Three victims of the CIA’s torture program have filed a lawsuit against the program’s two creators. On Monday, a Washington judge ruled that the case can go to trial.

The plaintiffs in this suit are Suleiman Abdullah Salim of Tanzania; Mohamed Ahmed Ben Soud of Libya; and the estate of Gul Rhaman of Afghanistan. All three were detainees in a CIA prison in 2003. The first two are now free and living in their home countries. The third died in prison.

The defendants are James Mitchell and John “Bruce” Jessen, former U.S. military psychologists who designed the CIA’s “enhanced interrogation techniques” in November 2001. Reportedly, the government paid them between $75 and $81 million for their plans.

This is the first CIA torture lawsuit to survive past the pretrial discovery phase. Prior to this, the Bush and Obama Administrations intervened, arguing that the suits put state secrets at risk.

However, a Senate intelligence committee report published in 2014 provided many details that the administrations had tried to keep secret. It confirmed that the CIA tortured 39 people, including the plaintiffs, at a secret prison codenamed “Cobalt.”

According to the report, Salim and Ben Soud’s torture included beatings, sleep deprivation, shackling in stress positions, and waterboarding. In addition, Rhaman died of hypothermia after his interrogators doused him with water and left him in a freezing room overnight.

In a pretrial hearing on July 28, the defense attorneys argued that providing a memo to the CIA does not count as aiding and abetting torture. It was the U.S. government, not Mitchell and Jessen, who conducted the program.

At one point, the defense team compared their clients to the manufacturers who developed the gas used in Nazi execution chambers. The British military tribunal, the lawyers pointed out, did not try those manufacturers for what the Nazis did.

Judge Justin Quackenbush rejected those arguments, ruling that the evidence indicated that Mitchell and Jessen themselves supported using torture on the CIA prisoners. Not only that, he found it “undisputed” that the psychologists used the techniques themselves on the CIA’s first detainee, Abu Zubaydah. Jessen was “physically involved” in Rhaman’s torture as well.

“Defendants have not established they merely acted at the direction of the government, within the scope of their authority, and that such authority was legally and validly conferred,” he decided.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) first filed the suit on behalf of the three plaintiffs in 2015.

“The court’s ruling means that for the first time, individuals responsible for the brutal and unlawful CIA torture program will face meaningful legal accountability for what they did,” ACLU attorney Dror Ladin told the Guardian. “Our clients have waited a long time for justice.”

The trial will begin on September 5.

Delaney Cruickshank

Delaney Cruickshank is a Staff Writer at Law Street Media and a Maryland native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in History with minors in Creative Writing and British Studies from the College of Charleston. Contact Delaney at DCruickshank@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post CIA Torture Victims Sue Program Designers appeared first on Law Street.

On July 23, Washington will become the first state in the country to establish a system that notifies domestic abuse victims when their abuser illegally attempts to buy a gun.

The law orders the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC) to establish a grant program to “create and operate a statewide system to automatically notify a registered person when a respondent subject to a court order has been denied the purchase of a firearm based on ineligibility.”

The grant program would also allow local agencies to “conduct criminal investigations of persons who illegally attempted to purchase or transfer a firearm within their jurisdictions.”

The law’s two-pronged approach is meant to close existing legal loopholes, which critics say allow potentially dangerous individuals to attempt to buy guns, lie on background checks, and get away with it.

“This will not just keep guns out of the hands of those who are not eligible to have them, but keep the public and our law enforcement officers safe,” Washington Governor Jay Inslee said when he signed the bill in May.

Tamaso Johnson, the Public Policy Director for the Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence told Law Street Media that the group worked closely with legislators and other stakeholders on this bill.

“Giving survivors of domestic violence the option to be notified if an abuser attempts to illegally purchase a gun allows them to more accurately plan for their own safety and the safety of those closest to them,” Johnson said.

How the system works

When an individual who is convicted of a misdemeanor for domestic violence or subject to a restraining order for domestic abuse fails the background check required to purchase a gun, the vendor will have five days to report the incident to the WASPC.

The WASPC will then report the incident to the Washington State Patrol, which will officially record it in a database, allowing for local authorities to investigate. Meanwhile, under the bill, the WASPC will also have to send out an alert to victims and loved ones associated with the individual.

The bill states that a person needs to easily be able “to register or update his or her registration information by calling a toll-free phone number or by accessing a public website.” People who choose to be alerted can elect to receive a notification by email or by phone.

A landmark bill

This bill received a lot of support from both Democrats and Republicans as it seeks to address a wide-spread issue in Washington. According to a local investigation by KING5TV Seattle, 3,000 “lie and try” attempts occurred in 2016 and were never investigated.

“If you’re a criminal and you walk into a firearms store, you knowingly violate the law by illegally trying to purchase a firearm, you should be arrested, you should be prosecuted and in an appropriate case you should spend some time in prison,” said Democrat Drew Hansen, the primary sponsor of the bill.

The National Rifle Association isn’t necessarily opposed to the effort, although it remains wary of the potential for erroneous entries into the database, as can occur when identities are mistaken and a background check is run.

Though it is limited to the state, this bill also represents a big step toward addressing the huge problem of domestic violence in the United States. A study conducted by the Center for American Progress concluded that between 2001 and 2012, 6,410 women were “murdered in the U.S. by an intimate partner using a gun—more than the total number of U.S. troops killed in action during the entirety of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined.”

Paula Harwood testified in support of the bill before it was passed. She shared the fear she felt when she learned that her abusive ex-husband had attempted to buy a gun, despite the fact that she had obtained a protection order against him. She said she only found out about the incident through a reporter who had been investigating the background check law.

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Washington Will Notify Victims When Domestic Abusers Try to Buy Guns appeared first on Law Street.

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

What is Physician-Assisted Suicide?

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

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

Where is Physician-Assisted Suicide Legal?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have Other States Tried to Legalize Physician Assisted Suicide?

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

Arguments in Favor of Physician-Assisted Suicide

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

Real Life Example: Brittany Maynard

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

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

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

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

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

Arguments Against Physician-Assisted Suicide

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

Real Life Example: Dr. Jack Kevorkian

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

Anneliese Mahoney

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

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

For the past couple months, residents in the Washington DC metro area have been inundated with almost daily images of missing teen girls on local TV newscasts and on social media. The unprecedented onslaught of missing persons coverage, involving primarily black and hispanic girls, has led locals to wonder what’s going on in the District, inspiring the hashtag #MissingDCGirls.

According to the DC Police Department’s website, there have been a total of 501 missing persons cases involving juveniles in the first three months of 2017. As of Friday, there are currently 22 open missing juvenile cases. While the case volume appears staggering, is it really out of the ordinary? Here’s what you need to know about DC’s missing teens.

Not Just Teen Girls Missing

Well for starters, it’s not just teen girls that are missing. There have been several teen boys reported missing as well, including 14-year-old Jaylen Lee and 14-year-old Navaras Johnson. Lee has been missing since March 18 and Johnson has been missing since February 27. Both boys are labeled as “critical missing.”

Have you seen him? 14 yo Jaylen Lee last seen 1000 b/o Maryland Ave, NE. Text 50411/ call 202-727-9099 #MissingPerson pic.twitter.com/tY5hh7xcLY

— DC Police Department (@DCPoliceDept) March 20, 2017

Viral Instagram Post Got it Wrong

An Instagram post claiming that 14 DC girls had gone missing in a single day went viral across social media on Thursday, sparking outrage.

14 black girls go missing in 24 hrs & I have to rely on Black Twitter to get info cuz mainstream media’s too busy to care. #missingdcgirls

— Shalisa Hayes (@ShalisaHayes) March 24, 2017

While any number of missing teens cases is definitely cause for concern, the police have said that this information is inaccurate. According to NBC Washington, actress Taraji P. Henson, rapper LL Cool J, and hip-hop mogul Russel Simmons were among those who shared the misleading post with their followers. Henson’s post garnered over 38,000 likes and countless comments.

Black Lawmakers Want Action

A group of black members of Congress have requested that the FBI and DOJ look into the missing black and hispanic teens.

In a letter obtained by the Associated Press, Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-La) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C) called on Attorney General Jeff Sessions and FBI Director James Comey to “devote the resources necessary to determine whether these developments are an anomaly or whether they are indicative of an underlying trend that must be addressed.”

Number of Missing Teens is Actually Normal

While lawmakers are pushing for an investigation, local law enforcement don’t seem as worried by the numbers. At a press conference on March 16, Acting DC Police Chief Newsham, Commander Chanel Dickerson, and DC Mayor Muriel Bowser indicated that the number of missing kids was in fact normal.

“The number of missing person reports has remained constant…what has changed is getting that information out quickly. There is no evidence to suggest there has been an increase in missing persons,”  said Bowser.

Chief Newsham also said that the year-over-year number of missing persons, including juveniles, has held steady, and that there is no known link in D.C. now between missing people and human trafficking.

While the increased social media efforts have certainly made residents more aware of missing teens, they have also increased paranoia about a wider conspiracy.

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 What You Need to Know About DC’s Missing Teens appeared first on Law Street.

In their seventh meeting and second visit in as many years, India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Barack Obama met at the White House on Tuesday, strengthening bonds between the U.S. and India on a number of issues. Most notable was a verbal agreement for India to join the climate change accord that was drawn up in Paris last December. But two outside factors hovered over the meeting and the flurry of activity it produced: China and Donald Trump.

China dominates the Asia-Pacific region both economically and militarily, with both the largest economy and the strongest military. Increasingly, China has shown signs of aggression as it takes steps to secure a chain of disputed island chains in the South China Sea and continues to ensure trade deals are implemented on its terms. In remarks following the meeting, neither Obama nor Modi directly mentioned China, but several moves seemed to be fueled by the potential for further Chinese aggression.

For one, the two all but finalized a deal that would include India in the Nuclear Suppliers Group, a international body committed to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. The two leaders also announced plans for India to purchase six nuclear reactors from a U.S. based firm by June 2017.

And while his threat to India might not be quite as immediate or forthcoming as China’s, Donald Trump also proved to be a catalytic force in Tuesday’s talks. His fiery rhetoric and divisive tone have alarmed Indian officials. Analysts view New Delhi’s recent warming to Washington as a way to accomplish as much as possible in the event that Trump is Obama’s successor.

“Modi wants to get as much as he can out of Obama’s last months in office,” Ashley J. Tellis, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace told The New York Times.

India’s backing of the Paris climate change agreement will bolster the likelihood that it will go into effect before Obama leaves office. Once the 55 countries that emit 55 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas sign the pact, it will become binding. India is the world’s highest carbon polluter behind China and the U.S. When the pact becomes binding, a government cannot withdraw its commitment for at least four years.

“If the Paris agreement achieves ratification before Inauguration Day, it would be impossible for the Trump administration to renegotiate or even drop out during the first presidential term,” Robert N. Stavins, the director of the environmental economics program at Harvard told the New York Times.

In a statement, India said it will look to officially join the agreement by the end of the year. Modi will continue his diplomatic tour of the Capital on Wednesday, when he will address both houses of Congress.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Preparing for a Potential President Trump, India and U.S. Make Agreements appeared first on Law Street.

Both Republicans and Democrats have been enamored with “outsiders” this election year: whether it’s Trump’s meteoric rise among the GOP voters desperate for a “non-politician,” or the Bernie Sanders voterbase raving about the necessity of a politician who isn’t connected with the D.C. elites. Every candidate has been adjusting their message to avoid seeming too familiar with the current state of politics. Trump says it’s time to stop listening to the experts. Bernie wants to tear down the establishment. Cruz is running on the idea that he won’t work with Washington, but that he has worked against it.

Basically, experienced and accomplished politicians are trying their best not to seem experienced or accomplished, because those qualities scare and confuse the average American voter. For candidates like Ted Cruz, John Kasich, and Hillary Clinton, this poses a huge problem. How can you tell people you’re ‘not a politician’ when you’ve been in office since the seventies? How do you resist looking like an ‘insider’ when you’ve literally lived inside the White House before?

In order to save his campaign after a brutal Tuesday, in which Cruz placed last in four out of five contests, Cruz is bringing in his own outsider. Ted Cruz, the man who is currently not winning the Republican nomination, announced Wednesday that if he secures the Republican nomination (a huge if), he’d select Carly Fiorina as his vice presidential candidate.

Fiorina’s only real experience in the political sphere was a failed Senatorial campaign against Barbara Boxer. You may remember her from her stand-out performance in the Republican debate where she invented a fictional video of an aborted fetus’s organs being harvested and told the nation about it in gory detail. Fiorina is often heralded as a successful businesswoman–after all, she was the female CEO of a Fortune 500 company, certainly no small accomplishment. Her business acumen has been questioned, however, and by questioned I mean constantly assailed, with reports arguing she was disastrous and terrible. Fiorina laid off over 30,000 employees, and was forcibly ousted from her position. In short, Carly Fiorina is all fire and no function–the antithesis of a pragmatic, predictable insider who knows her way around Washington.

The veepstakes shouldn’t begin until nominations are made, or at the very earliest when a nomination is a foregone conclusion. In that sense, this kind of move is way too early, as we shouldn’t be seeing these sorts of announcements until late May, even June. But the reason this feels like a last-ditch effort is because this kind of is a last ditch effort. If Cruz wanted to adjust the image of his campaign to be more outsider-friendly, he should have done it before he was lagging so far behind that nothing he does will have much effect.

So why is this happening? Could it be that the American public trusts unproved talent simply because that candidate hasn’t had a chance to fail yet? Do we shrug at experience because we’re impulsive gamblers who would rather let someone new take the wheel just because it’s more interesting? There’s no clear answer, and it’s hard to understand the why behind the impulsive and nonsensical behavior of the primary voters. The only safe bet is that Cruz’s pick of Fiorina is bizarre, telling, and destined to flop.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cruz Finds His Outsider: Too Early and Too Late appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser announced a plan to seek statehood for the District of Columbia come November through a citywide vote on the matter. She promised to propose legislation this summer that would transform the District of Columbia into the state of New Columbia.

This summer, we will propose legislation that will put statehood on the ballot in the 2016 election. #DCEmancipationDay

— Mayor Muriel Bowser (@MayorBowser) April 15, 2016

In addition to her effort to put D.C. statehood on the ballot, Mayor Bowser is also finding other ways to challenge the federal government. For the first time since the district was created in 1790, the city will not be asking the federal government for approval of its annual tax-based budget. While this action may be a violation of the Constitution, it also sends a strong message to the federal government and the nation that D.C. is ready to be an independent state.

For years now, D.C. residents have been fighting for their right to representation in Congress. The desire for D.C. statehood hit an all-time high last fall, according to a survey conducted by the Washington Post. The survey found that three out of every four district residents claim to be upset because they do not have representation in Congress. Over seven in every 10 D.C. residents believe that Congress has too much control over the affairs of the district, especially considering we do not have a voting representative. Sixty-seven percent of D.C. residents said they would support a movement to make D.C. a state, with the hope that having representation would help the local government deal with city-wide problems.

The District of Columbia’s license plate exemplifies why people are mad that D.C. isn’t a state: taxation without representation.

WASHINGTON DC Taxation License Plate Tag – nice EB 1503 https://t.co/UBxws5ZGBz pic.twitter.com/cdJ7eG8ZII

— highly luscious prod (@mogrovejoisidr3) April 13, 2016

John Oliver also did a piece on why D.C. should be a state last August, pointing out some of the ridiculous logic behind not giving the District of Columbia statehood.

This video highlights just how crazy it is for D.C. residents to pay taxes and abide by laws without any kind of representation in Congress. In addition, Oliver points out that not only is the D.C. population bigger than two states, but it also has a larger GDP than 16 of the 50 U.S. states. Not to mention the United States is the only country in the world with a capital that is isolated and lacking in representation the way D.C. is.

Even the Dali Lama questions D.C.’s lack of statehood, noting that he wonders why citizens in the city that is the “champion of democracy, liberty, and freedom” do not have full voting rights, lamenting that this problem is “Quite strange, quite strange.”

So, why isn’t the District of Columbia a state already? Well, the original thought process behind not granting the district statehood comes from a worry the founding fathers had that the proceedings of Congress could be disrupted by people living in the district. The founders were concerned that the national government would feel unnecessarily responsible for the people of the district because of their proximity to the government. There are some other arguments against statehood, including the lack of rural residents in D.C. as well as the fact that D.C. would be a stronghold for the Democratic Party.

In the eyes of most D.C. residents, myself included, those potential cons of statehood don’t really hold up when contrasted with the utter lack of representation that the district currently has. We deserve the right to Senators and Representatives as much as any other citizen in this country and, thanks to the dedicated work of Mayor Bowser and the rest of the D.C. government, that right may be granted to us soon. We’re rooting for you, D.C.

Read More: The 51st State: What D.C. Statehood Would Mean for the Country

Alexandra Simone

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

The post It’s Time for the District of Columbia to Become a State appeared first on Law Street.

March was a significant month for guns in America. Iowa Governor Terry Branstad signed a bill that legalized the use of gun suppressors, or silencers, in the state which went into effect immediately. Rhode Island lawmakers spent the month weighing over a dozen bills that could completely transform the state’s gun culture. A Pennsylvania law that allowed the National Rifle Association and other pro-gun groups to sue cities that enacted strict gun control policies may come back into effect. These stories suggest that the country is shifting away from traditional gun control laws and opening the door to open carry in more locations. However, two stories which have flown relatively under the radar made March a victory for gun control supporters.

In November 2014, Washington enacted a law that created universal background checks for all gun sales, including those between private citizens. New data just released from the FBI shows that the law has blocked 50 gun purchases by felons since it went into effect. Nearly 4,000 felons tried to purchase guns in Washington over the past year but thanks to the new law, many of those private sales were blocked. There has been debate over whether 50 is a significant number–Dave Workman, of the gun rights group The Second Amendment Foundation, claimed that the number was too small to demonstrate the law being effective and cited the fact that there have been no prosecutions related to the law as evidence of its failure. However, law enforcement officers argue that 50 prevented sales is a significant number, as any one of those guns could have been purchased and used in a crime without the intervention of the new law. Washington is still reeling from a mass murder committed in February, so the idea that increased background checks could prevent even a small fraction of violent deaths makes the law worthwhile.

At the University of Washington, a different approach to gun safety has emerged, paying special attention to suicide prevention. After her husband committed suicide with a gun, Professor Jennifer Stuber reached out to local gun stores to start a dialogue about suicide and the role of gun retailers play in aiding those who wish to take their own lives. Stuber asked gun store employees if they were concerned that they might be selling guns to customers who were suicidal and received a resounding, collective yes. She reached out to the National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation, recruiting them as allies. Stuber’s efforts were the foundation of a bill signed into law this March that unites the firearm industry, pharmacists and suicide prevention activists.  The law establishes a suicide prevention task-force that will train both gun store owners and pharmacists in suicide prevention messaging. Pharmacists will be required to complete six hours of suicide prevention training to receive accreditation while gun retailers will be offered a voluntary course online. This may seem like a relatively small victory, but in reality it will change the dynamic of gun sales significant. Mental health and gun violence have frequently been connected and even small steps towards acknowledging that guns should not be sold without consideration for a person’s mental state are major leaps for gun sense advocates. Twenty years ago, this kind of law would never have gone into effect because the conversation simply did not exist yet. However, after a decade filled with mass shootings, effective gun control is no longer an idealistic goal–it is an immediate necessity.

Laws like the ones that passed in Washington this month represent an encouraging, albeit small, step in the right direction.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Breakthroughs in Gun Regulation in Washington State appeared first on Law Street.

There’s no denying the fact that Hillary Clinton is dominating the Democratic primaries. That said, underdog Bernie Sanders hasn’t let the presidential primary race turn into a runaway. On Saturday, Sanders nabbed sweeping victories in the caucus states of Washington, Alaska, and Hawaii, giving him a nice bump in electoral delegates.

In response to the wins, CNN credited the Vermont Senator’s success to a tendency to do well in “largely white and rural” states, warning that in order for Sanders’ to win he needs to “replicate this success in other, more ethnically diverse states that hold primaries.”

That description didn’t sit well with some of Sanders’ minority supporters.

Leslie Lee III, a writer in English teacher from Baton Rouge, Louisiana currently living in Yokahama, Japan, responded to the stereotype with some sarcasm. Lee jokes,

.@HillyesRose @MisaelFrancoO @TheBpDShow @cenkuygur Ever since I voted for Bernie, I’ve been bingewatching Friends. #BernieMadeMeWhite

— L. (@tokyovampires) March 27, 2016

And just like that the hashtag #BernieMadeMeWhite was born!

It didn’t take long for other minority Sanders’ supporters to jump on the hashtag’s bandwagon.

.@tokyovampires ever since I voted for Bernie I traded in my Timbs for Vans. #BernieMadeMeWhite

— Benjamin Dixon (@TheBpDShow) March 27, 2016

Then it sort of just spiraled out from there.

Ever since I voted for Bernie I deny racism and wear shorts in February. The media was right. #Berniemademewhite #FeelTheBern

— Aristotle McFly (@hollowman928) March 27, 2016

@TheBpDShow @tokyovampires I stopped seasoning my food. #BernieMadeMeWhite

— C. (@Maxplatypus) March 27, 2016

#MSM But how can Bernie win Hawaii with only young white men supporters? Check out #BernieMadeMeWhite for obvious answer. #FeelTheBern

— Fortitude (@Fortitude_1) March 27, 2016

#BernieMadeMeWhite Ever since I started to #FeelTheBern, I only dance like this pic.twitter.com/synwO93Xct

— SanBernaDingDong (@noreallyhowcome) March 27, 2016

Check out the #BernieMadeMeWhite tweets. So good. pic.twitter.com/unDPfbNo6z

— laurie allee (@laurieallee) March 27, 2016

Dear CNN, white power???#BernieMadeMeWhite @BernieSanders pic.twitter.com/0MmWWsbWmh

— tᕼe ᒪᑌᑕᗩᔕ ᗷᖇOᔕ (@lucasbros) March 27, 2016

Ever since I started supporting Bernie I suddenly lost my rhythm. #BernieMadeMeWhite

— lyn (@dlynaffor) March 27, 2016

Will someone please show me how to do my hair? It’s all so confusing since #BernieMadeMeWhite pic.twitter.com/rDI5QFoxiQ

— Coco Hops (@coco_hops) March 28, 2016

Ever since I started supporting Bernie, Don’t Stop Believing became my karaoke staple #BernieMadeMeWhite

— Jason Alexander (@soulcreator) March 27, 2016

#BernieMadeMeWhite My whole black family is losing its taste for hot sauce and spreading mayo on everything

— Chris Hamilton (@dteg32) March 27, 2016

#BernieMadeMeWhite and now I am looking to move out of this neighborhood, you know, cause of the property values, of course.

— Carolyn Hyppolite (@CKHyppolite) March 27, 2016

Finally I have white privilege.#BernieMadeMeWhite

— WesleyZ3 (@50th_President) March 27, 2016

And just like that #BernieMadeUsWhite #BernieMadeMeWhite #BernieMadeMeMillenial #BernieMadeMeMale pic.twitter.com/maiHJ3VHQc

— Dallas Fowler (@YoDallas) March 28, 2016

If loving him is wrong, i don’t wanna be right #BernieMadeMeWhite #BernBabyBern pic.twitter.com/qt5n4epz2e

— suZee (@BigOlSoulSista) March 28, 2016

I’m so thankful that #BernieMadeMeWhite.

Can we stop worrying about racial profiling and hate crimes now? pic.twitter.com/NqE1zD5bSz

— Simran Jeet Singh (@SikhProf) March 28, 2016

#BernieMadeMeWhite We are not invisible despite the media propaganda machine would have you believe pic.twitter.com/qGeuBKm2zD

— Nativespirit (@N8tive2spirit) March 28, 2016

#BernieMadeMeWhite & male so I don’t have to worry about maternal healthcare, paid family leave, or gender pay gap. pic.twitter.com/QXO48QiKtB

— Ashlyn Shockley (@ashlynshockley) March 28, 2016

This isn’t a picture of two friends, it’s actually a before and after voting for Bernie pic. #BernieMadeMeWhite pic.twitter.com/lHH9QJvTfB

— Lauren Sandernista (@welknett) March 27, 2016

The moral of the story is that Sanders’ supporters really don’t like being generalized, because white males aren’t the only demographic “feeling the Bern.” Don’t get me wrong, Sanders still has a long way to go. His campaign has struggled to secure the black and latino vote, which has repeatedly propelled Clinton to victory. With three more months still remaining in the primary race, he’ll need to rally more support among all demographics if he hopes to secure the nomination.

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 #BernieMadeMeWhite Calls Out the Media Whitewashing of Sanders’ Supporters appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anneliese Mahoney

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

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

In June of 2014, the U.S. Patent and Trademark office cancelled six federal trademark registrations for the Washington Redskins, declaring the team name “disparaging to Native Americans.”  This ruling was reinforced earlier today and while owner Dan Snyder is scrambling to defend the trademark, this ruling will unfortunately not actually force Snyder to change the name of the team.

Stripping the team of the trademark is an important first step, but there has been no other legal action leveled against the team that will result in an official name change. Snyder and team President Bruce Allen have doubled down on preserving the team name, finding allies in presidential candidates Donald Trump and Jeb Bush. Despite overwhelming protest from the Native American community (and the American populace in general), it seems like the leadership of the team is determined to retain the name by any means necessary. In 2013, Snyder released a letter claiming that:

After 81 years, the team name ‘Redskins’ continues to hold the memories and meaning of where we came from, who we are, and who we want to be in the years to come.  We are Redskins Nation and we owe it to our fans and coaches and players, past and present, to preserve that heritage.

In a nation where there are infinite loopholes that let teams retain offensive names, the Redskins are an omnipresent reminder of exactly how far we still have to go to create and protect racial equality. Snyder’s disconnect from the reality of the American political landscape and the importance of inclusive language is nothing short of disturbing. Eighty-one years of ignoring organized protest against a racial slur isn’t a legacy, it’s a travesty. Snyder “owes” nothing to the “nation”–football fans turn up to games because they want to see their favorite players win, not because they are demonstrating solidarity with the management’s decision to stay on the wrong side of history. His decision to retain the name is purely financial, which is exactly why he has fought so hard to retain the trademarks.

Snyder appears to be fully aware of the nonsensical nature of his claim, as evidenced by his establishment of the Washington Redskins Original Americans Foundation in 2014, which is dedicated to providing resources to Native communities across the country.  If the term “Redskins” is truly a term full of memories and heritage, why would he use the term “Original Americans” when establishing his foundation?  The contradictory nature of the Foundation’s name reveals that Snyder is not ignorant of the offensive nature of the slur. The Foundation is a transparent attempt to assuage his guilt and pacify Native American activists. Despite Snyder’s efforts to build a positive PR strategy, a new generation of Native youth is growing up surrounded by the slur–seeing it on television screens, t-shirts, and toys across the country. Constant use of the slur is not only frustrating for this generation, it endangers their perception of safety and their ability to learn. If Snyder truly wants to clear his conscience and make peace with the protesters, he’ll need to put in more than minimal effort. This is not a minor gaffe or an honest mistake. The use of a racial slur in the team’s name is a conscious action, which prioritizes profit over equality and inclusion.

Not everyone subscribes to the idea of karma, but if there ever was a case for its existence, it is the Washington Redskins. Since Dan Snyder purchased the team, the team has lost spectacularly and consistently. There are dozens of reasons to change the team’s name, but seeing as none of them have yet swayed management, I’d like to put forward a new one:

Snyder, perhaps if you took a racial slur off of your helmets, your jerseys, your field and your merchandise, the stars would align in your favor and you would be able to win a game.

I hate to think that such an insane idea could actually impact Snyder’s attitude, but at this point, it’s not a stretch to think that a man this deluded about the reality of the world believes that stars can control his fate.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Changing The Redskins Mascot: Washington, D.C.’s Greatest Embarrassment appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anneliese Mahoney

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

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

A historic breakthrough for international diplomacy was reached Tuesday when President Obama announced the conclusion of the Iran nuclear deal negotiations after 20 months of discussions and international debate. The deal ensures that Iran’s nuclear program will be exclusively peaceful and provides security measures that should instill trust in the Iranian nuclear program. Iran has agreed to dramatically decrease its nuclear infrastructure in exchange for relief from international sanctions that have suffocated Iran’s economy for years. A few fundamental points of the deal include Iran’s agreement to keep its uranium enrichment levels at or below 3.67 percent, a dramatic decrease. The deal reduces Iran’s nuclear stockpile by about 98 percent, allowing the state to maintain a uranium reserve under 300 kilograms, which is down from its current 10,000-kilogram stock. Iran has also agreed to ship spent fuel outside its borders, diminishing the likelihood of uranium enrichment intended to produce a nuclear weapon. Iran will be bound to extremely intrusive inspections by the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and will face the looming possibility of harsh sanction reimposition if it is found to be evading its commitments or in noncompliance with the deal.

On Wednesday afternoon, Obama held a press conference in the White House East Room where he welcomed critics and reporters to ask questions of him regarding the newly struck nuclear deal. The conference lasted more than an hour, and drew out several candid responses from an increasingly condescending President Obama along with a slew of entertaining commentary by the president toward critics of the nuclear deal. Frustrated, annoyed, or patronizing–whatever the president’s mood was, it was rightfully earned; the criticisms of the Iran nuclear deal thus far and during the press conference are almost disappointingly invalid or inadequate. It’s easy to see how it becomes aggravating to explain the details of a decision that has been 20 months in the making to politicians who had prearranged to lobby against the deal before it even existed. It’s also easy to see how he became flippant toward reporters who are asking questions about Bill Cosby in the middle of the press conference that is supposed to address one of the most critical, comprehensive, and complex diplomatic agreements in history. So with that in mind, here are the best and sassiest quotes from Wednesday’s press conference:

1. “Major, that’s nonsense. And you should know better.”

After CBS News reporter Major Garrett asked the President why he is “content” with the fanfare around the Iran deal when there are four American political prisoners currently in Iran, Obama was not happy. His response was that the United States should not act on this deal based on the detainees’ status because Iran would take advantage of the American prisoners and try to gain additional concessions by continuing to hold them captive. He stated that deal or no deal, we are still working hard to get these four Americans out.

2. “My hope is — is that everyone in Congress also evaluates this agreement based on the facts… But, we live in Washington.”

Well, let’s be honest, those of us who actually live in Washington would prefer that Congress not be lumped in with the rest of us during this debate. Can they debate somewhere else?

3. “You know, the facts are the facts, and I’m not concerned about what others say about it.”

Sticks and stones, Barack, sticks and stones.

4. “The argument that I’ve been already hearing… that because this deal does not solve all those other problems, that’s an argument for rejecting this deal, defies logic: it makes no sense.”

Here, Obama made a direct jab at Republicans in Congress who are trying to justify their opposition to the nuclear deal by saying that Iran is not moderate and won’t change because of this deal. The President said that the deal was never designed to solve every problem in Iran. Obama says this rhetoric, besides being plain wrong and nonsensical, loses sight of the number one priority–making sure Iran does not develop a bomb.

5. “I’m hearing a lot of talking points being repeated about “This is a bad deal. This is a historically bad deal. This will threaten Israel and threaten the world and threaten the United States.” I mean, there’s been a lot of that.”

Condescending Obama strikes again, and reminded us that this deal won’t, in fact, make the world implode. Pro tip: read the quote within the quote in a nasally, Obama-making-fun-of-Congress voice.

6. “This is not something you hide in a closet. This is not something you put on a dolly and wheel off somewhere.”

Obama said that under the new safeguards and the international community’s watchful eye, the Iranian government simply won’t be able to hide any uranium or plutonium that they might be (but probably aren’t) covertly enriching. Because under the bed and in the closet is definitely the first place the United Nations will check, duh.

7. “Now, you’ll hear some critics say, “well, we could have negotiated a better deal.” OK. What does that mean?”

The Republicans are right. We could have also found a unicorn and put sprinkles on top.

8. “So to go back to Congress, I challenge those who are objecting to this agreement…to explain specifically where it is that they think this agreement does not prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and why they’re right and people like Ernie Moniz, who is an MIT nuclear physicist and an expert in these issues is wrong.”

Mic drop.

9. “It’s not the job of the president of the United States to solve every problem in the Middle East.”

Well that didn’t stop anyone with the last name “Bush” from trying.

10. “I will veto any legislation that prevents the successful implementation of this deal.”

While this wasn’t from the press conference, it was too good not to include. Obama faces a hard sell to Congress and is determined to push the deal through. He stated that if the nuclear deal fails in Congress, it won’t just be a slap in the face to the American officials who negotiated this deal, but to the international community and the other five countries who spent years negotiating.

The president left the press conference promising to address the deal again, stating, “I suspect this is not the last that we’ve heard of this debate.”

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Condescending Quotes From Obama’s Iran Deal Press Conference appeared first on Law Street.

Can Afghanistan stabilize as U.S. forces plan their exit? This was the question posed to five foreign policy experts at a United States Institute of Peace (USIP) panel I attended on Tuesday morning. The panelists examined ongoing crises in Afghanistan and addressed the next steps that they believe are essential to protect the future of the state. My major takeaway from the panel is that serious reconsideration should be given to whether or not leaving Afghanistan is the best policy at the present time. As a student studying international relations, I’ll admit that I am biased in my interest in this topic. But this decision affects us all and given the current status of Afghanistan, should be debated throughly among the 2016 presidential contenders. My vote will not be for a candidate who does not have a polished foreign policy strategy designed to work with the needs of Afghan leaders and communities.

There are certainly many very prevalent concerns about the state of Afghanistan. USIP’s Dr. Andrew Wilder opened the discussion by saying, “We’re going to struggle to find a few positive things to say during our panel.” Wilder, Vice President of South and Central Asia programs, just returned from Afghanistan on a USIP assignment and said the current situation in the country is bleak. Political paralysis, a sense of economic collapse, a deteriorating security situation, and rapidly fading international attention have caused turmoil in Afghanistan. There are international fears that the national unity government (NUG)–which was just formed in September 2014–may not be able to withstand the external violence and the internal political fragmentation and ethnic divisions within Afghanistan. Wilder said that we have arrived at a critical juncture in Afghanistan and the next several months will tell whether or not the country will be considered a “success story for U.S. foreign policy.”

These revelations coincide with the U.S. presidential candidacy announcements and I am skeptical of the fact that these pressing issues are not in the forefront of any campaign. The United States’ plan to withdraw troops by the end of 2016 and the international community’s decision to significantly cut foreign aid to the country are untimely, given the many factors contributing to the turmoil occurring there.

For example, security concerns in the state are still paramount. Ali Jalali, USIP Senior Expert in Residence on Afghanistan, discussed these issues, saying that there is tension within the government of Afghanistan to maintain unity and to govern effectively, and “sometimes effectiveness has been disregarded to maintain unity.” According to Jalali, in 2015 Afghan security forces, including local police, have suffered a 70 percent increase in casualties from this time last year. The average count of casualties per week currently stands at around 330. This increase in violence is directly related to the decrease of foreign aid and military services. The toxic combination of a new unstable government with leaders who have not yet been proven trustworthy, and the simultaneous withdrawal of U.S. troops is increasing the likelihood of a resurgent Taliban and potentially wasting years of war and the American lives lost during the conflict. The withdrawal at this critical yet sensitive time in Afghanistan’s move toward stabilization also provides the perfect breeding ground for ISIL to gain power and control. How to deal with those concerns will be a major hurdle for our next leader–the hands-off strategies we have mapped out will almost certainly need to be rethought.

Another consideration is the precipitous decline in economic growth sparked by the international drawdown of troops and aid–expanded upon at the event by Dr. William Byrd, USIP Senior Expert on Afghanistan. Byrd stated, “The fiscal crisis is quite dire with no end in sight.” He offered his opinions on how to make economic improvements in the country, but all of the strategies are so fundamentally intertwined with security and political implications that it is difficult to offer many viable solutions. For example, Byrd said that the best way to make improvements in the short run is by increasing the number of businesses in the country; however acknowledged that, “businessmen will look at the political and security situation and will not want to invest in Afghanistan due to the instability.”

To improve the chances of the Afghan government’s survival, the U.S. needs to support the NUG militarily, politically, and financially. Scott Smith, Director of USIP’s Afghanistan and Central Asia program, stated, “Two years is far too short a period to have all of this take place.” In other words, the level of support necessary to prevent collapse in Afghanistan cannot be achieved with a 2016 U.S. withdrawal. The United States and the United Nations should adopt a situational withdrawal policy rather than a time-oriented plan. We need to stay until the situation is stabilized and finish what we started. Yes, we should push for eventual Afghan independence, but we should not expect that so soon; to do so is detrimental to a potentially stable future. Politicians and voters should be rethinking these decisions and questioning whether they value idealistic or pragmatic plans more. Dr. Wilder ended the discussion by stating, “We should try to remain engaged, certainly not at the levels of the past, but enough to increase the prospects of peace, stability and independence in Afghanistan.” This advice should act as a guide for our presidential contenders and is something all Americans should keep in mind as we move toward 2016.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S. Withdrawal from Afghanistan: Timely or Dangerous? appeared first on Law Street.

The biological parents of civil rights activist Rachel Dolezal, president of the NAACP’s Spokane, Washington chapter, have revealed shocking news about their daughter’s true racial identity. Dolezal, 37, is the chair of the Office of Police Ombudsman Commission and professor of Africana Studies at Eastern Washington University, where she specializes in Black Studies and African American culture. She has regularly spoken out on local media about racial justice, but it turns out that there is information that she may have been keeping from everyone.

In a recorded interview with the local Spokane news channel KREM 2 News this week, Ruthanne and Larry Dolezal said their daughter’s biological heritage is not African American, but German and Czech, with traces of Native American ancestry.

“Our daughter is Caucasian” say parents of Spokane NAACP President Rachel Dolezal. pic.twitter.com/6VHxm9v4Wt

— Taylor Viydo (@KREMTaylor) June 11, 2015

Her parents said Rachel had black adopted siblings, a social circle consisting primarily of African Americans, and she was formerly married to a black man. After her divorce in 2004, Rachel began identifying herself differently. She started claiming to be partially African American and the daughter of biracial parents. According to her mother,

It’s very sad that Rachel has not just been herself. Her effectiveness in the causes of the African-American community would have been so much more viable, and she would have been more effective if she had just been honest with everybody.

The Dolezals state that they do not have a problem with their daughter being an advocate for civil rights; their problem is that she is being deceptive about who she really is. The same day the Dolezals were interviewed, Rachel told KREM 2 News that due to an on-going legal issue she does not speak to her parents. She brushed off the controversy surrounding her racial identity as part of a family dispute. Rachel would not directly answer the newspaper’s questions about her ethnicity and said she wanted to talk to local NAACP leadership first. “I feel like I owe my executive committee a conversation.”

In an interview with KXLY, she spoke about multiple alleged racist threats made against her, including nooses found near her home. Each case was closed by police because of insufficient evidence to prosecute and some even questioned if she did these things herself. When asked during the interview if she is African American, Dolezal said that she did not understand the question and walked away. Mayor David Condon and the council president Ben Stuckart said in a joint statement,

We are gathering facts to determine if any city policies related to volunteer boards and commissions have been violated. That information will be reviewed by the city council, which has oversight of city boards and commissions.

The former president of the Spokane NAACP, James Wilburn, told the CDA Press that although it is traditional to have a person of color in Rachel’s position, that has not always been the case. Wilburn believes that Dolezal’s race was not what had qualified her for the job.

Dolezal has been trending all over social media, with some people even seeing it as a comical matter.

This morning #RachelDolezal woke up, opened her eyes, took her durag off & wished ystrdy was just a bad bad dream.

— Amanda Seales (@amandaseales) June 12, 2015

People seem to believe that Rachel would have been more effective in white communities challenging white supremacy, rather than identifying herself as black. Most are upset that Rachel was claiming an oppression that she never truly endured.

The question that everyone wants answered is simply why? I truly hope that Rachel will be able to comfortably embrace who she is while still being an advocate for civil rights.

Taelor Bentley

Taelor is a member of the Hampton University Class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Taelor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Community Reels After Local NAACP President’s Parents Reveal She Isn’t Black appeared first on Law Street.

I’ve lived in Washington, DC for almost five years, and I’ve gotten used to pretty much any kind of disruption to my day because of security concerns. Whether it’s having to walk all the way around the White House complex due to it being shut down for security reasons, or not being able to cross the street because President Obama’s motorcade is coming through, minor interruptions to my day have become the norm. But last month, a man took even the most jaded DC residents, and the country, by surprise when he landed a gyrocopter in front of the U.S. Capitol Building. That man, Doug Hughes, was just indicted on six counts as a result of his misadventures, and could face a sentence of more than nine years in prison if found guilty.

Hughes is 61 and works as a mailman in Ruskin, Florida. He drove the gyrocopter up to Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, then flew it to DC and landed it on the Capitol lawn. Hughes was completely aware that what he was doing was against the law; in fact, breaking the law was sort of the point, as it would allow him to attract attention and publicity for his cause. He was trying to deliver 535 letters (one for each member of Congress) to the Capitol building, protesting the power that big money plays in Washington politics. Hughes’ contraption looked like this:

#Gyrocopter pilot due in court today pic.twitter.com/aZOn3exMrb

— 10 News (@WTSP10News) May 21, 2015

The charges against Hughes include two felonies and four misdemeanors. One issue is that he didn’t have any sort of license to operate his “aircraft”–the felony charges are to that effect. The misdemeanor charges include three counts of violating national defense airspace, and for mislabeling his gyrocopter as a mail-delivery vehicle. Regardless of the jail time that Hughes is probably going to serve, he’s received quite a bit of attention for his message as a result of the stunt. When he came back to DC for his hearing, he was met by plenty of supporters. He appeared in the E. Barrett Prettyman Courthouse just a few blocks away from where he landed his gyrocopter this Spring, and pleaded not guilty to the charges. He doesn’t contest that he flew the gyrocopter onto the Capitol lawn, just that he caused no damage when he did so.

#Gyrocopter pilot: “I’ll never do anything like this again, but I would do it exactly the way that I did.”@wusa9 pic.twitter.com/0RPHwliqaZ

— Andrea McCarren (@AndreaMcCarren) May 21, 2015

He also pledged to continue his fight against the influence of money in politics, and to continue to educate voters. Hughes stated:

Over time, the Congress, our Congress, has rewritten the rules to define an open marriage: They’re in bed with lobbyists, special interests, Wall Street and big banks. We are not asking, we are demanding that our government honor the vows of fidelity implicit in the Constitution…As long as I am free, I am going to keep introducing voters to solutions to the problems of corruption that the vast majority of voters recognize and oppose.

While Hughes certainly seems passionate about his cause, and did receive attention for the gyrocopter stunt, violating multiple laws really isn’t a great way to make a compelling argument for a cause, no matter how worthy the it is. Unfortunately for Hughes his actions, and the legal issues he’s going to have moving forward, probably won’t do much to advance his cause in the end.

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 Man Who Landed Gyrocopter Near Capitol Building Indicted appeared first on Law Street.

What’s the worst thing you’ve ever accidentally left in a bathroom? A cell phone? Purse? Credit card? How about a Glock pistol?

If you were lucky enough to find the missing item, who returned it to you? A co-worker? Boss? Janitor? Perhaps an eight-year-old child?

Here’s the situation: you are a member of House Speaker John Boehner’s police detail. You are protecting your charge when suddenly, nature calls. You answer this call in a lavatory at the Capitol. As you walk back to your post, you do not notice that you left your gun inside the restroom, in plain sight.

The firearm, a loaded Glock, was found by a child who was visiting the Capitol with his parents.

Courtesy of Giphy.com.

You might think to yourself, “How could I have done that!? The gun did not even have a safety on it. I hope no one else ever does what I just did. Come to think of it, I wonder how many times something like this has happened before. I’ve heard of instances where housekeepers or janitors have found unattended guns, but never one where a kid found one. Oh dear. Well, at least Capitol Police are not required to disclose any details about this incident.”

^^But of course, these are all just hypothetical thoughts, and no one knows the true identity of the individual who left his gun in the Capitol restroom. The only thing the public knows about the absent-minded individual is that he got suspended for six days without pay, and could potentially be fired.

Corinne Fitamant

Corinne Fitamant is a graduate of Fordham College at Lincoln Center where she received a Bachelors degree in Communications and a minor in Theatre Arts. When she isn’t pondering issues of social justice and/or celebrity culture, she can be found playing the guitar and eating chocolate. Contact Corinne at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post This is Probably the Worst Way to Forget Your Glock appeared first on Law Street.

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

What is edible Marijuana?

The Science

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

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

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

Why would someone choose edibles over smoking?

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

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

Edible Products

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

Health Concerns

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

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

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

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

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

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

Laws and Regulations

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

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

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

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

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

Other Laws

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

Resources

Primary

Colorado Department of Revenue: Retail Marijuana Regulations

Additional

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

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

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

CBS: Colorado Moves to Curb Dangers of Edible Pot Products

BoingBoing: Everything You Need to Know about Marijuana Edibles

Consumer Responsibly: Know the Law

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

Dixie Elixirs: Products

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

Jessica McLaughlin

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

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

Last week I wrote an article about gaming convention Gen Con threatening to take their expo elsewhere if Indiana Governor Mike Pence signed Senate Bill 101 into law. Gov Pence appeared unphased by the threat of losing big business, quietly signing the controversial bill into law last Thursday. Now three states have joined a list of notable celebrities, politicians, and corporate execs speaking out against the governor’s decision by banning state-funded travel to the state. These actions have resulted in Pence’s announcement that he will work this week to clarify the law so that it does not legalize discrimination.

The bill, which becomes effective July 1, 2015, would prevent individuals in the state from being forced by government entities to violate their religious beliefs. Contention has spawned from critics saying the bill will extend protection to businesses to legally discriminate against LGBT patrons by refusing them service. In a press conference this morning the governor addressed critics, announcing that he will work to fix the law by asking the state assembly to clarify that businesses do not have the right to deny service to anyone; he has no plans to make the state legislation disappear.

When news surfaced that Pence had privately signed the bill, it didn’t take long for a slew of celebrities and public officials to begin voicing their outrage via social media.

Apple is open for everyone. We are deeply disappointed in Indiana’s new law and calling on Arkansas Gov. to veto the similar #HB1228.

— Tim Cook (@tim_cook) March 27, 2015

Indiana’s anti-gay ‘Religious Freedom’ bill signed by Gov. Pence is absurd & insulting. This is 2015. Ridiculous. #RFRA — Larry King (@kingsthings) March 27, 2015

When will conservatives like Mike Pence figure out discriminating against #lgbt under the guise of faith is REALLY bad politics?

— Montel Williams (@Montel_Williams) March 26, 2015

Yesterday, states began taking action against the “anti-gay” bill by banning state-funded travel to Indiana. Connecticut became the first state to boycott Indiana over its Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) when Governor Dan Malloy signed an executive order barring state-funded travel to the state. Malloy announced his decision with the following tweets:

When new laws turn back the clock on progress, we can’t sit idly by. We are sending a message that discrimination won’t be tolerated. -DM

— Governor Dan Malloy (@GovMalloyOffice) March 30, 2015

Two other cities, San Francisco and Seattle, joined Connecticut by imposing similar travel bans in response to the bill. A list of businesses, following in the steps of Gen Con, have also begun to reconsider doing business with the state. Some notable opposition includes Angie’s List, which decided to halt a campus-expansion project in Indianapolis, and $4 billion software corporation Salesforce, whose CEO announced plans to “dramatically reduce our investment” in the state. PayPal co-founder Max Levchin, who also opposes the law, sent a message to his corporate peers telling CNN:

I’m asking my fellow CEOs to look at how they’re thinking about their relationship with the state and evaluate it in terms of the legislation that’s getting signed into law.

Indiana is hardly the first state to introduce RFRA laws; there are currently 20 states that have done so. However, Indiana’s law is “substantially different” according to the Huffington Post, which writes:

While other state RFRAs apply to disputes between a person and a government, Indiana’s law goes further and applies to disputes between private citizens. That means, for example, a business owner could use the law to justify discrimination against customers who might otherwise be protected under law.

The publicity from the bill has cast a negative light on the state, but a coalition of independent merchants in Indiana have joined a new campaign showing support for the LGBT community called Open For Service. Participating companies want customers to know that the bill won’t change the way they do business. The campaign celebrates businesses that oppose discrimination of any type, allowing companies to register with them and order stickers to be displayed in shop windows that read “this business serves everyone.”

The combination of this campaign with the current efforts of celebrities, politicians, and big CEOs are what most likely caused Pence to announce that his office will finally take action. No word yet on what will happen to the religious freedom law if the assembly fails to produce Pence’s requested joint anti-discrimination law this week, but at least the governor is finally attempting, albeit very poorly, to assure citizens that Indiana will be welcome to all.

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 Backlash Over Discriminatory Indiana Law Forces Governor to Clarify appeared first on Law Street.

There’s a big, often unrecognized problem for our nation’s poor. Many do not have access to the legal resources they need to complete processes like divorce or custody battles. Legal help is extremely expensive, and unlike in criminal cases, anyone who is a party to a lawsuit is not automatically granted an attorney. So, Washington is trying to help with that, by introducing a Limited License Legal Technicians (LLLT) rule.

The LLLT program will allow candidates to take a year-long series of courses at community and state schools. Those classes particularly focus on things like legal research, civil procedure, and contracts. Then they’ll complete a sort of apprenticeship with a practicing attorney. After those steps are completed, the students can become licensed to advise on certain aspects of law, particularly family law issues. Right now, the Washington LLLT program focuses on family law, but if successful, it could probably end up being expanded. The biggest new power granted to these LLLTs is the ability to give legal advice, which is currently prohibited for paralegals or legal assistants.

As Steve Crossman, who heads up the LLLT board, stated:

One of the unique things about this is they can practice on their own; (unlike paralegals) they don’t need to practice under the supervision of lawyers. They can practice in conjunction with practicing lawyers so they work out of the same office. We’re thinking they also could work for a government-funded or volunteer legal-services agency.

The program has its beginnings in 2012, when the Washington Supreme Court adopted a rule allowing LLLTs. Since then, the program has been developed and refined a few times, and the first class of future LLLTs began in 2014.

Overall, the LLLT program is focused on cost on a few different levels. First of all, the program is much cheaper for students. It’s no secret that law degrees are incredibly expensive. In 2013, private law schools cost an average of nearly $42,000 a year, public law schools for residents cost nearly $25,000, and public law schools for non-residents cost almost $37,000. In comparison, an LLLT program costs only about $10,000.

These lower costs will translate to the clients. An extensive 2009 study from the Legal Services Corporation showed that somewhere between 80-90 percent of low-income Americans don’t have access to legal aid for their civil legal issues. The cost is pretty prohibitive, and because law school is so expensive, new lawyers can’t always lower their prices to provide low-cost aid. Empowering LLLTs will allow low-cost services. While there are legal aid programs, many are underfunded and understaffed.

Some have been comparing the work of LLLTs to nurse practitioners, or other medical professionals who aren’t doctors but can still perform some medical services. Given that the first group of LLLTs began classes last year, some will be ready to work as early as this Spring.

This is an innovative program that may solve a lot of problems, both for aspiring legal professionals and those who require legal help. If it’s successful, hopefully other states will create similar programs.

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 Paralegals Will Soon Be Able to Give Legal Advice in Washington appeared first on Law Street.

It’s that time of the year again: yesterday the Obama administration released a proposed budget for the next fiscal year. As always, it made waves, sparked plenty of political statements from both sides of the aisle, and will take a while to get sorted out. There are some interesting provisions included in this budget though–one of the most notable is that it may allow Washington D.C. to finally move forward with the recreational marijuana legalization initiative that was passed in November.

Obama’s support for Washington D.C.’s ability to legalize recreational marijuana is incredibly subtle. In fact, it’s so subtle that it pretty much hinges on one word included in the budget: federal.

How can one small word have such a large impact on the ability of a city with roughly 650,000 people to enact a law? Well, there’s a lot of background that needs to be considered. D.C. residents voted to legalize recreational marijuana in November, with a huge margin–roughly 65 percent–in favor. The way that D.C.’s ability to pass laws is set up is very complicated, and has changed numerous times, but at the end of the day, Congress usually has final say.

Many Republicans, as well as some others in Congress, were unhappy with the idea of the nation’s capitol legalizing marijuana, so when Congress made a funding bill, it included wording that pretty much blocked D.C. from moving forward with the initiative. It stated that no funds could be used to enact the legalized marijuana initiative in the District of Columbia. Republican House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz explained the logic behind the block, saying:

Looking at the Constitution, Washington, D.C. is different. They are not a state and we have a role to play and the Congress passed this. I respect the people who live here and most everything passes through without a problem. But the idea that this is going to be a haven for pot smoking, I can’t support that

But Obama’s budget deviated from that slightly with the use of that one word: “federal.” Obama’s budget states that no federal funds can be used to implement the law. The distinction there is it doesn’t preclude D.C. from using local funds to do so.

There’s obviously no guarantee that the changed language will end up having any effect on whether or not legalized recreational marijuana actually happens in Washington D.C. However, it does show Obama’s continued support for the autonomy of Washington residents. This last July, Obama became the first sitting president to endorse D.C. statehood, saying:

I think I’ve long believed that D.C. pays — folks in D.C. pay taxes like everybody else. They contribute to the overall well-being of the country like everybody else. They should be represented [in Congress] like everybody else. And it’s not as if Washington, D.C., is not big enough compared to other states. There has been a long movement to get D.C. statehood, and I’ve been for it for quite some time.

While there are a lot of debates over D.C. statehood, and the exact rights that should be afforded to the city, the fact that Obama supports the ability for the city to do as its residents please has been made pretty crystal clear. The insertion of the word “federal” in the budget as it relates to the legalization of marijuana in D.C., as small as it may seem, is just the most recent example.

There’s no way to make any sort of clear prediction what will happen with the D.C. effort to legalize recreational marijuana–there are just too many moving parts right now. If Obama’s budget remains as is, and prohibits federal but not local funds from being used, recreational marijuana could soon be a fixture in D.C. The ball is now in Congress’s court.

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 Obama’s Budget Could Help D.C. Implement Legalized Marijuana appeared first on Law Street.

California legislators are currently mulling legislation that would change the minimum smoking age in the state from 18 to 21. The bill was filed this week in the California Senate, and in addition to raising the minimum age, it would allow the State Department of Public Health to conduct random inspections of cigarette retailers.

This bill was filed by Democratic State Senator Ed Hernandez, who represents a part of Los Angeles County. His bill is supported by many prominent health advocacy organizations, including the American Cancer Society, the Cancer Action Network, and the American Lung Association.

Although the bill would legalize alcohol and cigarettes at the same age for young people–21–the motivations seem to be different. While alcohol-restriction laws are mostly based on developmental health and public safety, the attempt to restrict cigarettes to only those over 21 seems to be more focused on preventing teens from smoking young and getting addicted. President of the California Medical Association Luther Cobb explained “that increasing the age at which people can purchase tobacco from 18 to 21 will help reduce tobacco use in young people, hence reducing the number of preventable diseases.”

Although this would be a great step toward reducing the prevalence of teenagers beginning smoking habits at younger ages, Hernandez realizes that his bill means standing up to the powerful tobacco companies–and their lobbying forces. Hernandez said in a statement:

Tobacco companies know that people are more likely to become addicted to smoking if they start at a young age. We can no longer afford to sit on the sidelines while Big Tobacco markets to our kids and gets another generation of young people hooked on a product that will ultimately kill them.

California isn’t the only state to move toward changing the rules when it comes to smoking. Earlier this month, Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson proposed legislation that would raise the minimum smoking age to 21 in that state as well. Ferguson cited the fact that 90 percent of those who are smokers began the practice in their teens as his reasoning for pushing this bill. In addition to preventing teenagers from smoking, Ferguson pointed out that it would save Washington money in healthcare costs. Two Washington state legislators, Republican Senator Mark Miloscia and Democratic Representative Tina Orwall, stood with Ferguson in a bipartisan effort, although like in California, it’s expected that getting such legislation passed will require a fight against tobacco companies and the politicians they fund.

While Washington and California are certainly getting in on this movement earlier, they aren’t alone. Most states require that residents be 18 to smoke, though some have set the age at 19. Utah, New Jersey, Alabama, and Alaska, as well as the District of Columbia, all have minimum smoking ages of 19.

There are also cities and counties that have made the move. For example, Hawaii County, also known as the “Big Island” of Hawaii, has raised its smoking age to 21, as well as select counties in other states such as Massachusetts. Even more notably, New York City raised its legal smoking age to 21 at the beginning of 2014.

While it will certainly be an uphill battle given the money in Big Tobacco’s coffers, the moves to up the smoking age in California and Washington are encourging. While the percentage of young smokers has fallen dramatically in the last 50-odd years, hopefully bills like these will continue to drop that number even further.

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 California, Washington Aim to Raise Smoking Age to 21 appeared first on Law Street.

The 2014 midterm elections weren’t the only reason to pay attention to political news this year. Keep scrolling to check Law Street’s top 10 political stories of 2014.

1. BridgeGate: 7 Reasons to Watch the Chris Christie Scandal

This winter, revelations about Governor Chris Christie’s involvement in the shutting down of the George Washington Bridge came to light. The whole scandal raised a lot of questions about Christie’s ability to be a contender on the national stage, quite possibly as the 2016 Republican Presidential nominee. Whether or not Christie chooses to run, there will be a lot of eyes on his handling of “Bridgegate.”

2. Marijuana Legalization: Let’s Be Blunt 

The states of Colorado and Washington voted to legalize recreational marijuana in 2012, and the sale and use started moving into the public sphere earlier this year. However, given that Colorado and Washington were the first two states to do so, many were left with questions about how exactly the legalization worked, what affects it could have on society, and how the Washington and Colorado laws would interact with federal law.

3. Drone Rules: Are They Enough to Protect Civilians?

Drones have evolved from being a futuristic fantasy to real part of American military strategy. However, like any new innovation, the legality is developed after the technology itself. In early 2014, the Obama Administration’s drone strike policies were a hot topic of conversation, especially after the disclosures regarding a December 2013 strike in Yemen.

4. Hobby Lobby: They Want to Remove the Corporate Veil — and Your Birth Control Coverage

Image courtesy of [Annabelle Shemer via Flickr]

Another hot political topic in 2014 was the Supreme Court case that’s widely become known as Hobby Lobby. It questioned whether or not the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) required employers to provide contraception for their employees, regardless of the company’s religious beliefs. Concerns about the case extended far beyond whether or not those particular employees would get contraceptive coverage, as it could have set a dangerous precedent for all sorts of discriminatory policies.

5. Obamacare Is Here to Stay! But It Still Kind of Sucks

Image courtesy of [Daniel Borman via Flickr]

The much maligned Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) finally went into effect this year, with the first open enrollment period. The act provided healthcare for many who previously didn’t have it, but that doesn’t mean that it was anywhere close to perfect. Partisan bickering over the law remained steady, but the Affordable Care Act can certainly be considered a step in the right direction.

6. Stuck in McAllen: Jose Vargas and the Texas Immigration Crisis

This summer, the arrival of undocumented youth at the Texas border sparked political debates, some outrage, and acts of compassion. One of the biggest advocates for these young people was a man named Jose Vargas, a prominent undocumented immigrant who works as a journalist and advocate. When Vargas traveled to McAllen, Texas, one of the towns most heavily affected by the arrival of the children, he was briefly detained and then released–cementing his status as one of the lucky few.

7. Debating Minimum Wage in America

As the cost of living in the United States continues to creep upward, and the American economy rebounds from one of the worst economic crises in recent history, many people still struggle to meet ends meet. Minimum wage jobs are an important sector of our economy–but what exactly do we mean when we say minimum wage? It’s an important political question that has yet to find an exact answer.

8. “Gay Panic” Defense Outlawed in California

For some time, the “gay panic” defense served as a way to claim a sort of self-defense in regards to hate crimes. While it doesn’t have a strong track record of actually succeeding, there were no laws specifically forbidding it. This fall, California became the first state to actually ban the “gay panic” defense, an important step in the fight against homophobia.

9. Campaign Finance: Free Speech or Unfair Influence?

In the wake of Citizens United and other landmark court decisions, our rules about campaign finance have seen some extreme changes in the last few years. These changes will have a huge impact on the 2016 Presidential elections, and pretty much every election moving forward, unless more changes happen. Given the topsy-turvy world that is the debate over campaign finance, anything is possible.

10. Just Get Ready For It: Another Clinton in the White House

We’ve all barely recovered from 2012, not to mention this year’s midterms, but speculation about 2016 has, predictably, already begun. Probably the Democratic front-runner at this point, Hillary Clinton has a lot of support. There are many reasons to get on the Hills bandwagon–including feminism, foreign policy, and her awesome facial expressions.

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 ICYMI: Top 10 Political Stories of 2014 appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

#2 Columbia Law takes Progressive Stance on Mental Health

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

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

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

Chelsey D. Goff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marisa Mostek

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

The post The Dumbest Laws in the United States: Pacific Northwest Edition appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

As you probably know, marijuana is now legal for recreational use in Colorado and Washington, and soon it will be legal in Alaska and Oregon, along with possibly Washington, D.C. pending Congressional approval.

I was surprised to see recently that the University of Denver’s Sturm College of Law will be offering a class on the laws of marijuana beginning in January 2015. Created by professor Sam Kamin, the course is called “Representing the Marijuana Client” and it intended to instruct law students on how to represent parties in cases involving marijuana as a result of the wave of state legalizations. According to Kamin, “topics covered will include regulatory compliance, criminal defense, contract, banking, tax, real estate, and multidisciplinary practice. It’s not going to be a joke.”

I don’t think that this class is a joke at all. In fact, I love the idea! Obviously it is legal now in several places and people will need to know their rights–or really their lawyers will need to know their rights. It’s what they are paid to do!

I am in the process of applying to law schools, and before applying I took a very long time to see what various schools had to offer. I love a program that can separate itself from others and really show that it cares about the future lawyers it’s teaching. The University of Denver’s Sturm College of Law is able to recognize times are changing and so should some of its courses. Taking a class on the legalization of marijuana is vital to the lawyers and citizens of the states where it is legalized. Knowing your rights is the best way to stay out of trouble!

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Sturm College of Law Changes With Times, Offers Marijuana Class appeared first on Law Street.

If you live in a major metropolitan area, or honestly even a small one, there’s a very decent chance that you’ll see protests today. You probably saw some last night as well. For any of you who have been living under a particularly comfortable and sheltered rock lately, the protests focus on the cases of two black men killed by police officers. Michael Brown, an 18 year old in Ferguson, Missouri, was shot and killed by Officer Darren Wilson on August 9, 2014. On November 24 it was announced that a grand jury had decided not to indict Wilson. Next, there’s the case of Eric Garner in New York, who was killed by Officer Daniel Pantaleo on July 17, 2014. Pantaleo was filmed putting Garner in a chokehold, even though that tactic is banned by the New York Police Department.

Here’s an example of the “hands up don’t shoot” gesture being used in protest:

"Hands up, dont shoot!!" #NYC #FergusonDecision #justice pic.twitter.com/OwMfX72v4H

— Arnaud Montagard (@arnaudmontagard) November 26, 2014

And Garner’s last words, which have become a rallying cry:

I almost can't read this. So painful. So ugly. #ICantBreathe pic.twitter.com/KVVbK6Gf0A

— Tessa Francis (@tessafrancis) December 4, 2014

Those are the roots of the protests, the catalysts. But the protests aren’t just about these two men. They’re about the greater issue–or more appropriately issues. I’m not trying to make an exhaustive list here but these protests are about the national conversations we need to have on racism, racial profiling, police violence, police militarization, etc, etc, etc. The protests are about a broken system–the deaths of Brown and Garner are tragic symptoms of this system.

The protests have been taking place all over the United States. New York, where Garner was killed, was especially busy. There was a “die-in” at Grand Central Station yesterday evening; a “die-in” is when protesters lie on the ground, silently.

Hundreds of people staged a "die-in" at Grand Central in NYC after #EricGarner decision. http://t.co/che6tRNyli pic.twitter.com/8cNl2DsEUw

— Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) December 4, 2014

Protesters marched through New York City and temporarily blocked traffic at major transportation hubs, including the Lincoln Tunnel. One of the protesters explained her motivations, saying:

Every 28 hours a young black man is killed by police. Only 2 percent of police are indicted. Those numbers are crazy. It’s telling young black men that their lives don’t matter and their deaths can be passed over.

Protests were also very active in our nation’s capital. Last night, protesters flooded Dupont Circle and stopped traffic, as well as at some other locations in Northwest Washington. Today there will be a protest over by the Department of Justice at 4:00pm.

Protesters blocking DC intersection to protest non-indictment in #Garner case. Protest is peaceful. Cops standing by pic.twitter.com/j0JSd9B62O

— Athena Jones (@AthenaCNN) December 4, 2014

Cities all over the country look like this, and I’m going to leave these pictures and videos here, because I think they say more than words ever could:

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Philly protest at Tree Lighting event at City Hall #FergusonPHL #BlackLivesMatter #HandsUpDontShoot: http://t.co/FpDJKfBylC #EricGarner

— Daryel Jay (@DaryelJay) December 4, 2014

Oakland, California:

#EricGarner protest in Oakland. #NoJusticeNoPeace #BlackLivesMatter pic.twitter.com/0yxNmnJQQM

— Diana Saverin (@dianasaverin) December 4, 2014

Seattle, Washington

Seattle protests no indictment for NYPD officer whose chokehold led to death of #EricGarner >> http://t.co/nXEihNYg4p pic.twitter.com/I6PZktVbge

— KIRO 7 (@KIRO7Seattle) December 4, 2014

New York, New York

Garner widow on husband's killer: 'No I, don't accept his apologies’ http://t.co/NLncfA5Mft pic.twitter.com/pbkP6TCoVA

— Chicago Tribune (@chicagotribune) December 4, 2014

Those are faces of change. Faces tired of the way that our system has been failing. Faces that have had enough. Faces that deserve to be, finally, listened to.

If you’re interested in joining a protest, here’s where they’re happening today. They aren’t going to end anytime soon, because this crisis clearly isn’t ending anytime soon either.

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 #HandsUpDontShoot #ICantBreathe: Americans Continue Protests appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

It’s been a truly whirlwind few years for marijuana legalization. In 2012, voters in Washington and Colorado voted to legalize marijuana use in those states. Others continue to decriminalize marijuana and allow its use for medical purposes. Today Oregon, Alaska, and the District of Columbia will vote on whether or not to legalize marijuana. How do these laws stack up? Read full article here.

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

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

Chelsey D. Goff

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

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

Anyone who went to public school (and probably a decent chunk of the children who went to private school, as well) remember school lunch time. You file into the cafeteria, grab one of the brightly colored plastic trays, and then take whatever they give you, with maybe a scant handful of options along the way. Of course, some students bring lunch, and others have dietary concerns–in middle school I ordered a peanut butter and jelly sandwich approximately 75 percent of the time–but that was of course before peanut butter was banned from many cafeterias. But for the vast majority of the many, many students who order lunch each day there is very little choice. In addition, in many places there are very specific rules governing students during lunchtime. An overall unhappiness with their school-provided nutrition is why students at Farmington High School in Farmington, Connecticut, started boycotting school lunches.

Students at Farmington High in particular have a problem with Chartwells, the food provider for the school. They allege that the food is disgusting–according to a Washington Post article:

Since Chartwells replaced the district’s in-house meal program in 2012, according to the students, it has meant an increasingly unpalatable menu, with food that sometimes features mold, human hair, dangerously undercooked meats, insects and portion sizes fit for a small, starving child.

In addition, students have butt up against policies by the school involving the ability of students to charge food. So, they boycotted the lunches this week. The boycott has apparently been ended, and dialogue has opened up between the students, the school, and Chartwells. Principle William Silva stated:

We had some of the boycott organizers, so to speak, and other student leaders who we had reached out to make sure we were hearing all student voices. Everyone contributed, it was very positive, very respectful and we talked about some of the things we’re immediately going to do.

This nation has a big problem when it comes to school lunches, especially because so many of them are served to students who do not have any other choice when it comes to their nutrition. In fiscal year 2013 alone, the government provided free or reduced-price meals to nearly 31 million students–totaling about 5 billion lunches. That’s an essential source of nutrition for students whose families don’t necessarily have the resources to pay for healthy nutrition outside of school, and its exactly those kind of students whom the aid programs are designed to help. In addition, while it’s easy to make the argument that students who have the means but do not want to buy lunch can just bring it from home, it’s not really a fair one. Even students who could make lunches at home might not have the time, the ability, or the support, or they have to contend with long bus rides that mean that they don’t have access to proper refrigeration.

The students of Farmington High School were right to boycott the fact that they were not being provided adequate nutrition. And it’s not just that particularly school–Everett High School in D.C. is also undertaking a boycott for pretty much the same reasons. Meghan Hellrood is a senior at the school and is organizing the boycott, complaining that the lunches aren’t filling enough. While these are just a few isolated incidents, I’d love to see students nationally stand up for themselves and make sure that make their voices heard about bad school nutrition.

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 School Lunch Boycotts in Connecticut, D.C. Highlight Bad School Nutrition appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Ben Casselman (@bencasselman) November 5, 2014

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

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post Oregon and Alaska Legalize Marijuana appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been a truly whirlwind few years for marijuana legalization. In 2012, voters in Washington and Colorado voted to legalize marijuana use in those states. Others continue to decriminalize marijuana and allow its use for medical purposes. Today Oregon, Alaska, and the District of Columbia will vote on whether or not to legalize marijuana. How do these laws stack up? Check out the infographic below, based on information from Measure 91 in Oregon, Ballot Measure 2 in Alaska, and Ballot Initiative 71 in DC.

Oregon, Alaska, and the District of Columbia aren’t the only places considering marijuana legalization today. The cities of Lewistown and South Portland, Maine, are going to vote on whether or not to legalize it — Portland, Maine has already made it legal for adults to own less than an ounce of the substance. In addition, votes continue on legalizing medical marijuana. If the initiative currently up for a vote in Florida passes, it would make the Sunshine State the twenty-fourth to legalize marijuana, as well as the first southern state.

Regardless of how these particular measures do, there’s a good chance that we’ll see more states starting to legalize marijuana in the very near future. The national opinion on marijuana has changed rapidly. Polls fluctuate, but the amount of Americans who believe legalizing marijuana would be in the best interest of the nation hovers around 50 percent. In addition, most Americans don’t think that jail time should be served for small amounts of marijuana, which is now very much a “soft” drug; it doesn’t receive the same kind of punishment as more addictive and harmful drugs.

The progress in Alaska, Oregon, and the District of Columbia might not mean that we suddenly see a large wave of marijuana legalization across the country — it will still be illegal under federal law. But it will be interesting to see if any other states join Colorado and Washington this year.

Editor’s note: The infographic in this article was updated November 5, 2014 to reflect each vote’s outcome.

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post States to Watch Today: Marijuana Laws On the Ballot in Oregon, Alaska, DC appeared first on Law Street.

There are few topics as loaded in the American consciousness right now as the crime of rape. The Department of Education launched a massive investigation into the way that universities and colleges handle rape allegations, and hashtags like #YesAllWomen and #BeenRapedNeverReported have led to raw, powerful discussions on social media. However, one of the most immediate issues when it comes to dealing with rape in this nation is the complicated way in which we prosecute it. The Washington State Supreme Court just made a ruling that sheds light into the difficulty that comes with trying a rape case.

There are obviously a lot of moving parts when it comes to rape prosecution — social pressures, lack of reporting, and institutionalized victim-blaming to name just a few. All of these are essential factors that affect every step of a rape prosecution, and that needs to be kept in mind. But on the most basic level, prosecuting rape is complicated because of one simple question that we still haven’t figured out: who needs to prove what?

Think of a murder case. The prosecution has to prove that the defendant murdered the victim. Because of the nature of that crime, there’s no paranoia about false accusations the way there is with a rape case. Very few people argue about what the victim was wearing, or whether they invited someone over, or whether they were drinking matter at all. There’s no claim that the victim didn’t make it clear enough that they didn’t want to be murdered. There’s no real consent argument to make, except for possibly in a doctor-assisted suicide case, but those are rare outliers, not a normal consideration. We as a people know that being murdered is horrible, and the person who commits the murder is in the wrong. In order to make sure that the right person receives justice,however, affirmative defenses do exist — the most well-known probably being self-defense or insanity. This is not to say that murder cases are straightforward, but rather that the idea of “murder” and how to deal with it in a court is significantly more understood and accepted.

Compare that to a rape case. Like I said, there are all the other issues to contend with first — lack of investigation, lack of reporting, intense cultural shame. For all of those reasons, and many others, the Rape Abuse and Incest National Network (RAINN) estimates that for every 100 rapes, only 46 are reported to the police, and only nine of those even get a day in court. Those abysmal statistics aside, when the case makes it to court there are even more compounded issues.

One of the big problems that we can’t seem to move past is the mere concept that rape can involve an act that in another context is not a crime. It’s different than other violent crimes in that way; no one can make that argument about murder or robbery. The inability to grasp that concept is what has led to national paranoia over false accusations and a perverted fascination about the actions of the victim.

And that brings us to the prosecution of rape — consent is so hard to define and prove that it makes even the ability to prosecute rape messy. A recent case in Washington highlights the issue. The State Supreme Court overturned a ruling that placed the burden on the defendant to prove consent in a rape case. This was a 1975 decision that made it so that the prosecution didn’t have to focus so much on proving there was a lack of consent, but rather the defendant had to show that there was consent. This protected the victim from unfair and inappropriate scrutiny. As Justice Susan Owens put it in her dissent:

In 1975, the legislature took an important step toward justice for rape victims when it modified the laws to focus on the conduct of the perpetrator and not the victim…. Not only does the majority’s decision invalidate years of work undertaken to properly refocus our rape law, but it also has serious implications for victims of an already underreported type of crime.

A move toward providing the most just outcomes whenever possible should be applauded. But within the context of how difficult it already is to prove a rape case and the horrible way our society usually deals with rape, it’s tough to imagine that this decision truly did that. There’s a lot that needs to happen to ensure that our justice system fairly deals with rape and sexual assault, and to be fair a lot of it, such as working to remove the stigma and societal judgment about rape, isn’t even really possible for the judiciary to do. That being said, this step backward in Washington has a lot of potential to be dangerous. There’s no perfect answer yet for how to best prosecute rape, but Washington’s step backward can’t be it.

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 Washington Courts Turn Back the Clock on Rape Prosecution appeared first on Law Street.

American politicians and lobbyists have long had an uncomfortably entangled relationship. It makes sense–lobbyists usually have a lot of disposable income, and politicians know the importance of keeping friends around. In that vein, I’ve seen multiple news stories in recent days that indicate that lobbyists throwing lavish parties for the politicians they are trying to woo is increasingly the norm. As we approach election day in one of the most cash-heavy midterm elections ever, it’s easy to be concerned about the way that money and lobbyists can influence our elected leaders. A few recent incidents involving politicians and lobbyists–such as the high-profile case involving Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster has raised an important question–how cozy is too cozy?

The history of lobbying in the United States is a long one, and it’s intrinsic to our nations history. While the Founding Fathers probably didn’t foresee the high concentration of lobbying activities that we’ve all come to know and tolerate today, the idea that you can petition the government is viewed as a right all Americans have. It’s now a gigantic industry–OpenSecrets.org puts annual lobbying dollars spent in the billions, and estimates that unique lobbyists number roughly 12,000.

So what does this billion dollar industry do? Well according to recent analysis done by the New York times, a popular trend is essentially throwing massive parties for politicians who lobbyists are trying to pursue. In particular, there has been a recent push by lobbyists to woo Attorneys General, in order to attempt to influence investigations in particular states. For example, there were rumors that 5-Hour-Energy, the mini-energy drink, was going to be investigated by Attorneys General in multiple states. In return, Lobbyists attempted to stem the investigations by working with those Attorneys General who were seriously considering looking into 5-Hour-Energy’s advertising practices.

Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster has ended up being one of the principle players in the 5-Hour-Energy debate, as the New York Times alleges that Koster was basically wined and dined by lobbyists to stop looking into 5-Hour-Energy, as well as other transgressions. As the New York Time sums up interactions between Attorney General Koster and Lori Kalani, an attorney for Dickstein Shapiro who was working on behalf of 5-Hour-Energy:

Ms. Kalani’s firm, Dickstein Shapiro, had courted the attorney general at dinners and conferences and with thousands of dollars in campaign contributions. Mr. Koster told Ms. Kalani that he was unaware of the investigation, and he reached for his phone and called his office. By the end of the weekend, he had ordered his staff to pull out of the inquiry, a clear victory for 5-Hour Energy.

It’s not just Attorneys General that are accused of being susceptible to pretty intense wining and dining from lobbyists. CNN pointed out that some of our elected officials indulge in “weekend getaways” provided by lobbyists, where they get to stay at some of the nation’s most posh hotels. These vacations allow unique access for lobbyists. This isn’t really an issue divided by party lines, either, given that politicians from both sides of the aisle have been found to partake.

Most importantly, it’s not illegal. It’s barely even frowned-upon. As the influence of money in our elections grows, it’s likely that we’ll see dealings like those allegedly committed by Koster became even more common.

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 Lobbyists and American Politicians: How Cozy is Too Cozy? appeared first on Law Street.

I walked off the Woodley Metro yesterday at 5:30 pm and was kind of surprised to see Connecticut Avenue completely deserted at the height of rush hour.  All cars had been cleared from the street. No traffic. No parked cars. Completely quiet.

What in the world was happening?

Word soon was out: President Obama would be passing through.

Last summer, President Obama exulted in his ideal-for-the-evening-newscasts forays beyond the White House. Ice cream. Starbucks. “The Bear is loose!” But things are different now. Fence jumpers. Ottawa shootings. This is what it looks like when The Bear is loose today. Clear the streets. Eerie quiet at the height of rush hour. Nobody moves.

The President drove up and back yesterday afternoon to a private $32,400-a-seat fundraiser at the estate of Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and his wife, Sharon. The Rockefeller estate is a little bit north of Woodley, at 2121 Park Road adjacent to Rock Creek Park. Press was excluded from this event, and no info was listed on the official White House daily schedule.

I decided to stay put and wait to see how the Presidential motorcade was rolling now, a day after the killings in Ottawa and the ongoing White House fence jumpings.

The answer: These days the Bear rolls very quietly, in a traffic-free bubble.

I took this cell-phone video:

Here is the order of the motorcade:
9 DC cops on motorcycles.  Followed by…
1 DC cop car.  Followed by…
1 Secret Service SUV…
The Presidential limo, aka “Cadillac One”…
1 back-up limo traveling alongside Cadillac One…
3 more Secret Service SUVs…
The Secret Service “War Wagon” housing a counter-assault SWAT team…
2 more Secret Service Vans…
Another Secret Service SUV
1 DC Fire Department ambulance (only Obama gets this; not Biden)…
And finally…
2 more DC cop cars.

About 10 minutes after the motorcade passed, presumably after the Bear was back at the White House, ordinary citizens were once again allowed on Connecticut Avenue.
—

John A. Jenkins (@JenkinsAuthor) is Founder and CEO of Law Street Media.

Featured image courtesy of [Joe Crimmings via Flickr]

John A. Jenkins

John A. Jenkins is Founder & CEO of Law Street Media. Contact John at jjenkins@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How the Bear Rolls Now appeared first on Law Street.

With the long weekend coming up, you’ll have some extra time to laugh about the weird, stupid, and ill-advised things that people try to do that end with a trip to the police station. To get you started, check out the slideshow below of the five weirdest arrests this week:

[SlideDeck2 id=26400 ress=1]

—

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 [Socrate76 via Wikimedia]

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 Weird Arrests of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

For the last few days a video has been making its way through certain circles of the internet. One of our bloggers, the awesome Allison Dawson, even wrote a piece about it entitled, “9/11 Never Forget? Not Exactly for These GW Students.” The video is a handful of students from The George Washington University here in D.C. answering a few questions on current events. The interviewer is Ashley Pratte, a spokeswoman for Young America’s Foundation. If you haven’t seen it yet, it’s right here:

Now before I continue, full disclosure here. I’m a recent GW alum. I still have some school spirit. I had a great time at GW, made some of my best friends there, and will always be thankful for the opportunities I was offered. That being said, there are plenty of things that I will always slam GW for — looking at you former GW President Stephen Joel Trachtenberg for making offensive comments about rape into a particularly lurid art form. When it comes to this video though, I’m going to stand with my alma mater.

The tactics that YAF used were cheap, gotcha journalism. It seems like they came in with a hypothesis — students at a mostly liberal university that’s often named one of the most politically active schools in the country are a shining example of how today’s young people are ignorant about world events. I mean come on, the video started with the interviewer standing in front of kegs being unloaded. I’m sure that was just the most convenient place to stand, and not at all an entirely unsubtle reference to the fact that occasionally college kids drink rather than watch CNN.

And then let’s think about the questions they asked: 9/11, ISIS, and the celebrity nude photo leak. The phrasing of the 9/11 question was vague at best: “Next week marks the anniversary of a major national event. Do you know what that is?” I was an international affairs major, so I’m just going to need you guys to believe me when I say I know a fair bit about 9/11. But to be honest, I don’t know I would have gotten that question right. I am a self-sufficient adult, yet I came really damn close to not realizing my birthday was coming up a few weeks ago. That’s not a fair question — ask me what major national event is coming up next week and I’m pretty sure my response is going to be “remind me what dates are next week?” A fairer question would have included at least an attempt at context, for example, “What major national event falls in the second week of September?” or an actually substantive question, such as “What happened on September 11, 2001?” or “Who committed the acts of terror against the U.S.?” Should more students have gotten the question right as it was? Probably. But is it fair to conclude from a vaguely worded question that those students don’t know what 9/11 is, or remember it? Hardly.

And let’s talk about the sample size used in this “study.” Thirty students who were put completely on the spot while cameras were rolling…out of a population of roughly 24,000, including grad students… who were randomly found on campus. Congrats, that’s a statistically negligible sample size of .00125 percent! Listen, if YAF had gone ahead and conducted a legitimate survey of a real sample size and gotten the same results, I’d be embarrassed on behalf of my alma mater. But this is just silly. Grabbing students on their way home from class or work, asking them poorly contextualized questions, and then watching your hypothesis come true is hardly good journalism.

What this was was a poorly laid trap.

Out of curiosity, I actually tracked down one of the students in the video. Noah Katz, a freshman in GW’s Elliott School of International Affairs, told me that while Pratte was very polite, he though the question about 9/11 was weirdly phrased. Katz told me, “they asked what landmark United States event is having its anniversary in the next coming weeks. I immediately thought about things like Roe v Wade or Brown v Board of Education.” 

Finally, let’s stop and think for a minute here. Even if some students don’t know the names of the journalists beheaded by ISIS, but do know that Jennifer Lawrence had her nude photos leaked, does that really tell us anything about them as people? You could play this game with anything. If you tracked me down on the street and asked me about music or physics, my answers would probably be pretty embarrassing. One of the greatest things about my college experience was that i was exposed to people from different backgrounds, different political affiliations, and with different interests, hobbies, and priorities than myself. That’s how real life is, that’s how America is, and that’s OK.

Yes, we should all strive our best to be informed, but a three-minute video on the street with 30 students and blatantly biased techniques doesn’t do much to convince me that we’re doing a bad job of that. Instead of tearing each other down for some gaps in knowledge, let’s celebrate the fact that we live in a country where we have the freedom to have those kinds of differences.

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 Response: Stupid GW Students or Gotcha Journalism? appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

Thirteen years ago yesterday our country was shaken to the core. I was sixteen, skipping school and watching some awful show on television when the program was interrupted by the news reporting on the first airplane hitting the Twin Towers in New York City. Not even 20 minutes later, as the news anchors were still reporting on the crash, we all watched as another plane crashed into the second tower. It was live TV and there was no controlling what the viewers were going to see. The confusion and horror coming from the news anchors was something I could never forget. My brother and I sat in silence not knowing what to do, what to think, or what was going to happen next. Parents pulled their kids out of school and I remember this feeling of urgency in the air and the uneasiness of what could possibly happen next. Thousands of people had just lost their lives and the country witnessed it. There were no answers, only questions of why and what will happen next.

Every year we remember that horrendous day. It was a constant fear for the first year or two, but also a great feeling that our country had come together and we had heroes to thank daily. Budweiser aired a commercial during Superbowl XXXVI that really demonstrated the somber tone and respect the entire country had for the events of September 11, 2001. The ad was only shown once to ensure they did not profit from it in any way. Even today, 13 years later, it is the most moving dedication done in such a small amount of time.

Yesterday was a somber day for us all. Most news outlets covered the anniversary in addition to current events. While watching one of the programs I had to do a quick rewind to make sure I was hearing it correctly. Young America’s Foundation had gone to the George Washington University campus in Washington, DC last Friday, September 5, to interview students about the anniversary of September 11. YAF only had a few questions to ask these students:

1. Next week marks the anniversary of a major national event. Do you know what that is?
2. Do you know what ISIS is?
3. Did you know that ISIS is responsible for the beheading of two American journalists? If so, could you name one?
4. Are you aware of the celebrity “nude photo” hacking scandal? If so, could you name any of the celebrities involved?

The responses from these kids are just mind blowing…

So the total results:

• Six out of 30 students recognized that this week is the anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks.
• Four out of 30 students were able to name one of the American journalists beheaded at the hands of ISIS.
• 29 out of 30 students were able to identify one or more celebrities involved in the nude photo hacking scandal.

The kid interviewed two minutes in genuinely reacts like he had no idea what had been going on and it clearly upset him, which is great but frustrating. Actually this whole situation is frustrating. How is it that college students in their late teens and early twenties know more about pop culture and the ridiculousness of a nude picture hacking scandal than they do about current events and the death of two Americans at the hands of terrorists? This is not only the responsibility of these young adults to know what’s going on but it is the responsibility of teachers, parents, and our society as a whole.

There are already so many issues with what kids are learning in the classroom today that this should not surprise me, but it honestly does. How is this possible? When I was growing up my parents and grandparents talked to me about Pearl Harbor and the significance of that date. We may have brushed through it in history class but it is a day that I remember because it was an important part of history. My grandparents even lost friends and family members during the attack on Pearl Harbor and World War II. The same could be said about 9/11 and the Iraq War that followed. Hell, there are even movies about the two events. While there have been about seven movies made about the Pearl Harbor attacks, nearly 20 have been produced about 9/11.

What has become of our younger generation? Things need to change or our society will become Idiocracy.

This video is a great representation of what is going on in our culture and it needs to stop. We need our children to be better and smarter and more informed. We are not only disappointing our parents and grandparents, but we are disappointing our country, our culture, the world, and our Founding Fathers! Flabbergasted.

I don’t want to end this post on a note of frustration for our society. Instead I want to share a moving video about the last surviving search and rescue dog who returned to Ground Zero yesterday, a place she had not been to since 2001.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Never Forget.

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 9/11 Never Forget? Not Exactly For These GW Students appeared first on Law Street.

A new concept is sweeping the United States, one that many of our peer countries have had for years: paid sick leave. Yesterday, Governor Jerry Brown of California signed a law requiring most employers in the state to provide at least three paid sick days per year to their workers. While some American cities have already created similar laws, and the state of Connecticut has paid sick days in place for businesses that fall under certain requirements, California makes history as the first state to sign such an inclusive bill with regard to this benefit.

The idea is pretty simple — sickness is unpredictable. And sometimes people who have already used their vacation days, or simply can’t afford to take a day off, ever, get sick. When those people who can’t take a day off from work get sick, they not only most likely prolong their own illness, but also open up those they work with to sickness as well.

California’s law, although passed after Connecticut’s, is certainly more inclusive. Connecticut’s law, passed earlier this year, applies only to businesses with 50 employees or more. Manufacturers and certain types of tax-exempt organizations, regardless of the number of employees, aren’t required to follow the law. Day workers, non-hourly workers, and salaried employees also aren’t included — although that may be because salaried workers are often given sick days anyway. Connecticut’s law does, however, allow workers to accrue up to five sick days and while it was a unique and ground-breaking step, California’s law is significantly more far-reaching.

California’s law, on the other hand, applies to almost all employees, allowing them to acquire one hour of paid sick time for every 30 hours worked. Assembleywoman Lorena Gonzalez explained the motivation behind the more inclusive law, saying:

We become the first state in the nation to guarantee paid sick days for every single private-sector worker in the state — no matter what industry they work in, no matter if they are part-time or seasonal, and regardless of the size of their employer. This means more than 6.5 million more workers in this state will be able to take up to three days off when they or their child is sick without fearing the loss of income, hours or their job.

Paid sick time off is an especially notable issue to examine because of the incredibly fast way in which it became a conversation in the United States. Less than 10 years ago, there were really no laws requiring paid time off for workers; now two different states have passed statewide laws to that effect, and many other cities require paid time off as well now.

The main argument against paid sick days is that it will hurt the economy, but we have pretty convincing evidence to show that simply isn’t the case. The Connecticut economy has reported no dramatic negative changes due to the implementation of the paid sick day law. Some cities, such as Seattle, Washington, have also reported seeing no economic downturn after the law was passed; Seattle has actually seen economic growth.

And given that extending paid sick days to the vast majority of employees doesn’t lead to any economic issues, the full humanitarian benefits of the law really can be realized. As Governor Brown put it when he signed the bill into law:

Whether you’re a dishwasher in San Diego or a store clerk in Oakland, this bill frees you of having to choose between your family’s health and your job. Make no mistake, California is putting its workers first.

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 Congrats California Workers: Paid Sick Days are Coming Your Way appeared first on Law Street.

If you are an incarcerated individual in the United States, you can be found in one of two places: a government-run prison, or a private prison. Private prison is an interesting term though, as it doesn’t really explain what this kind of institutions is. A more appropriate label would be “for-profit prisons,” because at their essence, that’s exactly what they are. A small group of forward-looking thinkers in Washington, D.C. are starting to float the idea that there’s an alternative to these private, for-profit prisons. They base their concept on rehabilitation rather than punishment, and if their group continues to move forward, they could change the for-profit prison landscape for good.

Here’s a more in-depth look at private prisons and the problems they cause, but to sum it up, private prisons are the result of government prisons closing, and the government hiring private contractors to run prisons in their place. In 2011, there were 130,950 prisoners incarcerated in private facilities –more than 12 percent of the nationwide prison population. That number has grown quickly, nearly 700 percent from 1970 to 2005.

Given that the U.S. is pretty intent on locking up a larger proportion of its population than most any other country, it’s a smart business to be in. The top private prison contractor, the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), posted $1.75 billion in revenue in 2012. And these contractors are smart enough to keep themselves in business — they have their own Super PACs and lobbying arms.

Finally, some individuals have started to point out that this isn’t a great idea. The whole purpose of prison is punishment,yes, but also rehabilitation. When the whole point of a business is making money off of those who have been incarcerated, what motive is there to rehabilitate them? Rehabilitation would almost certainly mean fewer repeat customers.

It was out of that idea that Citizens United for the Rehabilitation of Errants (CURE), a prison reform group, was born. Here is the group’s mission:

We believe that prisons should be used only for those who absolutely must be incarcerated and that those who are incarcerated should have all of the resources they need to turn their lives around. We also believe that human rights documents provide a sound basis for ensuring that criminal justice systems meet these goals.

CURE, which is composed mainly of those previously incarcerated, wants to create the first non-profit prison in the United States. They are focusing on Washington D.C., particularly on the Correctional Treatment Facility, one of D.C.’s two prisons. Given that CCA’s contract with the city will be up in 2017, CURE sees the prison as a place where they could potentially become involved and make a real change in the way prisoners are rehabilitated.

Charlie Sullivan, CURE’s Executive Director, went into more detail about its motivation, saying:

What both the private and government-run prisons are doing is just holding people. They’re playing defense; we need to play offense. We need to give people an opportunity to change their lives.

Right now the plan is by no means concrete. But the idea is there — the idea that our prisons can become more than just holding areas. That we can help those incarcerated turn their lives around. That our prison population does not need to keep growing at such a high rate. Whether or not CURE is successful, its work to change the way we in the U.S. handle prisoners can definitely have an impact.

—

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 [Still Burning 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 Non-Profit Prison Group Aims to Change the Incarceration Landscape appeared first on Law Street.

When it comes to alcohol, the laws regulating when someone is “over the limit” are pretty easy to remember. For drivers over 21, the legal blood alcohol content (BAC) limit in all 50 states is .08. For most of us, that means roughly one drink per hour. But as some states legalize recreational use of marijuana, and others allow its use for medical purposes, defining driving under the influence is becoming increasingly difficult.

One of the big problems is that we don’t quite know how badly marijuana affects driving. Experts point out that it’s obviously bad to drive when any senses are impaired — but we still allow people to have a drink before they drive, because a safe threshold has been determined. That threshold hasn’t really been identified for marijuana use yet.

Marijuana users are definitely impaired. Reaction times for example, are usually slower. But unlike those who have had alcohol, people under the influence of marijuana are usually more aware of that impairment. They are more likely to be cautious and compensate for their dulled senses. Currently, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is working on a study to figure out how exactly smoking marijuana can affect driving. In states that do allow marijuana, whether or not the legalization has led to more fatal crashes is virtually impossible to determine. Some studies claim that it has, others say that there’s no correlation. With such a small sample population, as well as so many other contributing factors to automobile accidents, it’s just too soon to tell what effect marijuana use has on driving conditions as a whole.

The states that have legalized marijuana, or allow it for medical purposes, have attempted to institute some parameters. For example, Colorado has set the DUI limit for marijuana intoxication at 5 nanograms of THC per milliliter of blood. Some people worry, however, that it’s too early to appropriately determine such limits, and that until we can do so, a limit like Colorado’s is arbitrary. The Marijuana Policy Project stated:

The inability to accurately measure marijuana impairment is why both the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the National Institute on Drug Abuse have stated that marijuana impairment testing via blood sampling is unreliable.

The main complaint stems from the fact that there’s no good way to easily test marijuana intoxication. When someone is pulled over and suspected of driving while drunk, there are small breathalyzers that can be used to determine BAC. No comparative tool has been invented for marijuana intoxication at this point. There is apparently a very preliminary marijuana breathalyzer being created by a Canadian police officer; he has named it the “Cannabix.” It’s still in the very preliminary stages, and scientists aren’t sure about the efficiency or accuracy of a breath-based marijuana test.

As more states move toward the legalization of marijuana — currently there are serious pushes in Alaska, Massachusetts, Oregon, New York, and Washington D.C. — the question of marijuana DUIs needs an answer. Zero tolerance policies seem tough, especially with the now relatively common use of medical marijuana. But how much marijuana in your blood is too much? Scientists will have to tell us — hopefully the new National Highway Traffic Safety Administration study will provide us with some answers.

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 Marijuana DUIs: How Much Weed is Too Much to Drive? appeared first on Law Street.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Anneliese Mahoney, Brittany Alzfan, Erika Bethmann, Matt DeWilde, and Natasha Paulmeno.

Click here to read more coverage on Law Street’s Law School Specialty Rankings 2014.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Featured image courtesy of [thisisbossi 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 Top 10 Law Schools for Business Law: #7 Georgetown University Law Center appeared first on Law Street.

Mental health and suicide prevention advocates are working to increase awareness of America’s suicide epidemic. In 2011, the most recent year for which there are relevant statistics, more than 39,000 Americans reportedly committed suicide. Suicide by veterans and members of the armed forces have been on the rise since 2001. Although safety nets and other deterrent mechanisms are used to discourage people from taking their lives, it has been proven that the first and most effective step to prevent suicide is recognizing and responding to the signs that signify someone is suffering from depression or mental illness. Advocates and mental health professionals emphasize recognition of trigger behaviors and attempt to provide better services to individuals struggling with depression and mental illness by working with federal, state, and local governments to provide access to essential services.

Click here to see some of the warning signs of suicide.

Here is everything  you need to know about suicide: the causes, policies, and legislation that are used to curb the growing epidemic.

Who is at the highest risk of suicide?

Suicide used to be reported as predominantly affecting teens and much older people, yet according to The New York Times, “from 1999 to 2010, the suicide rate among Americans ages 35 to 64 rose by nearly 30 percent.” Click here to see the most at-risk populations. Suicide also tends to be brought on by life trauma, such as abuse or childhood neglect. People who suffer from depression, mental illness, eating disorders, or have a history of drug use also have an increased chance of suicide.

Suicide Prevention Policies and Legislation

Case Study: Duke Ellington and Taft Bridges in Washington, DC 

Similar to the Golden Gate Bridge, the Duke Ellington Bridge in Northwest Washington, DC is an infamous location for suicides. On average about four suicides a year occur on the bridge, and in 1985, three people jumped off of it within a 10-day period. The busy Rock Creek Park below is a daunting 125-foot plunge. Half of all suicides in the District of Columbia occur on this notorious bridge.

In 1987, the National Trust for Historic Preservation brought a lawsuit against the efforts to build a suicide barrier at the Duke Ellington bridge. The organization claimed that the project was not protected by the Department of Transportation Act and that ultimately the erection of a barrier would ruin the historical and aesthetic appeal of the well-known bridge. The Trust also argued that the barrier served no purpose as people intent on committing suicide would simply migrate to the nearby Taft Bridge. In 1990, Congress vetoed the case to remove the barriers, and they still remain in tact today. A study conducted five years after the barrier construction showed that there were no suicides committed from the Duke Ellington bridge, and the count on the Taft Bridge remained virtually unchanged. In this case, the suicide barrier seems to be effective in the nation’s capital, once again proving suicide to be impulsive in nature.

Duke Ellington Bridge in Washington D.C. [Michiel 1972 via Wikipedia]

Suicide Barrier on the Duke Ellington Bridge [Alyson Hurt via Flickr]

Bullying and Suicide

Case Study: Rebecca Ann Sedwick

In September 2013, Florida resident Rebecca Ann Sedwick committed suicide after being repeatedly bullied throughout her time at Crystal Lake Middle School. Sedwick’s mother, Tricia Norman, pulled her from the school after Sedwick had been attacked by a group of peers. Norman also discovered harassing text messages on her daughter’s phone, and even more shockingly Sedwick had self-inflicted cuts up and down her legs.

After Norman became aware of her daughter’s torment, she moved her to Lawton Chiles Middle Academy to attend the seventh grade. Despite the change in schools, the bullying continued. Most of it came from social media websites such as Kik Messenger, Instagram, and Ask.fm, all of which can be used anonymously. Some of these messages included: “You should die” and “why don’t you go kill yourself?”

Twelve-year-old Katelyn Roman and 14-year-old Guadalupe Shaw were charged with aggravated stalking and arrested as juveniles. Just one month later, the charges were dropped, and the war between Norman and the authorities began. According to CNN, Norman’s attorney said in a statement that he plans to sue both the  Polk County School Board and one or both of the girls who were arrested in the case.

Bullying: Social Media

The main reason that the charges against Roman and Shaw were dropped is because of the lack of available evidence. Many of the sites that Sedwick was bullied on were “disappearing apps,” meaning that the messages would automatically be deleted after a short period of time. In an attempt to gain justice for Sedwick and prevent future online bullying cases from going unidentified, Norman continues to work to develop a safer social media environment. Recently one the websites that Sedwick used, Ask.fm, added a “Safety Tools” page that details its anti-bully safety features.

Click here to read more about bullying and social media.

Rebecca’s Law

In response to Sedwick’s suicide as a result of bulling, Florida is considering Rebecca’s Law, which would punish bullying as a  misdemeanor and aggravated bullying as a third-degree felony. In Florida where Sedwick was a resident, there is no legislation that can punish an individual legally solely based on the loosely defined term “bullying.” If the bill passes, alleged bullies could face fines or in more severe consequences jail time.

This is not the only case that has resulted in the suicide of a school-aged child or teen. In response to the tragedy, the Safe Schools Improvement Act of 2013  was proposed to crack down on bullying in schools. Its main purpose is to outline anti-bullying policies, which include creating a comfortable and safe environment at school for every child. The bill calls for the state to submit an annual report evaluating the programs being used to end bullying in secondary and elementary schools. The bill calls for evaluation of training programs for professionals, as well as a survey of parent involvement.

Case Study: Grace’s Law

Fifteen-year-old Grace McComas of Howard County, Maryland committed suicide on Easter Sunday 2012. Similar to Sedwick, McComas was repeatedly harassed on online social media sites, which ultimately drove her to suicide.

In response to the death of McComas, Grace’s Law  was passed in 2013 to end cyber bullying through the banning and regulation of electronic harassment. The law prohibits “a person from using a computer or computer network to disseminate certain data with the malicious intent to psychologically torment or harass a minor.” Anyone who chooses to violate this and bully someone under the age of 18 could be punished with a misdemeanor charge.

Suicide on College Campuses

Suicide at Universities

College is a stressful time for many students; they are in a new environment, have to make new friends, and are under the pressure of maintaining both good grades and the responsibility of extracurricular activity. College can be a balancing act, and often stress, depression, and loneliness can affect and overwhelm students. In extreme cases they resort to what they feel to be the last option, suicide. According to the National Alliance on Mental Illness, “Suicide is the third leading cause of death on college campuses” and the Jed Foundation reports that, “half of all college students have had suicidal thoughts.”

Not only does suicide affect the friends and family members if the deceased, it also puts universities at risk for lawsuit.

University Responsibility

Many schools adhere to the No-Duty-to-Prevent-Suicide rule; however, there have been cases in which families of students who committed suicide sue the school based on its mental health policy. One such case, Eisel v. Board of Education of Montgomery County occurred in Maryland. The parents of Nicole Eisel sued the School Board for the middle-school counselor’s failure to report Eisel’s expression of suicidal preoccupation. This case set a standard for both counselors and schools: “School counselors have a duty to use reasonable means to attempt to prevent a suicide when they are placed on notice of a student’s suicidal intent.” A school will not necessarily be convicted in the case of a student suicide, yet if the student expresses obvious signs and the school fails to intervene, it may be held liable. In contrasting cases such as White v. University of Wyoming, Jain v. State, and Bogust v. Iverson, the No-Duty-to-Prevent-Suicide rule held and the schools were ultimately exempt from accountability for student suicides.

Organizations to Prevent Suicide at Universities

The most recognized organization in suicide reform is the organization started by Alison Malmon, Active Minds. It was founded in Washington DC in 2003, three years after Malmon’s brother committed suicide due to mental health issues. Active Mind’s main mission is to eliminate the stigma associated with mental illness and urge students to seek help.

One parent, whose college-aged son committed suicide created the Jason Foundation, which works to prevent youth suicide through awareness and education. The organization is working to create a smartphone app that will connect people contemplating suicide directly to a hotline to receive support and immediate intervention.

There are also organizations such as the Jed Foundation that focus on student mental health and work to end suicide in the college population through campus counseling and programs. The Jed Foundation is fighting to have congress include a mental health screening within its health reform bills.

The National Alliance on Mental Illness offers several education and support services for mental health crises, as well as support the battle to end suicide on campuses.

The Campus Suicide Prevention Grants program targets students with mental illness and substance abuse issues. It aims to improve services and expand access to services for students who are at a higher risk of suicide. Both private and public institutions of higher learning can apply for the grant 

Suicide Prevention: National Innovation

Surgeon General Regina Benjamin is a strong backer of the national initiative to decrease suicide in the United States. A National Strategy containing four main pillars has been proposed:

1. Direct a focus to the family, the individual, and the community.
2. Develop better preventative techniques.
3. Provide efficient and easily accessible treatment for mental health.
4. Improve the surveillance of data and enact appropriate and timely methods based on the analysis.

Medicaid has already started to cover depression screenings. According to USA TODAY, “physicians will be rewarded by Medicare and Medicaid for screening depressed patients for suicide risk.” This is an incentive for doctors to follow through with care, and highlights the importance of mental healthcare.

Two bills currently being considered by the House of Representatives are aimed at mental healthcare improvements. HR 3717, the “Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act,” covers psychiatric support for families and patients that have the most crucial needs. HR 4574, the “Strengthening Mental Health in our Communities Act of 2014″ includes offering more community-based services accessible to individuals with mental health needs. Organizations such as The National Alliance on Mental Illness, are strong supports of this legislation and are petitioning to have it enacted into law. 

Suicide Prevention: State Level

Case Study: The Matt Adler Suicide Assessment, Treatment, and Management Act of 2012

Lawyer Matt Adler committed suicide in February 2011 due to extreme depression and anxiety. In response to her husband’s death, Adler’s wife Jennifer Stuber worked with the state of Washington to take legislative action to prevent future suicides. One year later in March 2012, the Matt Adler Suicide Assessment, Treatment, and Management Act was signed into law. The Act requires “mental health professionals, social workers, and occupational therapists to receive six hours of training every six years, as part of their continuing education requirement.“ This mandatory training ensures that professionals are better equipped to identify and handle signs of suicide. 

Click here to see Washington State Bill that requires mandatory training for clinical professionals on suicide prevention.

Almost every state has a plan to prevent suicide, including similar tactics to combat the issue, such as education, suicide-awareness initiatives, survey and analysis of statistical evidence, and improvement of medical and support services are all strategies to fight the epidemic. To see a few of these suicide prevention plans, click on the state link: Colorado , Indiana, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, California, Texas, and Idaho.

Methods of Action

Zero Suicide Academy

Although suicide barriers and hotline support can stop the act of suicide, they do not address the underlying issues at hand — the victim’s mental health. Even if someone is deterred from suicide once, it does not guarantee that the thoughts will be permanently eliminated. People who contemplate suicide tend to have a suicidal tendency based on mental or environmental causes.

In response to the nationwide epidemic, the Alliance for Suicide Prevention held a conference in Washington, DC in June 2014. Participants discussed several methods of identifying risk factors and methods of action to reduce suicide rates. The discussion revolved around the “Zero Suicide Toolkit” that includes six components:

1. Creating the Zero Suicide Culture. This consists of creating efficient and reliable care for people at risk, while also ensuring that the clinicians themselves receive care and compassion in order to maintain a healthy and effective environment for both the patient and the professional.

2. Ensuring Every Person Has a Pathway to Care is an important element in identifying suicidal behaviors and preventing the patient taking action based on their specific risk level and needs. Follow-up care is also an important component in ensuring every patient receives the most effective care.

3. Developing a Competent Workforce  is key to keeping employees mentally healthy. This consists of developing a system where there is “collaboration, team approaches, and effective communication” in place. Employees and behavioral health staff should be aware of suicidal signs and react in a supportive manner. The behavioral staff, should be trained and able to provide the mental health needs of staff at risk. 

4. Identifying and Assessing Suicide Risk Level is important in understanding each individual’s specific situation and reacting based on a plan tailored to that person’s specialized treatment needs.

5. Using Effective, Evidence-based Care  focuses on keeping the individual out of a hospital setting if possible. This consists of collaborative therapy with a focus on behavioral and problem-solving strategies.

6. Continuing contact after care is a vital component in ensuring that the patient will remain healthy. Follow-up services and support groups are a key element in maintaining an individual’s well being after initial care.

Click here to see the conference framework in its entirety.

Conclusion

There is progress being made toward slowing the suicide epidemic in this country, including action at the local, state, and federal levels to decrease the rate of suicide. Education, awareness, and supportive services for families, communities, and mental health professionals are all part of broad framework to combat suicide. Suicide is a mental health issue with subjective impulses, so it is to completely eliminate, yet as a society we have started to recognize the signs and are taking policy and legislative action to combat this epidemic.

Resources

Healthy Children: Help Stop Teen Suicide 

American Foundation for Suicide Prevention: Preventing Suicide 

UCLA Center: School Interventions to Prevent Youth Suicide

ABC: Mom of Suicide Tween Rebecca Sedwick to Sue ‘Those Responsible’

Crimesider: “Rebecca’s Law” aims to punish bullying in Fla.

SPRC: Success and Inspiration at the Zero Suicide Academy 

The New York Times: The Urge to end it all 

Action Alliance: Zero Suicide in Health and Behavioral Health Care

USA Today: Surgeon General Urges new Focus on Suicide Prevention 

USA Today: Suicide Prevention the Focus of new Government , Campus Programs 

Huffington Post: How to Prevent Your Ivy League Student From Becoming Suicidal 

USA Today: Recent has University Reflecting on College Stress 

CNN: Police file raises questions about bullying in Rebecca Sedwick’s suicide

Baltimore Sun: Grace’s Law, a cyberbullying bill, called ‘landmark legislation’

Fordham Law Review: Keeping Students Alive: Mandating On-Campus Counseling Saves Suicidal College Students’ Livesand Limits Liability

UNC Law: Student Suicides and School System Liability

Ledger: Lakeland Girl Commits Suicide After 1½ Years of Being Bullied

CNN: Sheriff: Taunting post leads to arrests in Rebecca Sedwick bullying death

USA Today: Surgeon General Urges New Focus Prevention on Suicide Prevention

Madeleine Stern

Madeleine Stern attended George Mason University majoring in Journalism and minoring in Theater. Her writing on solitary confinement inspired her to pursue a graduate degree in clinical counseling after graduation. Madeleine is an avid runner, dedicated animal lover, and a children’s ballet instructor. Contact Madeleine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Suicide Prevention Policies Aim to Curb Epidemic appeared first on Law Street.

Washington and Colorado approved voter referendums in November 2012 to become the first states in the nation to allow recreational marijuana sales; however, the states have taken different regulatory paths. Colorado started selling recreational marijuana on January 1, 2014, while Washington’s first legal stores opened on July 8, 2014. Regulators in Washington have frequently been in contact with those in Colorado to smooth the implementation process. The infographic below shows a quick breakdown of the two states’ policies, and if you’d like to learn more about what’s going on with these rules read on to the in-depth analysis below.

Who is allowed to buy marijuana?

Colorado and Washington both regulate marijuana similarly to alcohol. Only those aged 21 and older can buy recreational weed. Walk into a store, show your ID, and you can make a purchase. Customers are limited to buying or possessing only one ounce of marijuana at a time. Rarely would anyone buy a full ounce — more commonly marijuana is sold as an eighth of an ounce. Should you need more than an ounce, however, you would not be prohibited from making multiple trips to the store in the same day.

In Colorado, buyers from out of state are limited to buying only one-quarter of an ounce at one time, while there is no restriction on purchases by out-of-state visitors in Washington. Marijuana bought in the state must then be consumed in the state. In Colorado, you can share marijuana with others as long as you don’t receive any cash. In Washington, any purchase of marijuana must be for personal consumption. In both states marijuana transactions often have to be made in cash, since credit cards cannot be used due to federal banking regulations; however, state banks in Colorado moved to set up more local credit unions and issue debit cards that can be used for marijuana purchases.

How much does marijuana cost?

In Colorado, shops opened January 1, 2014 and were met with high demand. Initially 136 shops acquired licenses from Colorado’s Marijuana Enforcement Division, but the state has set no official cap on the number of licenses it will issue. The city of Denver, however, has a two-year moratorium on new marijuana businesses. Many other cities, such as Colorado Springs, banned recreational marijuana shops altogether. In the first days of sale, prices for high-quality marijuana rose to more than $300 per ounce. NPR reports that over the weekend of July 4, 2014, prices at a large chain hovered around $85 an ounce. Other estimates show the price per gram in Colorado typically averages $16 to $20.

In Washington, initial sales are likely to lead to product shortages and higher prices. Marijuana can only be purchased in retail shops licensed by the state; however, only 24 shops were licensed for the first day of sales, so owners may initially be inclined to ration. The state set a cap of 334 licenses to be distributed in accordance with population. The Washington State Liquor Control Board still has thousands of applications to sift through. Like Colorado, many municipalities in Washington banned recreational sales of marijuana. In Seattle, with a population of 652,000 and likely the hottest market, only one shop will be open on the first day of sales. Vancouver has two shops and Spokane has three. Growers of marijuana only received their licenses in March, meaning that there has not been enough time to grow a substantial amount of marijuana. Store owners indicate they want to sell for roughly $12 per gram, but the cost per gram could rise to as much as $25. Medical marijuana dispensaries in the state average between $10 and $15 per gram. Watch for more information on the marijuana shortage below:

How much is the state making off sales?

In both states, recreational marijuana is heavily taxed. Colorado buyers face a 15 percent excise tax, 10 percent special sales tax, and a 2.9 percent standard sales tax. Various localities then add additional taxes. Colorado’s amendment dictates that the first $40 million in taxes raised annually by marijuana sales must go toward the state’s public schools. According to USA Today, Colorado collected more than $24 million in marijuana fees and taxes through April 2014. In the fiscal year beginning July 2014, the state expects to make $98 million from marijuana. Tourism also increased, likely in part due to the marijuana law — 2013-2014 was the state’s best ski season to date. Watch an overview of Colorado’s marijuana industry below:

In Washington, an excise tax of 25 percent is levied at three different points in the sale process: from grower to processor, processor to retailer, and retailer to customer. According to USA Today, Washington is expected to collect $190 million from fees and taxes over the next four years.

What restrictions do marijuana shops face?

The two states regulate shops a little differently. Both only allow sales between 8:00am and midnight, and any marijuana sold in the state must be grown in the state. Initially in Colorado, any business wanting to sell recreational marijuana already had to be an existing medical marijuana dispensary. Vendors must be residents of Colorado and undergo a background check. They must apply through the Colorado Department of Revenue’s Marijuana Enforcement Division and typically have to apply for a local license as well. Beginning October 1, 2014, new recreational facilities will be able to apply for licenses. Medical marijuana dispensaries pay a $500 application fee to get a recreational license, while new businesses face a $5,000 application fee. Annual licensing fees can range from $3,750 to $14,000. Colorado also allows companies to vertically integrate by growing, processing, and selling as a single company. Additionally, individuals are allowed to grow up to six plants for personal use.

In contrast, Washington gave medical marijuana dispensaries no edge in the application process over new businesses. The medical marijuana industry was unregulated, so the state created regulations from scratch, including protocol-testing, child-resistant packaging, and shop security systems. Vendors must be residents of the state and are subject to a background check. The law separates producers, growers, and retailers. Businesses face a $250 application fee for a license and a $1,000 annual renewal fee. The state also limits overall marijuana growing to 200 million square feet. Washington does not allow individuals to grow plants themselves.

Are edibles available?

One of the most high-profile issues Colorado faces is how to regulate marijuana edibles, which are often seen as a hassle-free way to consume marijuana. Yet several severe cases illustrated potential dangers of edibles. On March 11, 2014, a college student from Wyoming jumped from a balcony to his death after eating a potent marijuana cookie. In another case, Richard Kirk suffered severe hallucinations after allegedly taking painkillers and eating marijuana-infused candy. The hallucinations led him to shoot and kill his wife. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd recently chronicled her experience with marijuana edibles to further heighten awareness of the issue. Colorado is aiming to make buyers aware of portion size and THC content, but is still experiencing difficulty regulating edibles and keeping them from the hands of unsuspecting children. The video below explores Colorado’s problems with edibles:

So far Washington has not approved any edible products. Edibles must first be tested and approved, so there will be a bit of a wait before they hit the Washington market.

Are there other regulations?

Smoking Areas

Both states ban smoking in public places, including in marijuana shops. The bans are enforced similar to open-container laws. In Washington, consuming in public means a fairly light $27 fine. Things can get trickier for tourists trying to find a place to consume. Only 25 percent of hotel rooms in Washington are designated as smoking, and it is unclear if hotels will permit smoking marijuana.

Driving

Driving under the influence of marijuana is illegal in both states. Anyone driving with more than five nanograms of THC per milliliter can be issued a DUI. Tests for THC are not as easy as a breathalyzer, especially since THC can linger in the body long after an initial high. If a driver was suspected of being high, an officer would likely have to drive the individual to the hospital for a blood test to get conclusive results. In Colorado, marijuana was involved in 12.5 percent of DUIs occurring in the first five months of 2014, a statistic that the state has only just begun tracking. Watch a video about DUIs below:

Other Issues

Despite the legality of recreational marijuana in these states, questions linger. Employers can still fire employees for showing up high or for testing positive, even though marijuana is legal. An in-depth look at the issue can be found here. States are also wary of consumers who may go to a number of stores to buy a small amount of marijuana at each and then sell it on the black market. The Justice Department is continuing to work on legal guidance for banks on how to deal with local retail marijuana sales. Despite these issues, the sale of marijuana has been a large success in Colorado, with voters now favoring the law by a 22-point margin after witnessing relatively smooth implementation. Should kinks in these laws be worked out, more states will look to Colorado and Washington when implementing marijuana laws of their own. Colorado has increased its regulation of marijuana since the law was first implemented and has not experienced serious consequences. More regulation of edibles in the future will likely lead other states to follow marijuana policies similar to those of Colorado and Washington.

Resources

Primary

Washington Liquor Control Board:  Fact Sheet

Additional

Time: Everything You Need to Know About Buying Legal Weed

Time: Colorado Kids are Accidentally Ingesting Pot

NPR: Washington State to Start Recreational Pot Sales

The New York Times: Still-Divided Washington Prepares for Start of Recreational Marijuana

Mercury News: Marijuana Legalization in Colorado

USA Today: With Legal Marijuana, Washington Joins Exclusive Club

CNN: 10 Things to Know About Nation’s First Recreational Shops

Denver Post: Colorado Voters Approve New Taxes on Recreational Marijuana

USA Today: Colorado, Washington Differ in Legalizing Marijuana

Brookings: Legal Marijuana: Comparing Washington and Colorado

The New York Times: Don’t Harsh Our Mellow, Dude

New York Magazine: Washington Starts Selling Legal Weed: What You Need to Know

The New York Times: Sales of Recreational Marijuana Begin in Washington State

Denver Post: A Colorado Marijuana Guide: 64 Answers to Commonly Asked Questions

Denver Post: Colorado Recreational Marijuana Industry Begins

—

Alexandra Stembaugh is a senior at 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.

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 Legal Marijuana Laws: Colorado v. Washington appeared first on Law Street.

If anyone believes that the President of the United States has overstepped his bounds, he or she may sue him. Recently, House Speaker John Boehner threatened to do just that. He announced that he plans to urge the House of Representatives to sue President Obama for multiple abuses of executive power.

Like any citizen of the United States, the president can be brought to court. The last time this happened successfully, Senator Edward Kennedy sued President Nixon in 1976 over his abuse of the “pocket veto.” According to Boehner, “the constitution makes it clear that the president’s job is to faithfully execute the laws and in my view the President has not faithfully executed the laws.” How exactly will the process go, should he choose to act?

Though touted in the media as a battle between Obama and Boehner, it would actually be the entire House of Representatives acting as the plaintiff in the lawsuit. Boehner is simply spearheading the legal action by calling on members of the House to bring the case against the president. Boehner plans to bring a bill to the House floor this month to authorize the lawsuit.

This is not the first time a political body has tried to sue a president. In 2011, an independent group of legislators challenged the authority of the president to allow the use of U.S. military force during the Libyan conflict.The case was dismissed by the D.C. Circuit Court due to the plaintiff’s inability to establish standing.

Suing a president differs from impeachment, which is the complete removal of the executive from office, and censure, which is a congressional procedure for punishing the president that has no explicit basis in the federal constitution.

How Can I Sue the President?

1. State Your Grievances: The first step in suing Obama, or any president, is to allege his misuse of power. Doing so is simple — you simply need to state your grievances with his actions. Boehner has already completed this step. Among his complaints, Boehner contends that Obama abused his powers on healthcare issues, specifically changing the “fixed” deadlines in the healthcare law. He also mentioned in a memo to congress that Obama overstepped his bounds in matters of energy, foreign policy, and education.

During his time in office, President Obama has used his constitutional powers to circumvent congress and put a number of laws into effect via executive order. Executive orders are legally binding decisions passed down by the U.S. president that bypass the typical order of passing through both legislative bodies. For example, he required the Department of Labor to allow same-sex couples the right to family leave. Obama also went around congress to raise the minimum wage for federal contractors.

2. Involve BLAG: The second step in the process to sue the president is the involvement of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group. BLAG is a body of the U.S. House of Representatives comprised of five members of the House, the speaker, the majority and minority leaders, and the majority and minority whips. The group was enacted by Congress under President Clinton in 1993. BLAG is authorized to guide the office of the House General Counsel to take legal action on behalf of the House of Representatives. As stated by the rules of the House, “the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group continues to speak for, and articulate the institutional position of, the House in all litigation matters in which it appears.”

3. Establish Legal Standing: Step three to sue the president is to establish legal standing in court. To do so, the plaintiff, in this case the House of Representatives, would need to show that they have incurred “injury” as a result of Obama overstepping his boundaries set by the Constitution.

4. Argue Your Case: The final step in the process is for the plaintiff to actually argue the case against the president. If Boehner successfully establishes standing, the House will be permitted to begin expressing its grievances at the trial court level. Whoever loses the case at that level would likely appeal to the D.C. Circuit Court, followed by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Will it Work?

So, does Boehner have a chance to successfully sue Obama? Many believe that Boehner’s threat to sue is, as Obama labeled it, a “stunt” simply intended to cause further political divide and steal the spotlight from the lack of legislation that congress has passed lately. Political analysts believe that other governmental bodies will be wary of involvement to prevent deepening divides among parties.

Frank Anechiarico, professor of law and government at Hamilton College, told ABC, “Even the conservatives on the Supreme Court — particularly Scalia — are reluctant to get in the middle of a political fight between the president and the Congress, unless the stakes are much higher than anything currently detectable. But all it takes is for one district judge to rule otherwise and we’re off and running.”

It’s very weird for the speaker of the house to suggest something like this. That said, if the speaker feels the president has violated the constitutional order of powers in a way that has harmed the house, he may feel he needs to sue.

– John Hudak, fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution

As taxpayers would be the ones covering the legal fees, many believe that citizens of the United States would not be supportive of the legal action Boehner wishes to take. Suing the President of the United States is no easy task, and only time will tell if Boehner’s plan to sue Obama over his “king-like” actions will come to fruition.

—

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 [Take Radio News Service via Flickr, Pete Souza and Valerie A. Martinez via Wikimedia Commons]

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 How to Sue Your President, Obama Edition appeared first on Law Street.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Anneliese Mahoney, Brittany Alzfan, Erika Bethmann, Matt DeWilde, and Natasha Paulmeno.

Click here to read more coverage on Law Street’s Law School Specialty Rankings 2014.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Featured image courtesy of [thisisbossi 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 Top 10 Law Schools for Healthcare Law: #2 Georgetown University Law Center appeared first on Law Street.

Speaker of the House John Boehner invoked the great American cliché in a memo to Congressional Republicans stating his intention to file suit against President Obama: “At various points in our history when the Executive Branch has attempted to claim for itself the ability to make law, the Legislative Branch has responded, and it is only through such responses that the balance of power envisioned by the Framers has been maintained.”

Ah, the Framers of the United States of America! Indeed, Boehner evoked those immaculate men who fought British tyranny to allow life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to flourish in the New World. But Boehner’s argument here, his basis for why there should be a suit filed against Obama, is rooted in a concoction of confused irony. Try to hold in the tears, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, which Framer is he talking about? They aren’t some amorphous blob of white men sharing the same principles and goals. Is he evoking the anti-monarchical, anti-tryannical sentiments of Thomas Jefferson? It would be ironic if one of the most complex, self-contradictory politicians in American history was being evoked as the epitome of some simpler, small-government United States with a backseat executive. Jefferson unilaterally orchestrated massive projects without being checked by the legislature. From the Louisiana Purchase to war with the Barbary states, the republican champion expanded executive authority greatly. Talk about inconsistency, after all this is the guy who wrote the Declaration of Independence while owning slaves!

I feel like we forget about that sometimes.

So which Framer is being referred to with regard to a checked executive branch? Maybe it was George Washington or John Adams. Setting aside that both presidents wore ceremonial swords to their inaugurations, Washington established the presidency as a dominant part of the government while Adams threw people in jail for disparaging him. Was Boehner talking about Alexander Hamilton? Hamilton thought that the greatest man to ever live was Julius Caesar and as a result, frequently pushed for greater unilateral power in government outside of the hands of the people. So maybe not.

The point is not that these American founders were all overreaching tyrants, but that they were a diverse group of brilliant and complicated individuals who each had differing visions of the ideal government. Further, each had his own set of competing ideas. Referencing “the Framers” as an entity from which America must never stray is a mistake. Jefferson never wanted posterity to idolize him and his colleagues. Moreover, he was so aware of the Constitution’s imperfection that he recommended it be redrafted regularly. Indeed, many of our founders acknowledged flaws in the government that they created.

This is why it is ironic that “the Framers” are constantly brought up as symbols of American perfection, especially in the way they were used by Boehner. We cannot point to “the balance of power envisioned by the Framers” because no single thing can possibly encapsulate all the different visions of all the different people. It should be noted that many are to blame for putting the Framers on a pedestal this way. I’m calling out Boehner because this is such a high-profile case. And because he’s orange.

But why does it matter? Couldn’t I let this one go and chalk it up to tradition and patriotism? No! It’s actually unpatriotic to characterize the American founders with a singular, idealistic label. It flies in the face of American tradition to ignore the diverse thoughts, ideas, and motives with which our founders wrestled during the creation of our country. When those who claim to stand by the patriotism of the United States become obsessed by an idealization of “the Framers,” their claims are unsubstantiated and their efforts counterproductive.

I could comment more on Boehner’s possible suit against the president, but I just see it as yet another nuisance for Obama that remains insignificant in the long run. Instead, what is most heinous to me is the embrace of a false idea of who our founders were and what they stood for. This is a phenomenon that transcends partisan and demographic lines, plus if I hear someone say “the Framers” one more time I might resort to drastic measures.

Okay maybe not that drastic.

The danger in this Framer obsession hints at the division that plagues our country. By painting all of our founders with one broad brush, we choose to look past the challenges and differences that they overcame to bring America into existence. We choose to praise a dogmatism that never was instead of appreciating the debates that made us who we are. If we remove the compromise and problem-solving from the glory of the American Revolution, we will continue to be mired in polarization and political stagnation today. Didn’t see that coming, did you? ‘Merica.

—

Jake Ephros (@JakeEphros)

Featured image courtesy of [Wikipedia]

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Founding Fathers Obsession appeared first on Law Street.

With the legalization of marijuana in Colorado and Washington, people who choose to smoke marijuana for recreational purposes will not face criminal charges. But they could be at risk of losing their jobs. This ongoing debate between employees and employers continues to be fueled by state legislation and employment drug testing policy. The courts must now analyze and settle questions regarding the controversy. Although in certain states, employees are not breaking the law by using marijuana, employers continue to implement pre-screening and routine drug tests. Workers are beginning to take action against what they believe to be violations of their rights. This leads to an inherent disconnect between the law and companies’ policies – so here is everything you need to know about marijuana, employment, and drug testing policies.

History of Drug Testing

In order to explain the divide between state law and employee drug testing, let us examine the history of testing policies and procedures. Surprisingly, not all workplaces require drug testing; the power to choose whether or not to implement the procedure is given directly to the corporation. According to Drug Testing USA, there are three factors that are taken into consideration regarding employee drug testing laws:

“1) who can be tested and under what circumstances (pre‐employment, random, etc.), 2) how testing is to be conducted (in a law, via on‐site devices, etc.), and 3) the procedures to be observed by the testing entity.”

As a result, companies have the power to alter and update their employee requirements to align with state legislation. Yet, in recent cases, companies chose to adhere to their original methods. Later, we will examine how the courts respond when employees challenge employers’ practice.

Who is tested?

If employers do not require mandatory drug screenings, do they have the right to single out individuals and conduct a test based on “reasonable suspicions?” If they do, employers must be sure to adhere to a strict guideline of how they define suspicious behavior in order to avoid a lawsuit. According to the Northwest Justice Project, “it is legal for a private employer to require a drug test of its employees, unless the employer uses the test to discriminate against certain people.”

Who conducts the tests?

There is a discrepancy between the law and employee protocol. Although Colorado and Washington have legalized marijuana, this does not mean that businesses have to follow suit. In a company’s defense, retaining a safe and efficient system is vital to the company reputation and prosperity. But an individual could argue that employee drug testing is a violation of their privacy. Since drug testing lacks federal legislation, and designates most of the power directly to the businesses themselves, it is a corporation’s decision whether to drug test or not.

Ethics: Is an employer testing for marijuana a violation of privacy?

Technically, drug testing is classified as a form of search and seizure. When employers choose to test employees, they are compromising the individual’s Fourth Amendment rights which read, “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” A common argument is that what an individual does on their own time should not be used against them professionally. The concept of employee drug testing is similar to employers researching their employees’ social media accounts. If a person chooses to party and live promiscuously on their own time, should employers have the right to judge the employee even if they are a capable and efficient worker? The employer could argue that this is a practical and fair assessment in evaluating employees. However, the employee could dispute that they have the right to privacy within their personal lives, and should not have to change their habits or filter their social media on account of being judged by an employer.

Case Study: National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab (1989)

In a 1986 case, National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, the National Treasury Employees Union argued that drug testing was violating their privacy rights and the Fourth Amendment. Originally the State Court of Eastern Louisiana ruled in their favor, yet the case ultimately went to the United States Court of Appeals. There, the court ruled that the government’s policy on drugs surpassed the desires of the union. Although testing potentially violated employees’ rights, “balancing the individual’s privacy expectations against the government’s special needs” became the basis for enacting the tests. The ruling outlined several factors which the employer must abide by to protect the employee’s rights and ultimately upheld the standard that, “no privacy invasions should be permitted unless some good end is served.” This case made drug testing legally applicable to businesses if they choose to enact such as policy as long as they abide by the ruling’s contingencies.

Case Study: Johnson v. City of Plainfield (1990)

 “Even if drug testing is found to be constitutional, we must measure what we have gained in finding the guilty against what we have wrought upon the innocent.”

-Johnson v. City of Plainfield

In Johnson v. City of Plainfield, the courts questioned the constitutionality of employee drug testing, and decided that it must be decided on a case-by-case basis. In 1986 in New Jersey, the City of Plainfield Fire Department employees were subjected to an abrupt urine test. Sixteen of the firefighters tested positive for unspecified drugs and were fired without pay. Several of the firefighters felt that accusations were false, and that certain medication could have tainted the urinalysis since no information was provided about those present substances. Additionally, they felt that their privacy had been violated because a member of the same sex had monitored them during the urine test. Finally, they argued that their morales were tainted by the positive drug tests. In the ruling, “[the] court suggest[ed] that the factual findings in this matter should cause us to pause in the nationwide rush toward massive and mandatory drug testing.” This case illustrated a shift from a more conservative stance on employee drug testing to a more reformed view.

Case Study: Colorado

Although marijuana is now legal in Colorado, not all businesses condone recreational usage. Section 6 of Amendment 64, which legalized recreational marijuana, states that:

“Nothing in this section is intended to require an employer to permit or accommodate the use, consumption, possession, transfer, display, transportation, sale or growing of marijuana in the workplace or to affect the ability of employers to have policies restricting the use of marijuana by employees.”

Legally, employees can be tested for marijuana. According to The Denver Post, “despite marijuana’s legal status in Colorado, courts have ruled that employers have the right to fire workers for using pot, even off-duty.” There is no protection against losing your job because of marijuana use, so employees must make wise decisions when partaking in recreational use or they could be at risk for losing their jobs.

Does that violate employees’ rights and the law? According to Amendment 64, Colorado marijuana legalization, “specifically gives employers the right to have a Zero Tolerance Policy.” Therefore companies who choose to enact the policy are abiding by not only federal, but also state law.

Fox Business discusses how Colorado and Washington employers are wrestling with new marijuana laws:

Medical Marijuana

While Colorado and Washington have fully legalized marijuana, a more applicable nationwide debate is medical marijuana. Only a handful of states have provided legal protection to individuals with a prescription for medical marijuana. How do employers handle individuals who smoke to ease the symptoms of painful and sometimes crippling illnesses?

History of Legislation

The 1990 American with Disabilities Act protects individuals with disabilities. It assures that disabled citizens will receive protection from discrimination in the workplace and have the freedom to use certain aides to function in the workplace; yet it does not cover medical marijuana.

The Compassionate Use Act of 1996 gives individuals some protection against criminal charges, such as possession, when they use cannabis for medical purposes. However, it does not include any safeguard for employees from being terminated for violating a company’s drug policy.

Finally, in the 2008 case, Ross v. RagingWire Telecommunications, individuals who used cannabis for medical purposes were denied protection from being terminated from their job.

However, there are some loopholes that certain states provide; in California, a smoker who uses medical marijuana can negotiate with the following letters:

1. Pre-employment Negotiation Letter (.doc).
2. Negotiation Letter for Currently Employed Patients (.doc)
3. Termination Negotiation Letter (.doc)

These letters do not guarantee an employee defense against termination, yet they give an employee a chance to petition to preserve their job.

To see a debate about the legality of medical marijuana in the workplace, click here:

Case Study: Brandon Coats v. Dish Network

In a 2010 Colorado case, a quadriplegic man, Brandon Coats, was fired from the Dish Network for testing positive for marijuana. Coats smoked medical marijuana to alleviate severe pain he experienced on a regular basis. When Coats brought the case to the Colorado Court of Appeals  in 2013,  the court confirmed that Dish had the right to fire Coats for violating company drug policy. When Coats appealed, the appellate court ultimately ruled that: “federal law trumps state law.” Montana, Oregon, and Washington also heard similar cases. All cases resulted in the same ruling– federal law overrides state law, and employers can choose to terminate employees if they do not abide by the company’s drug policy.

Employers retain the right to test and terminate employees for testing positive for THC regardless of the circumstances.

Future Amendments

Will the legislation amend the requirements for employers to accept the use of medical marijuana? Individuals that suffer from chronic illnesses are put in potential financial jeopardy. Yet employers are liable for mistakes made on the job due to marijuana use. As of now, employers have no intention of changing the policy, and legislatures are leaving the power to the businesses. Is this ethical? It has been scientifically proven that marijuana can help with extreme illnesses in a way which no other medication can. Employers are putting individuals who are already in a precarious situation in jeopardy. On the other hand, businesses have a reputation to maintain and would like to remain efficient in a competitive field.

Legal Inconsistency Throughout the States

Currently, every case regarding employees’ rights to marijuana use has been overruled by federal law, which still sees marijuana as illegal. This legal generalization may not suffice with the innovations to state laws that continue to develop. Legislation needs to take into consideration all of the ripple effects that marijuana will have on businesses. When drug testing was deemed constitutionally appropriate, marijuana was distinctly illegal. Now with all of the unique exceptions and amendments to state laws, there are constant inconsistencies. National businesses are now also put in an difficult situation when dealing with the marijuana laws unique to their state– how does a nationwide company handle state-to-state laws regarding their policy on employee drug testing?  Legislation needs to step up and tie up all the loose ends to protect employees as well as protect corporations from being sued by individuals who feel that their rights are being challenged.

Resources

Primary

US District Court, New Jersey: Johnson v. City of Plainfield

US Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit: National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab

Department of Labor: Drug-Free Workplace Policy Builder

California EDD: Misconduct MC 270

Additional

Regulate Marijuana: Amendment 64: The Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Act of 2012

MAPI: Changing State Marijuana Laws and Employer Drug Testing Policies

The New York Times: Creating Confusion in the Workplace

Americans for Safe Access: Employment 

Huffington Post: Employers Can Fire You For Using Marijuana, But Brandon Coats’ Case Could Change Everything

Madeleine Stern

Madeleine Stern attended George Mason University majoring in Journalism and minoring in Theater. Her writing on solitary confinement inspired her to pursue a graduate degree in clinical counseling after graduation. Madeleine is an avid runner, dedicated animal lover, and a children’s ballet instructor. Contact Madeleine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post After Marijuana is Legalized, What Limits Can Employers Impose? appeared first on Law Street.

Fewer burglars and robbers lurk in the streets of Colorado, and not because of a Batman-style, crime-fighting vigilante. After Colorado’s legalization of recreational marijuana, skeptics believed the rate of crime would elevate if not skyrocket; however, the opposite appears to be true. Since January 2014, when recreational marijuana sales began, robberies and burglaries have decreased in Colorado.

Although a causal link between legalized recreational marijuana and the decrease in crime cannot be determined, the correlation remains. Other factors such as weather and the economy most likely influenced the lower crime rate. One of the main reasons it is important to observe these rates is that they can act as a crystal ball for other states hoping to follow Colorado’s lead. As the first state to legalize recreational marijuana, it became a guinea pig for demonstrating the effects of this legislation.

Many lawmakers and analysts predicted that the legalization of marijuana would lead to increased crime rates. For example, prior to its legalization Denver District Attorney Mitch Morrissey made the case that robbers would prey on marijuana businesses and their customers because they carry lots of cash and pot. This is because they are unable to open bank accounts and therefore need to keep their income in cash.

None of these fears have panned out, at least not yet.

Have we forgotten about Washington, the other state in which citizens voted to allow the purchase and use of recreational marijuana? Has the new law in the Evergreen state (potential for plenty of jokes there, along with the Mile-High city of Denver) mirrored a decrease in crime as well? The simple answer is no, because despite its new legal standing, not one Washingtonian has purchased a joint nor lone bud of Mary Jane.

For more than a year, the sale and use of recreational marijuana in Washington has been legal under Initiative 502; however, Washington residents still wait with bated breath to purchase recreational pot. Colorado residents have spoken: they voted to get high legally, and now they can. Perhaps the encouraging statistics demonstrating its decrease in crime will finally cause Washington lawmakers to speed up the enactment their law.

Why the difference between the two states? Whereas Colorado simply opened up the state’s existing medical cannabis system to recreational customers, the initiative passed in Washington required that the recreational pot business start from scratch. Although marijuana is legal to possess, there’s no way to acquire it until the state issues licenses for what the state calls its “seed-to-sale” system. Currently, this system does not exist. Would-be marijuana sellers filled out and handed in applications to acquire these licenses last November. The Washington State Liquor Control Board, the legal authority in charge of distributing these licenses, has not handed out a single one.

If and when the aspiring pot shop owners finally do get their licenses, they still must go through the tedious process of securing business permits from local authorities who are often against legal pot. Good luck to them.

If they decide to take a page from Colorado’s legislative notebook, Washington may be able to get the sale of legal marijuana up and running. Sometimes it is hard for lawmakers to move past the fear that naturally comes with enacting a new law, especially when they are the first to do so. The lower crime rate in Colorado since the legalization of marijuana should hopefully put them at ease.

—

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 [United States Fish and Wildlife Service 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 Colorado Crime Down Since Pot Legalization; is Washington to Follow? appeared first on Law Street.

Prior to this week Alaska remained the only state without its own law school, but thanks to the Seattle University School of Law that is no longer true. After six months of planning and negotiating, it’s official: Anchorage will be home to a satellite campus of the Washington state law school. This is potentially a positive symbiotic relationship. The goal of this move is to improve the legal industry in both states, and if the intended outcome becomes reality, there may be hope for our nation’s legal industry. Let’s look at how.

Alaska’s Benefits

Of all 736,399 Alaskan residents, approximately 4,000 are lawyers, but very few of those lawyers are Alaskan natives. According to the American Bar Association, the total number of active lawyers in 2013 who are U.S. residents was 1,268,011. That means that only .003 percent of American lawyers reside in Alaska. The reason for such a small legal industry in the state is accessibility. Alaskans are deterred from moving to other states to go to law school because of high expenses and complicated logistics. This deal with Seattle University will help change that trend.

It’s  important to note that Alaskans will finally be granted an easily accessible legal education. Why this hasn’t happened sooner I cannot understand. But I think the partnership with Seattle is a great step forward for the legal education industry and I hope Alaskan students dive right in.

Seattle’s Benefits

In an attempt to fight the rapidly decreasing law school enrollment rates, SU Law is implementing several creative methods. In addition to offering a two-year law program and in-state tuition to top out-of-state students, SU Law is planning this satellite campus in Alaska.

According to the Seattle Times, law school enrollment has declined by about 23 percent over the last three years; in Washington, it’s dropped by a third. Simultaneously, the need for representation is at an all-time high, so what solution could be better than making law school more accessible across the nation?

Beginning of a Trend?

I’ve done some scouring and it seems SU Law is not alone in the implementation of a satellite campus. But the other institutions merely implement satellite centers or the satellite campus is in a different city, not a different state. For example, the main campus of Stetson Law is located in St. Petersburg, Florida, but the school hosts a satellite center in Tampa Bay. The Tampa Law Center is located in an upcoming hub for legal activity and shares its law library and courtroom with Florida’s Second District Court of Appeals. Similarly, the University of Oregon School of Law is located in Eugene but has a satellite in Portland. Like the Seattle-Alaska program, students will be able to complete their third years at the satellite campus.

Could satellite campuses that reduce tuition be the best way to increase law school enrollment?

The United States is home to more than 200 law schools. Seems a bit excessive, but I guess it fits with our unofficial national motto of “Go big or go home.” If more states begin implementing methods similar to those of Seattle, more students would be inclined to enroll.

Even better, schools with specialized areas of study could offer program-specific courses at satellite campuses. The need for more accessible law schools paired with a new approach to provide highly specialized studies could fix the downturn in law school enrollment. Alaska lacks lawyers who practice in specific disciplines, including same-sex issues, civil rights, and drug crimes.

Offering specialized programs like business, civil rights, healthcare, and intellectual property law allows students to graduate with a fuller knowledge of those fields. Plus they get to focus on what interests them most, in an environment that is even more accessible than ever before for remote areas like Alaska.

I commend Seattle University for making a noble attempt to create real change in the legal industry.

—

Natasha Paulmeno (@natashapaulmeno)

Featured image courtesy of [Christian Meichtry via Flickr]

Natasha Paulmeno

Natasha Paulmeno is an aspiring PR professional studying at the University of Maryland. She is learning to speak Spanish fluently through travel, music, and school. In her spare time she enjoys Bachata music, playing with her dog, and exploring social media trends. Contact Natasha at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Law School Disruptor of the Week: Seattle Satellite Campus appeared first on Law Street.

Are you a frat bro who misses the days when Four Loko had all the fun stuff in it? Blame Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY). Are you a Brooklynite who can suddenly no longer get unlabeled alcoholic slushies delivered to your door, no questions asked? Blame Schumer. And, are you still waiting for your pre-order of powdered alcohol to come in the mail? Once again, blame Schumer.

Yes, Schumer is directly responsible for blocking every single innovation in the alcohol industry from coming to market over the past half-decade. That brings the obvious question to mind: why is Schumer such a buzzkill? He insists that it’s all in defense of America’s youth, and in most cases he is probably right.

For example, Phrosties, which Schumer was partly responsible for making disappear, was a delivery service in New York City whose primary product was unmarked opaque bottles of mystery alcoholic slushies in the same colors as the lights at an Avicii show.

Imagine this in alcohol form.

These were obviously marketed toward children. The only way to order them was through Instagram and they resembled Hawaiian Punch more than an adult drink. One reviewer even stated that they tasted “like teenage regret.”

We think that sounds gross, too.

Admittedly, Schumer also had a pretty good point when it came to Four Loko.  For those of you who don’t remember 2010 (maybe you drank too much Four Loko), Four Loko was a canned beverage that mixed alcohol and caffeine. College students colloquially referred to it as “blackout in a can.” The caffeine would prevent drinkers from knowing when they were drunk, tricking them into drinking even more until they got dangerously sick.

Like this, but with a trip to the hospital.

The craziest part? One Four Loko had the alcoholic equivalent of five beers. Chuck Schumer, along with attorney generals from multiple states, quickly pressured the FDA to ban the beverage. It is now sold in a much less lethal form.

But, Schumer is plain wrong when it comes to powdered alcohol. Calling it the “Kool-Aid of teenage binge drinking,” Schumer recently demanded that the FDA halt the approval process for Palcohol, the company that makes powdered alcohol. Schumer claims that powdered alcohol can be easily concealed by kids at school dances, mixed in someone’s drink without his or her knowledge, and even snorted.

This video from Mark Phillips, founder of Palcohol, succinctly rebuts all of Schumer’s claims.

As you can see, the packaging for powdered alcohol is as big as four travel-sized bottles of vodka, so it is not any easier to conceal. It takes at least a minute to dissolve, so it is not a good way to spike somebody’s drink. And, unless you’re using your own homemade formula like this idiot at Vice.com, it would take an hour to snort one shot’s worth of powdered vodka. It would be painful and it wouldn’t get you drunk.

Regardless, powdered alcohol appears to be dead. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) rescinded its approval of the product and the New York State Senate just passed a bill banning powdered alcohol from being sold.

The faces of fans of weird alcohol everywhere.

Schumer’s crusade against powdered alcohol has ruined what could have been a world changing invention. For consumers and businesses alike, the beverage and industrial formulations of powdered alcohol could have improved the way we live. Since powdered alcohol is lighter than liquid alcohol, shipping costs would be lowered, and the price would be cheaper. Airplanes could serve it instead of liquid alcohol, and maybe pass the weight savings on to the consumer in the form of lower ticket prices. It would also make it easier for law-abiding drinkers to travel with a refreshing drink. All of this adds up to fewer carbon emissions used to transport this product.

But, it’s the industrial formula that would really change the world. Phillips claims that multiple companies have requested information about powdered alcohol being used as a lightweight source of fuel, an essential ingredient in windshield wiper fluid, and as an antiseptic in a medical setting. Imagine how easy it would be to ship powdered alcohol to a disaster zone as opposed to having to ship heavy liquid. This invention could save lives.

Politicians are always saying that they want to pass laws that allow Americans to be innovative and entrepreneurial, so why is Schumer blocking Phillips from doing just that? Does Schumer really think the downsides of this product outweigh all of the positives?

I have another theory. You see, while Schumer claims to be leading the charge against the alcohol industry’s assault on our nation’s youth, he’s been taking a lot of donations from the industry’s leading names. According to OpenSecrets.org, Schumer received $155,000 from PACs and individuals associated with alcohol in 2010. That’s the same year he started his fight against Four Loko. Is it really a coincidence that Schumer received so much money from the industry right as he started fighting against a product that threatened to dip into its profits?

The two companies that gave Schumer the most money were SABMiller and Anheuser-Busch InBev. These are the companies that make Miller and Budweiser. They bowed out of the caffeinated alcohol game in 2008, so they had the most market share to lose from Four Loko’s success, and the most to gain from its demise. So, instead of competing fairly, they decided to buy influence in Washington.

Pictured: The CEO of SABMiller

Every mass producer of alcoholic beverages had something to lose from the emergence of powdered alcohol. It threatened to be a cheaper and more convenient option than the products they sold. I’m sure they breathed a sigh of relief when Schumer’s press release shut the product down, and I’m even more sure they will pay Schumer handsomely for his services.

Cha-ching!

So kids, remember, Chuck Schumer does not want you drinking scary kinds of alcohol. He and his campaign account would prefer if you drank a Bud Light instead.

—

Eric Essagof (@ericmessagof) is a student at The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Senate Democrats via Flickr]

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Schumer’s Crusades Against Weird Alcohol Help Build His War Chest appeared first on Law Street.

I’ve had trouble with the Redskins name ever since I was in elementary school. I never understood why the mascot of a professional football team was just a man with some feathers on his head. You would think that if a seven-year-old kid can see the wrong in naming a team “Redskins,” then adults would too. But sadly many of them do not. So to help get my point across, for the rest of this article I will refer to them as the R*dskins.

Daniel Snyder, owner of the R*dskins since 1999, has been pressured to change the name of the team by fans, politicians, and various advocacy groups who feel that the name is derogatory to Native Americans. In May 2013, in response to a question regarding the team’s name, Snyder told USA Today, “We’ll never change the name. It’s that simple. NEVER – you can use caps.”

Seriously?

I get that you’re from Maryland Mr.Snyder, I am too. And I get that you are a die-hard R*dskins fan, though I am not. But can you seriously not see the racism behind the name of your team?

You are literally taking a whole group of people and turning them into caricatures, and when asked to just think about changing the name to something less offensive, your response is always a loud and clear.

Now, my issue with the name of the R*dskins is not just with Daniel Snyder, it goes a lot deeper than that. My issue runs with the players, the fans, the coaches, the media, and the NFL. Any and all these people could take a stand against Snyder and the R*dskins organization and possibly make a change. But who cares about Native Americans right? We only came to their country, took their land, killed their people, and made it ours. Then to rub salt in the wounds we took a stereotypical image of a Native American and made it a mascot alongside the likes of  falcons, jaguars, ravens, bears, rams, and a ton of other animals. Is that what you see Native Americans as, R*dskins fans? Animals?

You should be ashamed

I’ve been having this argument for years and years, and I have heard the same arguments as to why the R*dskins are a nice, genuine, wholesome team who are just misunderstood. I’ve heard the, “It’s been like that for so long, it would be weird to change the name now,” excuse. Well…

Slavery was normal in America for more than 200 years. People thought it would be “weird” if we gave Black people in America the same rights as White people. Laws change, social systems crumble, but universal truths are constant. What is true and right is true and right for all.

So often when I’m having this argument I say, “What if the team was called ‘Washington Blackskins’ with a Black person wearing a do-rag?” The person is often quiet for a very long moment before replying, “It’s not the same.”

How? How is it not the exact same thing? So what is racist for Black people isn’t racist for Native Americans? That in itself sounds racist to me, and whenever someone says that to me I just simply…

spazz out.

What’s funny to me is that most R*dskins fans are Black, and you would think that they would be more sensitive to racial slurs. I am willing to bet all the money in my bank account that if the team were called the “Washington Blackskins,” there would be a march on Washington, Black religious leaders and other Black activist would be holding press conferences, and a social media campaign with a witty hash tag would be in full effect. Since the slur isn’t directed at the Black community, we don’t really seem to care.

whatever right?

To Snyder, the NFL, and all of the team’s fans, the name isn’t racist. They see it as an entity to be proud of. They’ve watched R*dskins “heroes” such as Joe Gibbs, Sean Taylor, Clinton Portis, and many more, give a good chunk of their lives to this organization. Well I’m sorry to be the one to break it to you, R*dskins fans: these guys are not heroes. In fact, they played an essential part in the continuing racism that plagues America today. Also, the original owner of the team, George Marshall, was a loud and proud bigot. He was the last owner in the NFL to integrate his team, and only did so because he was forced to do so by the federal government. “We’ll start signing Negroes, when the Harlem Globetrotters start signing Whites,” Marshall once said. This is the history that makes R*dskins fans proud?

I wish i could roll my eyes further into my head.

Just because you think it isn’t offensive doesn’t mean that it actually isn’t. In fact, many Native Americans do find the name to be incredibly insulting.

• Oneida Nation has encouraged Americans to lobby the NFL in support of the name change at www.changethemascot.org.
• A group of Native Americans sued the team back in 2013 arguing against the team’s trademark rights to the name. Trademarks that are deemed racist are illegal under U.S. federal law.
• The 2,000-man protest at the 1992 Super Bowl consisted of members from various tribes (Chippewa, Sioux, Winnebago, Choctaw).
•  Hundreds protested at the home stadium in Landover, Md. on Thanksgiving day 2013.
• The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) issued a video last year that consists of leaders from seven different tribes calling for the name to be changed, and released a new and even more powerful video showing everything that American Indians are, R*dskin not being one of them.

Thankfully they are not competely alone in their fight to get the R*dskins to change their name. There have been numerous politicians, former athletes, and plain old citizens who have helped in the conflict.

• President Barack Obama said, “If I were the owner of the team and I knew that there was a name of my team — even if it had a storied history — that was offending a sizable group of people, I’d think about changing it.”
• DC Mayor Vincent Gray said that if the team wanted to relocate from Maryland to DC they would have to consider changing their name.
• Fifty senators sent a letter to the NFL (really just Roger Goodell) saying that the NFL needs to change the name.

“The NFL can no longer ignore this and perpetuate the use of this name as anything but what it is: a racial slur,” the letter reads. “We urge the NFL to formally support a name change for the Washington football team…We urge you and the National Football League to send the same clear message as the NBA did: that racism and bigotry have no place in professional sports.”

thank you… its about damn time

Native Americans aren’t cartoons. They aren’t caricatures, or mascots. They are people like you and me, and deserve to be treated with a lot more respect than we have given them over the past hundred years. Their voice may be small in America, but it can still be clearly heard, and as long as one Native American is offended by the word, I think it’s worth discussing what can be done to fix that.

So, I’m going to help out you R*dskins fans a little bit since I don’t hold grudges. Instead of the R*dskins, you could call yourselves the Pigskins! The name still has the same syllables as the original name, it’s a lot less racist, and pigs are super cute and super smart. You could even have RG3 race a pig across the field to start every game or something.

HTTP- Hail To The Pigskins!

That was just a suggestion off the top of my head, you could change it to literally anything and it would probably be better than the R*dskins. Just please for the love of god change that racist name.

—

Trevor Smith

Featured image courtesy of [Keith Allison via Flickr]

Trevor Smith

Trevor Smith is a homegrown DMVer studying Journalism and Graphic Design at American University. Upon graduating he has hopes to work for the US State Department so that he can travel, learn, and make money at the same time. Contact Trevor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post It’s Past Time to Change the Racist Redskins Name. Why Aren’t You Angry? appeared first on Law Street.

There’s been a lot of talk about marijuana lately. This year we’ve seen the implementation of Amendment 64 in Colorado and Initiative 502 in Washington, both passed in 2012. Aside from the 18 states and the District of Columbia that have approved marijuana for medical use, two states have approved measures to legalize recreational use for adults 21 and over. With the sophisticated enforcement of these initiatives we must ask ourselves, has marijuana gone mainstream?

One might think, but this is a paradox when it comes to the criminal justice system. The latest FBI Uniform Crime Report shows that the highest amount of arrests were for drug abuse violations, with more than 42 percent of violators being arrested for marijuana possession. So marijuana is cleared for medical use but possessing it is a crime that led to more arrests than any other in 2012. Not only that, but these arrests consume massive amounts of money due to the cost of prosecuting, incarcerating, and having offenders under the watchful eye of the courts as a result probation or parole. These non-violent criminals are a drain of financial resources and increase criminal justice caseloads. As a result, many states are considering decriminalizing marijuana as is the case in places like Maryland and the District of Columbia.

The prohibition of marijuana seems to be losing popularity as the combination of decreased funds in state budgets continue, and more medical uses for the drug are found. On top of efforts to decriminalize and legalize marijuana, there seems to be a new level of acceptance when you consider the number of apps that have been created that allow potential marijuana dispensary customer to locate dispensaries from their phones. Even more than being able to get directions to the local dispensary, there are game-like apps such as Weed Firm that allow users to create their own cyber pot shops.

Weed Firm, a creation of Manitoba Games, was offered by the Apple App Store and allowed users to create their own marijuana plant mixtures that could then be sold to virtual customers. The game was complete with seed, potting, and fertilizer options for growers to make their favorite combinations. One of the more unsavory game features was the option to either pay the local thugs for the ability to sell marijuana on their turf, or have them take all of your plants and profit as payment. Manitoba Games was pleased to announce that Weed Firm was number one on every Apple App Store category. Unfortunately for Manitoba Games, Apple recently decided to remove the app from the store. As you can expect, the gaming company was not pleased with this decision and released a hilarious statement discussing the matter. In their statement, Manitoba Games has vowed to return to Apple’s App Store with a more acceptable, censored version of Weed Firm.

If technology is any indication of the changing opinion on marijuana, then its safe to say marijuana is no longer considered taboo. This change is a result of realizing the prohibition of marijuana has been unsuccessful. Financially, states cannot support the incarceration of large amounts of people for non-violent crimes like marijuana possession. It’s even harder to explain that people are being classified as criminals as a result of being in possession of a plant that is used for medical purposes. It seems that the evolution of marijuana and its negative associations are as old as Reefer Madness. This post does not advocate for the legalization of marijuana, but rather to explain some of the changes in public opinion and the influence it has on technology.

__

Teerah Goodrum (@AisleNotes), is a recent Graduate of 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 [O’Dea 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 Marijuana Apps May Indicate a Change in Public Opinion appeared first on Law Street.

For those of us who follow labor law, sports law, or both, March 26, 2014 was a pretty exciting day. Peter Ohr, Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for Chicago, held that Northwestern football players are employees under federal law and would be permitted to hold an election in a bid for union representation. Ohr’s 24-page decision has evoked mixed feelings from labor experts, but most consider the decision to be damaging to opponents of unions in college sports.

While the players might have won the first battle, the war for unions in college football has only just begun. As I mentioned in my original post on this controversial topic, the football team is unlikely to actually have a collective bargaining agreement in place for a couple years. And well before that happens, Northwestern University and some other characters will try to ensure a union delegation never steps foot on Ryan Field in Evanston, Illinois. Here are three tactics that they may use to block unionization:

1. The NLRB Appeal Process: Shortly after Ohr released his decision, Northwestern indicated that they would file an appeal. Appealing a regional NLRB ruling first requires filing a request to review with the National Office of the NLRB in Washington. A request to review is essentially an appellate brief requesting the NLRB to revise the decision of the regional office, usually via remand or reversal (an example can be found here). In Northwestern’s case, the request to review must be filed with the NLRB by April 9, 2014. If the request is granted, the NLRB’s judiciary panel (Board) will conduct a hearing to decide whether Ohr’s ruling was made in error, or whether it will be upheld.

2. Contesting the Election Process: Even if the Board affirms Ohr’s decision, the football team isn’t completely in the clear. The team is to vote on union representation on April 25, 2014, at which point all scholarship athletes participating in team activities will be permitted to vote. If a majority is not reached, the players have to wait one year to be eligible to cast ballots again. If a majority is reached but the team has not formed a collective bargaining unit by the time their eldest voters graduate, Northwestern may file an objection to the election in the form of an unfair labor practice (ULP). The ULP would allege that the deciding votes in the election aren’t eligible for union representation, and therefore a new vote would be required.

3. Congressional Action: Last Wednesday, former Northwestern quarterback Kain Colter and company met with Congressional leaders to discuss their campaign to unionize. Many believe the Wildcats’ trip was intended to drum up support in case Congress votes to enact federal law blocking University students from forming unions. That type of Congressional action is just hypothetical at this point, but also quite plausible. Some politicians have already expressed their displeasure with Ohr’s decision, and most forecasters believe the number of union opponents in Washington will only grow after the midterm elections. Considering the stakes and opponents involved, I’m sure Kain Colter would like as many teammates as possible for the upcoming fight.

Andrew Blancato

The post How Will Northwestern Stop its Football Team From Unionizing Now? appeared first on Law Street.

In December 2012, Colorado voters made history by approving Amendment 64, legalizing the use and possession of marijuana for anyone over the age of 21. Not long after, Washington voters followed suit, passing Initiative 502 in a state election and effectively legalizing recreational use of the drug.

Although Washingtonians will have to wait until roughly April 2014, pot can officially be sold in specially licensed stores in Colorado as of January 1, 2014. Now that you can legally buy, sell, and smoke marijuana in certain states, there are still questions that need answering.

First off, what exactly does legal mean?

In Colorado…

• Residents, of at least 21 years of age, can buy up to an ounce of marijuana at a time. If you aren’t a Colorado resident, the maximum amount that can be purchased drops to a quarter-ounce.
• Marijuana purchased in Colorado cannot cross state lines.
• The drug can be sold commercially – but only by specially licensed stores.
• It is illegal to consume marijuana openly or publicly. “Retail marijuana” is intended for private, personal use in locations not open to the public.
• The drug cannot be consumed in the vicinity of licensed stores, bars, and restaurants. Consumption in public transportation, cars, limos and taxis is also illegal.
• It is illegal to drive under the influence of marijuana. Anyone with 5 nanograms or more in their blood while driving can be arrested for a DUI, which could result in fines or jail time.

In Washington, although possession of marijuana is already legal, other significant parts of Initiative 502, namely selling marijuana commercially, will not go into effect for a few months. Like Colorado, however, some restrictions are already in place…

• Marijuana is prohibited in public settings.
• Drivers are prohibited from having more than 5 nanograms in their blood, an amount supposedly comparable to .08 blood alcohol content, while driving.
• Washington State universities can set their own rules regarding marijuana use. In an effort to avoid losing federal funding, University of Washington and Washington State University currently prohibit use and possession of pot on campus grounds.
• To deter underage use of the drug, Washington will adopt public health strategies similar to successful anti-tobacco campaigns. Specifically, retail outlets will not be allowed within 1,000 feet of schools and marijuana advertising will be tightly regulated.

Is legalization of marijuana technically unconstitutional?

Technically, the answer is yes.

Known as the “supremacy clause,” Article VI Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution establishes federal law as the “supreme law of the land” – hence the name. Seeing as marijuana remains illegal under the Controlled Substances Act, a federal law, the recent legalization of the drug in Colorado and Washington provides an interesting example of the interplay between state and federal laws. Attorney General Eric Holder has said the Department of Justice is taking a “trust but verify approach to the state laws.” In addition, Deputy Attorney General James Cole issued a memo to prosecutors across the U.S. 

The Department’s guidance in this memorandum rests on its expectation that states and local governments that have enacted laws authorizing marijuana-related conduct will implement strong and effective regulatory and enforcement systems that will address the threat those state laws could pose to public safety, public health and other law enforcement interests. 

Still, for those worried about (technically) violating federal laws, Alison Holcomb, author of I-502 in Washington and drug policy director for the Washington State ACLU, says not to worry.

“Federal law enforcement resources tend to be focused on major organized crime,” Holcomb said in an interview with CBS News. “It is very, very rare that marijuana use is subjected to federal enforcement, unless users are on federal lands like national parks. By and large, the DEA has much better things to do than go after the marijuana users.”

Can I lose my job for using marijuana?

Although it has yet to become a problem in Washington, Colorado’s recent legalization has created a dilemma for businesses and their employees. While Amendment 64 legalized weed, it also gave employers the right to drug test their employees and subsequently fire them if they test positive. Simply put, the new law does not “affect the ability of employers to have policies restricting the use of marijuana by employees.” 

Last April, the Court of Appeals in Colorado upheld the firing of Brandon Coats, a Dish Network employee who was let go after he tested positive for marijuana during a random drug test. Coats, a quadriplegic who has used a wheelchair since age 16, uses medicinal marijuana to control his muscle spasms. Coats sued Dish Network, arguing that his use of the drug was legal and that he was never impaired while at work.

The Colorado Court of Appeals ultimately decided Colorado’s Lawful Off-Duty Activities Statute, which prohibits employers from firing employees for participating in legal activities during their free time, does not include marijuana use. Because marijuana remains illegal under federal law, the judges ruled that the protections of the statute do not apply. Colorado’s Supreme Court announced it will review the case.

With the outcome of Coats’ case still uncertain, one can’t help but wonder: If smoking marijuana can result in a person losing his or her job, is it really legal?

In an interview with Buzzfeed, Harry Levine, a sociology professor at Queens College and operator of the website marijuana-arrests.com, said the conundrum is the result of clashes between state and federal law. “Everyone’s attention is focused on the shiny new post-prohibition legal marijuana industry, and how regulated, interesting, and cool it is,” Levine said, “but over here behind door number one is the still-existing structures of nationwide drug prohibition.” 

Can I fly with my marijuana?

Again, since federal law regarding marijuana remains unchanged, the drug will not be allowed on airplanes – even if you’re flying out of Colorado or Washington. On the “air side” of an airport, which begins at the security checkpoint, federal law reigns supreme. When it comes to possession of weed before going through security, airports have differing policies. The Aspen/Pitkin County Airport, for example, offers travelers “amnesty boxes” – a place where marijuana can be stashed or disposed of without legal consequences. At Denver’s Airport however, weed is banned entirely, even in the areas before security.

Because state law forbids any facility from setting any further regulations, airports in Washington are unable to ban the legal amount of cannabis.

What does legalization mean for prior offenders and those currently in prison for weed crimes?

Fair or not, it does not change a thing.

From 2006 to 2010, there have been more than 50,000 marijuana-related arrests in the state of Colorado. For those still serving time in prison, the new legalization will do nothing to free them or reduce their sentencing. In addition, those who have already served time will not have their records expunged.

The reasoning behind this is simple. Since the crimes were committed when possession or distribution of marijuana was against the law, the charges stick. According to Matthew Fleischer, an investigative journalist and contributor to TakePart.com, “whether or not the old law was unpopular or unjust is immaterial.”

Unfortunately for anyone sitting in prison for weed crimes, the United States does not guarantee “retroactive ameliorative relief” in sentencing. Although it’s a mouthful, the term simply means letting convicts out of prison after a law changes.

The U.S. is one of only 22 countries that fail to guarantee this relief. In an interview with TakePart, Amanda Solter, Project Director of the Human Rights and Criminal Sentencing Reform Project for the University of San Francisco School of Law, elaborated further. “The only other countries that do this are places like Myanmar, Oman, Pakistan, South Sudan, and a handful of countries in the Caribbean,” she said and added, “even Russia provides this right.”

Is marijuana legalization a continuing trend?

Most likely.

Brandy Zadrozny, a researcher and reporter for The Daily Beast, provides excellent insight regarding the future of legalization in her informative “Guide to State Pot Laws.”

According to Zadrozny, the National Conference of State Legislatures revealed that nine states –Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Vermont – and the District of Columbia have introduced some form of marijuana legislation. Alaska, Maryland, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin are likely to follow suit.

For the most part, state legislative action regarding marijuana legalization depends heavily on grassroots (no pun intended) support within the individual state. As Zadrozny cleverly puts it, “the data seems to support that if you smoke it, the laws will come.”

Everything considered, experts say Alaska will be the next state to join Colorado and Washington’s exclusive club.

[CNN] [CNTraveler] [The Daily Beast] [CBS News] [ABC News] [Take Part] [BuzzFeed] [Huffington Post] [Colorado State Legislature] [Washington State LCB] [U.S. Archives]

—

Matt DiCenso 

Featured image courtesy of [rafael-castillo via Flickr]

Matt DiCenso

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

The post Let’s Be Blunt: What Marijuana Legalization Actually Means appeared first on Law Street.

Freedom of the Press has always, of course, applied to traditional journalists. If someone accuses a journalist in say, The Washington Post, or the New York Times, or even a small town newspaper of defamation, and the issue is of public concern, the plaintiffs have to prove that there was negligence or worse in order to win damages. Essentially a plaintiff would have to prove that a journalist wrote their story without properly checking out their sources, or some other negligent behavior. If they cannot prove that a reporter didn’t do their due diligence, they cannot be found guilty. This was established by a 1974 Supreme Court case, Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.

For years, this 1974 case sufficed as protecting journalists, because official media was really the only kind of media that existed. There was radio, newspapers, and TV, and all of those were mostly composed of people who had journalistic training and were part of a larger company. But with the advent of the internet, everyone can have a blog. In fact, if I so decided, I could go get a free WordPress blog right now and start writing just a few minutes later. And out of that prevalence of individual-driven media came the question: does this freedom of the press also apply to the informal and individual press?

Last week, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the same standards that apply to journalists in print media also apply to bloggers and anyone else. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press member Gregg Leslie said, “it’s not a special right to the news media. So it’s a good thing for bloggers and citizen journalists and others.”

The case came from a Montana blogger named Crystal L. Cox. In a blog post a few years ago, Cox stated that Obsidian Finance Group and its founder had committed fraud. So Obsidian Finance Group’s co-founder Kevin Padrick sued Cox. During the first trial, Cox lost the case and was ordered to pay the plaintiffs $2.5 million in damages. Cox did not deny that what she reported may have been false, just that she did not do it out of negligence, the same standard that a print reporter would have been held to. With this latest appeal, the 9th District Court agreed with Cox.

The Court stated,

The protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist, formally affiliated with traditional news entities, engaged in conflict-of-interest disclosure, went beyond just assembling others’ writings, or tried to get both sides of a story. As the Supreme Court has accurately warned, a First Amendment distinction between the institutional press and other speakers is unworkable.” They went on to cite cases in which individual speakers have been granted First Amendment rights, despite not being a part of the established press. For example, the First Amendment rights of authors have often been protected, regardless of their training, background, or affiliations.

This is very good news for anyone who has a blog or even a desire to post things in an individual capacity on their social network. It could also go a far way for advocacy groups that work unofficially for candidates and their rights to create media alleging things against candidates. It could also have important ramifications for blogging in other lawsuits. For example, if a blogger is treated as a journalist for the purposes of the First Amendment, they could also be treated as a journalist in a matter like protection of sources.

[LA Times]

—

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

Featured image courtesy of [Jorge Quinteros 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 Court Says Bloggers are Journalists Too appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[New York Times]

—

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

Featured image courtesy of [Nathan & Jenny via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

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

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

During the 2012 elections, Colorado voters voted to legalize recreational marijuana, with about 54 percent of Colorado residents voting yes. As of yesterday, recreational marijuana became retailed at twenty-four stores around the state, though most of the locations were in Denver.

Despite awful weather in Colorado, shoppers waited in long lines to purchase the first legal pot in the United States. Yesterday was nicknamed “Green Wednesday” because of its popularity.

Understanding the new marijuana laws in Colorado are relatively easy if you compare them to alcohol laws. When they were written by the Colorado legislature, they loosely based the new marijuana laws off of already existing alcohol regulation laws. The reasoning for this is that legalization advocates have argued that marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol, so it makes sense to provide similar laws for the two. For example:

• You must be 21 or older to purchase marijuana.
• It is illegal to distribute marijuana to anyone who is under the age of 21.
• It is illegal to drive while under the influence of marijuana.
• It is not limited to residents, but visitors to Colorado may partake as well.
• There are limits to where smoking can take place. Marijuana cannot be consumed openly and publicly. Although this is stricter than open container laws, it is the same idea.

There are of course, other sections that differ from already in place alcohol laws:

• There’s a limit on how much you can buy. Residents can purchase up to an ounce; out of state visitors can purchase one quarter of an ounce.
• As of right now, Marijuana can only be bought with cash, although that may change as the market evolves.
• Marijuana cannot be brought across state lines.

There are other interesting rules that are specific to the sale of marijuana. A system called the Marijuana Inventory Tracking System (MITS) will log sales, and stores are required to keep it updated on sales. Any marijuana sold must be put in a child resistant package. Retailers cannot advertise in an outlet where 30% or more of viewers may be under 21. These are just a sampling of the safeguards that Colorado has put in place.

After the first day, it seems like the sales are going well. In fact, demand threatens to outpace supply. There are some complaints, of course. One of the concerns about selling recreational marijuana is that it would price medical marijuana license holders out of the market, but Colorado is making sure that won’t be the case. Medical marijuana will be sold more cheaply than its recreational counterpart.

There’s also a concern that demand will outpace supply–leading to inflated prices. There was no implementation of any sort of statewide pricing structure or rules, so stores can essentially charge what they wish. By the end of the day yesterday, one store sold 1/8th of an ounce of pot for $70. There’s also the state and local taxes to think about–they total about 25% of the cost.

Many onlookers have harkened this as an interesting experiment that will have some hand in dictating what marijuana legalization may look like in the rest of the United States. Colorado’s market is the first of its kind. It even differs from the Netherlands in that there’s no unregulated production.

Washington state also legalized marijuana during the 2012 elections, although they probably will not begin legal retailing until this summer. Colorado’s successes and failures may help Washington, and potentially other states, set up their market.

—

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 [PabloEvans 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 A Breakdown of Colorado’s New Marijuana Laws appeared first on Law Street.

Beggars still can’t be choosers.

My first job after 1L year was for the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. I accepted the position knowing little to nothing about the role of the U.S. Attorney or the city of New York. All I knew was that, after two months of applying, I had the all-important first year internship. I had decided before law school that Washington, D.C. was where I would practice law after graduation, and this job in New York threw a wrench in my plans. The legal economy then, in the spring of 2011, was as tough as it is now. In light of that fact, I took the best job that I could get and accepted the USAO’s offer.

At the beginning of the summer, I moved all of my suits and summer clothes to a small studio in midtown east on 45th & Lexington. I arrived on a Sunday, and my first day with the USAO was the following week. In my eight days of downtime, I decided to explore New York City.

At first I didn’t really feel a need to take myself on a walking tour of a city that I already knew very well.  My mother is from Brooklyn, and I’ve been visiting my family members there and in the Bronx forever.  Additionally, friends from college and high school had all settled there.  I’d spent many drunken weekends causing a scene on side streets of the Lower East Side and Greenwich Village, but always as the annoying weekend visitor.  Now, as a resident, I felt I owed myself a different city experience.

And experience the city I did.  I walked across town via 45^th Street from Lexington to 8^th Avenue, and then I walked down 8^th Avenue to 12^th street before making my way back East.  In between, I probably said “I’ve got to check this place out,” over one hundred times.  That’s the thing about New York: it’s a city begging to be explored.  I spent three months exploring its sights and sounds, and I was hooked.  I knew that after law school I wanted to move there.

I took steps to further that goal.  During my 2L summer, I worked there again, this time in a different government office but one that furthered the legal goals I endeavored to achieve. Finally, in the first semester of my 3L year, through channels of networking and “people who know people who know people,” I was offered a full-time position with a small company.

“This,” I thought, “is it.”  I had my dream job in my dream city, which I knew I’d earned after the three-year circus of indignities that is law school.  I don’t need to get in to the specifics here, but it didn’t work out.  The job fell through, and I immediately redoubled my efforts to get back to New York.  I applied for countless jobs (chronicled here…it’s depressing) and nothing.

In the mean time, I took up side jobs of both the legal and non-legal varieties.  I was fortunate enough to find this blog, and I began to volunteer with a legal organization.  I was also a host at a restaurant and did temp work.  I went on a ton of interviews, but the “perfect New York City” job consistently evaded me.

And then the unthinkable happened.  A close friend referred me to an open position in D.C., and I was offered an interview.  I prepared for the interview, and it went really well.

And then they offered me the job.

The job I was offered is not a job that one declines.  After discussing my options with my parents and a few friends, I decided to accept the position.  My acceptance effectively derails my New York City dreams for the foreseeable future.  Initially I didn’t want to end my pursuit of a big city job, but I considered both the economy and the markets in which I looked for work, and both are difficult.  It would have been much more imprudent to turn down a position and assume that another one is going to come.

And so, in October 2013, I made the same decision that I made in February 2011.  Accept the best job that comes to you, even if it’s in a city that you weren’t planning to live, and make it work.

To everybody out there with a J.D. and a dream: the job is coming!  As Ted Kennedy said, “the dream will never die.”  He was obviously talking about searching for work in a down legal economy, right?

—

Peter Davidson is a recent graduate of law school who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy.

Featured image courtesy of [Jason Taellious via Flickr]

As always, all .gifs provided by T. Kyle MacMahon of RealityTVGifs!

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Beggars (Still) Can’t be Choosers in Today’s Job Market appeared first on Law Street.