl Blumenauer, both Democrats, are calling the project the “Path to Marijuana Reform,” and it almost seems too good to be true.

The marijuana reform plan is comprised of the following three bills:

Small Business Tax Equity Act

This bipartisan piece of legislation would “allow businesses operating in compliance with state law to claim deductions and credits associated with the sale of marijuana like any other legal business.”

Currently, under Internal Revenue Code section 280E, individuals and businesses cannot claim deductions and tax credits on Schedule I or Schedule II substances. Therefore, many of these legitimate business are forced to pay exorbitant taxes.

Responsibly Addressing the Marijuana Policy Gap Act

This multi-faceted bill aims to help reduce the gap between Federal and State law by removing federal criminal penalties for marijuana sale and possession in states that have legalized pot. Notably, this would include an expungement process for certain marijuana violations, potentially wiping away thousands of pot-related convictions.

It would also reduce advertising restrictions, provide banking services and bankruptcy protection, make sure veterans have access to state-legal medical marijuana, and protect Native American tribes from punishment under federal marijuana laws.

Marijuana Revenue and Regulation Act

Lastly, this piece of legislation would work to de-schedule, tax, and regulate marijuana similar to alcohol and tobacco. This would involve removing marijuana’s Schedule I substance designation and imposing a federal excise tax on marijuana products.

“’This could be a no-brainer for the federal government to get some of the revenue flowing’ to states with legal recreational pot,” Blumenauer said, according to the Huffington Post.

The federal government must respect the decision Oregonians made at the polls and allow law-abiding marijuana businesses to go to the bank just like any other legal business. This three-step approach will spur job growth and boost our economy all while ensuring the industry is being held to a fair standard.

This detailed marijuana reform plan doesn’t come as much of a surprise. Marijuana advocates have speculated for months over whether or not Attorney General Jeff Sessions will crackdown on state marijuana programs. Wyden and Blumenauer have introduced similar legislation before to no avail, but they think this time could be different because of their plan’s “more comprehensive” approach and revenue focus.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Oregon Lawmakers Introduce Ambitious Marijuana Reform Bills appeared first on Law Street.

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 Oregon Issues First Recreational Marijuana Recall After Failed Pesticide Test appeared first on Law Street.

The marijuana industry and the Trump Administration seem to be locked in a battle of chicken. Known Russian affiliate Attorney General Jeff Sessions and active Venmo user Press Secretary Sean Spicer have drawn battle lines, but we’ve been waiting to see who will make the first move. Until now.

In an attempt to circumvent the inevitable nationwide crackdown on legal marijuana, a group of bipartisan Oregon lawmakers are leading the charge with direct state actions.

According to CBS News, the committee responsible for crafting Oregon’s pot policies has proposed legislation that requires marijuana businesses to destroy customers’ personal information (such as names, addresses and birth dates, gathered for marketing purposes) within 48 hours.

via GIPHY

The measure is scheduled for its first hearing Tuesday. Before it can take effect, it must first pass the full legislature, before finally being approved by the state’s governor, who has vowed to protect Oregon’s pot market.

“I could see where the federal government would come in and try to gather this information from businesses that have stockpiled it and retained it in their records,” said Democratic State Sen. Floyd Prozanski, a bill sponsor who is also a prosecutor. “I think we as legislators have a duty to protect our citizens.”

Even though marijuana is still illegal at the federal level, eight states and the District of Columbia have legalized recreational marijuana. However, only four of those states have established legal dispensaries. These shops are required to check the driver’s licenses of customers to verify they are at least 21. But some take it a step further, logging driver’s license numbers, birthdays, addresses, and other personal information into their systems.

“The reason we keep that information is to reach out to them–it’s marketing, just like any retailer,” said Donald Morse, executive director of the Oregon Cannabis Business Council.

Lawmakers fear that this same information could one day be used by the feds to build legal cases against individuals who have purchased marijuana, albeit legally. While the Justice Department doesn’t typically go after individuals, this could be a serious violation of privacy.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Trump Effect?: Oregon Lawmakers Push to Protect Pot Privacy appeared first on Law Street.

The trial in the Bundy brothers’ Oregon standoff case–when armed activists led an occupation of a wildlife refuge for 41 days–is getting closer. On Wednesday jury selection started and the first statements are scheduled to begin on September 13. The case already has plenty of attention online.

They’ve been charged with conspiracy to impede federal officers and possession of firearms in a federal facility. In total 26 people were charged but only seven are going to trial now. Seven more are going to trial early next year and the rest have already pled guilty.

The Shoes

Journalists were live-tweeting from court on Wednesday, fascinated with the nature of the case. The Bundy brothers’ lawyer had argued that his clients need to be allowed to wear cowboy boots, because they are cowboys.

2a. Mumford first giggled a bunch about the jail issued shoes, calling them “urban loafers.” Jdg Brown: “I do not find it comical at all”

— Leah Sottile (@Leah_Sottile) September 7, 2016

2c. Ammon Bundy: “I prefer to be wearing boots.”

— Leah Sottile (@Leah_Sottile) September 7, 2016

The Background

It all started when two farmers, a father and son, were convicted for arson on government land in 2001. Dwight and Steven Hammond claimed they started a controlled fire on their land to get rid of weeds and brushwood that could cause wildfires, but that they lost control over the fire. They turned themselves in in January of this year and were given the minimum sentence of five years, but this caused some local supporters to start protesting. The leaders of the protests were the sons of Cliven Bundy, who had a separate previous standoff with federal authorities in Nevada. Bundy claimed the government was just trying to punish the Hammonds for not selling their land. The government, on their hand, said the Hammonds tried to cover up poaching activity with the fire.

Currently on trial (and pictured below) are Ammon Bundy, Ryan Bundy, Shawna Cox, David Lee Fry, Jeff Wayne Banta and Neil Wampler. Kenneth Medenbach is missing from the picture below.

Jury selection begins for #OregonStandoff trial #LiveOnK2 https://t.co/9swhvvHq6o pic.twitter.com/tLzyfXXsAR

— KATU News (@KATUNews) September 7, 2016

The protesters didn’t give up, and instead occupied a federal building until they got what they wanted. The group, led by the Bundys, started calling themselves Citizens for Constitutional Freedom and one of their viewpoints was that the government owns too much land and misuses that land. The fact that the group was opposed to the government and was armed led some to call them domestic terrorists. But they continue to paint themselves as cowboys and freedom fighters.

A picture from the courtroom illustrates the jury selection.

NOW: 31 potential jurors vetted by Judge Brown. Asked how much media exposure they had to the case. #Oregonstandoff pic.twitter.com/V1kEyyP4LN

— Eileen Park (@EileenParkTV) September 7, 2016

Most of the arrests were made during a traffic stop on January 26, in which the spokesperson for the new movement, LaVoy Finicum, was fatally shot.

What’s Next?

The trial is expected to take even longer than the occupation did. The protesters claim they were just using their First Amendment rights to peacefully protest, and their Second Amendment rights to carry licensed guns. The brothers’ father, Cliven Bundy, is also facing trial in Nevada, because of another standoff near his cattle ranch in 2014. That trial will take place in February in Nevada.

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 Bundy Brothers’ Trial is About to Start: Here’s What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

A laser light show. Painting parties. Rattlesnakes and lizards. The 2016 Oregon State Fair is a diverse affair, set to feature the aforementioned activities and reptiles. And for the first time ever at an American state fair, according to its organizers, there will be an exhibit displaying live marijuana plants, with leaves but no buds. The exhibit is focused on promoting pot cultivation techniques. “It’s not to tempt people to use marijuana,” Donald Morse, executive director of the Oregon Cannabis Business Council and the exhibit’s organizer, told ABC. “It is to educate. Cannabis is Oregon’s newest farm crop.”

Oregon voted to legalize recreational marijuana in November 2014. It’s one of four states plus the District of Columbia to legalize the drug. State fairs are communal gatherings, where the latest in food and culture is often showcased side-by-side with local traditions. A public cannabis exhibit represents an important milestone in erasing the long-held stigma associated with pot since the days of “Reefer Madness.” This year’s exhibit is the logical next step from last year’s fair, which had marijuana information booths. A positive response from fairgoers last year allowed for live plants to be displayed this year, Morse said. 

Nine plants will feature at the fair, which begins on Friday in Salem, a city 50 miles south of Portland. Selected from a cannabis competition last weekend, the nine winning plants will evenly be split between sativa, indica, and a hybrid of the two varieties. Sativa and indica are two major species of the cannabis plant, distinguished by the appearance of their leaves and their psychological effects.

The Oregon Liquor Control Commission is still tweaking the state’s regulations regarding marijuana cultivation, transportation, and consumption. A spokesman said the commission hopes to have licensing laws and regulations finalized by 2017. The current code allows people to grow four pot plants in their private residence. But because a flowering plant–one with buds–is illegal to transport, the plants at the fair will be budless. Dan Cox, a spokesman for the fair, said the marijuana exhibit fits right into the ethos of his state’s annual event: “It is a showcase for traditional things. And yet it’s always been a showplace for the new, the different, and the innovative,” 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 At Oregon’s State Fair, a Groundbreaking Attraction: Marijuana Plants appeared first on Law Street.

The plaintiff and lawyer were ordered to stay while the rest of the courtroom was adjourned. The judge’s clerk had noticed legal language that had gone overlooked–delaying the groundbreaking decision. After ten minutes of deliberation, the judge smiled, nodded her head up and down, and Jamie Shupe, the plaintiff, began to weep.

“The sex of Jamie Shupe is hereby changed from female to non-binary,” read Oregon Circuit Court Judge Amy Holmes Hehn’s decision. In that moment the case became first legal recognition of a non-binary gender identity in the state of Oregon, and perhaps the country, according to Shupe’s lawyer, Lake James Perriguey.

It was a routine, drama-less affair. A hearing was not even necessary. “Jamie thought it was going to be a very difficult procedure,” Perriguey told Law Street. “I thought it was going to be very routine. I knew the law didn’t limit gender, there is no specific language in the statute.”

Perriguey, who has been representing the queer and trans community in Oregon since 1998, said that this is the first non-binary case to be brought before a judge in the state. But that does not mean Perriguey finds the victory to be “envelope-pushing”–a term used by the judge after the ruling was dealt. “The envelope was a little too small, and we are sort of opening it up,” said Perriguey.

Shupe was born with the biology of a male. But early on, Shupe felt like a female. For decades, nothing happened.

But in 2013, at the age of 49, Shupe took the first concrete steps toward making that inner identity an outward reality. They started hormone treatments. “Jamie” became Shupe’s legal first name, but what came before that they do not wish to share. Then in a tense legal battle with the United States Army, which they served in for 18 years, Shupe’s Army retirement papers were changed to reflect Shupe’s female identity.

“I have effectively traded my white male privilege to become one of America’s most hated minorities. The documents of my distinguished military career no longer reflect my name,” Shupe wrote in a piece for The New York Times op-ed series “Transgender Today.”

At the time Shupe lived in Pittsburgh, where trans-animus was poignant (Shupe told the Times: “I had neighbors yelling at me for being in women’s clothing”). So Shupe fled, finding refuge in Portland, a place where “nobody cares who or what you are.”

After realizing both the “female” and “male” boxes did not quite fit, Shupe embraced a non-binary identity, and Friday’s decision legally recognized that. But the fight goes on. The next step, according to Perriguey, is to secure non-binary status on legal identification forms: driver’s license, passport, state ID.

Having a judge legally recognize Shupe as non-binary should provide leverage in the fights to come. “Now Jamie has a document from a court of law,” Perriguey said. “Jamie is thrilled.”

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 Oregon Judge Recognizes a Person as Non-Binary appeared first on Law Street.

Sponsored Content

Are you mission-driven? Motivated by your devotion to a cause? Ready to make an impact on the world? Fueled by a desire to help others? There’s a field of law that needs your passion.

Public interest lawyers provide voices to the members of our society who are so often overlooked, help to save the environment, take on oppressive laws, and fight for fairness. If you are a changer-of-the world looking for meaningful work that will feed your desire to make real change, public interest law is a path you should consider.

Lewis & Clark Law School, located in Portland, Oregon, has one of the leading Public Interest Law programs in the country, making it a great place for aspiring public interest lawyers to get their start.

So…what exactly is Public Interest Law?

Public interest work is not confined to any one political ideology or legal practice area. It is work undertaken to advance justice, fairness, and protection of the public, rather than for commercial or personal gain.

Put simply, public interest law is more than just a job–it’s a calling. As Tracy Sullivan, Executive Director of Public Interest Law at Lewis & Clark says, public interest law is mission-driven, meaning that lawyers who go down the public interest path aim to accomplish some sort of goal that benefits the greater public rather than an individual, corporation, or private entity seeking commercial gain. Public interest law certainly isn’t confined to any one specialty or practice. Here are just a few examples of public interest law passions:

• Criminal Justice Reform: The criminal justice system in the U.S. has its flaws–from wrongful convictions to the lack of resources available for offenders once they reenter society. Public interest lawyers working on criminal justice reform aim to fix these and other problems to make sure that the system is actually just.
• Environmental Law: We need to protect the environment for future generations, and some of the best ways to do so are through the law. Some public interest lawyers work on crafting legislation to protect the environment; work to enforce existing environmental laws; and bring to justice those who harm the environment.
• Victim Advocacy Law: Victims’ rights law aims to carve out a space for victims in the criminal justice system. Advocates work to ensure that victims’ rights, such as the right to be protected from the accused and the right to have their say in court, are upheld.

Why do Students Focus on Public Interest Law?

Here’s what some Lewis & Clark Law students say about why they were drawn to public interest law.

Chelsea Sandbloom, a 2L from Washington, told me about how volunteering and working at nonprofits while in college drove her obtain “a graduate degree where I could better advocate for those who are underrepresented or marginalized in society.”

Zachary Winston, a 3L from New York, won last year’s Oregon New Lawyers Division Pro Bono Challenge Award for completing the most pro bono hours at Lewis & Clark Law School. He has a deeply personal reason for his desire to work in the field of public interest. While an undergraduate student, Winston made a bad decision one night and was arrested on felony charges. “After taking responsibility for my actions and pleading guilty, I was incarcerated for seven months,” he says. “While incarcerated, I witnessed many injustices in the criminal justice system. After being released, I knew I had to give back to underrepresented communities by trying to reform it.”

Laura Russell, a 3L at Lewis & Clark Law School who focuses on public interest, with a concentration in health law, told me about her journey, stating:

I knew from an early age that I wanted to be a public servant, I just wasn’t sure in what capacity. Then, just out of college, I got a job working in health care. My job was, essentially, to educate people about state and federal health care coverage options. It was at that job where I started to really understand issues of health justice. I knew I wanted to have a career that would allow me to advocate for, and with, vulnerable populations on both an individual and systemic level. There are an abundance of lawyers in this country, but what we really lack, are public interest lawyers. Public interest law is not lucrative, and it often feels like it’s a perpetual uphill battle but I can’t imagine any more gratifying work. It’s the kind of work that can change lives and communities.

At the end of the day, while each public interest law school student’s story is going to be different, there’s a consistency that rings true–a drive to help others and seek justice.

Why You Should Consider the Public Interest Law Program at Lewis & Clark Law

First and foremost, the results speak for themselves. Lewis & Clark’s Public Interest Law program is one of the best in the country, and it feeds more graduates into careers within the realm of public interest law than the national average among law schools.

Support from the School

Tracy Sullivan, the executive director of the program, talked about the wealth of resources that the school offers to its students. The school offers a certificate program specifically focused on public interest law, which emphasizes pro bono work from day one. According to Sullivan, Lewis & Clark Law students have completed roughly 22,000 hours of pro bono work this year–a huge service to the Oregon and national communities.

To help students support themselves while taking on pro bono work, Lewis & Clark Law offers a number of stipends. Additionally, Lewis & Clark Law helps graduates connect with the loan repayment assistant program, and one of its student organizations helps contribute to the funds used for that program.

Support from Fellow Students 

One of the most active student groups on Lewis & Clark Law’s campus is the Public Interest Law Project (PILP). Its mission is to “help fill the justice gap between those who need attorneys and those who can afford attorneys. PILP helps fill this gap by providing students ways to afford to take on this work both as students and as lawyers.” PILP provides Lewis & Clark Law students with a robust community of students also interested in public interest law, as well as events and resources.

Experience Combined With Classes 

Lewis & Clark Law has a fantastic externship program, providing work opportunities to students while they’re still completing their studies. This emphasis on work experience while in law school helps students get jobs. Sullivan explained that employers in the public interest sphere love to see a continued commitment from students throughout their time in school. Lewis & Clark Law also helps students find those placements after graduation, with services like the NW Public Service Career Fair.

What’s Next?

The practice of law is all what you make of it. Public consciousness seems to be at an all time high–from the inception of the Black Lives Matter movement, to increased emphasis on environmental law, to discussions about wrongful convictions sparked by cultural phenomena like “Serial” and “Making a Murderer”–we’ve been hearing a lot about the need for justice for all. If you’re interested in making a difference, public interest law could be the way to go, and Lewis & Clark Law is looking for passionate students to join the next generation of public interest lawyers. Learn more about the program here.

Editor’s Note: This post has been updated to clarify the number of pro bono hours worked by Lewis & Clark Law Students. 

Lewis & Clark Law School

With robust practical skills options, flexible scheduling, and a faculty invested in your success, Lewis & Clark Law School is an ideal place to start a legal career. The school’s innovative programs, such as the NCVLI, CJRC, and the criminal law certificate program, offer students the opportunity to learn and work in a rigorous, collegial environment in scenic Portland, Oregon. Learn more at law.lclark.edu. Lewis & Clark Law School is a partner of Law Street Creative. The opinions expressed in this author’s articles do not necessarily reflect the views of Law Street.

https://law.lclark.edu/

The post Advocating with a Passion: Why a Career in Public Interest Law is Worth Considering appeared first on Law Street.

For the past few weeks, the occupation of Malheur National Wildlife Refuge has been on everyone’s radar. This week, the standoff may be coming to an end, as local law enforcement arrested several of the movement’s leaders on Tuesday, in what turned out to be a fatal altercation.

The seven people arrested were the leader of the movement, Ammon Bundy; his brother, Ryan Bundy; and several others including Brian Cavalier, Shawna Cox, Peter Santilli, Joseph O’Shaughnessy and Ryan Payne. The militia members were taken into custody at a highway stop, like the one pictured below, set up by local law enforcement and FBI in the areas surrounding the Wildlife Refuge.

Just passed @FBI & @ORStatePolice checkpoint @KTVZ #ORstandoff #KTVZ pic.twitter.com/E0N8Tm0ZPh

— Lauren Martinez (@LaurenKTVZ) January 27, 2016

The arrested occupants are being held in Multnomah County Jail, which is a little more than five hours outside of the reserve where the militia currently occupies. Since Tuesday, additional arrests and voluntary departures have left as few as five people at the wildlife refuge, according to a video posted by one of the remaining individuals.

Perhaps the most controversial part of Tuesday’s arrest is the death of Robert “LaVoy” Finicum, a 55-year-old member of the takeover. Weeks before his death, Finicum  told reporters, “There are things more important than your life and freedom is one of them.” He warned that he would rather die than be taken to jail, sending an ominous warning that ended up ringing true Tuesday night. During the arrest, Ryan Bundy was also injured by a bullet, although it is unclear as to who shot him or how. All of the men and women taken into custody are being charged with conspiracy to impede federal officials by use of force, intimidation, or threats.

The FBI is attempting to shut down the operation by placing more roadblocks around the refuge and not allowing anyone in, except land owners. All law enforcement officers in the area are encouraging those who are still gathered in the refuge to leave. Several of the people who were holed up in the refuge have decided to follow that advice, as most of the leaders of this movement have been arrested and the fire behind the cause is beginning to dwindle.

Many of the journalists at the scene of the occupation left the reserve after receiving word from the FBI that they could not be guaranteed any kind of protection by law enforcement. Reporters were active on twitter, announcing the ominous warning given by the FBI:

Leaving refuge. @FBI warns media no protection #ORstandoff @KTVZ pic.twitter.com/ojWTEUgB4V

— Lauren Martinez (@LaurenKTVZ) January 27, 2016

.@OPB has left the compound entrance, along with @KGW, @KOINNews @fox12oregon and several journalists. We determined it’s not safe.

— John Sepulvado (@JohnLGC) January 27, 2016

.@OPB was told by FBI that we were on our own — essentially stuff is going down and we need to move.

— John Sepulvado (@JohnLGC) January 27, 2016

A lot of the details from this story remain fuzzy–no one has released specifics about Tuesday’s roadblock altercation and authorities still haven’t officially released Finicum’s name as the man who was killed in the shooting, though he was identified by his daughter. Oregon Governor Kate Brown voiced her opinion that she is ready for the situation to be resolved, saying, “Federal authorities must move quickly to end the occupation and hold all of the wrongdoers accountable. The spectacle of lawlessness must end.”

Who knows how much longer the occupants will, or can, hold out, but as tensions rise, it seems unlikely that the situation will be able to continue as it is for much longer.

Read More: What’s Going on in Oregon? Domestic Terrorism in the Beaver State

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Standoff at the Oregon Wildlife Refuge: Is it Over? appeared first on Law Street.

As people recovered from New Year’s Eve and went back to work, attention returned to the challenges facing the United States, from Russia to the Middle East. However, while Americans continue to fret over ISIS sleeper cells, an armed, anti-government group occupied a wildlife refuge in Oregon. While the group’s specific demands remain unclear, this type of armed insurrection is nothing new in the United States.  Starting with the nation’s inception to the present, with several high-profile cases in the 1990s, anti-government rhetoric and militia type groups have been and remain a major issue.  This article will look at the specifics of this incident, the history of these types of groups, similar organizations, and the impact all this has on the United States.

A Wildlife Refuge under Siege

The catalyst for this most recent incident was the conviction of father and son ranchers, the Hammonds, on charges of arson on government land. While they claimed to be merely clearing dangerously flammable brush and invasive species, the pair was convicted of starting the fire to cover up poaching activities in 2001. Although the two men turned themselves in and ended up receiving the minimum sentence for the crime they were convicted of, this was not enough to stem the controversy that has since ensued.

In response, a group led by Ammon Bundy, whose father led a similar stand-off against the government in 2014, held a rally and protest, then seized control of a federal building on the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. The group, now dubbing itself the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom, has remained in the buildings, which were unoccupied, since the night of January 2. While the group’s demands are still unclear, their complaints seem to center on people having greater access to federal land and the release of the convicted ranchers.

While their exact motivation also remains uncertain, what is clear is that Citizens for Constitutional Freedom is not the first group of its kind. While the group has had previous run-ins with the government, movements protesting federal control of land have roots that go back decades, even centuries. For much of that time, the debate has been between those who wish to conserve areas and those who wish to utilize the land for resources. In the 1970s and 80s the idea that the land should be controlled locally gathered steam and became what has been dubbed the Sagebrush Rebellion.

That movement’s primary complaint–and one of the complaints offered by the group in Oregon–is that the government controls too much land and is not using it appropriately. While the methods being used by the Bundy family are certainly illegal, the protesters may have a point. In total, the government owns roughly one-third of all land in the United States and 53.1 percent of the land in Oregon respectively. Regardless of the validity of these claims, the Oregon group’s inability to articulate its specific complaints have made dealing with it a challenge.  This challenge is only exacerbated by how the group is viewed and portrayed by different people and organizations.

What Do We Call Them?

Much of the debate over this group and why they are protesting concerns how they should be classified. More specifically, is this domestic terrorism?  While many people were quick to denounce the group’s tactics as unpatriotic, there was a noticeable lack of coverage and condemnation of their methods. In fact, many argue that the media coverage of the occupation–which some have even called a peaceful protest–is unfair and biased. Critics contrast the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom’s efforts with other protests, such as the ones in Baltimore and Ferguson, which were called riots and met with armed confrontation from authorities.

So what is this group, then? They are clearly protesters speaking out against something they view as unfair. But the presence of weapons and their vague demands over land use rights, freeing the Hammonds, and fighting against government intimidation appears to make them something more. In fact, the group’s actions do seem to fall more in line with the FBI’s definition of domestic terrorism, which includes any action that is “calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct.” The key to identifying this group then ultimately appears to rest with their intent. Since their actions appear to be based on specific perceived injustices and are tied to specific demands, we can differentiate them from mere protesters.

For context, other examples of the importance of intent in defining an act as terrorism concern two of America’s most recent and deadly shootings. In the case of Sandy Hook, Adam Lanza’s actions were not technically domestic terrorism because there was no ideological intent aside from killing; whereas the shootings by Dylann Roof at a Charleston Church were an act of terrorism as the intent was racially and politically motivated. In other words, although the occupiers in Oregon have not yet used force, the threat of force remains and when you couple that with their intentions they appear to be domestic terrorists. For greater clarity the accompanying video gives another voice to the domestic terrorist debate:

Militia Groups in the United States

Historically, one of the primary perpetrators of domestic terrorism in the United States has been militia groups.  Like the definition of terrorism, the definition of a militia is also vague. The general consensus is that a militia is an irregular military force made up of citizens that are called upon only in the event of an emergency. Once again the protesters in Oregon do not fit neatly within this definition; however, many of them are members of a self-styled militia group known as the Patriot movement. This movement began back in the 1970s and was originally concerned with protecting the United States in the event of a foreign occupation. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the group has refocused its attention to standing up against perceived threats from the government, particularly fear of the government taking away their guns. While the protesters, or domestic terrorists, in Oregon are the latest example of this type of group, they are by no means the only one.

In fact, the number of anti-government groups has mushroomed since 2008, coinciding with the election of President Obama. The number of these groups went from 149 that year to an estimated 1,360 groups by 2012 according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. Again, the extent of the threat that these groups actually pose is up for debate. Some counter that their numbers and danger are overblown by organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center, who compiled the numbers as means of drumming up donations. However, others view them as a far more serious concern. The Southern Poverty Law Center also notes that during the 1990s only 858 such groups were identified, almost 500 less than 2012. Even with population growth factored in, that level of increase is concerning. It is especially troubling given the number of high-profile conflicts between the government and anti-government groups during the 1990s.

History of Discontent

The 1990s were a time of numerous conflicts between the government and anti-government groups.  The government standoffs and civilian deaths at Ruby Ridge and Waco raised the specter of government repression, especially among militia-type groups. This culminated with the Oklahoma City Bombing, which left 168 people dead when an anti-government sympathizer blew up a government building. While this attack greatly reduced support for militia groups, particularly for the Patriot movement, it was certainly not the end of the violence or domestic terrorism.

In fact, the American Prospect compiled a list of bombings from 1867 to the present. The list includes attacks from anti-war groups, anarchists, foreign separatists, lone wolfs, and the Boston Bombers to name just a few. In addition to bombings, mass shootings in the United States also involve an element of domestic terrorism, such as the recent San Bernardino shooting.

Currently, the protestors in Oregon have stated that they will only resort to violence if forced into a confrontation by authorities. So far, the authorities have aired on the side of caution, letting the group be in an effort to wait for the occupation out.

Even if the protesters in Oregon leave peacefully, the threat of right-wing militias remains. In fact, in a survey conducted by the Police Executive Research Forum last year, the number one threat identified was these militia-style groups, even relative to the threat of foreign terrorism from groups like Al-Qaeda. The protesters’ biggest impact may come in the form of shedding greater light on these groups. The following video gives a look at the militia movement in the United States:

Conclusion

As of right now, much of what is going on in Oregon remains unclear. Even how the group should be classified is debated; are they protesters, terrorists, a militia, or something else? About the only thing that is clear is that what they are doing is unpopular. Already the town has come together and asked them to leave. The Paiute Indian Tribe, which can trace its lineage to the area back 9,000 years, believes they have no legitimate complaint and they should leave. Even the Hammonds–the two men convicted of the crime that supposedly sparked the protest–have distanced themselves from the protesters.

While the debate rages over how to treat them, the specter of FBI assaults on seemingly similar groups in the 1990s lingers. Additionally, figuring out how to deal with groups like these takes on ever-increasing importance as their numbers swell and they become increasingly well-armed.

As of right now, it is too early to know exactly how the events will ultimately unfold in Oregon. In all likelihood the protesters will run out of steam, most will likely leave and the masterminds, such as Ammon Bundy, will be held accountable. It could also go the other way if cooler heads do not prevail.

Resources

CNN: Armed Protesters Refuse to Leave Federal Building in Oregon

Al Jazeera: Double Standards Cited Amid Armed Protest in Oregon

Legal Information Institute: 18 U.S. Code § 2332b – Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries

Merriam-Webster: Militia

USA Today: Record Number of Anti-government Militias in the USA

The American Prospect: A History of Terrorism on U.S. Soil

Time: This Is What It Takes for Mass Murder to Be ‘Terrorism’

National Geographic: Why Federal Lands Are So Wildly Controversial in the West

The Blaze: Ammon Bundy Says There’s Only One Scenario in Which Armed Protesters Would Resort to Violence Against Authorities

The New York Times: The Growing Right-Wing Terror Threat

CNN: Native Tribe Blasts Oregon Takeover

Politico: What Do the Oregon Ranchers Really Believe?

Michael Sliwinski

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

The post What’s Going on in Oregon? Domestic Terrorism in the Beaver State appeared first on Law Street.

Today in the category of “news I thought was a joke but actually is real” we have people watching a puddle in the UK via Periscope, a Canadian company that sort of solved that debate about how dogs wear pants, and Oregon terrorist Ammon Bundy compared himself to Rosa Parks. Happy Wednesday, everyone.

In case you aren’t caught up on your crazy people in Oregon news, here’s the skinny. Over the weekend a group of armed men took over a wildlife reserve in Oregon. Fellow Law Streeter Alexis Evans wrote a good rundown of exactly what’s happening there, but long story short: there’s a standoff in which the armed “militia members” are demanding vague things about the Constitution and federal land and no one really knows when this is going to end (although law enforcement is developing a plan to deal with the situation.)

The entire thing has been bizarre and upsetting to say the absolute least, but it got even more bizarre and upsetting last night, when the ringleader of the group Ammon Bundy tweeted this:

We are doing the same thing as Rosa Parks did. We are standing up against bad laws which dehumanize us and destroy our freedom.

— Ammon Bundy (@Ammon_Bundy) January 6, 2016

That’s right–he compared their armed takeover of a federal building to Rosa Parks, who is basically the poster lady for peaceful resistance. Bundy’s group has made it clear that they’re willing to be basically the opposite of peaceful, given that they’ve said that, “if force is used against us we will defend ourselves.” Unsurprisingly, people are not happy with Bundy’s delusional comparison, and took to Twitter with some sarcastic and poignant responses.  

Newly discovered photo of the #RosaParks bus-jacking of 1955… #OregonUnderAttack pic.twitter.com/zlgKuluHye — Goldie Taylor (@goldietaylor) January 6, 2016

#AmmonBundy should bone up on his history; particularly in the area of civil rights. #RosaParks didn’t seek change via a gun-toting militia.

— Elgin Charles (@ElginCharles) January 6, 2016

Did someone named Rosa Parks get a $500000 government loan, arm herself, take over federal property & demand snacks? https://t.co/HE9RqazRj6 — sfpelosi (@sfpelosi) January 6, 2016

A list of people who should compare themselves to Rosa Parks: 1. Rosa Parks

— Virginia Montanez (@JanePitt) January 6, 2016

White people, we need to finally all agree that there is no context in the universe where we can compare ourselves to Rosa Parks. Just stop. — Andrew, 2016 Edition (@Truly_Defective) January 6, 2016

Cliven Bundy: “You know, black people was better off being slaves.” Ammon Bundy: “Shut UP, dad, we’re TOTES Rosa Parks!”

— GAIL SIMONE (@GailSimone) January 6, 2016

Rosa Parks and Ammon Bundy actually have a lot in common both human same number of arms and legs weakness for hats — Adam Serwer (@AdamSerwer) January 6, 2016

So, Ammon Bundy did accomplish one thing with his Rosa Parks comparison–he made himself even less likable. 

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 Delusions of Grandeur: Ammon Bundy Compares Himself to Rosa Parks appeared first on Law Street.

Recreational marijuana may be legal in four states (and the District of Columbia) but it’s still not legal at the federal level. This has caused some problems and inconsistencies with between states and federal agencies–most recently, the United States Postal Service has declared that it is illegal to mail materials, including newspapers, that advertise marijuana.

This revelation comes after the Democrats of Oregon’s Congressional delegation wrote a letter to the Postal Service asking the agency to explain its policy. That inquiry was sparked by a memo that was circulated in the Portland, Oregon, postal district that stated that it was illegal for any media sources to run ads for marijuana and still distribute their publications through the Postal Service. The Democrats of the Oregon Congressional delegation explained their frustrations with the Postal Service’s policy, which they say is too rigid and doesn’t respect the voters of Oregon, stating:

We are working as a delegation to quickly find the best option to address this agency’s intransigence. Unfortunately, the outdated federal approach to marijuana as described in the response from the Postal Service undermines and threatens news publications that choose to accept advertising from legal marijuana businesses in Oregon and other states where voters also have freely decided to legalize marijuana.

In response, the Postal Service explained that “the Postal Service has released a national policy, which also spells out that local postal officials can’t refuse mail that contains pot ads, but they must report it; the matter must then be turned over to law enforcement agencies who can decide if an investigation is warranted.”

So, it’s actually pretty unclear what will happen if a newspaper or magazine publishes an ad for marijuana–the Washington Post points out that it’s tough to determine whether or not any prosecutions would come from breaking the policy. The law being broken would technically be advertising for illicit goods, but as the Washington Post states: “federal authorities have generally not cracked down on pot sales in states where they’re legal.”

Given that the number of states that have legalized marijuana are a notable minority, and traditional advertising isn’t necessary flourishing, this may not be a big deal. But it’s another messy manifestation of the current divide between state and federal law–one that only threatens to widen as more states legalize recreational marijuana.

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 Newspapers Can’t Run Marijuana Ads if They Want to Use the Postal Service appeared first on Law Street.

Sponsored Content

Portland, Oregon, has long been heralded as one of the hottest cities for millennials. Home to Lewis & Clark Law School, it’s also a great city for young lawyers, as well as young aspiring lawyers. If you fit into one of those categories, and are considering a move, check out some of the top reasons to give Portland a look.

The Economy

Things are looking relatively good for Portland’s economy. It’s been dubbed a hub of entrepreneurship, with a hot startup scene. In addition, major corporations including Nike, Wieden+Kennedy, and Intel have their largest campuses in the Portland metro area. Portland’s major industries–software, athletic and outdoor products, advanced manufacturing, and green building and technology–promise to be consistently strong fields in the years to come.

Portland also boasts a lower unemployment rate than the rest of the United States, a higher median household income, and a very well-educated population.

Food Scene

Portland’s food scene is consistently ranked as one of the best in the U.S. The city has also been ranked as one of the most affordable U.S. cities when it comes to good cuisines–great news for any aspiring foodies who are in law school or pre-law and don’t want to break the bank. There’s lots of great niche food there too–from great local craft brews to vegetarian and vegan selections.

Check out this feature below on Portland’s innovative food carts for a snapshot of the city’s food scene:

The Population

Portland has seen a huge increase in population growth over the last few years. Portland had the 15th largest metro-area population growth in 2013-2014 (out of the top 50 largest metro areas.) With a population now at 2.35 million, Portland saw 33,500 new residents move into its metro area borders from 2013-2014 alone. Nearly half of those new residents came from different areas of the country, and another 15 percent are international transplants. That kind of wide breadth of transplants is sure to lead to a mix of cultures and voices.

Ted Reid, who works on Metro Planning in the area, explained:

This population growth speaks to the attractiveness of our region’s communities as places to live and work. With two-thirds of the growth coming from people moving here from elsewhere, this is right in line with our long-term forecast. The challenge that we have is to improve people’s quality of life as the population grows. More than ever, there’s a need to plan ahead.

Sustainability and Focus on the Environment

Portland is all about sustainability. Take, for example, the commuting scene in Portland. Portland has a fantastic public transit system, and it’s one of the most bike-friendly cities in the nation. From 2000-2014, the number of workers in Portland who commute by bike jumped from 1.8 percent to 6.1 percent. According to the League of American Bicyclists, Portland was the city with the highest number of bike commuters in 2013.

Portland also extends its focus on sustainability to the food scene, which in addition to being fantastic (see above) has a big commitment to using locally-sourced ingredients. Portland has standout green policies and follow-through: the city’s recycling rate is almost 60 percent, which is pretty impressive compared to the nationwide rate of 34.1 percent. The city-wide composting program is also unique and shows commitment to environmental responsibility.

And if you’re rolling your eyes about the fact that you already knew about Portland’s sustainability track record from the show “Portlandia,” that’s alright, because Portland’s sustainability chief Susan Anderson admits that the show draws some inspiration from real life. She said about Portlandia:

I always say it’s less of a parody and more of a biography. Our [former] mayor is the mayor’s assistant [on the show]. What’s interesting are the parts that [make] people in other cities think, ‘Aw, I wish we were that place.’ It’s not the over-the-top, goofy parts, but the human-scale part of Portland. It’s really walkable and there are restaurants on the corners and there are food carts everywhere. The air and water are generally very clean. You can recycle everything. Portlandia is a parody but a lot of those things are actually normal here.

The Legal Field

Portland’s legal scene will see new challenges in coming years–including an attempt to regulate the burgeoning marijuana market, now that Oregon has legalized it. While the legal market in Portland isn’t necessarily as robust as other parts of the U.S., a large pool of practical training opportunities are available for law school students while they’re still studying. For example, there’s the Oregon Justice Resource Center, which worked to start a new branch of the Innocence Project. The Innocence Project works to free those who have been wrongfully convicted. The OJRC allows law students to provide attorneys with research and assistance on death penalty cases.

Portland is also a center of change and growth in business that may be reflected in the legal field in years to come. There’s been a rise in IP and patent work, probably tied to the fact that Portland is a leading tech hub–its tech talent growth has outpaced Silicon Valley’s. Other of Portland niches, such as sustainability and food ethics, have also found a way to shine within Portland’s legal market. For example, Lewis & Clark Law recently hosted a forum to discuss food law. It’s a revolutionary and developing facet of law that promises to grow as Americans become concerned about the ethics of eating. Another field being pioneered in Portland is Animal Law, as the Center for Animal Law Studies is located there. Its annual Animal Law Conference  tasks itself to take on “cutting-edge global animal law issues including protecting animals in their native countries; international marine mammal challenges; animal testing outside the US; factory farming worldwide; animals in constitutions; litigation and legislation updates; and much more.”

So, if you’re thinking about a change, why not check out Portland? There’s a lot it can offer.

Lewis & Clark Law School

With robust practical skills options, flexible scheduling, and a faculty invested in your success, Lewis & Clark Law School is an ideal place to start a legal career. The school’s innovative programs, such as the NCVLI, CJRC, and the criminal law certificate program, offer students the opportunity to learn and work in a rigorous, collegial environment in scenic Portland, Oregon. Learn more at law.lclark.edu. Lewis & Clark Law School is a partner of Law Street Creative. The opinions expressed in this author’s articles do not necessarily reflect the views of Law Street.

https://law.lclark.edu/

The post Top Five Reasons Young Law and Policy Minds Should Check Out Portland, Oregon appeared first on Law Street.

Oregon’s first week of selling legalized marijuana has been, by pretty much all accounts, a success. The first week of sales topped an estimated $11 million, blowing sales from other states with legalized weed, including Colorado and Washington, out of the water. If those sales keep up, Oregon can expect to see a pretty noticeable bump in new revenue when the sales taxes kick in this January.

Oregon began selling legal marijuana for recreational uses on October 1, after Ballot Measure 91 to legalize it was successful during the 2014 midterm elections. Just over 56 percent of voters voted to legalize marijuana, and the state took almost a year to put in place the necessary regulations and protocols to sell legalized week. However, there are still some aspects of the industry that are being sorted out.

Currently, only adults 21 and older are allowed to purchase marijuana. Only “flower and dry leaf products, plants, and seeds” are being sold and there are restrictions on the amounts of those items that are able to be sold. Other products, like edibles, are still not being sold to recreational users as some regulation kinks are worked out, but are still available to medical marijuana license holders.

Currently, only licensed medical marijuana dispensaries are allowed to sell the products; there are roughly 200 of those in Oregon. There are plans to begin allowing standalone stores dedicated to selling legalized marijuana sometime next year. Additionally, there are some places where legalized marijuana won’t be sold in Oregon, as the state has allowed individual cities and counties to prohibit the sale.

One the first day of sales–October 1–the Oregon Retail Cannabis Association estimated that there was roughly $3.5 million in sales. This is good news for the state, given that it set a tax revenue goal of $9 million for the first fiscal year. Recreational marijuana won’t be taxed in Oregon until January, at 25 percent. The Oregon Retail Cannabis Association is very optimistic about that $9 million goal–it believes that the tax revenue brought in will be three to four times as much.

So far Oregon’s foray into legalized marijuana has been a success, even just a week in. While there are still regulations that need to be figured out, and the addition of taxes in January may slow down some sales, Oregon is on its way to being a great economic example in the argument for legalizing marijuana.

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 Oregon’s First Week of Legalized Weed Sales Rakes in $11 Million appeared first on Law Street.

Sponsored Content

Lewis & Clark Law School is now offering its students an innovative way to gain hands-on experience with criminal law. A new clinic called the Criminal Justice Reform Clinic is a collaboration between the law school and the Oregon Justice Resource Center (OJRC) and will benefit both law school students, and members of the community in need of legal resources.

The OJRC is a non-profit founded by Lewis & Clark Law School graduates in 2011. Its mission is to:

Dismantle systemic discrimination in the administration of justice by promoting civil rights and enhancing the quality of legal representation for traditionally underserved communities. In the spirit of this mission and in collaboration with other like-minded organizations, OJRC believes in an integrative, three-pronged approach to systemic change and achieving its goals in the core areas of criminal defense and wrongful convictions: 1) advocating for individual clients and systemic change in the law; 2) educating future social justice lawyers; and 3) engaging the community in a dialogue about our justice system.

I had the opportunity to talk to law Professor Aliza Kaplan, who is supervising the clinic, about its inception and goals. She explained that the students who are involved in the clinical program will have the option of being involved in three different projects, providing different ways to engage in the criminal justice system.

The first project involves working in tandem with the Oregon Innocence Project. The Oregon Innocence Project was launched by the OJRC just last year, and focuses on exonerating those who have been wrongly convicted by investigating their claims, re-testing crucial evidence like DNA, and following up on appeals if needed.

Another avenue for students to get involved is the Criminal Justice Project. It focuses on reforming the Oregon criminal justice system in a number of ways, including an arm that works directly on death penalty reform. The students who participate in the Criminal Justice Project will also have the opportunity to work on Eighth Amendment  and sentencing issues and to get involved in the Amicus Curiae Project. The Amicus Curiae Project “provides amicus assistance on the state level in cases that present significant social justice issues that are related to criminal defense, civil rights, juvenile justice, or are of particular importance to traditionally underserved communities,” says Kaplan.

The final project that clinical students can work on is a new endeavor called the “Reentry Law Project,” a joint project with Mercy Corps, which will provide much-needed legal services for people once they’ve been released from prison. There are myriad legal issues that people who have been released from prison face, including problems with immigration, healthcare, and housing.

The clinic offers new opportunities to students at Lewis & Clark Law School, and a valuable service to the Portland community. Law students interested in criminal justice issues were lacking an outlet through which to gain hands-on experience. Since the inception of the OJRC, students have been volunteering with the organization and gaining experience working in this field. The new clinical program will increase student involvement, participation, and benefits while meeting community need.

The OJRC has only been around since 2011, and the social justice issues it faces head on are just beginning to be recognized in Oregon. In doing so, the OJRC is tackling a massive field–the conversation about the inadequacies and difficulties inherent in our criminal justice system have never been more visible than they are now. Law school students, regardless of where they are attending school, are on the precipice of entering a legal environment that is being forced to confront these issues–getting hands on experience while still in law school can only strengthen the skills of the students once they enter that environment.

As Professor Kaplan explained to me, the OJRC has taken on a broad remit as an advocate for reform across a range of criminal legal issues as well as providing client services and raising the funds and awareness that are crucial to its success. For students, being part of the OJRC in an official role through the Criminal Justice Reform Clinic provides insights that cannot be found in a classroom. For the organization itself, the students’ contribution allows more to be achieved in less time, helping the OJRC to advance its mission in Oregon more quickly and more profoundly.

Lewis & Clark Law School

With robust practical skills options, flexible scheduling, and a faculty invested in your success, Lewis & Clark Law School is an ideal place to start a legal career. The school’s innovative programs, such as the NCVLI, CJRC, and the criminal law certificate program, offer students the opportunity to learn and work in a rigorous, collegial environment in scenic Portland, Oregon. Learn more at law.lclark.edu. Lewis & Clark Law School is a partner of Law Street Creative. The opinions expressed in this author’s articles do not necessarily reflect the views of Law Street.

https://law.lclark.edu/

The post Lewis & Clark Law School’s New Criminal Justice Reform Clinic Fills Holes in the Criminal Justice System appeared first on Law Street.

In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over.

— Dan Hodges (@DPJHodges) June 19, 2015

Every single time I see news of another mass shooting, an experience that has come pretty damn close to being an everyday occurrence, I think of the people who pointed out that if America’s gun control laws don’t change after Sandy Hook, they never will. Twenty children and six teachers were slaughtered, and nothing has changed. Since Sandy Hook, there has been roughly one school shooting per week. Since November 2012, this is the 994th mass shooting–by the time we hit the three year anniversary of Sandy Hook, we’ll probably be at 1000. Yesterday, 10 people were killed and seven more were wounded at Umpqua Community College in Oregon. This is an epidemic, and it shows no signs of stopping.

Mass shootings are no longer shocking–instead they’ve become routine occurrences. The cycle we’ll go through after this shooting: anger, arguments about the applicability of mental illness vs. gun laws, an analysis of the murderer’s background, then an unsteady return to normalcy, has become mundane. This weariness was echoed by President Obama at a press conference last night, where the president sounded embattled and exhausted. He talked about how the United States stands alone with this problem; how other developed countries don’t have to mourn their young people to a school shooter on an alarmingly regular basis, stating:

We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours — Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it.

He also pointed out the cyclical nature of our response as well, stating:

And what’s become routine, of course, is the response of those who oppose any kind of common-sense gun legislation. Right now, I can imagine the press releases being cranked out: We need more guns, they’ll argue. Fewer gun safety laws.

Does anybody really believe that? There are scores of responsible gun owners in this country –they know that’s not true. We know because of the polling that says the majority of Americans understand we should be changing these laws — including the majority of responsible, law-abiding gun owners.

So will anything change? I doubt it. To harken back to the quote I opened this article with, it does truly feel like the gun debate in the United States is over.

As a writer tasked with covering the law and policy news of the day, our response to mass shootings has started to feel overwhelming formulaic. At the risk of being crass, the hundreds and thousands of think pieces and op-eds that have been written and will be written about the tragedy in Oregon will follow the same rubric, and they’ll be no different than those that are written after the next shooting. Here’s the formula:

On ______ there was a mass shooting in _____. __ were killed, and the shooter was eventually killed by police. Victims include (insert here the names of the often young people whose lives were taken by senseless gun violence). President Obama and (politicians from the state that was affected) held press conferences to address the tragedy.

Insert impassioned anger, rhetoric, and arguments about why the gun laws should be changed or stay the same. Mention mental illness, maybe. Include a call to action.

The end.

There’s nothing new to say anymore and nothing new to write anymore, because no one is listening. Because there’s nothing new about these mass shootings. I mourn the victims in Oregon, but I truly have no idea what to say at this point. Because is there really anything else left to say?

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 The Depressing Routine of Mass Shootings in the United States appeared first on Law Street.

The ways in which the law interacts with marijuana is, in many ways, still in its infancy. Most glaringly, there a lot of legal issues that come with the use of marijuana that still need to be solved. However, the latest weed legal question was just answered by an Oregon appeals court: does the smell of marijuana smoke constitute an “olfactory assault?” The Oregon court didn’t think so, possibly setting a precedent for how to deal with particularly smelly weed smoke moving forward.

The particulars of the case are bit confusing, but here’s the breakdown: in 2012, Jared William Lang lived in an apartment building in Philomath, Oregon. His neighbors believed he had been smoking weed. Given that there were other people in the apartment complex, they could smell it, and finally had had enough. One of them called the police, who came to check it out. Keep in mind at this point that while weed was decriminalized in Oregon, it wasn’t legal yet.

So, the police officer showed up and talked to Lang’s neighbors–some of whom had some pretty serious complaints about the weed smell. One mentioned that he was a recovering drug addict, and smelling weed constantly acted as a sort of “trigger.” Given this concerning context, the police officer went to get a warrant to search Lang’s apartment. While the officer likely finding weed wouldn’t have been a big deal, given the drug’s decriminalization in Oregon, the officer did find spray paint and stencils in Lang’s apartment that he believed had been used to create nearby graffiti. It was at that point that Lang was charged and later convicted on three counts of criminal mischief for the graffiti.

While that seems like an open-and-shut case, there was one part of the story in particular that Lang based his appeal on–the grounds on which the police officer acquired the search warrant. The officer based it on the fact that the smell of weed constituted a “hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which the person is not licensed or privileged to do.” So amazingly, that became the crux of the legal question–does weed smell so bad that it can be considered “hazardous” or “physically offensive?” Is it an “olfactory assault?”

Those terms in and of themselves are ambiguous. The appeals court tasked with weighing the question ended up defining “physically offensive” as “must be more than minimally unpleasant but need not be dangerous or harmful.” While that’s still a vague parameter, the court decided that in case, the smell wasn’t offensive enough for the officer to obtain the warrant, rendering the charges against Lang invalid.

So, can you get in trouble with the smell police for smoking weed? Maybe–as Judge Erika L. Hadlock put it:

We are not prepared to declare, as the state would have us, that the odor of marijuana smoke is equivalent to the odor of garbage. Nor can we say, however, that the odor is inoffensive as a matter of law. We could perhaps say with confidence that a fleeting whiff of marijuana smoke would not offend a reasonable person, but as the intensity, duration or frequency of the odor increases, it stands to reason that it would become objectively offensive at some point, particularly depending on the location in which it is smelled.

So there you have it, the smell of weed probably isn’t “olfactory assault” but as it continues to become more popular (and legal), we will most likely need to constantly re-examine these boundaries.

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 Oregon Court Answers the Time-Old Question: Is Weed Too Smelly? appeared first on Law Street.

On New Year’s Day 2014, it became legal in Colorado to sell marijuana in specially licensed dispensaries to adults 21 years and older. Much like any liquor store, you can walk in, show your ID, and make your purchase. But the dispensaries don’t just sell marijuana you smoke; you can also buy edibles, as well–marijuana you eat. As a newly legal product, the state was in uncharted territory. As we fast forward a little more than a year later, what are the state regulations on edibles, what effects have the sale of edibles had, and are other states following suit?

What is edible Marijuana?

The Science

Cannabis, or marijuana, has three primary active compounds: THC, CBD, and CBG. THC is the only psychoactive ingredient. CBD and CBG have medicinal properties and alter the effects of THC. The drug reacts with the body’s endocannabinoid system, a “regulatory mechanism that modulates the release of compounds produced throughout the body,” and causes humans to experience a high. Marijuana can be vaporized, smoked, or consumed orally.

When marijuana is smoked or vaporized, delta-9-THC is absorbed through the lungs and heads straight to the brain. The onset high is relatively quicker and shorter than if marijuana is eaten. When the marijuana is consumed and digested by the liver, the delta-9-THC turns into 11-hydroxy-THC. The transformation causes the THC to quickly bypass the blood-brain barrier and produce a more psychedelic effect than smoked THC. Smoked and vaporized marijuana completely sidestep the liver and the THC never converts.

While the high from smoking marijuana is faster, edible highs last longer. When smoking marijuana, 50 to 60 percent of the THC in a joint can reach the blood plasma. The peak of the high can come after five to 10 minutes of smoking. In comparison, only ten to 20 percent of the THC in edibles hit the blood plasma and the high takes effect an hour or two later. The high from edible marijuana is described as a “whole body” high and can last from six to ten hours. Essentially, people experience the highs from smoking eating marijuana differently.

Why would someone choose edibles over smoking?

Although the high from edibles lasts longer, it isn’t necessarily stronger. The high from smoking is rapid and strong, and the effects wear off rather quickly. It is also relatively easy to know when you’ve reached a limit since the high is so immediate. One answer could be personal choice–some people prefer the experience of edibles. Edibles could also alleviate any problems a person has with consuming smoke, and coughing fits are essentially eliminated.

Also, edibles are inconspicuous. A person eating won’t invite attention the way someone smoking will. This is probably most important to medicinal marijuana patients. Amanda Reiman, policy manager of the California Drug Policy Alliance, explains that “people using marijuana medicinally for long-lasting chronic pain often prefer oral ingestion because it lasts longer and they don’t have to consume as often.” Bob Eschino, a partner at Medically Correct, says “They’re discreet, and it’s an easy way to dose the medication…especially here in Colorado, where you can’t smoke in public, you can still medicate with edibles.”

Edible Products

The sky seems to be the limit. Marijuana comes in the form of cookies, gummies, brownies, caramels, hard candies, chocolate bars, Rice Krispies treats, and beyond. Colorado dispensaries estimate edibles account for 20-40 percent of sales. Nearly five million edibles were sold in Colorado in 2014. For example, Dixie Elixirs, a popular cannabis products store, sold THC-infused mints, truffles, dew drops, whipped cream, coffee, and tea all in a variety of flavors. There are plenty of companies getting onboard. In an interview just this past February, Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield of Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream even stated they would experiment with cannabis-infused ice cream if legal hurdles were removed.

Health Concerns

A major issue when ingesting marijuana is a person’s inability to predict the right amount to take. In order to receive the intended effect, there are many factors to take into consideration. Dosage is based on the type of marijuana, tolerance, body weight, gender, body chemistry, and more. The issue is further exacerbated by the fact that an edible’s effect can take an hour to two hours to reach its height. This prompts impatient people to ingest more.

The Cannabist, which seeks to educate readers about marijuana, recommends the following steps to be safe. First, a user must acknowledge his or her drug history and tolerance and recognize body factors like body type and gender when ascertaining the proper dosage. Also, it’s recommended when eating an edible to have a full stomach or to do so while also consuming food. Next, a user should measure by milligrams. A unit is generally ten milligrams of cannabinoids. A user should stick to a brand that works for him after lightly experimenting with a variety. Be patient, and cautious.

Controversy arose after a string of tragic incidents occurred involving edible marijuana. Levy Thamba, a Wyoming college student, committed suicide by jumping from a hotel balcony after eating an entire marijuana-infused cookie. The recommend dosage was probably only a portion of that cookie. Lack of portion control knowledge is a problem. Al Bronstein, a physician and medical director of the Rocky Mountain Poison and Drug Center, explains “[portion control is] difficult to do, practically. I know, myself: I wish I could only eat one-eighth of a Snickers bar and leave the rest for later.” Another concern is that consumers don’t realize that ten milligrams refers to one-tenth of a candy bar, for example, as opposed to the entire thing.

A Colorado man was accused of killing his wife after consuming pot candy. This man is thought to also have been on prescription drugs. As with alcohol, it is extremely dangerous to mix marijuana and prescription drugs.

Another major concern is children accidentally ingesting edibles that look like their non-marijuana-infused counterparts. According to a 2013 JAMA Pediatrics study, Children’s Hospital Colorado saw a “significant spike in the number of children treated for accidentally eating marijuana-laced treats” after the new marijuana-based laws were set in place. In one month, three seventh graders were hospitalized after ingesting marijuana-infused brownies.

The culmination of these events prompted public outcry that inspired new and stricter regulations on the selling and packaging of edible marijuana

Laws and Regulations

Stricter laws and regulations in Colorado went into effect on February 1, 2015 aimed at standardizing the labeling, packaging, and potency of edibles.

The recommend amount to take is one unit or ten milligrams. According to the new law, to avoid any consumer confusion, the serving portion must be transparently clear and marked “in a way that enables a reasonable person to intuitively determine how much of the product constitutes a single serving of active THC.” For example, Dixie Elixir’s marijuana-infused mints used to come in a loose tin of ten, with ten milligrams of THC each. They are now wrapped individually and sold at 16 mints of five milligrams apiece.

Packaging must now be child-resistant. Packages must be “constructed to be significantly difficult for children under five years of age to open…opaque so that the packaging does not allow the product to be seen without opening the packaging material…[and] resealable for any product intended for more than a single use.”

Labels must be more informative and give clear warning signs such as “This product is unlawful outside the State of Colorado” and/or “The intoxicating effects of this product may be delayed by two or more hours.” This specifically targets overdoses caused by impatience and overconsumption while a user is waiting for the drug to take effect.

The Marijuana Enforcement Agency now provides incentives for companies to sell ten milligram-portioned products. Manufacturers will face larger obstacles for production of ten to 100 milligram products.

Other Laws

Marijuana is still prohibited under federal law. This means you can still be fired for recreational use, and it can also lead to the loss of benefits, public housing, and financial aid.

Driving under the influence of marijuana will always be illegal, like alcohol. In Colorado, you can transport an unopened original package, but never across state lines. It is also forbidden to fly with marijuana even if you are traveling to another state with legalized marijuana.

You can obtain marijuana from a licensed dispensary or another adult over 21 as long as no money is exchanged. It is illegal to sell or resell any marijuana.

Alaska and Washington have also legalized marijuana for adult use with similar regulations. Washington D.C. and Oregon are following suit, but certain aspects of regulation have yet to go into effect. A total of 23 states allow marijuana for medical necessity.

Conclusion

Education and clear information are both vital. The tragedies surrounding edible marijuana seem like they most likely could have been avoided if these regulations were initially set in place, but it is hard to say for sure. Legalized marijuana, including edibles and other products, remains a new territory. New consumers need to learn what is safe and right for them as a learning curve is involved. If you are going to try it, it is important to be as informed as possible and in a safe environment. In the future, additional states may follow suit and legalize marijuana, and these questions will remain essential to keeping everyone as safe as possible.

Resources

Primary

Colorado Department of Revenue: Retail Marijuana Regulations

Additional

ABC News: Why Marijuana Edibles Might Be More Dangerous Than Smoking

Cannabist: Get Educated About Edibles: Eight Tips For Getting the Right Dose

Cannabist: New Rules in Effect for Colorado Marijuana Edibles Feb. 1

CBS: Colorado Moves to Curb Dangers of Edible Pot Products

BoingBoing: Everything You Need to Know about Marijuana Edibles

Consumer Responsibly: Know the Law

Denver Post: More Than 15 Months in, Pot-infused Edibles Still Confound

Dixie Elixirs: Products

Huffington Post: Ben & Jerry’s Founders Are Totally Down With Weed Ice Cream When It’s Legal

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Marijuana Edibles: A New Challenge for Regulators appeared first on Law Street.

Sponsored Content

Portland’s Lewis & Clark Law School, the top-ranking law school in the country for Environmental and Energy Law, opened its doors for the first “Eat, Pray, Law” food forum on March 13, 2015. Food affects pretty much every part of our lives, and concerns about food exist at every level. From an individual perspective, we all obviously want to be comfortable with the nutrients we put into our bodies; on a larger scale, questions of sustainability, regulation, and equality all have their parts to play in a discussion about the ethics and legal issues of our food industry. In an attempt to answer some of those questions, Lewis & Clark brought together a day of panels to engage in lively discussion on some of the most pressing questions in food law.

I had the opportunity to speak to two of the event’s organizers, Janice Weis, the Associate Dean and Director of the Environmental & Natural Resources Law Program, and Vytas Babusis, a 2L and the President of the law school’s Food & Wine Law Society, in order to answer some of my questions about the event’s inception, purpose, and reception.

The fact that there’s been rising interest in topics such as sustainable eating, food justice, and food ethics is no surprise. But Dean Weis reports seeing a noticeable uptick in applicants who cite food law and policy as topics of interest in recent years. Given Lewis & Clark Law’s cutting edge environmental, animal, and business law programs, delving into the different facets of those issues seemed like a natural fit. It was out of this collaboration that the “Eat, Pray, Law” forum was born.

The event hosted at least 120 attendees, although Babusis told me he believed there were more who were drawn in at the last moment who had not registered. The day started out with a keynote speech from Congressman Earl Blumenauer, who represents Oregon’s third district.

Just addressed Lewis & Clark’s Eat Pray Law food summit -no wonder my alma mater was judged #1 enviro law program in the nation! @lclarklaw

— Earl Blumenauer (@repblumenauer) March 13, 2015

Blumenaur discussed the ongoing attempts to overhaul the “Farm Bill” to reflect current food policies and public consciousness.

Each of the three departments–environmental law, business law, and animal law–had a panel that loosely corresponded to it. Weis told me the panels touched on a veritable “potpourri” of hot issues in food law. Most interestingly, she also reported that while each panel had its own focus, consistent themes were apparent across the discussions–a good reminder that so many aspects of food law and policy intertwine and intersect.

One of those consistent themes was a focus on transparency–consumers want to know what is in their food, where it comes from, and the collateral effects of its production. This applies across the board–from consumers reporting these concerns, to the possibility of government regulations to ensure greater transparency, to businesses making the commitment to provide greater transparency.

The day wrapped up with a discussion on food justice. Babusis explained food justice as he sees it by saying,

For me “food justice” is doing the right thing for the planet and for the people in every aspect along the food chain.

He continued:

If we truly understand where our food grows, how to grow it sustainably regenerating the soil and what we have to do to feed people the right food from plants to animals, then we are better prepared to make laws which encourage that and know best how to help those in the industry from employment, IP and business law, to environmental and animal advocacy.

An important facet of food justice is the accessibility of food for many of our low-income citizens. “Food deserts” are defined by the Department of Agriculture as:

Urban neighborhoods and rural towns without ready access to fresh, healthy, and affordable food. Instead of supermarkets and grocery stores, these communities may have no food access or are served only by fast food restaurants and convenience stores that offer few healthy, affordable food options.

Essentially, it’s all very well and good if sustainable, transparent food is made a higher priority, but it needs to be made a higher priority for all of our citizens. The last panel at “Eat, Pray, Law” brought in members of the community for a tangible discussion on promoting food justice and accessibility.

Weis said that they plan on reprising the event again next year, and continuing to expand opportunities for students to discuss and become involved in food law. Overall, this panel was a great example of the innovative work going on at Lewis & Clark Law with regard to the intersections between food, animal, business, and environmental law.

Lewis & Clark Law School

With robust practical skills options, flexible scheduling, and a faculty invested in your success, Lewis & Clark Law School is an ideal place to start a legal career. The school’s innovative programs, such as the NCVLI, CJRC, and the criminal law certificate program, offer students the opportunity to learn and work in a rigorous, collegial environment in scenic Portland, Oregon. Learn more at law.lclark.edu. Lewis & Clark Law School is a partner of Law Street Creative. The opinions expressed in this author’s articles do not necessarily reflect the views of Law Street.

https://law.lclark.edu/

The post Eat, Pray, Law: Lewis & Clark Law Forum Discusses Food Law appeared first on Law Street.

Oregon became the first state in the nation to automatically register voters using information collected at the state’s DMV with a law passed on Monday. This law marks another step forward in lowering barriers to voting in Oregon. The state implemented a vote-by-mail system 17 years ago and consistently has one of the highest voting rates among U.S. states.

Under the new law, every voting-eligible citizen who visited the DMV since 2013 will now be sent a ballot at least 20 days prior to an election. Currently only about 73 percent of eligible voters are registered in Oregon, with roughly 800,000 eligible Oregonians not registered. This law will dramatically reduce the number of unregistered citizens, as estimates project that it could lead to the registration of 300,000 people, bringing the total number of registered voters to 2.5 million. Oregon’s current voting system is conducted almost completely by mail; registered voters receive a ballot a couple of weeks before the election that they fill out and return. Under the new law, the number of people that will receive ballots will dramatically increase.

While federal law requires every state to allow registration at the DMV, doing so still requires citizens to opt in. Oregon’s new law will automatically register people and then send them a card allowing them to opt out. All new voters will be registered as unaffiliated with a political party, but will have the option to declare their affiliation at any point. Check out the Oregonian’s Q&A for more information on the specifics of the law.

While registering more people to vote seems like a win for democracy, the law is not without its opponents. The vote on the law split along party lines. Not a single Republican supported the measure, but because Democrats hold the majority, it passed. Opponents made several arguments against the bill including privacy concerns, raised questions about the security of information transfers, and even claimed that it challenges peoples’ freedom.

Let’s first take a look at the argument that automatically registering citizens to vote will in some way restrict freedom, or as Governor Tim Pawlenty put it when he vetoed a similar plan in 2009, “registering to vote should be a voluntary, intentional act.” Registering to vote is not the same as actually voting. The Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey found that in the 2010 midterm elections roughly 65 percent of the population was registered to vote, but only 45.5 percent actually did so.

Simply registering people to vote will not force them to vote, and it may not even lead to a significant increase in voter turnout. However, Oregon has a particularly high voting rate due to its mail-in system, as only three percent of registered voters did not vote in the previous election. That holds true for other states like Colorado, which like Oregon, started sending every voter a ballot before an election and then saw greater participation. Increasing the number of citizens who receive ballots in the mail may actually help increase the United States’ very low turnout rate.

It is clear that simply registering someone to vote will not coerce them to vote, but it helps allow people to participate if they so choose. This could be particularly helpful if someone decides to vote close to election day. Oregon law requires all voters to register at least 21 days before each election, so if you are not registered to vote before that window you are ineligible to participate. However, if someone were already registered through the automatic system then they would be able to vote without previously taking action.

Opponents of the law have also started to question the ability to transfer information securely from the DMV to the county clerk in order to update voter registration records. It is important to note that only voting-related information is transferred, including a person’s name, age, residence, citizenship, and signature, which is what the state’s voter registration card requires. The only truly legitimate concern of the law’s opponents is the fact that voter files become public, meaning that people with proper cause can access basic information about people.

Automatically making this information public may be somewhat concerning, but it is important to note that your personal information is already accessible in many ways. Finally, if people do not want their information public, they still have the option to opt out within 21 days of visiting the DMV by using a card that is automatically mailed to them. Furthermore, the DMV cannot transfer information to the county clerk until after the 21-day window has closed. This means that if someone is genuinely concerned about having a public voter file, he can simply decide not to go through with registration. The only difference here is that the burden will now be on citizens to opt out rather than opt in to registration.

This law will also help prevent voter fraud and ensure that people’s voter files are properly updated in order to prevent them from being disqualified to vote. A registration system that goes through the DMV will require people to actually document their citizenship rather than simply declare it on a registration card, as was previously necessary. Because people’s information will be updated whenever they visit the DMV they will not have to worry about their address being out of date. According to a Pew Charitable Trust project, incorrect information in voter files is a significant problem, as roughly on in eight voter registrations is significantly inaccurate or no longer valid, including over 12 million records that contain incorrect addresses nationwide. Oregon’s new system will help prevent these inaccuracies and will ensure that if people want to vote they will be able to.

Finally, it is important to acknowledge that both political parties have a significant interest in the number of registered voters. Republicans are typically associated with measures to increase voting security, through supporting stricter voter ID laws and opposing easier registration, calling for a crackdown on voter fraud. However, voter fraud is in fact extremely rare and these efforts are likely politically oriented, as they largely benefit from the status quo. On the other hand, Democrats have a lot to gain from increasing turnout because the people who do not vote tend to be Democrats. While there are clear political motivations for both parties, I have to side with those who want to expand voting rights rather than limit them. Oregon’s bill is a win for democracy, and hopefully other states will follow its lead in eliminating the barriers to political participation.

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 Oregon Becomes First State to Automatically Register Voters appeared first on Law Street.

I’ve been told that the best way to steal something and get away with it is to be so obvious about what you are doing that nobody takes any notice of you. In other words, if you look guilty, you probably are. This is why I make an attempt to look like I’m not supposed to be buying alcohol when I am at a liquor store–one of these days my sketchy behavior is going to get me IDed and then I’ll go brag to everyone I know about how young I must look.

Courtesy of Giphy.

A good scam is to rob someone in the middle of the day. The neighbors aren’t expecting robbers at this time, so they don’t think anything of it when they see you filling up your van with someone else’s furniture. “Oh, Ms. Solomon must be redecorating,” they say and get back to their gardening.

Another thing people do is take a large purchase item, let’s say a television, and walk right out the front door of the store. It is so obvious and ballsy, that nobody would do it unless they had just purchased the device from another cashier, right?

Now, before I get to my point, I want to give a disclaimer: Everything I know about stealing is information I got secondhand, usually from late-night sitcoms. If you are thinking about starting a life of crime, I would suggest that you find your tips somewhere other than this post.

If I am not trying to create a nation of savvy stealers, though, where am I going with all of this? Well, if the best way to steal is not to hide what you are stealing, then stealing a house ought to be easy.

And so here is the story I am relating to you this week: SOMEONE STOLE A HOUSE! I’m not making this up. It happened in Oregon, but more importantly, it happened.

Courtesy of Tumblr.

To be fair to the thief, and also to be fully honest, this guy didn’t know that he was stealing the house, he thought he was buying it for only $3,000, which was, in his actual words, “a hell of a steal.”

So here is the breakdown of what occurred (dramatized for, well, dramatic effect):

Sheriff Frank Skrah was sitting in a meeting one day thinking that this day would be like any other. In his life on the force, he had seen it all–nothing could shock him. Or so he thought.

In came a deputy to shake what he knew about himself to the core.

“Frank,” the deputy said to him in disbelief, “you’re not going to believe this. Someone just stole a house.” (Again, actual quote.)

Now, if someone had told me when I was picking out careers that as a detective I might one day be able to take part in the Case of the Missing Log Cabin, you can rest assured that I would be in uniform right now.

Courtesy of Giphy.

However, as I didn’t know houses could be stolen, I made other professional choices. Detective Eric Shepherd is luckier than me, though, because once this crime was committed, he actually had to investigate the whereabouts of a missing house. Turns out, it had not gotten far. It turned up about half a mile away in a nearby community. And it only took two days to find. That’s right, folks: an actual house went missing, was hidden less than a mile away, and it still took two days to find it (and I am pointing this out only because it is shocking. I am not saying it should have been found sooner because I honestly have no idea how long it should take to recover a missing house–though didn’t someone in the community find it odd to come home one day and find a cabin where only land had been just that morning?). Anyway, what did I tell you about the big crimes being the easiest? If this house had been moved two or three miles down the road, it might not have ever been found.

So now we are at the point where I explain to you how the guy who took this house thought he was doing it legally. The cabin in question was located in a remote area and was used as a vacation house. It was purportedly co-owned by three men. One of these men decided that he was going to sell it. Which he did, for $3,000, to a fourth man. The seller did not feel it necessary to share this information with the other two men. So the buyer, not aware of any of this, hired a logging company to move the cabin. Shortly thereafter, one of the other men came to visit and was pretty surprised to see that the cabin was no longer actually there. Which is what led to a house being reported stolen in Oregon.

The police are now trying to decide if this is a criminal case or a civil case, but I’m just happy it is a case at all.

To end this on yet another actual quote from this saga, let’s take it back down to Sheriff Skrah: “I’ve seen a lot of scams,” he said, “but I’ve never seen an entire house go missing.”  I couldn’t sum it up any better.

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post House Stolen in Oregon, Found Several Miles Away appeared first on Law Street.

From bizarre laws to college admissions strippers, Law Street has you covered on everything you might have missed last week. Our number one story of the week came from Marisa Mostek who added the Pacific Northwest states to her series of the Dumbest Laws in the United States. Hint: hope you don’t want to buy a new mattress on a Sunday, because that’s out of the question. Anneliese Mahoney wrote the #2 post on Columbia University’s policy allowing students who have experienced trauma to petition for delayed exams, which became a hot topic in the context of the recent Ferguson and New York grand jury decisions. And Ashley Shaw had the #3 post of the week with a report on now-defunct FastTrain College’s admissions practices that will have you scratching your head and wondering how this happened in real life. ICYMI: check out Law Street’s Best of the Week.

#1 The Dumbest Laws in the United States: Pacific Northwest Edition

I was wrong a couple weeks ago when I said that California laws are crazy. Many of the Golden State’s laws that I mentioned now seem completely sane in comparison to those I’ve discovered in Washington and Oregon. For example, if you are trying to woo the opposite sex by saying your dad just won the lottery and drives a brand-new Lamborghini when in fact he doesn’t have a dime to his name, you better think again. In Washington state it is illegal to pretend that your parents are rich. Read full article here.

#2 Columbia Law takes Progressive Stance on Mental Health

In light of the incredibly controversial and nation-sweeping announcements that grand juries in Missouri and New York failed to indict the cops who killed Michael Brown and Eric Garner, respectively, Columbia University Law School made an announcement. It regarded the reactions that some of the students may be having to those verdicts, and offered counseling, opportunities to talk to professors regarding the indictment. Read full article here.

#3 BS in Dancing: When Stripper Work Admissions, It Might be a Scam

With a name like FastTrain College, you probably expect a top-notch education system along the lines of Harvard or Yale; however, what you apparently get is a different type of top entirely. When FastTrain wants you (so basically if you are a man), it will send out its top admissions officer. And by top officer, I of course mean an exotic dancer dressed provocatively in an effort to lure you into the school. Read full article here.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

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

I was wrong a couple weeks ago when I said that California laws are crazy. Many of the Golden State’s laws that I mentioned now seem completely sane in comparison to those I’ve discovered in Washington and Oregon.

For example, if you are trying to woo the opposite sex by saying your dad just won the lottery and drives a brand-new Lamborghini when in fact he doesn’t have a dime to his name, you better think again. In Washington state it is illegal to pretend that your parents are rich.

Also, Evergreen State residents better not plan to go mattress  shopping on a Sunday, as purchasing either item on that day is illegal. If lollipops are your candy of choice, you may want to steer clear of Washington–marijuana may be legal, but lollipops are not. Okay, okay: although this law exists, it is not enforced. You can certainly buy lollipops at many shops.

And Washingtonians are much less concerned about Ebola than something much worse: the common cold. If you have the virus, sorry; you are banned from walking around in public.

If you are lucky enough to spot Bigfoot or any other mysterious creature, feel free to take a picture, but not if it in any way insults the being. Harassing Bigfoot, Sasquatch, or any other “undiscovered subspecies” is a felony punishable by law. That begs the question, if Bigfoot is ever considered “discovered,” will it become okay to harass him? Or, can we never have the pleasure of making fun of his big feet?

For some reason, lawmakers in Washington felt the need to create a law specifically banning painting polka dots on American flags. I wonder if painting little smiley faces would be acceptable?

Alright, I’ve had my kicks poking fun at Washington. Now it’s Oregon’s turn.

The first law that I will mention really makes me wonder why there was a need to create it. In Oregon, it is illegal to place a container filled with human fecal matter on the side of a highway. What about on residential roads? Is it okay there?

Drivers are under many restrictions in Oregon as well. They are prohibited from pumping their own gas, cannot leave a car door open “longer than is necessary”–who is the judge of that??–and are banned from testing their physical endurance while driving. Drivers must also be sure to yield to pedestrians who are standing on the sidewalk. I don’t even understand what that means.

Hopefully you weren’t planning to use canned corn as bait on your next fishing trip in Oregon, as doing so is against the law. It’s okay to use other canned vegetables, however.

Thus concludes this week’s installment of the Dumbest Laws in America. Up next, I will explore Montana and Idaho, so don’t miss it!

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Dumbest Laws in the United States: Pacific Northwest Edition 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.

The midterms are finally over (thank God/the universe/Oprah) so now we can all go back to real life. Just kidding — it’s practically presidential election time. Your attention span and patience are ready for that, right? Well before you get into that, take a look at some of the top stores from Law Street last week that you might have missed in all the excitement. It was a clean sweep for writer Anneliese Mahoney who wrote all three of the top articles on Law Street last week. Number one is Mahoney’s take on Taylor Swift’s latest album and her decision to pull all her work from popular streaming music site Spotify; number two is an in-depth look at the three states with major marijuana legislation on last Tuesday’s ballots; and number three was a shout out who is generally accepted as the country’s youngest new elected official, Saira Blair of West Virginia. ICYMI, take a look at Law Street’s Best of the Week.

#1: Taylor Swift and Spotify: Never Ever, Ever Getting Back Together?

Taylor Swift made waves this week when she pulled all of her music from the popular streaming site Spotify. The 24-year-old singer-songwriter’s newest album, “1989,” was never put on the site, and her older music can no longer be found there. Read full article here.

#2: States to Watch Today: Marijuana on the Ballot in Oregon, Alaska, and DC

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? Read full article here.

#3: Saira Blair Youngest Elected Official in America: Snaps for Her

Saira Blair is an 18-year-old West Virginia University freshman majoring in economics. She’s also believed to be the youngest elected lawmaker in the United States. At 17, Blair actually beat a 66-year-old Republican incumbent in a primary, and on Tuesday she beat a 44-year-old Attorney, Democrat Layne Diehl. She will represent a district of just under 20,000 people located in the West Virginia panhandle, close to Maryland, as one of 100 members of the Virginia House of Delegates. Read full article here.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

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

It’s official. Two more states — Oregon and Alaska — have joined Colorado and Washington in legalizing marijuana.

Oregon’s Measure 91 had a convincing victory, winning approximately 54 percent of the vote. Like Washington and Colorado, Oregon will now allow regulated and taxed sales of marijuana to adults. Stores will probably come sometime in 2016, a timeline consistent with those that Colorado and Washington set for themselves previously.

Ballot Measure 2 passed in Alaska by a margin of roughly 52-48 percent. In 90 days it will become the law of the state, and the state will create mechanisms to regulate the use and sale of legalized recreational marijuana. Alaska has long had a lax view on marijuana laws — a 1975 court decision legalized very small amounts in the home, although it was incredibly narrow and not really followed. In addition, Alaskans have tried a few times to get legal marijuana on the ballot, voting on the issue in 2000 and 2004. While both measures obviously failed, Alaska has certainly had a storied and complicated history with marijuana legalization.

And then, of course, there’s D.C. Our nation’s capital legalized recreational marijuana use, although not the sale of marijuana. There’s confusion over what this actually means, though. Congress technically has oversight over the District, and it can take measures to basically make sure that nothing ever comes out of the passage of this initiative. D.C.’s ability to actually govern itself and the people who live within its borders is notoriously limited. No one can do anything to stop the 735,000 people who live in Alaska from legalizing marijuana, but D.C.’s 650,000 are prohibited by officials they didn’t even elect. That’s why there’s a big question mark next to D.C. — no one really knows what will happen here.

As fascinating as the wins were for the future of marijuana legalization, it’s also interesting to look at what they mean for the overall scheme of American politics. Democrats lost last night on pretty much every level. Some marijuana legalization was one of the very few things that Democrats support that made it through. But what’s important to remember about marijuana legalization is that it’s not so much a Democratic value, it’s also a very Libertarian issue. There are reasons for both Democrats and Libertarians to support marijuana legalization, which may have been one of the reasons that it passed. It’s a strange phenomenon, as 538‘s Ben Casselman tweeted:

So voters want a higher minimum wage, legal pot, abortion access and GOP representation. Ok then.

— Ben Casselman (@bencasselman) November 5, 2014

So, the success of marijuana legalization in an election where so many other Democratic measures failed could mean a few things. It could mean that the Libertarian wing of the Republican party is really becoming sort of a dark horse among Millennials who are frustrated with the way that Democrats have been running the country, but aren’t willing to align with the Republican base or the Tea Party on most social issues. Or it could just mean that Oregon, Alaska, and the District of Columbia really enjoy getting high and don’t mind the increase in taxes that comes with the legalization of marijuana. Either way, it will be interesting to see if anything at all comes of the measure in D.C., as well as which states will be next to hop on the marijuana legalization bus.

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 Oregon and Alaska Legalize Marijuana 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.

Ever since Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum announced she would not defend her state’s ban on gay marriage, news coverage has been somewhat vague regarding what her announcement actually means.

Rosenblum joins attorneys general from five other states – Nevada, Virginia, Illinois, Pennsylvania and California – in refusal to support a state gay marriage ban, saying the law would fail to withstand a federal constitutional challenge. According to Rosenblum, while the ban will no longer be defended, it will continue to be enforced in Oregon unless overruled in court.

“State Defendants will not defend the Oregon ban on same-sex marriage in this litigation. Rather, they will take the position in their summary judgment briefing that the ban cannot withstand a federal constitutional challenge under any standard of review,” Rosenblum explained. “In the meantime, as the State Defendants are legally obligated to enforce the Oregon Constitution’s ban on same-sex marriage, they will continue to do so unless and until this Court grants the relief sought by the plaintiffs,” she added.

In simpler terms, Rosenblum, after careful study, has determined that the ban conflicts with federal law and will therefore no longer be defended by state attorneys. The word “defended” is typically where confusion arises.

Rosenblum’s decision was ultimately part of a brief filed with U.S. District Judge Michael McShane, who is currently presiding over a legal challenge to the state ban, which was added to the Oregon constitution in 2004.

In January 2014, Judge McShane consolidated two lawsuits filed by two different same-sex couples, both challenging Oregon’s ban on same-sex marriage. Both cases cite the 2013 Supreme Court case US v. Windsor, which established that the US federal interpretation of marriage could not exclusively apply to heterosexual unions.

So, what Rosenblum is effectively saying is that with regard to the current litigation (the consolidated lawsuit brought forth by the two sets of same-sex couples), the gay marriage ban will not be defended (by Oregon State Defendants) before the presiding federal judge (US District Judge McShane).

As The Oregonian points out, “Rosenblum’s action means that both the plaintiffs – who include four same-sex couples – and the main defendant in the case oppose the ban as unconstitutional.” Although it could take longer, Judge McShane is expected to issue a ruling in the coming spring or summer.

Since the Supreme Court ruling in June 2013, there has been a notable rise in nation-wide litigation over same-sex marriage, with state bans being overturned in four courts. At the moment, three of the four decisions are being held pending appeal.

While the issue of same-sex marriage remains divisive on a national level, Oregon is no exception.

“[Rosenblum] is shamefully abandoning her constitutional duty to defend the marriage amendment overwhelmingly enacted by the people of Oregon,” said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization of Marriage, in an interview with ABC News. “She swore an oath of office that she would enforce all the laws, not just those she personally agrees with,” he continued.

According to US Attorney General Eric Holder, however, Rosenblum has in no way overstepped her boundaries. In an interview with The New York Times, Holder said that “state attorneys general are not obligated to defend laws that they believe are discriminatory.” Holder made it clear that he was not encouraging Rosenblum and others to disregard state laws, but declared that “officials who have carefully studied bans on gay marriage could refuse to defend them.” “When laws touch on core constitutional issues like equal protection,” Holder continued, “an attorney general should apply the highest level of scrutiny before reaching a decision on whether to defend it.”

An admitted supporter of gay marriage, Rosenblum released her own statement saying “there is no rational basis for Oregon to refuse to honor the commitments made by same-sex couples in the same way it honors the commitments of opposite-sex couples.” Still, she insists personal opinion did not influence her decision.

Back in November 2004, when the state ban on gay marriage was enacted, 57 percent of Oregonians voted in favor of the ban. At the time, federal law banned recognition of same-sex couples. In ten years however, the political landscape has shifted and federal law has evolved.

“Because we cannot identify a valid reason for the state to prevent the couples who have filed these lawsuits from marrying in Oregon, we find ourselves unable to stand before (the federal judge) to defend the state’s prohibition against marriages between two men or two women,” Rosenblum said during a press conference.

Supporters of same-sex marriage hope Rosenblum’s decision is a step forward not only for the state of Oregon, but also for the country as a whole. According to Thomas Wheatley, director of organizing at Freedom to Marry, “the rapid momentum for the freedom to marry in states across the country underscores the understanding that the Constitution’s guarantee of the freedom to marry and equal protection under the law apply to gay and non-gay people alike.” “America – and Oregon – are ready for the freedom to marry,” he added.

In Oregon, supporters of gay marriage have nearly reached their goal of collecting enough signatures to put an initiative on the ballot that would ask voters to strike the ban on gay marriage from the state Constitution. Come November, voters will likely have a chance to weigh in on the issue.

[The Oregonian] [ABC News] [The Guardian] [Buzzfeed] [Bloomberg] [The Washington Post] [The New York Times]

—

Matt DiCenso (@mdicenso24)

Featured image courtesy of [Benson Kua via Flickr]

Matt DiCenso

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

The post What’s the Deal with Oregon Not Defending Its Own Gay Marriage Ban? appeared first on Law Street.

A ruling in the Second District court of New Mexico may make physician assisted suicide legal in that state. In her ruling, Judge Nan Nash stated that allowing doctors to provide fatal drugs to terminally ill patients was well within the confines of the New Mexico state Constitution. She wrote, “this court cannot envision a right more fundamental, more private or more integral to the liberty, safety and happiness of a New Mexican than the right of a competent, terminally ill patient to choose aid in dying.”

The case was filed by Aja Riggs, a cancer patient, age 50, from Santa Fe, NM. She was joined by two of her doctors as plaintiffs, Doctors Katherine Morris and Aroop Mangalik. Riggs filed the suit because she wants the option to end her own life if she becomes terminally ill. Although her cancer is currently in remission, she stated, “most Americans want to die peacefully at home, surrounded by loved ones, not die in agony in a hospital. I feel the same way. If my cancer returns and I face intolerable suffering, I want the option to cut it short, and to die peacefully at home.” Riggs and her physicians were also supported by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the New Mexico Psychological Association, and a right-to-die group called Compassion & Choices.

With this ruling, New Mexico isn’t necessarily guaranteed physician assisted suicide will become legal. This was a lawsuit in a district court, so this may only apply to that district. The state Attorney General is still deciding whether or not to appeal this case to the New Mexico Supreme Court.

If physician assisted suicide becomes legal as a result of this court ruling, it will make New Mexico the fifth state to do so. Oregon first legalized it in 1997. In recent years, Washington, Montana, and Vermont followed suit.

Such laws allow physicians to provide their terminally ill patients with fatal drugs without fear of prosecution.

When the idea of physician assisted suicide first became prevalent, critics were worried that terminal patients would be pressured to end their lives by doctors or families. But almost two decades later, Oregon has been able to avoid that problem by instituting multiple safeguards before end of life aid is even considered. A terminally ill patient must have documentation that their illness is terminal, and has to go through many psychological evaluations. In order for a patient to qualify for physician assisted suicide, they also need to have made multiple oral and written assertions. Dr. Katherine Morris, one of the plaintiffs in Riggs’s case is a New Mexico oncologist who used to practice in Oregon. She believes that patients have not been pressured stating, “we haven’t seen the slippery slope some people worried about.”

The New Mexico decision drew very different opinions. Advocates for physician assisted suicide applauded the progress. The legal director of the New Mexico ACLU branch, Laura Schauer Ives stated, “New Mexicans, both healthy and sick, now enjoy the comfort and peace of mind that come with knowing they can prevent a prolonged, agonized dying process at the end of life.” On the other hand, other organizations, particularly religious organizations, are responding with distress to the situation, pointing out that the sanctity of life needs to be respected, and that it’s not a physician’s place to make decisions regarding life.

It does seem like the concept of physician assisted suicide has become more popular in recent years, given that three of the four states who have legalized it have done so in the last 5 years. While it’s in the spotlight less than others, the argument does go hand in hand with other social issues. The sanctity of life is a popular topic, and as more states move more towards legalizing it, I bet we’ll see it take center stage in politics in coming years.

[New York Times]

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead 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.

Featured image courtesy of [Nathan & Jenny via Flickr]

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 Big Victory for Physician Assisted Suicide in New Mexico appeared first on Law Street.

Across the country, about 800,000 government workers hang in limbo. The United States is four days into a partial government shutdown that puts any “non-essential worker” temporarily out of work. The shutdown is responsible for closures in everything from National Parks to after-school programs. One sector that has been experiencing serious shutdown pains is the Department of Justice–particularly the US Attorney division.

US Attorneys represent US interests in district or appeals courts. The 93 men and women appointed to these positions are each supported by Assistant US Attorneys, as well as numerous dedicated paralegals and staff members.

Since the shutdown began on October 1, US Attorney offices throughout the United States have furloughed large chunks of workers. In the Northern District of Ohio , 43% of staff have been sent home without pay. Oregon is reporting 30% of their 120 employees on furlough. New Hampshire has had to get by without 44% of their usual workforce. These are by no means isolated examples. Throughout the nation, US Attorney offices are operating with somewhere between two-thirds and one-half of their regular staff. In addition to the large groups of furloughed workers, many of these offices also report having lost about 15-20% of their staff during sequester cuts.

The type of workers being sent home fall into two categories–support staff, and anyone in the civil division. While civil cases are incredibly important, they are both easier to put on hold than criminal cases, and less likely to involve public safety issues. Most US Attorney’s offices are asking for continuances on any civil cases that have run into the shutdown.

Criminal cases are expected to move forward with delays, despite furloughs being handed to most Criminal Division attorneys’ staff members. These paralegals, administrative aids, IT staffers, and other employees are essential to the attorneys for whom they work. Lorin Reisner, Chief of the Criminal Division at the Manhattan US Attorney’s office provided an interview to Bloomberg Businessweek on Wednesday, stating “From our perspective it’s a mess. We have 10 trials going on in the Criminal Division, and I spent half of yesterday making sure the paralegals who are working on those cases can continue working on those cases, or that we have others who can assist with those trials.”

US Attorneys around the country are voicing their frustration and arguing that the ramifications of the government shutdown are far-reaching. South Dakota US Attorney Brendan Johnson pointed out “When we lose close to half of our staff it affects our ability to recover money for the federal government. So, this is actually a money loser for the federal government.”  US Attorney for the Eastern District of California Benjamin Wagner described the shutdown’s effects on his office, stating, “It’s kind of like fighting with one hand behind our backs.”

The work that US Attorneys, their assistants, and their staffs provide truly is crucial. Already hit hard by the sequester, our US Attorney offices are struggling to stay afloat in a government shutdown that has deemed many of these men and women who work on a large array of crucial cases unimportant. Unless the shutdown comes to a conclusion soon, we will  be facing a government that has declared justice, for lack of a better word, unessential.

[ideastream.org]  [oregonlive.com] [businessweek.com] [kdtl.com] [krca.com]  [charlotteobserver.com]

—

Featured image courtesy of [OnceAndFutureLaura via Flickr]

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 US Attorney Offices Slammed by Shutdown appeared first on Law Street.

A new measure passed by Oregon’s state legislature seeks to reduce by two-thirds the number of suction-dredging permits issued in salmon-producing areas. Senate Bill 838 is on Gov. John Kitzhaber’s desk and he plans to sign it, said Tim Raphael, his communications director. Kitzhaber has until Aug. 19 to sign legislatively-approved measures into law.

The bill, widely supported by environmentalists and harshly criticized by the mining industry, was approved by the senate on July 3, followed by the house on July 7.

Suction dredge mining employs a vacuum to suck up gravel from a stream bottom. Materials from the river bottom then go through a sluice to allow miners to strain out gold and other heavy metals.

Beginning in 2014, the law would set a limit of 850 permits for suction dredge mining on Oregon’s salmon-bearing rivers, matching the level allowed in 2009. There are roughly 2,400 permits allowed this year. In addition, the law implements new restrictions on where, when and how dredging can occur.

[Daily Tidings]

—

Featured image courtesy of [William Cho via Flickr]

Davis Truslow

Davis Truslow is a founding member of Law Street Media and a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Davis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Dredging Law to Reduce Permits appeared first on Law Street.