As President Trump and the Republican Congress continue their efforts to remove or weaken regulations put in place under the Obama Administration, changes to banking rules may be some of the most consequential. To understand what’s in store for American banking regulations, it’s important to look at their foundation, namely the Dodd-Frank Act that was passed in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. Much of the current debate over financial regulation stems from the many provisions in Dodd-Frank.  Read on for an overview of three of the law’s most important components and a look at its future.

The Dodd-Frank Act

In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, Congress passed a law that sought to place additional regulations on banks, improve and unify oversight, and protect consumers in order to prevent another crisis from happening. While the actual success of that law–the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, known as the Dodd-Frank–continues to be debated to this day, it is responsible for establishing many of the key components of the current regulatory system. The law created many new regulatory bodies that have churned out an even greater number of regulations, but for the purpose of this look, we will focus on three of the main consequences of the law.

Capital Requirements

The general idea behind bank regulations is that bank failures are extremely costly events that can pose serious risks to the entire economy, so we should regulate them to ensure their stability. One of the most universally agreed upon ways to improve the stability of the financial system is requiring banks to hold higher amounts of capital. Bank capital essentially includes all assets that do not have to be repaid, which allow banks to sustain losses if their other assets, like loans, decrease in value. Generally speaking, bank capital includes things like common stock and profits, which are used to fund a bank’s investments. While banks tend to fund most of their business with debt–namely deposits, which are a form of short-term, low-interest debt that is used to fund loans and other investments with higher returns–capital is simply another source of funding that also serves as a stabilizing force if a bank’s other assets decrease in value.

Writing in Slate, Matt Yglesias uses the example of a home loan to illustrate how bank capital works. When buying a home, you typically make a down payment and then fund the rest of the purchase with a loan. That down payment is your ownership or equity in the house–which you own and do not have to repay–and works along the same lines as bank capital. If the value of your house increases then the value of your equity increases. But if the home’s value decreases beyond what you have paid for it, then your loan is considered underwater–meaning you owe more than the house is worth. When the same thing happens to a bank, it becomes insolvent and fails. Higher capital requirements help ensure that banks can still operate when their assets drop in value.

If people chose a bank based on whether or not they viewed it as a safe place to put their money, then it would make sense for banks to have high levels of capital to appeal to customers. But because the federal government insures depositors via the FDIC, a bank’s capitalization matters less to individuals when choosing a bank. As a result, banks are incentivized to increase leverage and risk to increase their returns rather than capital to improve their stability. In return for the federal guarantee, however, regulators require banks to do their share to promote stability by mandating that they hold a certain amount of capital.

Dodd-Frank increased capital requirements in a number of ways. It set a higher leverage ratio–the ratio of a bank’s debt to capital–and created a separate risk-weighted requirement that uses looks at how risky different assets are. Mike Konczal, a fellow at the left-leaning Roosevelt Institute and proponent of Dodd-Frank, argues that both are necessary to ensure stability. A leverage requirement on its own would push banks to maximize their assets’ risk in order to increase returns. And because risk weighting is susceptible to bias, an overall leverage requirement helps act as a backstop in the event that risk estimates are off.

Some argue that requiring banks to fund their business with a higher amount of capital is more expensive for banks, which has effects on the economy as a whole. The thinking goes that forcing banks to fund themselves with capital reduces their ability to make loans and extend credit to businesses, which in turn slows the economy. While proponents of higher capital requirements note that although capital levels are higher than they were before the crisis, they remain low from a historical perspective and argue that the cost of capital is often overstated by banks. Some even dispute the notion that capital is costly for banks and argue that bankers’ opposition to higher capital requirements may have more to do with the way they are paid.

In addition to stricter capital requirements, Dodd-Frank also requires the banks to undergo regular “stress tests” to simulate their ability to handle various crisis scenarios. It also requires the largest banks to submit plans to wind themselves down in the event of a failure and set up a process for the FDIC and the Fed to liquidate a failing bank in order to prevent risk from spreading throughout the system.

The Volcker Rule

While you may not have heard people talk about the Volcker rule specifically, it’s more likely that you have heard someone like Senators Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren discuss the need for Congress to pass a “21st Century version of Glass-Steagall.” Although there are important distinctions between the two, the original Glass-Steagall Act and the Volcker rule target the same issue. Both regulate or prevent banks from using deposits, which are insured by the FDIC, to make what are considered risky or speculative bets for their own gain.

For a better understanding, it’s worth taking a minute to look at the history of banking in the United States. The original Glass-Steagall law was put in place after the Great Depression to put a wall between commercial banks–traditional banks that take deposits and make loans–and investment banks–banks that trade investment securities and help companies issue stocks and bonds. In 1999, that law was repealed, leading to the formation of a handful of very large universal banks that do both commercial and investment banking. While most tend to think that the repeal of Glass-Steagall did not cause the crisis, the mega-banks that it gave rise to certainly played a role–allowing banks to grow quickly and experiment with new financial products likely contributed to the culture or risk-taking and lax regulation that worsened the crisis.

The Volcker Rule, named after former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, sought to prevent the new universal banks from engaging in some of the riskiest behaviors of investment banks. Volcker played an important part in drafting Dodd-Frank and focused a lot of his attention on regulating risky bank activities. His eponymous rule sought to stop banks from doing what’s known as proprietary trading–or using their own money to make speculative investments for profit. Essentially, the law sought to mirror some of the effects of Glass-Steagall without breaking up the banks outright, choosing instead to limit the risks that institutions with a commercial banking arm could take. As Volcker sees it, the government has an interest in subsidizing and helping commercial banking with policies like FDIC insurance and potentially even bailouts–because taking deposits and making loans are important functions for the entire economy. However, he also believes that with a government subsidy, banks should not be allowed to take on excessive risk.

The Volcker rule has been criticized from all angles. Banks argue that it amounts to a significant attack on their ability to make profits, while reformers claim that it is full of loopholes and that it doesn’t fully accomplish its own stated goals. And those on the leftmost flank of the Democratic Party argue that the rule, and Dodd-Frank more generally, is not aggressive enough–while regulations under the law are notably more stringent than before the crisis, the government should have broken up the banks and forced larger structural changes onto the financial industry.

It’s also worth noting that the original goal of the Volcker rule was weakened when Dodd-Frank and the resulting regulations were drafted. Several loopholes were included that allow banks to continue to invest a portion of their assets in hedge funds and private equity funds as well as exceptions for trades done on behalf of customers.

The CFPB

When lawmakers set out to revamp financial regulation, they noticed several areas that did not have a single authority in charge–instead, a complex network of overlapping agencies was tasked with creating regulations to accomplish several different goals. A notable example of this was consumer protection, which prior to Dodd-Frank was under the control of about 10 different agencies. The fragmented nature meant that no single agency had a primary mandate to protect consumers, which made it difficult for the government to hold financial institutions accountable in cases where individuals were harmed. As a result, an important part of Dodd-Frank was the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency with wide powers to regulate and punish the misconduct of a wide range of institutions. The broad authority and unique structure of the CFPB have made it a controversial component of the reform law, with businesses and conservatives criticizing its authority and accountability structure and progressives arguing that it is essential to keep the industry in check.

The CFPB acts as a regulator in that it creates new rules for financial institutions and punishes them for misconduct. It is also streamlined the complaint process to help consumers take recourse with companies when they have a problem. It created a public complaint database, providing important information for consumers and helping regulators identify common problems. Aaron Klein, a fellow and research director at the Brookings Center on Regulation and Markets, compares the CFPB to Google and Yelp, as it provides a central place for information and reviews to help people make informed choices. In the five years that the CFPB has been in existence, it has provided more than $11 billion in relief for 27 million consumers.

Conclusion

As efforts to undo regulations passed in the wake of the financial crisis gain momentum, it’s important to look back at the law central to the current discussion: Dodd-Frank. Passed in 2010, Dodd-Frank marked the most significant regulatory revamp of the financial system since the great depression. It has been particularly controversial, attacked on the right for going too far and the left for not going far enough. Given its controversial nature, many of the law’s provisions are fairly vague, leaving a lot of latitude for regulators. As a result, the various agencies in charge of creating, updating, and enforcing regulations have a lot of control over how regulation works in practice. Changes to the underlying structure of the law will likely require new legislation, a prospect that does not seem likely given the need for bipartisan support in the Senate. But changes at the margins remain possible and even likely under the new administration. As President Trump continues his efforts to undo regulations and lessen the burden faced by businesses, we may see changes to the Volcker rule or even significant attempts to block its enforcement.

While there are a number of ways that existing laws and rules could be modified in the coming years, it’s important to remember the goals of the law that underlies the current regulatory framework. In many ways, Dodd-Frank was a compromise between various visions of financial reform, including new capital requirements to improve stability as well as the creation of new regulators and a complex set of rules to prevent risky behavior in the largest and most important financial institutions.

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 What are the Most Important Components of the Dodd-Frank Act? appeared first on Law Street.

Just a few years ago, it seemed like you couldn’t watch a sporting event without seeing advertisements for daily fantasy sports leagues like Draft Kings or Fan Duel. Before the 2015 NFL season these companies spent nearly $500 million on advertisements, but after consumer concerns arose, they cut their advertising budgets.

After multiple lawsuits against the industry, the companies are fighting for their existence amid accusations that they fall under the same legal category as traditional online gambling.

A new study from Rutgers University on gambling in New Jersey concludes that daily fantasy sports (DFS) users exhibit highly similar habits as those who engage in traditional forms of gambling. It also finds that there is a high crossover between the two activities. This is bad news for an industry that has tried to distance itself from gambling in order to win lawsuits and continue operation. The study’s authors wrote:

A majority of activities listed in this study are historically classified and widely accepted as ‘gambling,’ because they involve spending money on activities with an uncertain outcome and the possibility of winning or losing that can result in harm. However, other activities elude precise classification and are largely context and jurisdiction‐dependent.

The key distinction for these companies is whether their games are based on skill, not chance. This stems from the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) passed by Congress in 2006, which makes a distinction between the two forms of gambling and outlawed only games that require no skill.

Fan Duel, which opened in 2009, was the first major daily fantasy sports company before Draft Kings, its main competitor, opened in 2011. First, they experienced massive growth and profits before running into legal problems.

To learn more about daily fantasy sports check out Law Street’s Explainer.

These companies, and their users, must prove to the courts that they are winning massive amounts because of skill and hard work, not pure luck like traditional gambling games.

Those who argue that DFS is skill-based believe it’s clear the games aren’t random because of the overwhelming success of experienced players. While normal gambling games such as roulette or slots don’t favor someone with experience, these games show that the most winners have dedicated themselves to the craft.

While many users casually play the games, others have dedicated themselves to the game, and some manage to earn six-figure payouts in just one month.

In fact, 1 percent of players win around 91 percent of the profits from DFS  sites, according to a study by gambling expert Ed Miller. Miller argues this is evidence of a surplus of skill exhibited by the top bettors, whom he refers to as “sharks,” who feast on the “minnows,” which are novice gamblers who lose over 50 percent of their investments.

On the other hand, those who argue the game is just gambling cite evidence that knowledge of the actual sports doesn’t help win the game. Instead, it’s just about algorithms, gaming the system, and luck, they argue.

Even former Florida governor and presidential candidate Jeb Bush called it, “day trading without any of the regulation” during one debate in the 2016 campaign. The lack of oversight is yet another reason many hope for government intervention in the industry.

In recent years, the industry has faced lawsuits across America while states such as Nevada and New York barred them and defined them as gambling. In 2015 both states booted daily fantasy sports companies from their states.

But in late 2016, New York and Nevada compromised with the companies.

New York’s ban was particularly impactful because the Fan Duel headquarters is located in the Big Apple. However, Governor Andrew Cuomo later signed a law in classifying DFS as a “game of skill,” which allowed them to continue business in the state.

Meanwhile, Nevada decided that the companies need a gambling license to operate, but only one company–USFantasy–has applied and received a license as of last November, according to the Legal Sports Report. The policy means that daily fantasy sports is considered gambling in the state, allowing DFS companies to operate under the same regulation as traditional gambling. However, given the industry’s efforts to identify itself as a game of skill, many DFS companies have been unwilling to participate with a gambling classification.

In Texas, state Attorney General Ken Paxton issued an opinion last year equating DFS with illegal gambling, which prompted lawmakers to craft a bill formally classifying DFS as games of skill. State Rep. Richard Peña Raymond, a fantasy football lover himself, decided to sign onto the bill after speaking with constituents who worried about government interference, he told the Texas Tribune.

So while the Rutgers study finds that DFS users also tend to engage in traditional gambling–and are susceptible to similar gambling and drug-related problems–many states are working with these companies to continue operation.

The new study doesn’t necessarily mean that legal changes are coming down the road, but it furthers research that will help inform future decisions. The legality of DFS is a complex issue that must weigh the economic benefits of gambling for local taxes and the negative impact that it can have on individuals and their families.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Daily Fantasy Sports a Form of Online Gambling? appeared first on Law Street.

Americans all have different relationships to food. I didn’t know that you could buy applesauce in a jar until I went to college. I was aware that you could get soup in a can but I had never experienced it personally. My mother and grandmother made these things from scratch. So there were no food labels indicating the nutritional value on any of these items, but following Michael Pollan’s advice to not eat anything that my grandmother would not have recognized as food, the nutritional value wasn’t something we worried about calculating with numbers. It just felt wholesome.

However, not everyone has the luxury of making food from scratch. Americans increasingly rely on processed foods to replace or supplement home-cooked meals. These foods are convenient and often a cheaper alternative. In some cases, they are the only option, since many Americans live in “food deserts.” A food desert is a location where grocery stores that carry fresh produce are more than a mile away and residents don’t have access to them via a car or public transportation. Neighborhoods like this tend to have grocery stores that only have processed food options. A lot of food deserts are in urban areas, but there are also some in rural communities as well, because if the nearest store where you can buy a tomato is five miles away and you lose or don’t have access to your car, you have a very long walk to purchase a tomato.

You can actually go to the U.S. Department of Agriculture website and take a look at food deserts around the country.

Since Americans are either being forced–through economic necessity or location–or choose to consume more processed foods, efforts have been made to make the labeling on these foods easier for consumers to understand. The strategy adopted by the White House, as part of Michelle Obama’s efforts to combat obesity, has been to modify our existing food labeling. But there may be other ways to label our food that better informs consumers and encourage them to make different choices.

Facts Up Front Food Labels

Our current food labeling method is called the “facts up front” system, which utilizes a black-and-white label on the back of the product, with some key facts also displayed on the front of the product. In the following video, Allison Aubrey of NPR explains some of the changes that were made to the facts up front system that will hopefully make it more user-friendly for consumers.

The two main changes to the labeling system, which are designed to promote healthier choices, are the modifications in serving size and the “added sugar” reference on the label. With the previous labeling system, it was not always clear to consumers that what they consider a “serving” and what a “serving” actually is for the purposes of calculating the calories are rarely the same thing. For example, a 24-ounce bottle of coke, which many adults would drink with their meal and think of as a “serving” because it was in one unit, might actually be 2.5 servings. So the number of calories listed was not the number calories in the bottle, which would be much higher than what people were actually consuming.

The other major modification designed to assist consumers is the “added sugar” valuation. Most people don’t realize that sugar is put into nearly all processed foods, even ones that aren’t sweet. Salad dressing, for example, often has sugar added to it. The added sugar value is designed to alert consumers to the hidden sugars in their foods, which are a huge driver for obesity and other health risks.

These changes to the food labels may, in fact, help consumers make better choices. A majority of Americans do look at food labels when they are deciding whether to purchase a food item, so making sure that they are better able to understand the number of calories and nutritional value of the food they are about to consume may help them avoid (at least most of the time) foods that are unwise to eat. If sales for a particular food decline because consumers are changing their behavior, that may even encourage manufacturers to alter the amount of sugar and fat they use to attract more health-conscious consumers.

But there is another way that we can label our food that might be even more beneficial to the consumer.

Traffic Light Labeling

This video explains some of the studies conducted that compare the facts up front food labeling system with an alternative option known as the “traffic light” system. As the name suggests, the traffic light labeling system uses red, green, and yellow/orange to indicate that a nutrient level is healthy or unhealthy. For example, a food that has low fat and low fiber would have a green circle that says low fat (which is a good thing) and a red circle that says low fiber (which would be bad). Glancing at it quickly, if you saw a string of red circles on the label you would know that this food should be eaten in moderation or avoided completely. In contrast, a food with a lot of green circles is something that you can eat more frequently.

Here is the good news: both kinds of food labels will be helpful if you are trying to decide between two different kinds of products. If your choice is between a bag of Fritos and a bag of sourdough pretzels then either the facts up front type of labeling or the traffic light labeling is going to help you know which choice is healthier. However, when you are looking at a product by itself and trying to decide if it is a good choice the traffic light system is much better at helping you make an informed decision.

The traffic light system may be of more use to people as they actually shop than facts up front food labels. It depends on how people make their purchasing decisions. If consumers are going to the store and holding two types of bread in front of them to try to figure out which one is healthier, then the facts up front label is just fine. But if they are reaching for a salad dressing on its own, not comparison shopping, a facts up front label may not alert them to the fact that it is a bad choice, whereas a traffic light label with a red warning circle that says “high sugar” may be more effective at steering consumers away from that product. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that a prevalence of red labels will lead to a reduction in purchases, which is why food manufacturers in Europe are resistant to the implementation of the traffic light label system. Its use in the U.K. is voluntary for manufacturers.

The facts up front system actually leads consumers to make the wrong estimates. It encourages people to think there are more good nutrients in a product than there actually are and fewer bad nutrients. Overall, the traffic light label was easier for consumers to understand, since it can be confusing to think about the recommended daily value of a nutrient and to make the necessary calculation. But a red warning on a package is immediately perceived as “don’t eat this!”

It’s unclear how the traffic light system might affect consumers and manufacturers but the system has been used in the U.K. to try to combat label confusion. Ideally, any labeling system that we use should tell consumers as clearly as possible which products are healthy and/or exactly how unhealthy for you a particular junk food is. And hopefully, that would reduce the amount of particularly unhealthy junk food people consume. But a good labeling system will also influence manufacturer behavior and the traffic light system may be even better at that than a facts up front label. Manufacturers may not want to put a series of red circles on their products, increasing the perception that they are unhealthy, so they might modify their product to get the label reduced from red to yellow.

Conclusion

In a perfect environment, the food labeling system could be complicated and consumers would have the time needed to analyze each product for its relative health merits. As a result, they would wisely avoid the foods they should. But we do not live in the perfect environment. Food shopping is something that many consumers engage in almost as muscle memory, relying heavily on brand loyalty and a general feeling that a product is wholesome. Even when consumers look at food labels, which most of them do, they may not understand them. They know that a bag of potato chips is bad, especially when comparing it to a rice cake, but they may not understand just how bad.

A traffic light labeling system should be explored to figure out if it does a better job accomplishing the goals of a labeling system, which are to inform consumers, modify their behavior where possible, and encourage manufacturers to make their products healthier in an attempt to capture market share. We put warning labels on dangerous products like cigarettes, but our food labeling system does not treat sugar with the same level of danger. Given the health crisis that overconsumption of these products has helped to create, perhaps we should.

Mary Kate Leahy

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

The post Food Labels: Is the ‘Facts up Front’ System Good for Consumers? appeared first on Law Street.

Back in the day, entering into a profession could be very challenging for newcomers. This was particularly true in European countries during the Middle Ages when each profession developed its own organization for members to mutually assist each other and control entrance into the field. These organizations were called guilds and functioned as part union/part cartel. Those lucky enough to belong to a guild reaped benefits like a pension for his family and networking opportunities. This also regulated the quality of the services the profession had in a given locality, which benefitted consumers. For people who wanted to become part of a profession but were not born into a family that held a spot or were otherwise well-connected, guilds functioned as a barrier to entry. This kept competition tightly controlled and promoted the interests of existing members at the expense of customers and those seeking entry.

Today there are many professions that require licenses and testing in order to gain entry–most of us are familiar with the licensing requirements for doctors and lawyers. Take an example I’m intimately familiar with–there are many hurdles to jump through in order to become an attorney. First law school, which can carry a hefty price tag. You then need to take an ethics exam and the bar exam if you would like to practice. The fees for these exams, if you count a review course as part of the cost, can be thousands of dollars. After that, you have to pay for the license, which varies by state, and bar dues, which also vary. The license also doesn’t easily transfer from one state to another. So if you wanted to join the bar in a new state and you haven’t been practicing for a number of years, you would have to take the bar exam again and pay the fees to enter into that state’s bar. For many, the cost of getting licensed in multiple states is prohibitively expensive.

The rationale behind occupational licensing is to control the quality of the services for the customer. With the medical profession, this argument is particularly compelling because of the amount of knowledge required to practice medicine safely and the nature of the risks involved. Consumers can’t really comparison shop for a doctor the same way they can for other services so it is critically important that all doctors have a minimum level of competency. And since other doctors are the only ones who would know if a doctor is competent or not, the medical profession to a large extent controls entry and polices itself. The same is true of many other professions.

But the argument in favor of occupational licensing requirements and regulations, made in the name of consumer safety, makes less sense for some other professions. It may take years of training to become a good interior designer but it probably does not require multiple years of training, multiple exams, and licensing fees to become a safe one. And in an aesthetically based profession like interior design, customers are very well suited to comparison shop for what they want and bargain for less than ideal services at a better price if they choose to. For some of these professions, licensing laws may be functioning not to keep customers safe but to protect profits of the profession’s existing members.

Increasing Requirements

According to a White House paper, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of professions that now require some form of licensing. About one-quarter of all workers in the United States now need a license to practice their trade, which is a five-fold increase from the 1950s. But this increase isn’t because Americans are working in different professions than they used to–rather, more fields are now requiring licenses.

The video below should be taken with several grains of salt, as it is designed to advocate against occupational licensing requirements, but it provides a good framework for the kinds of professions that now need licenses.

Licensing requirements for many professions can have a significant impact on the people seeking to join them. If you want to be a security guard, for example, it matters a great deal which state you are looking for work in. If you live in Michigan, it will take you three years to obtain your license while in other states it will only take you 11 days. For people that move across state lines–take military families, for example–they need to meet the licensing requirements in their new state, which can cost them time and money. As this video from John Stossel suggests, licensing requirements may also price out minorities and the poor from entering professions that require a license and are not always tied to protecting consumer safety.

These regulations can also depress wages for the workers who are not part of the profession and increase the cost of services to consumers. The White House paper cited earlier estimates a 10 to 15 percent decrease in wages and a 3 to 16 percent increase in pricing. This increase in pricing does not necessarily correlate with an increase in safety or the quality of the services. The fact that many of these licensing requirements do not necessarily have a positive impact on services is one of the strongest arguments for eliminating or reevaluating certain licenses.

Why Do We Have Occupational Licensing?

If these licensing requirements are not promoting safety and controlling quality, why do we have so many of them? Take a look at this explanation:

In the case of the medical profession and other professions that really do present safety concerns, these licensing requirements can be beneficial for consumers. Most people do not have the expertise to evaluate whether an electrician is safely performing the work in their home or if it has been done well. The ability to research a company on the internet before you employ its services gives you access to its reputation, but it is still helpful for people looking to hire an electrician to know that the candidates have had some training. It allows a consumer to be confident in the electrician’s ability to safely provide the service.

But for a profession like hair braiding, the consumer’s ability to assess the quality of the services and its safety is very high. You can immediately determine if you are pleased with the quality and there is very minimal risk to your safety. Any risk is probably one that a consumer would be able to identify and avoid. And in an industry like this, the ability to find out a professional’s reputation for quality and safety on the internet or elsewhere beforehand can eliminate a lot of providers who give poor service.

Many of these licensing requirements are not related to consumer safety or the quality of services but to the advocacy power of the professions that require licenses. As Milton Friedman points out in his speech, the best way for the profession to keep the cost of their services high is by limiting the number of people providing those services. By creating laws that fine individuals operating without a license, the cost of providing that service may be too high for outside competitors. This lack of competition protects the existing companies. It is often the professional associations who lobby to have these licenses imposed and fight efforts to take them away, not consumers.

In some cases, members of a profession are the best-qualified people to determine if another practitioner is performing the work safely. Using the medical profession once again as an example, in cases that are highly technical (such as a surgical procedure) it would be difficult for someone without medical training to figure out if the procedure was done negligently or not. For this reason, doctors often work as expert witnesses when they review themselves or in court. A lay person just would not have the knowledge to make those determinations.

Because of this, members of the profession are given considerable leeway to determine the requirements to obtain a license. The professional associations in each state lobby for the regulations that they think are necessary and may even help legislators craft the language of licensing requirements, or take charge of them entirely. This gives the professions a tremendous amount of control over their industries. It is also one reason why licensing requirements vary widely across different states. It isn’t that the process of braiding hair is much more dangerous in states where licensing is required than it is in states where it is not; it is because the states that require licensing have a more concerted effort by existing hair-braiders to impose and maintain a licensing requirement.

Conclusion

Some occupational licenses make a lot of sense to have. Professions where safety is an important concern and where it is difficult for consumers to judge the competency of the people they are hiring are ones that should have a base requirement for those entering the profession. But many of the professions that require licenses are ones in which those licenses do not protect consumers. Instead, they protect the members of that profession from more competition at the expense of job seekers and at a cost to the public. Licenses that are not tied to consumer safety should be reevaluated in order to ensure that they are necessary and that their purpose is to promote safety and quality.

For example, a license for a cosmetologist that requires 2,000 hours of training has probably exceeded whatever legitimate safety concerns may exist in the field. The same goal of promoting consumer safety could perhaps be met with a much less onerous requirement–such as a shorter certification process that focuses just on hygiene and safety practices. Licensing fees that are paid to state professional associations but are not payments for the costs of classes and tests could also be eliminated without adversely affecting public safety.

Reevaluating these licenses and eliminating the ones that do not benefit consumers will create new opportunities for workers to enter professions and for entrepreneurs to start businesses. It would also decrease the prices consumers face for many services. If there are safety concerns in an industry that do require regulation they should be dealt with, but many of these licenses and requirements could likely be eliminated or reduced without reducing consumer safety.

Resources

The Institute for Justice: License to Work

WhiteHouse.gov: Occupational Licensing: A Framework for Policymakers

FiveThirtyEight: Licensing Laws Are Shutting Young People Out of the Job Market

U.S. News: Short Sighted Policy: Studying Opticians Shows Occupational Licensing Doesn’t Help Consumers

Bureau of Labor Statistics: The De-Licensing of Occupations In the United States

Foundation For Economic Education: Does Occupational Licensing Protect Consumers?

Politico: It Takes 890 Days to Become a Barber in Nevada 

Forbes: Citing Adam Smith and Milton Freedman, Obama’s Economic Advisors Back Occupational Licensing Reform

Mary Kate Leahy

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

The post Have Occupational Licensing Laws Gotten Out Of Control? appeared first on Law Street.

Another day, another Uber controversy. It seems like the popular ride-sharing app will never see the end of its legal struggles. Some of the buzz is positive–Uber recently announced that it’s expanding and beefing up safety features. However, other recent headlines about the company cannot be considered anything but incredibly negative. For example, yet another rape accusation has come to light. Overall, as Uber continues to grow, so do safety concerns, and seemingly, safety features.

Read More: Uber Will Have a Rough Ride in 2015

A Philadelphia woman has come forward with allegations that she was raped by her Uber driver on February 6, and then essentially held captive in the car while he drove around for two hours following the assault. While she evidently brought the claims to the police, Uber claims that it didn’t learn about it until much later. A rep for the company told Philadelphia Magazine, who broke the story:

Our thoughts and prayers are with our rider. Upon learning of the incident, we immediately reached out to the Philadelphia Police Department to assist in their investigation and support their efforts in any way we can. As the investigation continues, the driver’s access to the Uber platform has been suspended.

New controversies for Uber aren’t just popping up here in the states. Two Uber drivers in Ottawa, Canada, recently pleaded guilty to operating unlicensed taxis. There have also been very high profile sexual assault allegations in France and India.

It’s in response to all of these developments, as well as others like them in the past and potential for more in the future, that Uber is launching new programs and initiatives focusing on safety. The additions to Uber’s safety measures will include things like incident response teams to investigate anything that may happen over the course of an Uber ride, and further review of things like quality assurance. The company will also expand its work with law enforcement, including in India where there will be a button programmed into the Uber app allowing riders to directly call law enforcement.

While some of these features seem promising, Uber still sometimes struggles to follow through, as evidenced by the United Nations Women’s partnership debacle from a few weeks back.

Read More: Uber’s New hiring Initiative: Trying to Win Back Women

Uber and UN Women announced a plan to work together to create jobs for female drivers and released a jointly signed letter on Uber’s website. However, after some backlash and safety concerns, UN Women pulled out of the agreement. Some of that backlash included a statement from the International Transport Workers Federation, which stated:

The creation of one million precarious, informal jobs will not contribute to women’s economic empowerment and represents exactly the type of structural inequality within the labor market that the women’s movement has been fighting for decades. Uber’s practices are defined by an aggressive informalization of an industry that was already deregulated three decades ago

It’s clear that Uber wants to make changes, but it’s certainly struggled to do so in the past. Perhaps it’s a side effect of being a young company that experienced a lot of growth very quickly, or just inherent to the nature of a business as informal as ridesharing. Either way, Uber needs to reform–and let’s hope that it sticks this time.

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 Uber Adds More Safety Features, But Will They Be Enough? appeared first on Law Street.

On July 20, 1969, man set foot on the moon for the first time in what Neil Armstrong famously called “one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.” After these first dusty steps, people pondered what giant leaps might be next, dreaming about lunar colonies, outer space tourism, and most recently, space mining.

Read More: Thanks to New Discovery Your Seat on Mars One is Looking Good

Recent unmanned moon expeditions detected a bounty of 1.6 billion tons of water ice and other rare earth elements (REE) lingering beneath the moon’s surface. Combine this enticing bounty with speedily developing technologies that make space travel more accessible and you’ve got a budding space mining industry. Space exploration technology has become infinitely cheaper, better, and smaller than it was back in 1969, pushing what was once only possible for national governments into the hands of private companies gearing up to tap into outer space resources

But one little hitch might hold them back. The only acknowledged international regulation on space travel, the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, left space property rights ambiguous. Companies and nations seem free to embark on all manner of expeditions, but the treaty doesn’t mention if they legally own any resources they pick up on the way. With hefty investments behind their ventures, space-faring companies demand assurance that they’ll be able to profit from the resources they might collect.

Will an old agreement keep businesses from capturing the teeming resources space has to offer?

Businesses With Extra-Terrestrial Aspirations

Lunar mining? Piece of cake. Tapping into outer space resources has officially graduated from being a remote possibility to a reality. Already many commercial companies are wooing investors and toiling over in-depth plans, all gearing up to get a piece of the space pie.

• The Shackleton Energy Company (SEC) plans to build the first space fueling station. Remember that 1.6 billion tons of water ice just waiting on the moon? When converted to liquid form, the hydrogen and oxygen in this ice creates a powerful chemical propellent–the most powerful we know of. Liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen already power most space shuttle engines. SEC plans to mine the moon’s ice and set up a fuel station in Earth’s orbit. Fueling from this location instead of Earth could decrease costs by a factor of up to 20 to one.

• Moon Express developed a revolutionary vehicle, the MX-1 lunar lander, powered by sunlight and fueled by hydrogen peroxide. It will send the craft on speculating missions to investigate resources that might be mined. This company plans to perfect the safety and efficiency of lunar landings, making the moon as accessible as an eighth continent.
• Planetary Resources fixed its eye on asteroids, the most abundant sources of water that can be converted into hydrogen and oxygen rocket fuel. The company uses an algorithm to find asteroids and determine which ones might be resource rich.
• The Google Lunar X Competition offers incentives for discoveries that make getting to the moon easier and cheaper. Teams hoping to snag the $30 million grand prize have to land a robot on the moon, move it around, and send back HD Mooncasts for earth-dwellers. The competition is well under way and will wrap up in December 2016. Teams have already innovated promising robots, including this animated prototype rover named Uni from Team AngelicvM featured in the short video below.

Despite dazzling technology and high hopes, unclear space property laws pose major risks for commercial companies. Space travel costs have decreased relative to 1960s costs, but it’s still not cheap. Certainly not cheap enough that companies will launch rockets without solid assurance that they’ll own whatever resources they find on their missions. As you can see, these companies listed above, as well as many others, are ready to go. Let’s see what’s holding them back.

The Outer Space Treaty of 1967

The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 stands as the only cooperative international agreement governing space travel. The treaty clearly forbids countries from declaring sovereignty over celestial bodies in Article II:

Outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.

Mining isn’t specifically mentioned, but then again mining the moon was an outlandish possibility in 1967. The provision stood to bar nations from lassoing the moon, so to speak. Now as we look to extract resources from these common areas, many desire explicit, legal guarantees that they may do so–both for financial reassurance and to avoid conflict with other nations and companies wrestling over the same resources. Established property rights would provide the certainty necessary to encourage cultivating outer space for abundant natural resources.

Read More: FAA Allowing Companies to Call Dibs on the Moon

One company, Bigelow Aerospace, pushes adamantly for clarification on real property rights in space. In an internal report issued to NASA, Robert Bigelow, founder and president of the company, summarizes its desires well:

Without property rights, any plan to engage the private sector in long-term beyond LEO activities will ultimately fail. Companies and their financial backers must know that they will be able to enjoy the fruits of their labor relative to activities conducted on the Moon or other celestial bodies, and own the property that they have surveyed, developed, and are realistically able to utilize.

Who bears the burden of deciding the fate of Bigelow Aerospace and other hopeful companies? Article 6 of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 specifies that governments bear responsibility for the activities of their nation and subjects in outer space, including the decision to authorize activities. Many U.S. government entities have a say in space happenings, but it’s the Federal Aviation Administration’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation (FAA-AST) and its advisory committee, the U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee (COMSTAC), that bears the burden of responding to recent requests to clarify commercial space laws.

During the most recent FAA-AST meeting in September 2014, Ken Hodgkins, Director of the Office of Space and Advanced Technology, acknowledged the number of private companies planning commercial ventures and how their activities question the legal frameworks around space exploration. He stressed balancing investment incentives with U.S. foreign policy obligations. Hodgkins stated concerns about proposed commercial activity falling in line with the Outer Space Treaty and encouraged further dialogue between private companies and U.S. agencies. He does not believe attempts at changing the treaty would result in faster resolution of the questions and assured meeting attendees that they are working with foreign nations to discuss the provisions in question.

Past Space Property Challenges

Very few cases have tested the limits of the Outer Space Treaty, so its enforceable interpretations remain unclear. However, a few incidents might influence the direction of space property rights decisions.

In one space property court case, Nemitz v. United States, a San Francisco district court ruled against a man’s claim of ownership on the asteroid 433, also known as Eros. Nemitz had filed a claim of ownership on the asteroid through a now-unpublished online database known as the Archimedes Institute. When NASA landed on his asteroid in 2001, Nemitz attempted to charge them parking fees. When they rejected him, he took his claim to court, where judges also dismissed his claim, stating that his assertion of ownership had no ground in law.

In a more powerful non-court precedent, moon materials from the Apollo landings in the 1960s have already been traded and sold. NASA traded lunar samples with the Soviet Union in exchange for their samples from robotic moon missions. Private individuals in Russia have even sold samples. These transactions imply outerspace materials can be owned, traded, and sold, giving hope to mining hopefuls.

New Space Legislation

Representative Bill Posey (R-FL) introduced H.R.1508 on March 15, 2015,

To promote the development of a United States commercial space resource exploration and utilization industry and to increase the exploration and utilization of resources in outer space

A more in-depth summary is not yet available, but you can be certain the measure will tackle legal barriers barring exploration of space resources. The bill now stands with the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

Last month  the House passed the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2015, a near repeat of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2014, which died in the Senate. The act authorizes NASA activities like space exploration, research, and education. While the bill doesn’t expressly cover commercial enterprise and space property rights, the sentiment of encouraging space-related innovation will serve commercial interests well.

Where no man has gone before…

As we speak, dreams of space colonies, moon mining, and even landing on Mars come closer to reality. This pulls legal questions and concerns to the surface, but only because we plan to go where no man has gone before. Establishing procedures will take time, cooperation, and patience, but it will be worth it to tackle our final frontier.

Resources

Primary

Federal Aviation Administration: Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee

U.S. Congress: Summary: H.R.810 — 114th Congress (2015-2016)

U.S. Congress: Summary: H.R. 1508 — 114th Congress (2015-2016)

United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs: United Nations Treaties and Principles On Outer Space

Additional

Institute of Physics: Mining the Moon Becomes a Serious Prospect

Space.com: Mining the Moon? Space Property Rights Still Unclear

Washington Post: Looking for an Exotic Vacation? Here’s Why Moon Travel May Be Only 20 Years Away

Space.com: Moon Mining Idea Digs Up Lunar Legal Issues

Space Future: Real Property Rights in Outer Space

Wired: Space Law: Is Asteroid Mining Legal?

NASA Space Flight: Moon Property Rights Would Help Create Lunar Industry

Space Policy Online: Legislative Checklist 114h Congress: Major Space Related Legislation

Moon Express: Missions

Planetary Resources: NASA and Planetary Resources, Inc. Announce Results of the Asteroid Data Hunter Challenge

Space Foundation: U.S. Government Space Programs

SF Gate: Final Frontier For Lawyers — Property Rights in Space/Land Claims, Commercial Schemes and Dreams Have Legal Eagles Hovering

Space Policy online: House Passes 2015 NASA Authorization Bill

Ashley Bell

Ashley Bell communicates about health and wellness every day as a non-profit Program Manager. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Business and Economics from the College of William and Mary, and loves to investigate what changes in healthy policy and research might mean for the future. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Who Owns the Moon? Space Property Rights Are Nearing appeared first on Law Street.

Imagine ripping into a warm baguette with your bare hands. You owe its intoxicating fluffiness and delectable chewiness to gluten. A water insoluble protein found in wheat, gluten and its compounds bring us everything we expect from bread. It helps dough rise and hold its shape while also lending elasticity, making bread deliciously chewy.

Yes, we’re talking about the same gluten that has become a modern villain, misunderstood and widely hated. Popular books like “Wheat Belly and Grain Brain: The Surprising Truth About Wheat, Carbs” and “Sugar—Your Brain’s Silent Killers” turned gluten into poison in the public eye. Testimonials extolling the virtues of a gluten-free diet crusade the internet, converting many a faithful bread eater. In short, few foods have gained as much notoriety as gluten and many people think it equals anything bad in food.

Far from evil, gluten just presents a digestive challenge. When you digest wheat, the proteins break down into peptides with compact and complicated structures that cause adverse reactions in people with conditions like Celiac Disease, wheat allergies, or IBS. Unfortunately, in the past 60 years these conditions have become more common, stumping manufacturers and regulators who struggle to satisfy growing market demand for safe, gluten-free products. Read on to find out what they’ve done about gluten, and what they still have to figure out.

The anti-gluten craze: trend or reality?

Is gluten-hatred just a viral trend that people flock to like lemmings? Or is there some truth behind the gluten hate?

Scientifically, aspects of gluten-hatred hold water. Celiac Disease has quadrupled in the last 60 years. Celiac Disease is a disorder triggered by gluten that causes intestinal problems and poor absorption of vitamins and minerals.

Unfortunately, these statistics don’t point to an explanation, leaving scientists to toss around possible theories like darts. Some point the finger at wheat-breeding practices, others insist modern processing plays a part. At this point, only more well-controlled studies on the subject will lead to a consensus.

One study ruled out the possibility that the statistical growth in Celiac Disease results from better detection and diagnosis. A researcher at the Mayo Clinic analyzed existing blood samples from Air Force recruits taken between 1948-1954. He searched for the presence of transglutaminase, an enzyme that indicates Celiac Disease, and compared the percentage he found in the retro sample to the percentage he found in a modern sample of similar subjects. The percentage in the retro sample was significantly lower than what he found in the modern sample, leading him to conclude that something has happened since the 1950s to increase the overall rate of the disease–and it has nothing to do with diagnostics and detection.

The increase in Celiac Disease, combined with the increased demand for gluten-free products, even among people without diagnosed conditions, put pressure on regulators and producers. They responded first with better labeling.

Put a Label on it

In August 2013, the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) issued a final rule on gluten-free labeling that became enforceable the following year. The rule took nine years to develop and stems from the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act of 2004. It set a uniform protocol for companies wishing to market their products as gluten-free that established the acceptable gluten threshold at 20 parts per million (ppm). Why not zero ppm? Some processing techniques can remove most gluten from wheat-derived ingredients. The rule ensures these ingredients can’t add up to pass the safe threshold for people with gluten sensitivity. Furthermore, any food bearing a gluten-free label that lists wheat as an ingredient must also provide an explanation of how the wheat has been processed to remove the gluten.

The rule doesn’t expressly require testing and monitoring of gluten levels in ingredients to ensure compliance, but that would certainly be a safe bet for manufacturers. With the substantial list of ingredients from different sources going into processed foods, only diligent testing and monitoring can guarantee a gluten-free product. Even foods that don’t contain gluten can be cross-contaminated at some point in the long supply chain.

Per the rule, if a food labeled gluten-free actually contains gluten, it would be deemed misbranded by the FDA and subject to regulatory action. Depending on the nature of the offense, that could mean anything from a little warning letter to criminal prosecution.

Gluten Outlaws

Gluten labeling has lead to criminal prosecution before, and it happened when no FDA rule existed to break. In 2011, several customers of the Great Specialty Bread Co. in North Carolina found their Celiac symptoms became mysteriously aggravated after eating bread labeled “gluten-free.” These angry customers took their complaints to the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, which passed it on to the Wake County District Attorney.

During the trial that followed, testimonies from injured customers forged a strong case against the company. One of them was a new mother whose Celiac reaction to the mislabeled bread caused her to prematurely deliver her baby. Other complaints included severe abdominal pain and rashes.

The owner of the company was ultimately found guilty of 23 counts of fraud and sentenced to nine to 11 years in prison.

Gluten: It’s Complicated

So we have an enforceable labeling policy and some criminal precedent for labeling abuse. What we lack to advance policies is a complete understanding of why gluten sensitivity is growing in the first place and how to control it.

Negative reactivity to gluten changes depending on the specific condition a person has and the variety of wheat that they eat, making gluten sensitivity hard to study as an overall subject. Gluten-sensitive conditions like Celiac Disease, wheat allergies, and other wheat sensitivities are also irritated by different compounds in wheat. Furthermore, separate varieties of wheat contain different amounts of gluten compounds and these amounts can fluctuate among the same variety depending on growing techniques and processing methods.

Growing Techniques

Studies have shown that reactivity of a wheat variety can change based on its growing location. Some compounds in wheat even increase with fertilization and in certain weather conditions. We don’t track gluten content from farm to table, so at present it’s impossible to isolate these factors to produce less reactive products.

Processing Techniques

Processing methods influence the reactivity of wheat products and stand as the prime suspect in explaining why wheat-related sensitivity has increased over the last 60 years. Of all the factors affecting the wheat industry, processing methods have changed the most. Today we favor refined white flour, we extract wheat proteins to use as additives, and we shorten the natural fermentation process using fast-acting yeast.

All of these complex factors complicate the study of gluten sensitivity and keep us from determining why conditions are growing. Any and all of these factors could be contributing to the problem. Costs and the complexity of food processing deter researchers and producers from tackling the issue, but only further testing can provide food manufacturers with the guidance they need to improve their growing and processing methods to lessen negative reactivity among their gluten-sensitive customers. While the process would be tedious, it could indicate what wheat varieties and techniques to favor in order to cater to the growing culture of wheat sensitivity.

Gluten, Still a Hot Topic

While many people mock the anti-gluten trend, a growing segment of our population needs to avoid gluten for medical purposes. Even so, a gluten-free lifestyle remains persistently trendy outside of that population. In the National Restaurant Association’s What’s Hot in 2014 survey, gluten-free took the #5 spot.

The trend ultimately helps people with diagnosed conditions as manufacturers and restaurants race to innovate tasty new products. If demand holds steady, it won’t be long until a perfect, gluten-free iteration of an exquisite baguette is within reach.

Resources

Primary

FDA: FDA Defines “Gluten-Free” for Food Labeling

FDA: Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act of 2004 Questions and Answers

Federal Register: Food Labeling; Gluten-Free Labeling of Foods

Additional

Food Politics: Good News: FDA Issues Rules for a Gluten-Free Claim on Food Packages

New Yorker: Against the Grain

Comprehensive Reviews: A Grounded Guide to Gluten: How Modern Genotypes and Processing Impact Wheat Sensitivity

Food Liability Law: FDA Issues Gluten Free Labeling Compliance Guide

WRAL: Durham Bread Company Owner Sentenced For Fraud

Institute of Food Technologists: Testing for Gluten in Foods

National Restaurant Association: 2014 Culinary Forecast

Ashley Bell

Ashley Bell communicates about health and wellness every day as a non-profit Program Manager. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Business and Economics from the College of William and Mary, and loves to investigate what changes in healthy policy and research might mean for the future. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How to Regulate Gluten, the Modern Food Villain appeared first on Law Street.

E-cigarettes are one of America’s latest trends. Since entering the United States over the last ten years, they have taken the smoking community by storm. To many of us however, they are still somewhat of a mystery. Generally, we have a sense that they are less harmful than cigarettes, but how much less harmful exactly? With any new product, it is hard to foresee long-term health effects. But what do we know so far? Should e-cigarettes and their advertisements be regulated similarly to conventional cigarettes? Read on for a breakdown on what e-cigarettes are, the debates over them, and what regulation is being discussed.

What are electronic cigarettes?

E-cigarettes, also known as e-cigs and vaporizer cigarettes, are used as an alternate method to smoking tobacco via cigarettes, pipes, or cigars. They are battery operated and don’t involve smoke inhalation. The idea is that they bypass tobacco smoke, which can include more than 7,000 different harmful chemicals, many of which are known to cause cancer, heart disease, and lung disease. Some of the more well-known poisonous chemicals are cyanide, methanol, and ammonia. In addition, tobacco smoke includes tar, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxide.

Many e-cigs are designed to look like cigarettes and create a similar experience for those who are smoking them. A Chinese pharmacist perfected them in 2003-2004 and they were quickly brought to the international market in 2005-2006. In the current, automatic versions, a user sucks on an end piece to activate a sensor that allows a heating element to vaporize a liquid solution held in the mouthpiece.

Components

E-cigarettes are generally reusable and come in three parts: the Mouthpiece, the Atomizer, and the Battery.

• Mouthpiece (Cartridge): The mouthpiece holds the liquid solution, also known as e-liquid and e-juice. This solution can contain different grades of nicotine and come in a variety of flavors. Some are meant to imitate established cigarette brands, while others are more exotic. The nicotine is most often dissolved in propylene glycol, a food additive. The FDA has labeled propylene glycol as a “Generally Recognized as Safe” (GRAS) substance.
• Atomizer: This is the heating element that allows for vaporization. It requires replacement every three to six months.
• Battery: The battery is the largest piece of the e-cigarette. It is usually lithium-ion and rechargeable. It catalyzes the heating element and often contains an LED light to showcase activation.

Nicotine 

This product eliminates the inhalation of tobacco smoke, however it is important to note that nicotine itself isn’t very healthy. Although it is not the element of cigarettes that causes cancer, the U.S. Surgeon General has linked nicotine to negative impacts on fetal and adolescent brain development, premature birth, and low birth weight. In rare cases, nicotine can even cause abnormal heart rhythm and atrial fibrillation. It is also known to cause mouth irritation, mouth and throat pain, high blood pressure, and canker sores.

In 2014, a study found that “e-cigarettes with a higher voltage level have higher amounts of formaldehyde, a carcinogen.” This is under debate however due to the methods and nature of the study.

How are conventional cigarettes regulated?

We already know that smoking tobacco is awful for your health. It is to blame for 30 percent of all cancer deaths in the U.S., and accounts for 87 percent of lung cancer deaths in men and 70 percent in women. As a result of these health concerns, cigarettes and their advertisements are heavily controlled. To ascertain whether e-cigarettes should be similarly regulated, we need to understand established cigarette regulations. Here are some recent highlights.

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, passed in 2009, authorized the FDC to regulate the manufacture, distribution, and marketing of tobacco products. It requires prominent warning graphic labels for cigarettes and larger text warnings on smokeless tobacco products. It regulates describing tobacco products as “light, low, or mild.” Tobacco companies must yield research on health, toxicological, behavioral, or physiologic effects of tobacco use. The FDA can conduct compliance check inspections of any establishment selling tobacco products and fine any establishments not adhering to set regulations. It also requires tobacco manufactures to receive an order or exemption from the FDA before it can introduce new tobacco products.

Other parts of the law are focused on preventing advertisements aimed at America’s youth. Cigarettes cannot be flavored. The packaging design and color must be muted. It prohibits tobacco brands from sponsoring “sporting, entertainment, or other cultural events.” It prohibits free samples of cigarettes. And lastly, it prohibits tobacco branding on non-tobacco products.

E-Cigarette Regulation

Currently, there aren’t any regulations concerning the manufacture, distribution, and marketing of e-cigarettes. The only type of e-cigarettes subject to regulation are those designed for therapeutic purposes, as the FDA has authority to oversee those.

Only three states in the U.S. ban e-cigarettes in designated 100 percent smoke-free venues: Utah, New Jersey, and North Dakota. Only 15 states restrict the use of e-cigarettes in other venues. There are 162 local laws that restrict e-cigarettes in various venues, but those appear to be few and far between.

Are e-cigarettes dangerous?

The question remains: should we be worried about e-cigarettes? That’s a debate that’s happening across the country. They do eliminate deadly smoke inhalation, the most detrimental part of smoking cigarettes. However, there are still concerning aspects of e-cigarettes that need to be taken into account.

E-Cigs as a Gateway to Smoking for Young Adults

The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published a 2014 study entitled, “Electronic Cigarettes and Conventional Cigarette Use Among US Adolescents.” The study was conducted out of a concern over the increasing use of unregulated e-cigarettes by today’s youth. The results came from a sample of U.S. middle and high school students who participated in the 2011 and 212 National Youth Tobacco Survey. It found:

Use of e-cigarettes was associated with higher odds of ever or current cigarette smoking, higher odds of established smoking, higher odds of planning to quit smoking among current smokers, and, among experimenters, lower odds of abstinence from conventional cigarettes. Use of e-cigarettes does not discourage, and may encourage, conventional cigarette use among US adolescents.

In accordance, a 2013 study published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) concluded that:

Youth who had never smoked conventional cigarettes but who used e-cigarettes were almost twice as likely to have intentions to smoke conventional cigarettes as those who had never used e-cigarettes.  Among non-smoking youth who had ever used e-cigarettes, 43.9 percent said they have intentions* to smoke conventional cigarettes within the next year, compared with 21.5 percent of those who had never used e-cigarettes.

Additionally, the CDC found that more than 250,000 young adults who have never smoked a cigarette have tried an e-cigarette. That is a triple increase from 2011.

Targeting youth?

If these studies are indicative of reality, then it’s scary to think of how e-cigarette companies are targeting the youth demographic. According to a study published in Pediatrics, “electronic cigarette advertisements increased by 256 percent from 2011 to 2013 and young adult exposure to e-cigarette ads jumped 321 percent in the same time period.“ It found that 75 percent of youth exposure to e-cigarette ads happened through the medium of cable networks like AMC, Comedy Central, and VH1. E-cigarette ads appear on programs like “The Bachelor,” “Big Brother,” and “Survivor,” which were rated amid the 100 highest-rated youth programs in 2012-13.

Other tactics accused of being aimed at young adults include free giveaway samples at music and sporting events, candy flavors, and the glamorization of packaging. All of these actions have been banned for traditional cigarettes companies because of their appeal to the youth.

 Do e-cigs help people quit smoking?

It’s difficult to determine. Studies indicate that they don’t necessarily help stop smoking.

JAMA Study Findings

As previously discussed, the 2014 study published by JAMA found that e-cigarettes do not help smokers quit. Specifically with regard to quitting smoking, 88 (out of 949) smokers claimed to start using e-cigarettes at the beginning of the study. In the next year, 13.5 percent of those 88 quit smoking traditional cigarettes. Almost equal percentages of e-cigarette users and solely traditional smokers quit smoking traditional cigarettes within the year. The difference was so slight, it fell within the study’s margin of error.

There are also testimonials, easily found online, that share success stories of smokers that quit with the help of e-cigarettes. These findings and interviews are not to say that it never happens, but it does not seem to be the norm.

Discussions for Future Regulation

The FDA has the authority to regulate cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco, and smokeless tobacco. The FDA proposed the “deeming rule” on April 24, 2014 to extend tobacco products to include e-cigarettes. If approved, e-cigarettes would be regulated in the same manner as traditional cigarettes. This includes federal prohibition on free sampling, federal warning label requirements, and age verification requirements for retailers. It is still uncertain when and to what extent the FDA will be empowered to regulate e-cigarettes.

Conclusion

Studies looking into e-cigarette health concerns and their position as a gateway product for America’s youth are still new. The product only reached the U.S. in the last ten years and nothing is 100 percent conclusive. On one hand, smoking an e-cigarette is less harmful to your health than smoking a traditional cigarette. If a traditional smoker quits cigarettes and manages to only smoke e-cigarettes for the rest of his or her lifetime, that is a good thing. In the same respect, if a young adult who would have developed a smoking habit only ever uses e-cigarettes because of their availability, that is also a good thing. On the other hand, e-cigarettes aren’t necessarily safe for your health just because they are safer than cigarettes. And we could eventually find that they definitively promote cigarette smoking. The government and FDA can revisit the subject when there is more conclusive information available.

Resources

Primary

JAMA Pediatrics: Electronic Cigarette and Conventional Cigarette Use Among U.S. Adolescents

FDA: Deeming Tobacco Products to Be Subject to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

FDA: E-Cigarettes

Additional

BeTobaccoFree.gov: Law/Policies

American Cancer Society: Tobacco-Related Cancers Fact Sheet

American Lung Association: General Smoking Facts

American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation: U.S. State and Local Laws Regulating Use of Electronic Cigarettes

E-Cigarette Research: The Deception of Measuring Formaldehyde in E-Cigarette Aerosol

American Lung Association: Statement on E-Cigarettes

Medical News Today: What Are E-cigarettes?

RTI International: E-Cigarette TV Ads Targeting Youth Increased 256 Percent in Past Two Years

Science News: E-Cigarettes Don’t Help Smokers Quit

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 E-Cigarettes: Should We Treat Them Like Traditional Cigarettes? appeared first on Law Street.

Repeal of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) has been an increasing popular debate topic over the last several years. Though buried under other hot topics, such as foreign policy, government surveillance, and celebrity gossip, this conversation has been simmering on a back burner since at least the early 90s. The general consensus for those who would repeal the act is that it would then be reformed, though there are some who want it gone altogether. Read on to see why people are concerned about the date of the Endangered Species Act.

The History and Purpose of the ESA

The Endangered Species Act as we know it was passed by Congress in 1973. It was preceded by the Endangered Species Preservation Act in 1966, which was amended three years later. Some of the main changes to the 1973 version included the creation of a set definitions for words such as “endangered” and “threatened,” widening the law to include plants, and restricting the federal government from any action that would endanger a listed species.

Another expansion the ESA provided was including protection guidelines from the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) in Washington, DC, which was signed by 80 nations taking a stand against environmentally harmful trade practices. An example of this was in 1989 when ivory imports were banned because of elephant poachers in Africa.

There were amendments to the act in 1978, 1982, 1988, and 2004, most of which dealt with defining exact parameters of what the government could and could not do, as well as smoothing out the process of proposing candidates for inclusion.

The point of the ESA is to not only stop the decimation of endangered species but also to recover them and ultimately delist them when they are no longer in danger of extinction. This is to be achieved through recovery plans written by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) biologists in collaboration with experts. The goals of the FWS are further explained in this video that they released for the ESA’s fortieth anniversary last year.

When an animal or plant is listed, it becomes illegal to “take” it without a federal permit. Typically these permits are granted for reasons of conservation or scientific research. Under the definitions section of the act, “take” is explained as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” “Take” doesn’t apply to plants unless they are on federal land. Laws can differ slightly from state to state, however, as some may have extra restrictions. It’s always best to know the rules as they apply to you.

How does a species make the list?

When considering a candidate for listing, the Fish and Wildlife Service uses a five-factor list, any of which can make the candidate eligible.

(A) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;

(B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;

(C) disease or predation;

(D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or

(E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

The species selected represent the most critical cases, but there is also a list of candidates that meet the qualifications but can’t be moved forward due to budget or time restrictions. According to the FWS, in these cases the agency “works with States, Tribes, private landowners, private partners, and other Federal agencies to carry out conservation actions for these species to prevent further decline and possibly eliminate the need for listing.”

By the Numbers

• Thirty-one listed species have been fully recovered and therefore delisted.
• Ten listed species have been delisted due to extinction.
• There are 1,371 listed animals and 886 listed plants.
• The total expenditures for the 2013 fiscal year for endangered and threatened species by federal and state governments was more than $1.7 billion.
• Sixty-eight percent of protected species whose conditions are known are improving or stable.
• Thirty-two percent of protected species whose conditions are known are declining.
• Ninety percent of listed species are on track for their recovery rate deadlines, as outlined in their recovery plans.
• A 2013 poll reported that 42 percent of Americans said that the ESA should be strengthened, 25 percent said to leave it alone, and 24 percent said it should be weakened.

For Repeal and Reform

One of the main arguments for reforming the Endangered Species Act is that there is little incentive for private landowners to comply. In fact, once an endangered species is found, the land becomes subject to restrictions without any financial compensation from the government, so there is arguably reason for such property owners to kill and dispose of the endangered animal before anyone else finds out about it. This use of government command instead of reward is a problem for free market fans and property rights activists alike.

Attorney Damien Schiff explains some of these property rights in the video below by the Pacific Legal Foundation.

Schiff also brings up the idea of prioritizing species worth saving, which has been reflected in arguments that the law is too inflexible in its efforts to save every endangered species.

Others believe the act puts nature before people, as jobs that would be created developing protected land are taken away and many government dollars are spent that could be put to use on humans or that could remain in taxpayers’ pockets. It has even been suggested that selling land currently under Federal protection could result in revenue for the government.

The question of cost is addressed in the NBC News story below about saving the panda.

On the more scandalous side of the controversy, there have been allegations that seeds of listed plants have been spread across mining sites in order to halt progress. Another case of abuse of the act was when an environmental group sued the FWS because four types of shrimp weren’t listed. The legal action was allegedly an attempt to block the development of 1.7 million acres of land.

Those who are more concerned with the science behind the act say that it is actually too targeted at individual species rather than biodiversity as a whole, which could be a more effective goal. Environmentalists are also concerned that the government, charged with enforcing the ESA, doesn’t take into account the long-term effects of projects that could impact an area’s ecosystem. While a short-term risk to a listed animal would warrant a stop on the plan, some feel the government ignores or doesn’t adequately research risks that could be problematic later.

Support For the Act

A key argument against the ESA is that extinction is a natural process, but many scientists believe that it is starting to happen at an alarming rate due to human predation, clearing of habitats, and use of food sources. This is being called the sixth wave of extinction, and by this logic, we as humans should strive to correct the damage we have done. This logic is also applied when supporters factor in climate change and pollution as sources of man-made extinction. Proponents of the ESA argue that it is our moral and ethical responsibility to care for the animals and plants we have affected through our rapid expansion into their territories.

Also, scientists have proven that the extinction of one animal often disrupts the food chain to cause a domino or ripple effect of extinctions. Our health as humans could be affected by such disruptions if not kept in check, creating clear ties to our well being and that of our environment. Supporters also note that measures taken to ensure the health of animals and plants, such as stopping deforestation and keeping our waters clean, are practices from which we all benefit.

There are also questions about the origins of arguments to repeal the act–do they come from genuine concern or lobbyists from lumber, mining, and oil drilling companies? In other words, are repealers really concerned with people or corporate profit?

Another rebutted argument against the act is that it has only a one percent success rate (with success being measured only in delistings), but less than one percent of species listed have gone extinct. This, plus the fact that the majority of measured populations are stable or increasing, makes it clear that this seemingly crippling statistic isn’t so impressive, after all. In addition, the above-listed statistic about 90 percent of species being on track for recovery is a strong argument for a different–and more optimistic–measurement of success. If the act is allowed to continue, successes will come in time, preserving our wildlife for future generations.

Perhaps the simplest reason for support is that the ESA makes people more conscious of the world around them. It informs the public of species that need to be protected, increases awareness of humans’ effect on other lifeforms, and it creates dialogue about the consequences if said species die out. After all, if there are unknown consequences to certain animals’ extinction, we may not discover them until it is too late.

Conclusion

It seems that many questions surrounding the Endangered Species Act have to do with the worth of funding such a large endeavor and how to accurately measure its success. If one takes a narrow approach in defining success as delisting, the ESA has very little to show. If one accounts for improvement and stability, though, there is a lot more weight behind the project. Is it the government’s place to support wildlife, or would we be better off focusing on ourselves? Does the 41-year-old act need a facelift in order to make it more efficient and beneficial to humans? This issue hasn’t moved into the political forefront yet, but as the volume of this conversation increases, Americans are going to need to decide what role they play in the natural world.

Resources

Primary 

FIsh and Wildlife Service: Endangered Species Act of 1973

Fish and Wildlife Service: ESA Basics

Fish and Wildlife Service: A History of the Endangered Species Act of 1973

Fish and Wildlife Service: ECOS Delisting Report

Fish and Wildlife Service: ECOS Listed Animals

Fish and Wildlife Service: ECOS Listed Plants

Fish and Wildlife Service: Federal and State Endangered and Threatened Species Expenditures

Conservation Biology: Six Biological Reasons Why the Endangered Species Act Doesn’t Work–And What to Do About It

Additional

Citizen Review: Everybody Knows They’re Not Really Endangered: We Just Need Them to Stop Mining

Defenders of Wildlife: Conservation Leaders From Congress, Interior & Citizen Groups Decry Bill to ‘Repeal’ Endangered Species Act

National Wildlife Foundation: Endangered Species Act by the Numbers

LA Times: Foe of Endangered Species Act on Defensive Over Abramoff

BBC: Biodiversity: The Sixth Great Wave

Daily Mail: Scientists Use Wasps and Aphids to Prove ‘Domino Effect’ of Extinction

Politifact: Only One Percent of Endangered Species List Have Been Taken Off List

ESA Success: 110 Success Stories for Endangered Species Day 2012

Biological Diversity: Poll: Two-thirds of Americans Want Congress to Strengthen, Protect Endangered Species Act

WND: Repeal the Endangered Species Act

Biological Diversity: A Wild Success

Kelsey Kennedy

Kelsey Kennedy is a freelance editor with degrees in Magazine Journalism and Performance Theatre from the University of Missouri, Columbia (MIZ!). When she isn’t out exploring New York, she loves getting far too invested in characters on the page, stage, and screen. She ultimately wants to make a difference in the world and surround herself with creative people. Contact Kelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Endangered Species Act: Repeal and Reform or Leave it Alone? appeared first on Law Street.

Bitcoin first started making headlines in 2009 and has continued to grow into one of the world’s most well-recognized, thorough, and usable cryptocurrencies. But with multiple legal controversies and the general public’s skepticism when it comes to something as new as “cryptocurrency,” it’s difficult to tell whether Bitcoin has much of a future. Read on to learn more about the currency and its future.

What is Bitcoin?

Bitcoins are widely known as a digital or cryptocurrency. Unlike conventional currencies that are regulated by central authorities in their respective regions (such as the Federal Reserve Bank for the United States Dollar), Bitcoin is border-less and managed by a cryptographically-secured peer-to-peer network. The demand for Bitcoins determines their value in the market, and their supply is determined by complex mathematical algorithms developed by the founder–a person who goes by the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. This supply generation process is called Bitcoin mining. So, Bitcoins are usually created by being “mined” by computers solving a complex string of processing problems, although one can now purchase existing Bitcoins.

Only fifty were created at the time of the cryptocurrency’s genesis and the maximum number of coins that can be issued is locked at 21 million. Just like the lowest value that the United States dollar can be divided into is one-cent pennies, a Bitcoin can at most be divided into eight decimal places. It gained prominence in April 2013 when its value spiked to $266 US Dollars compared to only $22 earlier that  same year. More than 10 million coins had been issued at that point at a total market value of $2 billion.

Courtesy of Idology.com.

Who likes Bitcoins?

Proponents of the cryptocurrency appreciate its purity in terms of supply and demand without any governmental interference. Bitcoins mitigate privacy concerns because they eliminate the need to enter information such as name and address for online transactions. For many tech aficionados, the cryptocurrency provides the thrill of following a new trend in the virtual world. Bitcoins are now being accepted by many platforms like WikiLeaks, restaurants, mobile payment applications, and retail apps that have partnered with major consumer brands like GAP and Sephora.

A federal district court recently ruled that Bitcoin is indeed a currency, given that it can be either used to purchase goods and services directly, or to purchase currency that can in turn be used to purchase goods and services. According to a study conducted by the European Central Bank, Bitcoins do not pose a risk to price instability given that their supply is capped at 21 million coins, and will not negatively affect  the economy as long as the government monitors it to ensure that its not being used for fraudulent purposes.

Who doesn’t like Bitcoins?

Opponents worry that the unregulated and anonymous nature of cryptocurrency lends itself to be used for illegal trade, tax evasion, money laundering, and investment frauds like Ponzi schemes. Dread Pirate Roberts, the owner of Silk Road, an online drug market in the deep web that is now shutdown, blatantly admitted that Bitcoin helped him win the war of drugs against the state.

Opponents also criticize Bitcoin’s algorithmic design for specifically inducing rise and fall in its value. But unlike traditional currencies, Bitcoin is not insured by the government in case it gets devalued enough to cause a major financial crisis in its market. Some claim that Bitcoin is being used more like a stock than a currency and that once the initial hype dies down its value will eventually decrease to nothing because it doesn’t have anything to offer except for its cool factor. Since Bitcoin is primarily digital (though coins are now available), it can be lost forever if a user loses his/her computer or account in which it’s stored.

What’s next for Bitcoin?

Bitcoin’s future is somewhat uncertain. While the cryptocurrency is still growing, there are many concerns that it’s not worth it. Detractors point out things like a possible Ponzi-style scheme involving Bitcoin in North Texas as indicative of the worthlessness of the currency. On the other hand, Bitcoin-based ventures have been growing, such as the development of startups like Coinffeine, which aims to create a new way to exchange Bitcoins. These are just a few examples of the ways in which Bitcoin is slowly breaking its way in into the mainstream, albeit with many setbacks.

Conclusion

Bitcoin. and other similar digital currencies, is just one of many interesting developments that has come about because of the internet. In essence, it’s a pretty revolutionary and fascinating idea, but whether or not it is actually good for the global economy remains to be seen. The potential for the use of Bitcoin as part of illegal activity though, should not stop people from using it for legitimate means. It’s only through incorporating online tools into the mainstream that it will become a genuinely useful and productive innovation.

Resources

Primary 

Bitcoin: Official Site

US District Court: Securities & Exchange Commission v. Trendon T. Shavers  and Bitcoin Savings & Trust

Additional

European Central Bank: Virtual Currency Schemes

Techland: Online Cash Bitcoin Could Challenge Government, Banks

Coindesk: Confirmed: Bloomberg Staff Are Testing a Bitcoin Price Ticker

CIO: In Kenya, Bitcoin :Linked to Popular Mobile Payment System

ParityNews: The Internet Archive Starts Accepting Bitcoin Donations

Webcite: In Bitcoin We Trust: The Berlin District Where Virtual Currency is as Easy as Cash

Readwrite: What’s Bitcoin Worth in the Real World?

Wire: Today’s Bitcoin Shows Why It’s Not Really a Currency

Fox Business: The Consumer Risks of Bitcoins

Slate: My Money is Cooler Than Yours

Washington Post: Imagining a World Without the Dollar

Social Science Research Network: Are Cryptocurrencies ‘Super’ Tax Havens?

The New York Times: Winklevoss Twins Plan First Funds for Bitcoins

Forbes: Goodbye Switzerland, Hello Bitcoins

Treasury Department: Application of FinCEN’s Regulations to Persons Administering, Exchanging, or Using Virtual Currencies

GAO: Virtual Economies and Currencies: Additional IRS Guidance Could Reduce Tax Compliance Risks

Forbes: IRS Takes a Bite Out of Bitcoin

The New York Times: New York and U.S. Open Investigations Into Bitcoins

TechCrunch: New York’s Financial Services Subpoenas Bitcoin Firms To “Root Out Illegal Activity”

Salome Vakharia

Salome Vakharia is a Mumbai native who now calls New York and New Jersey her home. She attended New York School of Law, and she is a founding member of Law Street Media. Contact Salome at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bitcoin: What’s Next? 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.

This question might conjure chilling images of flavorless fixed rations, compulsory exercise regimes, and the foreboding scales of a totalitarian weight monitoring mechanism.

Take a deep breath. Mandatory weigh-ins have no place in your near future. However, the government already influences your weight in indirect ways using methods more subtle than scales. It’s not because they’re nosy or superficial, it’s because weight, specifically being overweight, is a burgeoning public health plight in the United States.

What’s the big problem with obesity?

In the not-too-distant past, being overweight was a harmless stigma — a matter of aesthetics and not health. Today we know that obesity comes along with a load of serious health complications like heart disease, high blood pressure, Type 2 Diabetes, and some types of cancer. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimate that 112,000 deaths a year are associated with obesity. Related medical expenses burden the United States with more than $100 billion annually. Ouch.

What’s even scarier? Obesity prevalence is overwhelming the United States population. According to the CDC, more than one third of American adults are obese. That’s more than double the rate of the last decade.

Before you brush it off as an unfortunate fact of life, here’s some visual perspective from the CDC on this explosive growth:

Obesity prevalence in 1990. The darkest blue represents a rate of 10%-14% population obesity.

Obesity prevalence in 2009. Note all of the completely new colors. Obesity rates of all states have surpassed those seen in 1990.

Previous efforts to confront obesity have focused on individual interventions like nutrition education. The climbing rate of obesity despite these efforts revealed some missing pieces in the strategy. Experts realized obesity wasn’t just a matter of willpower. Recognizing the multi-faceted approach needed to combat obesity, officials fixed their attention on underlying causes that escape an individual’s control.

How is obesity out of individual control?

Obesity isn’t just about individual choices, it’s about individual options. The fight against obesity is futile for those without the right options. For example, poor access to supermarkets because of zoning complications may make smart food choices a hopeless pursuit. A simple jog isn’t an option for those with nowhere to do it safely.

Furthermore, we have a hard time helping ourselves. One study found that concern over weight isn’t a sufficient catalyst for behavioral change. Concerned people who lack access to healthy foods are stripped of the power for change. The pervasiveness of fast food establishments peddling calorie-dense foods present an invincible double threat.

Government regulations can interfere when individual resolve falls short. Large-scale policies to create healthier communities could help those who can’t help themselves.

What can the government do?

The Standard Toolkit

The Commerce Clause of the Constitution bestows the federal government with the right to regulate state commerce. This translates practically to weight-related regulations like food labeling mandates and subsidies on foods. On a more local level, the Constitution grants states the power to regulate the health, safety, and welfare of their populations. This broad power translates to a variety of possible actions.

Here are some examples of perfectly legal government actions that affect what we eat and consequently what we weigh:

Taxes and Subsidies

Some cities and states already have taxes on sugary drinks. Opinions are split on extending taxes on junk food. James Carville thinks it might be a good idea to tax “Twinkies more than apples.”

The government subsidizes certain crops, often increasing their prevalence in our diets. Corn is a popular example of the power of subsidies. In Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma, one researcher likens Americans to corn chips with legs.

Bans: New York City made history when it took measures to strike trans-fats from restaurant menus.  After the rule survived backlash, other states and cities followed suit. In the next few years, the FDA will undertake a national trans-fat phase out.

Labeling: New York City again led the way by requiring restaurants to disclose nutrition information on their menus. The federally-mandated nutrition label is probably the best known example of enforced food labeling.

Zoning and Land Planning: In some areas, large supermarkets and farmers markets are zoned out, making healthy food hard to come by. Developing parks and sidewalks is a proven way to get people moving without the conscious choice to exercise more.

Transportation: Some studies have shown that people who use public transportation weigh less than those who commute in cars. Unfortunately, more money is invested in highways than in public transportation.

Health Care and Benefits: Tennessee and West Virginia have reimbursement programs for Weight Watchers and 42 states provide gastric bypass surgery for the morbidly obese.

Alternative Approaches

Not all approaches that aim to reduce obesity target diet and exercise. Some of them appear unrelated to obesity at first glance. For example, a breastfeeding facility law requires employers to provide proper accommodations to encourage breastfeeding. While the law helps new mothers in many ways, it’s also a CDC priority strategy to prevent obesity as breastfeeding has been tied to reduced early childhood obesity.

Numerous policies and campaigns aspire to shrink obesity rates. They focus on a broad range of factors from diet specifically to overall health and wellness. CDC’s Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity database lists state-by-state activities if you want to get an idea of what’s in place.

What are lawmakers suggesting?

What does the future hold for the fight against obesity? Check out these examples of what policymakers have been cooking up:

Healthy Lifestyles and Prevention America (HELP) Act: Proposes a multi-pronged intervention strategy to enhance overall wellness of the American people. Children would enjoy enhanced nutrition and physical activity programs in schools and in childcare settings. Adults would benefit from workplace wellness programs. Everyone would benefit from proposed attacks on both salt and tobacco.

FIT Kids Act: Would fund grants for physical education programs that are based on scientific research. States would be required to analyze and identify specific student needs and develop their programs accordingly. The act would also require states to develop indicators of progress.

Reduce Obesity Act of 2013:  Suggests an amendment to title XVIII of the Social Security Act that would require the Medicare and You handbook to include information on behavioral therapy for obesity. It would allow physicians and other experts on Diabetes prevention to provide behavioral therapy outside of the primary care setting.

Stop Childhood Obesity Act of 2014: Seeks to deny financial benefits for companies to advertise and market certain food products to children. Tax deductions granted under the Internal Revenue Code would be barred for advertising to children that promotes consuming foods of poor nutritional quality. The Secretary of the Treasury and the Institute of Medicine would determine what constitutes foods of poor nutritional quality.

Beyond regulations and policies…

Some suggest that legal approaches may fill in the gaps left after regulations. The paper Innovative Legal Approaches to Address Obesity presents techniques that leverage law to  tackle obesity:

Regulating conduct: The Massachusetts decision to ban self-service displays of tobacco was upheld in the case of Lorillard Tobacco v. Reilly. Perhaps courts would uphold similar decisions to remove processed foods from checkout aisles.

Ingredient caps: The government can limit the alcohol content of beer. They might do something similar with sugar if it’s proven to be harmful and addictive.

Limits on food marketing: Advertising messages are protected under First Amendment rights. As early as 1978, the FTC attempted a rule to limit advertising of sugary products to children. The rule was struck down after massive industry opposition. Many hope to revisit similar rules as obesity-related health consequences surface.

Compelling industry speech: A near opposite to limiting advertising would be to compel industry speech and require companies to disclose information that might affect consumption. The United Kingdom’s traffic light system provides an extreme example.

Increasing government speech: Government speech could be leveraged to counteract the prevalence of advertising messages by encouraging the consumption of healthy foods. The “5 a Day” fruit and vegetable campaign in the United States is one such example.

Purchase limits: The Supreme Court has allowed individual purchase limits on items like prescription drugs. Perhaps a limit on the amount of sugary beverages a minor can purchase could also be enacted.

Penalties for causing addiction: The government has a right to restrict sales of certain products to minors that it finds harmful or addictive — like alcohol and cigarettes. Some studies have suggested certain food additives are addictive. Companies could be vulnerable to litigation if they have been knowingly manipulating ingredients to encourage overconsumption.

Nuisance law: Pollution is considered a public nuisance. Likewise, the creation of obesogenic foods proven to be harmful to health could be deemed a public nuisance, punishable by fines or criminal sentences.

Performance-based regulation: Performance-based regulations would put responsibility in the hands of industry. A company might be given a measurable goal related to reducing obesity rates. Businesses that fail to meet assigned outcome goals would be financially penalized.

Where do we go from here?

Let’s be honest, the obesity issue has been confounding us for years. Explosions of diet fads that vilify certain ingredients don’t help matters. Fat? Sugar? Gluten? Carbs? Most people just don’t know what to eat even though they’re being showered with ample advice.

Obesity lacks a simple cause, making it a convoluted case to crack. An array of dimensions in behavior, lifestyle, and environment contribute to it. Policy makers have their work cut out for them in innovating a range of initiatives that might control it. Consumers have their work cut out for them in sorting through all of the advice thrust at them to make sound decisions. Neither can stand alone. Consumers need all the help they can get from carefully designed government regulations that don’t infringe on privacy.

Should the government do more to help the population control their weight? Should they do less? Comment to tell us what you think.

Resources

Primary

CDC: State Legislative and Regulatory Action to Prevent Obesity and Improve Nutrition and Physical Activity

Yale University: Innovative Legal Approaches to Address Obesity

Additional

Millbank Quarterly: Public Health Law and the Prevention and Control of Obesity

Yale University: Improving Laws and Legal Authorities for Obesity Prevention and Control

CDC: Adult Obesity Facts

CDC: Overweight and Obesity Policy Resources

George Washington University: Review of Obesity Related Legislation & Federal Programs

Washington Post: U.S. Sugar Subsidies Need to be Rolled Back

The New York Times: Proposed Tax on Sugary Beverages Debated

Coalition for Sugar Reform: Reform Legislation

Intelligence Squared: Obesity is the Government’s Business

NIH: Evidence for Sugar Addiction: Behavioral and Neurochemical Effects of Intermittent, Excessive Sugar Intake

SAGE: The Role of Self-Efficacy in Achieving Health Behavior Change

Georgetown University Law Center: Assessing Laws and Legal Authorities for Obesity Prevention and Control

Ashley Bell

Ashley Bell communicates about health and wellness every day as a non-profit Program Manager. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Business and Economics from the College of William and Mary, and loves to investigate what changes in healthy policy and research might mean for the future. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How the Government Regulates Obesity appeared first on Law Street.

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

What Are Breed-Specific Laws?

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

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

What is the reason for BSL?

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

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

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

What arguments are made against BSL?

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

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

Listen to a discussion from the American Kennel Club below:

State bans

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

Profiling

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

Expense

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

Nature v. Nurture

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

Unintended effects

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

Have these laws been effective?

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

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

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

Are there other alternatives to BSL?

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

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

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

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

Resources

Primary

ASPCA: Breed Specific Legislation

DogsBite.org: Military Breed-Specific Policies

DogsBite.org: BSL by State

Additional

TIME: Obama Blasts Legislation Targeting Specific Dog Breeds

StopBSL.org: Expense of BSL

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

American Veterinary Medical Association: Community Approach to Dog Bite Prevention

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

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

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

United Kennel Club: Punish the Deeds, Not the Breeds

Alexandra Stembaugh

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

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

Despite some positive results of Colorado’s marijuana legalization, like additional revenue and a decrease in crime, there are issues that require further legislative attention. The main point of dispute is the regulation, or rather lack thereof, of marijuana edibles. THC, the mind-altering ingredient in marijuana, can be converted into a cooking oil and used to make treats including truffles, lollipops, cookies, and basically anything else you can eat.

It is easy to see the appeal after just a glance at the menu in a dispensary, often including selections like macadamia nut cookies and candy bars alongside the more traditional brownies. This appeal, however, does not only apply to legal users over age 21, but to children who unknowingly find these THC-laced goodies lying around.

Why Regulate?

Critics claim edibles are far too alluring to children. The cardinal concern here is that kids will be tempted by marijuana candy and guzzle it down without knowing what they are eating. According to the New York Times, “so far this year, nine children have ended up at Children’s Hospital Colorado in Aurora after consuming marijuana, six of whom got critically sick. In all of 2013, the hospital treated only eight such cases.” In a recent incident, a seven-year-old girl in Colorado was hospitalized after ingesting a THC edible. While it does appear that the trend of the hospitalization of children who consumed pot has increased, the evidence is not yet conclusive.

What is the key to preventing future events from occurring? Law enforcement officers and manufacturers of marijuana edibles stress time and time again the importance of the role of parents in keeping their kids away from potentially tempting pot candies. “There is a level of discretion and education and, frankly, tenacity on the behalf of parents that has to occur. If you leave pot lying around, kids are going to find it,” said Joe Hodas, a spokesman for the Denver-based Dixie Elixirs edibles.

Another issue noted with marijuana edibles is the difficulty with dosing them properly. To deal with these issues, lawmakers are considering new packaging with more obvious warnings or limiting each package to contain just a single dose. Recreational dispensaries are also implementing safety measures by listing precautions for edible users.

Edible marijuana information sheet via anonymous

Last time I ate a brownie I bought it legally from a recreational marijuana dispensary. The brownie was 90 MG, so I used caution in the portion I ate because I knew that my tolerance was nonexistent. I started feeling the sensation creeping on about 20 or 30 minutes after eating it. My girlfriend, who has had much less experience using marijuana than myself, was trying to argue that it wasn’t working and that we should eat more, but I urged her to be patient because I knew that even the small amount we ate would get us high. We both ate a little more because I figured she could learn firsthand about the appropriate dosage for her. The peak of my high wasn’t attained until two to three hours after consumption. The experience is equally in the mind as well as the entire body, so I recommend not going out or driving and just letting the drug take effect.

-Anonymous Colorado marijuana user

Advocates of further regulation often cite recent incidents in which two individuals died, allegedly due to the over-consumption of THC edibles; however, the roll of edible marijuana in these deaths remains in question. The only instances on record include a man who jumped off a balcony to his death after consuming a cookie laced with the amount of THC in six joints. In the other instance, a man hallucinated and stabbed his wife, but other drugs were more likely the contributing factor leading to his actions.

Whether the marijuana edibles were the true culprit or not, these events and others have led lawmakers to begin tightening the regulatory noose on their THC content, sale, and marketing. Many express concern over the appearance of the labels on edibles as they appear strikingly similar to their non-THC counterparts.

How are Edibles Different?

In short, when THC is digested, the body absorbs it more slowly than when it is smoked, and therefore can cause the user to feel the need to consume far too much. In spite of this, edibles do not cause damage to lungs in the way that smoking can.

According to an anonymous Colorado marijuana user, the experience consuming pot edibles is a juxtaposition of emotion. “There is a simultaneous balance of being completely relaxed and being on the verge of a panic attack, for me.”

Like many other recreational pot users, he generally prefers pot edibles. “Edible marijuana makes me feel like I need to go to sleep right away but my heart rate is also increased because THC is a stimulating drug. The mind altering properties of weed are especially apparent because it takes feelings that I experience and makes me see them from a different perspective, making me physically uncomfortable yet more accepting to new ideas.”

Even supporters of legalization such as Brian Vicente, one of the authors of the amendment that legalized marijuana, say that Colorado needs to pass stricter rules about edible marijuana. He said that the state was racing up a sharp learning curve. “Marijuana was illegal for 80 years. Now it’s legal, and everyone’s just trying to figure out how to approach these new issues.”

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) 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.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Janet Hudson via wikipedia]

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 Have Your Pot and Eat it Too: Regulating Edible Marijuana appeared first on Law Street.

The difference between believing that the internet is vital to life and just accepting it as a useful tool is the difference between having government regulation and allowing the market to regulate it on its own. Nobody supports unwarranted government interference, but it would be unwise to think government involvement for the purpose of regulating industries is unnecessary. This brings me to the topic of Open Internet, also known as net neutrality.

In January, the US Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia changed several rules established in 2010 by the Federal Communications Commission’s Open Internet Order. The Court’s decision rolled back the rules that disabled the blocking of legal content and enforced nondiscriminatory practices, but upheld the rule that enforced transparency. The Court’s decision terrified many people and left us wondering how open and free the internet will remain. Recently, an official document was leaked that may give insight to exactly where the FCC is headed in regulating net neutrality, and unfortunately the odds look like they’re in favor of major Internet Service Providers.

The leaked FCC documents show that the Commission is considering allowing major Internet Service Providers to give large, well known companies the option of paying for faster lanes through which their videos and other content travel. This amounts to deregulating the more equalizing practice of having all content from all companies travel the same internet lanes. This means that well established companies will have an extra advantage in supplying their content to their users. How is this harmful to small startups and new innovation?

In the age of faster is better, the ability to use a service faster is more likely to be chosen over a service that runs slower. For example, you can either choose wireless internet or dial-up. They both supply an internet connection, but when was the last time you heard the screeching sound of a dial-up connection?…. Exactly!  If the FCC follows through with this idea, small startups will not be able to compete against the financial strength of giants that have the resources to provide speedier service. In addition, these costs for faster internet lanes may be passed to consumers as companies work to maintain profits.

Another possibility that hasn’t been talked about is the larger companies’ ability to recreate the innovations of smaller, lesser known companies. For example, if Company X creates a new way to shop on the internet and the larger Company Z recreates this technology, Company Z would have the advantage of faster internet speed to their site over Company X.  Even though Company X created the technology, Company Z would benefit, leaving small startups asking “what’s the point in trying?”

With our economy’s strength and growth hinging on new innovation, it is counterproductive to have an unfair system that doesn’t allow companies both large and small to have the same service capabilities. This goes directly against the entrepreneurial spirit of our country and shows that lawmakers have gotten it wrong in their assertion that the internet is important but not vital.

__

Teerah Goodrum (@AisleNotes), is a graduate student at Howard University with a concentration in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football.

Featured image courtesy of [Svilen.milev via Wikipedia]

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Leaked FCC Documents Signal Bad News for Startups appeared first on Law Street.

Three years ago, the Food and Drug Administration said it would regulate e-cigarettes.

Although it took longer than expected, the FDA kept its promise.

While certain states and cities across the country have already taken steps to ban the increasingly popular battery-powered devices, the FDA proposed restrictions for the first time Thursday.

Similar to the way it currently regulates traditional cigarettes, the FDA is planning to take the following steps against their electronic counterparts:

• Banning the sale of e-cigarettes to minors.
• Prohibiting the distribution of free samples.
• Banning the sale of e-cigarettes in vending machines – unless the vending machines are located in places where young people aren’t admitted.
• Requiring e-cigarettes to include warning labels, making it clear they contain the addictive chemical nicotine.
• Requiring e-cigarette companies to publicly disclose their products’ ingredients.

Additionally, the proposal would require FDA approval before any new e-cigarettes can be sold. Current products would have to “provide a justification for remaining on the market.”

Despite the urging of many tobacco critics, the FDA’s regulations fall short of broader restrictions. No action will be taken regarding online sale of e-cigarettes, TV advertisements, and the use of various flavorings and sweeteners – all deemed by critics as a way of attracting young smokers.

Pegged as a safer alternative to traditional smoking, e-cigarettes are marketed as a way to not only draw people away from traditional cigarettes but also as a means of helping smokers kick the habit completely.

While it’s generally accepted that e-cigarettes are safer than traditional cigarettes, many point to the lack of substantial research into possible health risks as a serious concern.

“Right now, for something like e-cigarettes, there are far more questions than answers,” Mitch Zeller, director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products, told NPR.

One of the most pressing questions is how safe are electronic cigarettes really? One FDA study found that e-cigarettes “potentially release carcinogens and toxic chemicals.” Further research is needed to confirm the FDA’s findings, but supporters of e-cigarettes point to the fact that electronic cigarettes, unlike traditional cigarettes, do not emit tar, carbon monoxide, or hydrogen cyanide.

Still, the main concern is that the e-cigarette industry has been rapidly evolving without any form of regulation. According to Zeller, the goal of the proposed restrictions is to “create a framework.” “We’re calling this the first step,” he said and continued that “for the first time, there will be a science-based, independent regulatory agency playing a vital gate-keeping function.”

As Zeller puts it, the proposal puts the FDA in “a position to ensure that the products are as safe as they could possibly be.”

Safety, as it turns out, is one area where the FDA and e-cigarette industry have found common ground.

“We are extremely relieved that all e-cigarette companies will be regulated, and forced to achieve and maintain the same high standards that Vapor Corp., and several of our responsible competitors, have been imposing on ourselves for years,” said Jeffrey Holman, president and director of Vapor Corp, in an interview with NPR.

Other players in the industry patted the FDA on the back as well, commending the agency for committing to a science-based regulatory process.

“What they did today was very encouraging. […] We’ve already done many things to prepare ourselves and act responsibly,” Miguel Martin, president of the e-cigarette company Logic Technology Development, told The Washington Post. He went further to say that “at least speaking for my company, this will not be the tobacco wars of the 80s and 90s.”

Despite a largely positive reception, there are those – on both sides of this issue – who are not happy with the FDA’s new proposal.

“This is worse than I expected,” said American Vaping Association board member Greg Conley in an interview with the Post. Conley said he agreed with the age restrictions but had hoped existing products would be grandfathered in. Instead, existing e-cigarette companies will have to file applications for their products to remain on the market. “A lot of these companies, they are supporting several employees, investing any profits back into their business. They can’t afford this, and it’s going to lead to a whole lot of consolidation and increased prices for consumers,” he said.

Some public health advocates, while accepting of the proposed regulations, are upset the FDA was not more aggressive when e-cigarettes first hit the shelves.

Matthew Myer, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, says the FDA’s action is long overdue. “It is inexcusable that it has taken the FDA and the administration so long to act,” Myers told NPR, and “this delay has had serious health consequences as these unregulated tobacco products have been marketed using tactics and sweet flavors that appeal to kids.”

As far as immediate change goes, don’t expect anything too soon. Before the new regulations can be made official, there will be a 75 day period where the public will be able to comment on the FDA’s proposal. Once the restrictions are finalized, e-cigarette companies will be required to comply with the age and ID restrictions almost immediately. Although their products will be able to stay on the shelves, companies will have to submit applications for approval of their products within two years.

[NPR] [The Washington Post] [USA Today]

—

Matt DiCenso

Featured image courtesy of [Michael Dorausch via Flickr]

Matt DiCenso

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

The post FDA Regulations: The Future of E-Cigarettes appeared first on Law Street.

The world we live in today makes it hard for any twenty-something to find a decent-paying, full-time job. Although we may search and search, many of us retreat back to school, taking on more debt while seeking higher education.

Even so, we have all accepted unpaid internships with the hope that there is a sliver of a chance that we may be hired as a full-time employee. Despite working for free, we expect to be treated along the same lines as any other employee, entitled to certain rights such as lunch breaks, vacation days, and freedom from sexual harassment, right? WRONG!

David Yamada reported that a New York Federal District Court held that an unpaid intern could not bring a sexual harassment claim against her employer, Phoenix Satellite Television US, Inc., under NYC Human Rights Law. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff, Liuhuan Wang sustained injuries as a result of quid pro quo sexual harassment and sexual harassment in the form of a hostile work environment created by her supervisor Zhengzhu Liu.

As a 22-year-old student at Syracuse University, Ms. Lihuan claims that during her four weeks at Phoenix Satellite US, Mr. Liu had almost complete supervisory authority in the New York and D.C. bureaus. Ms. Lihuan’s complaint alleges that Mr. Liu had a history of sexual harassment throughout his employment with Phoenix Satellite and he would prey on female employees just starting their career in America and lure them to his hotel room where he would grope and kiss them, and attempt to have sex with them. He is accused of insinuating that in order to have a successful career, female employees and interns at Phoenix would have to submit to his unwanted sexual desires.

Ms. Lihuan claimed that Mr. Liu had similarly invited her back to his hotel after treating her and several co-workers to lunch when he was in town. After asking her to stay behind to “talk about her job performance,” Mr. Liu guided Ms. Lihuan back to his hotel room, under the guise of an work-related issue, and attempted to grope and kiss her, forcing Ms. Lihuan to push him back and leave the room immediately.

Her grievance is due to the fact that she believes her refusal of Mr. Liu’s sexual advances is the reason she was denied full-time employment. The complaint also mentions that a fellow Syracuse student, Qian Chen, worked for Phoenix and was also sexually propositioned by Mr. Liu. Perhaps Mr. Liu and the people over at Phoenix Satellite need a visit from this guy.

The U.S. District Court judge, Judge Kevin P. Castel, ruled that Ms. Lihuan could not bring a valid claim of sexual harassment under New York City Human Rights Law against her employer because her lack of compensation rendered her unable to meet the employee status required by the statute.

Using federal and NY case law, the district court determine that unpaid interns are not employees as defined under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act or NYC Human Rights Law. The district court stated that remuneration or the absence of remuneration is an essential element to determining the existence of “the employer-employee relationship.”

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) supports the U.S. District Court’s position that sexual harassment laws don’t cover interns unless they receive “significant remuneration,” according to an EEOC spokesperson, Joseph Olivares.

According to Bloomberg Businessweek, Phoenix denies that Ms. Lihuan ever applied for a position and Mr. Liu is no longer with the company. This wasn’t the first case, and it surely will not be the last. Although the workplace dynamic for unpaid interns is already changing, maybe it’s time to take another look at the rights unpaid interns are entitled to while working. Perhaps something slightly more than a video at orientation.

And no live demonstrations are necessary.

And remember, its not just women who suffer from sexual harassment in the workplace.

—

Rob Anthony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. In the words of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, “We need to be bold and adventurous in our thinking in order to survive.” Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Melissa Gira via Flickr]

Robbin Antony

Rob Antony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Tragedy of the Unpaid Intern: No Money – No Rights appeared first on Law Street.

A New York law that required companies that received over $1 million in economic aid from the city to pay employees a prevailing wage and maintain records of workers’ hours and benefits information was struck down on Tuesday by the state’s Supreme Court. Despite the court’s view that the law may have been good for New York City, it was struck down because it preempted the existing minimum wage law.  Small businesses, nonprofits, manufacturing plants, and facilities under the city’s Health and Hospital Corp. would be exempt from the using the prevailing wage, which would be set annually by the city’s Comptroller.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg filed suit against the law after his veto was overridden by the 51 member City Council. The Mayor believes that such a law would prevent investment in the city and would have detrimental effects on many job-creating projects. The City Council has expressed its disagreement with the court’s decision and is will attempt legal action to overturn the ruling.

—

Kevin Rizzo (@kevinrizzo10) is editor of Crime in America. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University senior was a founding member of Law Street. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Zbyszek Zolkiewski via Flickr]

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 New York Court Strikes Down Prevailing Wage Law appeared first on Law Street.

Growing concerns about climate change and recognition of environmental hazards has lead to the development of many new markets. Environmental consulting is becoming a lucrative, expanding business. Firms in the industry assist other companies to reduce the damage done to surrounding environments while operating.

These services include environmental assessments, audits, natural resource and waste management, environmental policy development and licensing and permitting assistance. Environmental consulting firms help their customers understand regulatory processes and help to ensure that these regulations are met at low cost to companies.

Rising environmental concerns and the large mining sector in Canada have helped the Environmental Consulting industry over the past five years.

[PR Web]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Mohamed Malik 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 Environmental Consulting Industry Booming appeared first on Law Street.

As congressional gridlock persists, companies have started targeting sympathetic Republican leaders in the house to fight California’s notoriously strict workplace, consumer protection, and environmental laws.  Officials are worried that many of these landmark laws may be in danger. New legislation to strengthen federal environmental laws on toxic chemicals would come at the price of invalidating an extremely strong California law that protects people against the most dangerous toxins.

The new law would give the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) authority to screen chemicals for safety rather than only being able to regulate chemicals that have already been proven dangerous; however, it could also prevent states from implementing their own regulations.  This is not the only instance in which strong state laws have been threatened by federal ones.  Just last year, a law that would have prevented California from enforcing its state water protections for endangered species made it through the house but failed in the senate.

[Latimes]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Steve Rhodes 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 Landmark California Regulations Under Attack appeared first on Law Street.

The New York appeals court on Tuesday upheld the ruling that Mayor Bloomberg’s ban on large sugary drinks is unconstitutional.  In a unanimous decision, the court ruled that the law “violated the state principle of separation of powers.”  The ban would have prohibited the sale of sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces in restaurants throughout the city.  The appeals court decision came after a New York Supreme Court Justice ruled that the ban was “arbitrary and capricious.”

Bloomberg has recently issued several executive orders and initiatives in an attempt to improving the health of New Yorkers, including mandating that all chain restaurants publicize calorie counts; promoting the use of stairways rather than elevators; and even an attempt to raise the age to buy cigarettes from 18 to 21.  Although he has faced several challenges to his health initiatives, he remains committed to improving the health and well-being of all New Yorkers.

[NY Daily News]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Kevin via Flickr]

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 NYC Large Drink Ban Still Unconstitutional appeared first on Law Street.

The fight over how websites respond to the “do-not-track” signal continues as the Tracking Protection Working Group rejected the most recent proposal made by the ad industry on July 15.  The end-of-July deadline for President Obama’s goal to create a self-regulating system is approaching and little progress has been made.  The main purpose of such a system is to determine how to deal with web users’ requests to stop companies from tracking their online activity.

There is no established standard for how websites respond to such requests, which has caused many sites to simply ignore the signal altogether.  Many people argue against the self-regulation because they believe the only way to ensure compliance is for congress to legislate specific standards.  However, such laws seem to be far away, and with a recent surge in “do-not-track” requests, something needs to be done.

Online advertising is a very large business with revenue estimates around $37 billion last year alone, marking a 15 percent increase. This issue is particularly important to the industry as some estimates claim that online growth could slow down by as much as 15 percent in the next five years.  The debate between advertising companies and web browser makers continues, but a standard seems far away.

—

Kevin Rizzo (@kevinrizzo10) is editor of Crime in America. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University senior was a founding member of Law Street. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [FutUndBeidl via Flickr]

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 “Do-Not-Track” Battle Rages On appeared first on Law Street.