Minnesota has one of the biggest groups of ISIS-recruit defendants in the country; a large diaspora of Somali immigrants, socially isolated from the rest of society and often facing racism, can be a breeding ground for extremism. Ten years ago there was the case of a few young Somali men leaving Minneapolis to fight for al-Qaeda, now it’s ISIS in Syria.

Since 2014 the FBI has arrested nine young Somali American men in the state for planning to join ISIS. They are charged with conspiring to commit murder abroad, and providing material support to a terrorist group, charges that carry life and 15 years in prison, respectively. Now officials in Minneapolis are turning to different approaches, by treating the young men with counseling instead of extended prison sentences.

U.S. District Judge Michael Davis, who is in charge of the case, said that they have consulted a German researcher, Daniel Koehler, to investigate the young men before starting a de-radicalization program, a method that is common in European countries such as Germany and Denmark.

Six of the nine men have pleaded guilty to the crimes they are charged with, and all of those six have already volunteered for the program that Koehler is about to set up. The aim is to reintegrate the men into society, instead of locking them up without treating the actual causes of radicalization. These evaluations could lead to shorter prison sentences and a focus on probation.

Heartland Democracy is a local Minneapolis group that is conducting its own counseling for young radicalized men. Ahmed Amin, a high school teacher who moved from Somalia to the US with his family at the age of 12, is one of the counselors, and said to NPR:

I understand the difficulties of identity that lead people to join organizations like ISIS. It is hard trying to live in two worlds. From 9 to 5 these kids have to live one way when they are at school, they are socialized to be American. And then they go home, learn to be religious and are trying to cope with that. It is harder than you’d think.

One of the young men participating in the trial was Abdirahman Bashir, who agreed to become an informant for the FBI after his attempt to leave the U.S. for Syria failed. Since he cooperated by spying on his former friends, he is unlikely to face any charges, and told the court on Tuesday that he was looking to pursue a career in law enforcement. He even asked one of the FBI agents if he could use him as a reference on his school application. Hopefully, education, integration, and communication can help end extremism and radicalization as we know it.

Emma Von Zeipel

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

The post ISIS Recruits in Minnesota to Receive Counseling appeared first on Law Street.

America’s addiction to opioids and heroin have reached epidemic levels. Right now, 78 people die per day from use and overdose of such drugs, forcing the conversation of governors and party leaders to address a strategy that involves treatment of addiction in conjunction with punishment for use and possession of illicit drugs.

The shift in focus as it pertains to treatment rather than solely punishment is something that politicians from the likes of Bernie Sanders to Mitch McConnell can get behind–further highlighting the fact that current solutions and implementations are not working. Read on to learn more about the growing epidemic, brainstormed strategies and example case studies, and what the 2016 presidential candidates are saying America can expect in the future.

Heroin Growth Across the U.S.

The United States represents 5 percent of the world’s population, yet utilizes 80 percent of its opioids, which are known to be the gateway to heroin use. The death toll, reported in 2014, had reached the staggering level of 47,055/year.

No population is immune from the epidemic. Figures show a consistent upward trend from urban and inner-city communities to rural areas in the same fashion. The use and subsequent dependency on legal opioid painkillers has contributed to the growing problem. Workplace accidents and injuries, cyclical familial use, post-surgery procedures, and experimentation with drugs available in the home all serve as contributing factors to the outbreak of heroin use and overdoses in the United States.

States and Municipalities Take the Lead

One prevalent public health worry is that some heroin users use in public. You can find examples readily in the news–in Philadelphia, a man on public transportation during rush hour injected heroin into his hand in full view of all other individuals on the bus. A couple traveling from Indiana who had stopped at a Cincinnati McDonald’s collapsed in front of their children from an overdose. In Cambridge, Massachusetts, a church closed its public bathrooms after several individuals overdosed in those facilities. Drug users are utilizing parks, restaurant bathrooms, hospitals, libraries, vehicles, city transit, churches, and other public places to shoot up, and in turn, are losing consciousness or dying in those public places.

Due to the increasing display of overdoses coupled with the cheap and extremely accessible nature of heroin, states, local authorities, and local organizations are being forced to take action in an effort to battle the widespread heroin use.

Taking Action: Vermont

Governor Peter Shumlin (D) of Vermont took the first step in admitting that Vermont was not equipped to handle the outbreak and consequences of heroin, stating, “I found we were doing almost everything wrong.”

Initially, Vermont began its fight by addressing non-violent offenders, who were provided with an opportunity to enter into a treatment facility instead of serving jail time. Not only did this policy change reduce the number of individuals incarcerated for non-violent drug crimes, but also addressed the need for treatment and long term solutions over punishment. The facilities work with courts and provide the requisite treatment along with ensuring appropriate steps for assimilation back into society and on-going care.

Further, Vermont has taken steps to protect individuals seeking medical assistance from prosecution from possession or intent to sell. Finally, it was the first state to legalize the over-the-counter sale of naloxone–a drug used to “reverse overdoses” and effectively save lives.

However, Schumlin is not naive to believe that the battle will not come with some difficulty. He has already addressed the shortage in supply for doctors and qualified medical personnel and is working diligently to help treat those on waiting lists. Most importantly, Schumlin recognizes the need to more rationally and safely administer prescription drugs, such as OxyContin, which often serve as the gateway to heroin when prescriptions become too difficult to obtain and OxyContin becomes scarce.

Big Steps: Ithaca, New York

While most states share in the challenges faced by Vermont, politicians are taking different approaches to fight the heroin epidemic. Most controversially, the idea of supervised injection facilities has surfaced under the direction of Mayor Svante Myrick of Ithaca, New York. A supervised injection facility would allow an individual to use heroin while monitored by a nurse or caretaker without getting arrested.

This type of facility would, without a doubt, be met with public policy, political, and judicial opposition and doubt, but Myrick stands by his initiative. Abandoned by a drug-addicted father as a young child, Myrick noted, “I have watched for 20 years this system that just doesn’t work. We can’t wait anymore for the federal government. We have people shooting up in alleys. In bathroom stalls. And too many of them are dying.”

Myrick’s facility would utilize a holistic approach and view heroin addiction as a public health issue rather than a criminal justice issue. His rationale reflects a growing belief among the younger American generation that the War on Drugs, dubbed as such by President Richard Nixon in 1971, is a drastic failure.

However, critics are wary. They see the strategy as encouraging people to continue using drugs rather than seeking treatment to free themselves from addiction. Myrick does not disagree, but recognizes the need for new solutions and is working with local prosecutors and police to gain support and insight into his proposed solution. Elected District Attorney, Gwen Wilkinson initially opposed the idea, but has seen the possible benefit and stated, “What brought me around was the realization that this wouldn’t make it more likely that people will use drugs. What it would do is make it less likely that people will die in restaurant bathrooms.”

Myrick’s plan is to ask the New York Health Department to declare the heroin epidemic a state crisis, which would allow for him to take certain steps on a local level without the approval of state legislature. Governor Andrew Cuomo has failed to make any statement regarding such a facility, but has supported needle exchange programs and additional funding for treatment and preventative care in the past.

His inspiration was Canada’s supervised injection site dubbed “Insite,” which opened in Vancouver in 2003. Dr. Patricia Daly, Chief Medical Health Officer at Vancouver Coastal Health operates the facility and has shared that the site has approximately 800 visitors daily, 10-20 of whom overdose each week, but the facility has experienced zero deaths. The number of deaths in the surrounding neighborhoods has dropped by 35 percent and in 2011, Insite gained an unexpected ally in the Canadian Supreme Court who noted the facility’s success in saving lives “with no discernable negative impact.”

Myrick has other plans as well. Under his direction, low-level drug offenders would be sent to treatment, rather than jail and the creation of a drug policy and youth apprenticeship program would provide alternatives for drugs to young people.

While the answer has shifted away from solely jailing drug abusers, the major concern about such a facility is the lack of consequences for drug abusers and its inability to treat and change behavior. Even those opposed to a supervised injection site usually recognize the need for new solutions.

What the 2016 Presidential Candidates Have to Say about the Heroin Epidemic

While many of the 2016 Presidential candidates probably did not expect to be asked questions about the growing heroin epidemic, their presences in places such as New Hampshire, a state hit hard with heroin-related deaths and overdoses, has forced them to take a stance.

Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton unveiled a $10 billion plan to combat and contain substance abuse across the nation. The Democratic candidate is on board to shift focus from pure punishment to treatment, devising federal-state collaboration programs that would allow for states to receive grant money from the federal government in order to boost treatment availability, preventative care, and incarceration alternatives. Tym Rourke, the chair of the New Hampshire Governor’s Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention, Treatment and Recovery shared with the Clinton campaign about the lack of adequate resources and infrastructure to tackle the epidemic. Clinton’s focus on federal-state partnerships would aim to provide the support and resources that many states, like New Hampshire, are experiencing. She is the first candidate to unveil a comprehensive proposal to fight the epidemic.

(Former) Republican candidate, Chris Christie, ran ads highlighting the importance of life and the need to help addicts on a road to recovery. Additionally, he signed a series of bills into New Jersey law that focused on heroin and opioid abuse, requiring the state to:

Put in place a requirement that substance abuse centers submit performance reports; extended immunity to emergency responders and needle-exchange program employees who administer the anti-opioid drug Narcan; and mandated that state agencies provide mental health and substance abuse services to inmates in state prisons.

Another former candidate, Jeb Bush, recognized the value of input from facilities that provide treatment and care for heroin users and announced he was working with such locations in an effort to develop a plan that would address the real issues faced by treatment centers.

Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders has pushed for a decrease in the cost of naloxone, which can serve to reverse the effects of heroin and is most often used to treat an overdose when possible. The expansion of access to such medicine would allow responders and law enforcement to react more efficiently and effectively when witnessing an overdose.

Presidential candidates are identifying the amount of heroin use and heroin-related deaths as a devastating occurrence in the United States and are taking measures to diminish the number of people affected and the number of overdoses and deaths tied to the drug.

Conclusion

It is evident from the local action taking place, as well as the national campaign exposure pertaining to the use of heroin, that leaders within the United States view this problem as an epidemic. The focus of leadership, coupled with the variety of implementations and solutions surfacing into place make one thing starkly clear–a heroin epidemic is taking place in our backyard and the possible solutions are a far cry from additional punishment or prolonged jail time. This time, the ultimate resolution has shifted and it reflects treatment. As the epidemic continues to grow and claim lives, we must wait and see what the election unfolds or work with our communities to put together plausible efforts to minimize the dangers and effects of heroin on our communities. Until then, we depend on state and local leadership and law enforcement to implement actions and procedures that will decrease the number of people dying on a daily basis from heroin overdoses.

Resources

Business Insider: One State Has Shaped the National Debate on Heroin Addiction

The New York Times: Heroin Epidemic Increasingly Seeps Into Public View

New York Post: Upstate New York Mayor Wants Place Where Addicts Can Inject Heroin Safely

The New York Times: How the Epidemic of Drug Overdose Deaths Ripples Across America

The Guardian: Hillary Clinton Proposes $10bn Plan to Combat Substance Abuse ‘Epidemic’

The Guardian: Heroin Crisis: Presidential Candidates Forced to Confront Issue on Campaign Trail

Ajla Glavasevic

Ajla Glavasevic is a first-generation Bosnian full of spunk, sass, and humor. She graduated from SUNY Buffalo with a Bachelor of Science in Finance and received her J.D. from the University of Cincinnati College of Law. Ajla is currently a licensed attorney in Pennsylvania and when she isn’t lawyering and writing, the former Team USA Women’s Bobsled athlete (2014-2015 National Team) likes to stay active and travel. Contact Ajla at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Heroin: The Epidemic Forcing a Top Campaign Issue appeared first on Law Street.

Let us examine a scenario; parents go to a hospital to treat their child’s cancer and after seeing the debilitating effects of chemotherapy, opt to end the treatment. The hospital, however, sees the child’s cancer as curable and uses the court system to attempt to force their patient to continue treatment. Which party has the law on their side, the parents of the child or the hospital?

This seemingly hypothetical situation has become a real debate between an Amish couple in Ohio and the Akron Children’s Hospital. Parents, Andy and Anna Hershberger, have decided to stop the chemotherapy treatments of their 10 year old daughter, Sarah, who is battling Leukemia. The couple originally consented to the chemotherapy of Sarah in May 2013 but put an end to the treatment in June 2013. The parents saw the effects of the treatment as more harmful than helpful and opted to use natural herbs and vitamins rather than radiation to rid the girl’s body of the cancer.

While it is the belief of Mr. and Mrs. Hershberger that chemotherapy was actually killing their daughter, it is the moral and legal obligation of the hospital to make sure that the young girl received proper care. As explained by Robert McGregor, Akron’s chief medical officer, the hospital believes that the girl will die without the chemotherapy treatment. “We really have to advocate for what we believe is in the best interest of the child,” explained McGregor.

This is where the law stepped in, as the hospital went to court in order to force Sarah’s continued chemotherapy treatment. Judges appointed an unaffiliated third party, or “court guardian” to the case, Maria Schimer who is an attorney as well as registered nurse. Along with guardianship came Maria’s power to make all medical decisions regarding Sarah’s continued treatment. With this decision, the Amish family went into hiding about four months ago and has refused to reappear until the guardian is removed. Maria Schimer recently requested to be dropped from this case as she can no longer reach Sarah and her family.

The Hershbergers are currently fighting to obtain the right to make health care decisions for Sarah after the legal guardian is formally removed from the case. These parents are appealing the decision that allowed Maria Schimer to step in and make medical decisions for their daughter in the first place. The couple feels that assigning this guardian has infringed upon their constitutional rights and are appealing under the Ohio Health Care Freedom Amendment, approved in 2011. This amendment prohibits laws that force Ohioans to, “participate in a health care system.” This appeal is the first time that the court has been forced to determine the scope of this amendment, which has previously been seen as a symbol against President Obama’s health care overhaul.

The representing attorney to the Hershberger’s, Maurice Thompson of the libertarian 1851 Center for Constitutional Law in Ohio also helped draft the Ohio Health Care Freedom Amendment. Thompson feels that this case is a significant issue under said amendment because the Ohio Health Care Freedom Amendment is in place to preserve the rights of parents and children to choose their health care free of compulsion and prevent forced health care. “Allowing an uninterested third-party, one that has never even met the family or the child, to assert an interest in an exceedingly important parental decision will completely undermine the parent-child relationship,” argues Thompson.

Though the case of the Hershberger family has not yet been decided, it is most likely going to face multiple challenges. This stems from the fact that though the Ohio Health Care Freedom Ammendment was approved, it did not prevent the implementation of the Obama’s new federal health care law. This is because a state amendment does not have the ability to nullify a law. This situation could harm Ohio’s ability to enforce its specific laws and amendments to a case such as this. It is also questionable as to whether this amendment can extend to the point of protecting the Hershberger family’s case, which will be up to the court system as they decide on the full scope of the amendment.

The bigger picture of this case becomes, is it the right of the parents or the right of the hospital to determine the medical future of a child? While the Akron Hospital, versus the Hershberger family case is one of the most recent, there are other similar situations in which parents have lost the custody of their ill children to decisions made by the hospitals treating them. Fifteen year old Justina Pelletier was taken from her parents and placed into the custody of Boston Children’s Hospital in February 2013. This event occurred due to a dispute between Justina’s parents and the hospital, when her diagnosis changed from a mitochondrial disorder to a mental illness. After the change in diagnosis, the Pelletier family threatened to withdraw their daughter from the hospital in order to seek a second medical opinion. Once a child is labeled with a mental disorder, it is within the hospital’s power to call child protective services. In this case DCF labeled the parents behavior as insolent and abusive. The parents were stripped of their custody and the state of Massachusetts forcibly been treating as well as detaining Justina since that time. Based on the current ruling, it looks as if Justina will not be fully released until she is 18 years old.These two extreme cases can seem terrifying in the eyes of parents, and rightfully so. It seems that the hospitals often have the final say in the treatment of child patients rather than the parents.

While both sides of this scenario, the hospitals and the parents, seem to be looking to protect the child’s best interests, it becomes hard to draw a line between who is correct in their judgements. If parents are fully informed about treatment options as well as their risks and decide that the risks do outweigh the benefits, it should be within their ability to opt out of treatment as the child’s legal guardians from birth. However, this becomes complicated with the consideration of some parental religious beliefs that could bar the child from receiving potentially life saving treatment. On one hand, due to custody under the hospital or a third party guardian, a life can be saved, but on the other religious beliefs may be compromised. This medical debate does not have an all encompassing answer.

At what point, does it become ok to take over the custody of a child without the consent of their parents, or is it ever ok? To each his own, what is your opinion?

[The News- Herald] [Fox News] [Police State USA]

—

Taylor Garre (@TaylorLynn013)

Featured image courtesy of [Randall Pugh via Flickr]

Taylor Garre

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

The post Parents vs Hospitals: is Forced Treatment Legal? appeared first on Law Street.