Happy Monday Law Streeters! We hope you enjoyed your weekend. ICYMI, we had some pretty great stories last week. From cell phone plans that give to charity, to South Dakota passing discriminative laws against LGBT couples, check out Law Street’s best of the week below!

New Career, New Phone, New Cause: 5 Reasons to Check out TPO Mobile

Any change in life–whether it be a graduation, a new job, or a move, always comes with a hefty to do list. TPO Mobile wants to help make that to do list a little shorter–by helping you find the perfect cell phone plan. And not only will TPO Mobile help you save some money with a reasonably priced and reliable phone plan, it will also help you check off one other thing on that to do list: making sure you set aside some money for charity.

South Dakota Passes Law Legalizing Discrimination Against LGBT Couples

South Dakota Governor Dennis Daugaard signed SB-149 on Friday, a law that protects private foster and adoption agencies from being sued for refusing to place children with an LGBT couple. While other states have similar laws, South Dakota is the first to enact one since the SCOTUS decision that legalized gay marriage in 2015.

What’s Going on with Canada’s Cannabis Raids?

Months before lawmakers in Canada are expected to take up marijuana legalization legislation, police in Toronto have been raiding dispensaries; a number of individuals have been charged at this point. Just last week, police raided dispensaries across three cities. The targets were all Cannabis Culture branches, the popular chain owned by Canada’s so-call “Prince of Pot” Marc Emery. Emery and his wife were arrested at an airport last week and charged with drug trafficking, conspiracy, and possession. They were en route to a cannabis festival in Spain.

Alexis Evans

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

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

South Dakota Governor Dennis Daugaard signed SB-149 on Friday, a law that protects private foster and adoption agencies from being sued for refusing to place children with an LGBT couple. While other states have similar laws, South Dakota is the first to enact one since the SCOTUS decision that legalized gay marriage in 2015.

According to Daugaard, the bill is intended to protect private organizations–largely faith-based–who act in the best interests of children, from being sued. But advocacy group argue that this bill is just discriminatory, harms children who could otherwise find loving homes, and would allow agencies to turn away couples of different faiths, people who have been divorced, and single parents.

According to Laura Dorso, vice president of the LGBT research and communications at the Center for American Progress, this measure will disproportionately affect LGBT couples and single mothers:

SB 149 allows religiously-affiliated foster care and adoption agencies to turn away qualified LGBT parents and single moms who simply want to start families and give young people a safe, loving home. Same-sex couples are six times as likely to foster than different-sex couples are, and this bill proves once again that opponents of equality are happy to put children at risk and deny them permanent homes to further their anti-LGBT agenda.

The ACLU of South Dakota pointed out in a statement that this law flies in the face of many organizations’ preferences:

South Dakota’s choice to do this now may contribute to some fears that in the Trump era, it will become open season on LGBT rights. Trump’s record on LGBT rights is wishy-washy at best, and there was talk of an executive order that would have overturned workplace protections for LGBT individuals that were instituted by the Obama Administration. While that executive order was reportedly squashed by Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump, concerns remain high. Although South Dakota’s law only applies at the state level, the battle for protections remains nationwide.

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 South Dakota Passes Law Legalizing Discrimination Against LGBT Couples appeared first on Law Street.

Attention all stoners, occasional smokers, and cannabis curious! South Dakota has announced that it will soon become home to the nation’s first marijuana resort. Owned and operated by the Santee Sioux tribe, this weed lover’s paradise promises to be the ideal spot for vacationers looking to blow off some steam with the help of a few blunts.

But before you begin booking your ganja getaway here are five things you need to know about the nation’s first weed resort.

1. It’s Legal Even in a State Where Weed is Illegal

In 2014 the Justice Department determined that Native American tribes can grow and sell marijuana, even in states where pot is illegal. So far the Santee Sioux tribe seems to be the only reservation taking advantage of the ruling, but others will surely be monitoring their experiment to see if it is economically viable. Something tells me it will be, especially when tribe members are already projecting the project to generate up to $2 million a month in profits.

2. There will be 30 Different Strains

This isn’t amateur hour. The Santee Sioux tribe hired Denver-based cannabis consultants Monarch America to teach them the weed growing basics. According to the Associated Press, workers at the Flandreau indoor marijuana farm are “working to grow more than 30 different strains of the finicky plant, including those with names like ‘Gorilla Glue,’ ‘Shot Glass’ and ‘Big Blue Cheese.'”

3. It Will Have Some Awesome Amenities

“We want it to be an adult playground,” said tribal President Anthony Reider. And from the sounds of it, it definitely will be. This stoner’s paradise will sell weed in a smoking lounge that comes complete with a nightclub, arcade games, bar and food–for when those munchies hit. They also have plans to later add in slot machines and an outdoor music venue.

4. Don’t Plan on Bringing any Weed Home

Even though marijuana will be legally sold at the resort, it cannot leave the reservation. According to AP, leaders of the project plan to ensure that this won’t happen by assigning a bar code to every plant in the Flandreau’s growing facility. AP writes,

After being harvested and processed, it will be sold in sealed 1-gram packages for $12.50 to $15 — about the same price as the illegal market in Sioux Falls, according to law enforcement. Consumers will be allowed to buy only 1 gram — enough for two to four joints — at a time.

5. The Resort’s Future Isn’t Certain

Currently four states and Washington, DC have legalized marijuana, but pot remains illegal on a federal level. The Obama administration has agreed to let Native American tribes legalize the drug without interference, but our nation’s next president may not be so lenient. If one of the current Republican presidential candidates (especially Chris Christie) is elected, we could soon be saying farewell to lawful Mary Jane.

If you’re interested in being one of the first to visit the resort, be prepared for a bit of a wait. The tribe says that joints won’t be going on sale until Dec. 31 at a New Year’s Eve party. But if all goes well, this reservation could soon become the U.S.’s #1 destination for marijuana tourism.

Alexis Evans

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

The post 5 Things you Need to Know About the Nation’s First Marijuana Resort appeared first on Law Street.

This week, let’s venture to some northern states to see what entertainment they can provide with their dumbest laws. I’ll begin with North Dakota, a state famous for Fargo–both the city and the Coen Brothers’ film–and as a favorite spot for Lewis and Clark. North Dakota must love dry peas and lentils, as it decided to make a state version of the national Dry Pea and Lentil Council. North Dakota decreed, furthermore, that all members of the council be North Dakota citizens. In Devil’s Lake, New Year’s Eve celebrations had better not include a fireworks show, as shooting them off after 11:00pm is illegal.

South Dakota has even fewer verifiable dumb laws than its counterpart. Many websites claim that a law exists requiring horses to wear pants when entering the Fountain Inn. I couldn’t find anything to back this up, which is unfortunate because that would be rather hilarious.

As someone who has witnessed the terrors of Minnesota mosquitoes first hand, I am not the slightest bit surprised that the state has officially declared the insect to be a public nuisance. Specifically, the law states that “the abatement or suppression of mosquitoes of any kind, whether disease bearing or merely pestiferous, within any or all areas of the state, is advisable and necessary for the maintenance and betterment of the health, welfare and prosperity of the people.” Good riddance!

In Minnesota, always make sure you have a specific purpose before standing around in a certain location. It is illegal there to stand around any building without a good reason to be there. That law makes me wonder what exactly constitutes a good reason. What if you are waiting for a friend? Observing the architecture of the building?

There are many city-specific stupid laws in Minnesota. In Cottage Grove, one may not land an airplane, hot air balloon, or other similar craft in a city park. Makes sense. We wouldn’t want any accidents between planes and park-goers! Residents of Cottage Grove may have a hard time figuring out when to water their lawns. Here’s some insight: “residents of even numbered addresses may not water their plants on odd-numbered days excluding the thirty-first day where it applies.”

If you and your friends are considering taking an alleyway as a shortcut in Minneapolis, think again. There, alleyways may not be used by pedestrian traffic.

Minnetonka lawmakers must like the phrase “public nuisance,” as both driving with dirty tires and placing tacks on the sidewalk are considered to be such. I can’t even imagine how hard they would throw the book at individuals throwing tacks onto a sidewalk from the window of a car with dirty tires.

Last but certainly not least for this post: Wisconsin.

Wisconsin residents like to know what they are consuming in restaurants, and the law makes it easy for that to occur, at least when it comes to butter. In fact, at one point, margarine was illegal in the Badger State. Now margarine can only be used in place of butter if it is specifically requested by the customer. Wisconsin is seriously obsessed with butter–in prisons statewide, only the real thing may be served.

Camping in a wagon on a public highway is illegal in Wisconsin, but if you really have a hankering to do so, don’t fret too much as the fine is only ten dollars. If you do see livestock while on the highway, however, be sure to yield as livestock have the right of way on all public roads across the state.

Up next are Missouri and Illinois, so stay tuned for more dumb laws!

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 Dumbest Laws in the United States: Dakotas, Minnesota, and Wisconsin appeared first on Law Street.

In an era when it seems like there’s constantly a story about a shooting on school grounds, we’re always looking for solutions to our school shooting epidemic. One long-discussed argument has been to arm teachers, and people across the country are taking action to do just that.

In many conservative-leaning states, the push to arm teachers is getting pretty serious. As of this year, in 28 different states, adults who own guns will be allowed to carry them into school buildings under certain parameters. Recently, legislation was passed in Alabama, Georgia, Kansas, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas related to arming teachers and staff members in public schools.

There’s also been some expansion of the way in which those who are armed in schools are trained. In some places, free classes are offered for staff members who want to carry guns into schools in an attempt to protect students. The Centennial Gun Club in Colorado is offering free classes to teachers who want to learn how to carry and operate guns. A former Colorado teacher named Tara who is thinking of returning to the classroom named explained her interest in the class, saying:

While I am a teacher, those kids, those students in my class are my kids, and my first responsibility is to protect them at all costs. When all the school shootings happened I realized that I wanted it more for my own personal protection and I thought that that idea of being prepared to protect translates very well to the classroom for teachers.

That’s all well and good, but what they don’t seem to be offering is classes that particularly relate to stopping armed intruders or using a gun under high-pressure circumstances.

In other places, the emphasis is on cutting the response time in case of an armed intruder by training designated staff members who have access to weapons. In some cases, teachers need to disclose information to superiors that they’re bringing a gun into the classroom, in other states the legislation doesn’t require that kind of step. While the laws are varied, one thing is pretty clear — bringing more guns into schools in an attempt to stop horrific tragedies like the Sandy Hook shooting has become a fairly popular mindset, without any whiff of consistency from state to state or even school district to school district.

Now, I’m very split here. On one hand I’m frustrated. Part me of thinks that we literally are so bad at finding solutions to our mass shooting problem that we’re just bringing more guns into schools as an answer. That is where we are. We so fundamentally can’t agree on how to deal with gun violence that we can’t even make the laws or required training consistent. Never mind the fact that arming people more to prevent shootings is a kind of miniature mutually assured destruction. Never mind that while shootings are occasionally stopped by bystanders, it’s relatively rare. Never mind that the ability to stop a shooting takes a blend of training, instinct, and temperament that requires way more than one class to learn. Never mind that in the last year, 100 children died in accidental shooting deaths in the United States. Never mind that by bringing guns into our classrooms, we are teaching our children that school is not a safe place, and that gun violence is a reasonable answer. That’s the obnoxious liberal in me talking.

But on the other hand, I have a side that I like to think is rational, and that side is also kind of frustrated. Now, I want to be clear, because I’ve learned from experience that this kind of disclaimer is needed: this is not an attack on the Second Amendment. This is an attack on the complete lack of common sense that we are now employing. If we sat down, as a nation, and truly determined that the best way to protect children is to arm their teachers, fine. We can do that, if we really think that will work. It’s a plan, at least, and as much as I don’t think it’s a good plan, I would be ecstatic to be proven wrong.

But what we have right now is such a fundamental disagreement on literally everything to do with this debate that we’re half-assing it. We’re passing laws that allow certain people to bring guns into schools under the guise of protection without necessarily creating corresponding legislation to make sure that the plan has the chance to be effective. We’re ignoring the possibly negative ramifications of these laws because it’s just easier that way. We are so far from being able to have a rational debate on this topic that any ability to be able to work together has been thrown out the window.

Every gun death is a tragedy, and the only way we’re going to be able to prevent situations like Sandy Hook, or Columbine, or UC-Santa Barbara from happening again is if we all grow up and talk about this in a rational way.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Wendy House via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post Risky Idea Alert: Arming Teachers in School appeared first on Law Street.