ICYMI last week, paid protesters can make as much as $1,500 a week, pediatricians issued new guidelines regarding kids and marijuana, and a new cannabis gym is opening up in San Fransisco. Check out Law Street’s best of the week below!

Wayne LaPierre Says Paid Protesters Make $1,500 a Week: Where Can I Sign Up?

NRA Executive Director Wayne LaPierre stayed true to the White House’s line that protesters speaking out against the administration are paid. In fact, he claimed that protesters are being paid $1,500 a week. And given that the future of journalism seems to be less-than-rosy right now, I have to ask: where do I sign up?

Pediatricians’ Group Issues New Guidelines Regarding Kids and Marijuana

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) released new guidelines for pediatricians to follow in light of recent marijuana legalization developments. Marijuana is legal, either medically or recreationally, in 28 states and D.C. Though overall marijuana use, even in states with the most lenient laws, has remained the same, decriminalization has “created an environment in which marijuana increasingly is seen as acceptable, safe, and therapeutic,” the report said.

A Cannabis Gym is Opening in San Francisco

Things you find at a gym: barbells, bad dance music, bro tanks, yoga pants, and marijuana. Marijuana? At Power Plants Fitness, opening in May in San Francisco yes, you will find marijuana. Founded by Jim McAlpine, with funding help from former NFL star Ricky Williams, the cannabis gym is designed to be a complete health and wellness experience. Patrons will be able to purchase marijuana edibles on-site, and consume the drug before, during, or after their workout.

Alexis Evans

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

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

Today, NRA Executive Director Wayne LaPierre stayed true to the White House’s line that protesters speaking out against the administration are paid. In fact, he claimed that protesters are being paid $1,500 a week. And given that the future of journalism seems to be less-than-rosy right now, I have to ask: where do I sign up?

I mean, $1,500 a week is a lot of money. That’s about $78,000 a year. That’s about on par with what the average accountant, architect, epidemiologist, psychologist, or nuclear technician makes–all professions that I’m fairly certain take quite a bit more schooling than being a protester.

LaPierre, also said that the protesters are specifically and deliberately inciting violence, and compared them to terrorists. He claimed that, “the left’s message is absolutely clear. They want revenge, you’ve got to be punished. They say you’re what’s wrong with America and now you’ve got to be purged.” He went on to say: that the “extreme left” “literally hate everything America stands for” and “are willing to use violence against us.” But Mr. LaPierre, you can’t have it both ways. Are the protesters apathetic, and that’s why they need to be paid? Or do they hate America with such a fiery passion–in which case you would think that most of them would just protest for free?

Also, who is supposedly paying out this $1,500 a week to protesters? We’ll probably never have an exact estimate on how many people attended Women’s marches throughout the U.S. on January 21, but let’s use FiveThirtyEight’s safe and conservative estimate of 3.2 million. And while the peddlers of this “paid protester” myth haven’t been clear on what percentage of the protesters are supposedly paid, let’s say that just one-third–a million individuals–from the Women’s March got their weekly $1,500 takeaway. That right there is $1.5 billion dollars. That’s quite a lot of money apparently secretly floating around.

While that’s a very literal interpretation of LaPierre’s claims, the ridiculousness of a vast “paid protesters” conspiracy to the tune of over a billion dollars isn’t that remarkably far off from what some have claimed since Trump took office. That ridiculousness is always worth being called out–and Mr. LaPierre, I can assure you that no one is paying me $1,500 a week just to say that.

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 Wayne LaPierre Says Paid Protesters Make $1,500 a Week: Where Can I Sign Up? appeared first on Law Street.

Today, Wayne LaPierre, the CEO and Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association, released a video in which he challenged President Barack Obama to a debate. This comes on the heels of executive orders released by Obama in which the president expanded background checks, emphasized that anyone who sells guns needs a license, and called for a beefing of up gun law enforcements, among other facets. After releasing information about the executive order, Obama participated in a town hall on guns with CNN’s Anderson Cooper, and criticized the NRA for not attending, saying: “And by the way, there’s a reason why the NRA is not here. They’re just down the street. And since this is the main reason they exist, you’d think they’d be prepared to have a debate with…a president.” Today’s video from LaPierre appears to be in response to both that comment and the executive orders; watch it for yourself:

In the video, LaPierre invites Obama to join him in a one-on-one, one-hour debate, with a moderator that they have both agreed upon, and without any “pre-screened questions”–the NRA alleges that CNN only offered them pre-screened questions for the town hall with Obama, and that’s why it chose not to participate.

I get that Obama basically invited a debate with LaPierre when he called the NRA out for not attending the CNN town hall, but I don’t think he should take LaPierre up on this offer, and here’s why: the NRA does not deserve that kind of respect, particularly not after this video.

The NRA has relatively high levels of support, that’s for sure. In a Gallup poll conducted in October 2015, the NRA was viewed as favorable by 58 percent of Americans. The NRA sees particularly high favorability among gun owners, with 78 percent viewing the NRA favorably. While it’s unclear how high gun ownership is in the United States–a recent National Opinion Research Center (NORC) poll puts the percentage of American households that have a gun at 31 percent–it’s clear that guns are, for many, a part of daily American life.

Yet despite the fact that the NRA has relatively high levels of support, so do the kinds of actions Obama is advocating for in the executive orders. For example, 85 percent of Americans are in favor of conducting background checks on those buying guns. Another 79 percent want laws that prevent people who are deemed mentally ill from buying guns, and 70 percent want a database that tracks gun sales. The things that Obama is advocating can’t be considered extreme unless you want to say that 85 percent of Americans are extreme–yet the NRA goes so far as to make claims that Obama “wants to destroy the NRA before the election, so that Hillary can destroy the Second Amendment after it.” The NRA is clearly using fear-mongering to rally support.

Part of me would love to see a showdown between LaPierre and Obama. But at the same time, LaPierre should not be given the national platform to have that conversation unless he’s willing to use facts instead of scare tactics–and this video makes me doubt that.

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 President Obama Shouldn’t Debate Wayne LaPierre: Here’s Why appeared first on Law Street.