Incarcerating teens–a punishment that is meant to prevent crime–often tends to push youth away from schools and into even more crime. This revelation comes from a recently published study in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, which found a new connection between juvenile incarceration and troubles later in life. The study’s conclusions might not come as a surprise, but it helps explain an all-too-familiar pattern in which offenders return to prison shortly after their release. These findings also point to a larger question: is it time to abandon juvenile incarceration for other alternative methods such as counseling and restorative justice?

In the study, researchers examined the outcomes of more than 35,000 juvenile offenders in Chicago over a 10-year period. They found that incarceration lowered graduation rates by 13 percent and increased the chance of adult incarceration by 23 percent. The incarceration of these juveniles, especially those around the age of 16, significantly decreased the likelihood that they would return to school and graduate.

Researchers compared groups of juveniles who–for the same offense–received either an incarceration sentence or some alternative form of punishment. Doing so helped the researchers understand the direct effects of incarceration, particularly because the likelihood of such a punishment varies between judges. Joseph Doyle, who co-authored the study, further explained this point in a press release,

Some kids get a judge who will place them in juvenile detention, other ones get a judge who will be less likely to do so, and comparing the outcomes of the kids across the judges, we can actually say what the causal outcome is of placing the kids in juvenile detention.

Doyle believes that during periods of incarceration, teens meet others who are in trouble, which could lead them to form social groups that are not beneficial to already struggling juveniles. Doyle also says that, “there could be a stigma attached to it, maybe you think you’re particularly problematic, so that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.” This is known as labeling theory in the criminology world, where an offender’s actions are influenced by the way he is described and classified. Labeling theory argues that by incarcerating an individual, he begins to see himself as a criminal and will likely commit more crimes in the future.

Juvenile incarceration creates a vicious cycle where an incarcerated teen eventually becomes imprisoned as an adult, which can often lead to the loss of federal assistance benefits such as loans, food stamps, and welfare. As a result, they have a harder time finding a job, which further incentivizes crime as a source of income. With 75 percent of state prisoners and 69 percent of federal prisoners having not finished high school, education seems essential to preventing criminal offenses. Incarcerating teens takes them out of school and dramatically increases the likelihood that they will not return later on.

In light of this research, alternative measures to combating juvenile delinquency might be the wave of the future. Alternatives like restorative justice, which focuses on repairing harm caused by the offender instead of simply punishing him, have already proven to be effective in combating delinquency.

A restorative justice program often involves both the offender and the victim through counseling, victim-offender conferencing, restitution, and community service. In victim-offender conferencing, both parties are encouraged to discuss their issues in the hopes of finding a resolution and punishment. This is often a more attractive alternative to putting the punishment and resolution process in the hands of a judge, who might be inclined to incarcerate the offender. Restitution simply involves showing remorse and paying the victim back for what was taken.

For more information on restorative justice check out Law Street’s explainer.

In an effort to find an alternative to juvenile incarceration, Barron County, Wisconsin Circuit Court Judge Edward Brunner helped form what would become the Barron County Restorative Justice Program back in 2000. The program employed incarceration alternatives including victim-offender conferencing and teen court, both of which gave juvenile offenders the opportunity to make things right with their victims and the community.

By 2007, Barron County saw a dramatic decrease in juvenile offenses relative to the rest of the state. Barron County’s juvenile arrest rate was 34.2 percent lower in 2007 than it was in the year before the program’s inception, meanwhile the rest of the state only saw a 21.7 percent decrease in the same time span.

Other places, both inside and outside the United States, also experienced decreases in juvenile crime after implementing restorative justice programs. New Zealand saw drastic reductions in juvenile offenses and recidivism after instituting a similar system, and its satisfaction rates among the victims and offenders rose as high as 90 percent.

This recent study shows that juvenile incarceration may not be the best solution for deterring future crime. Kids who are introduced to the juvenile prison system tend to commit more crimes and carry their high recidivism rates into adulthood, and as a result, the vicious cycle of a “career criminal” begins to emerge. If the goal is to prevent crime and help juvenile offenders, perhaps it is now time for society to seek an alternative to incarceration.

Kwame Apea

Kwame Apea is a member of the University of Maryland Class of 2016 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Kwame at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Does Juvenile Incarceration Actually Work? appeared first on Law Street.

Multiple public and private agencies make up the child welfare systems across the country. Although the primary responsibility falls on the shoulders of state governments, the federal government supports the states through funding, program development, and legislative initiatives. Both state and federal governments are essential to the process. The child welfare system’s mission is to create safe and permanent environments for children and to strengthen family units. It is an immense and complex project. So immense and complex, however, that important aspects of child safety fall through the cracks. Oversights are often devastating. Read on to learn more about the challenges that abate the U.S. Child Welfare Systems’ mission.

Overview of Child Welfare Systems

Child welfare systems generally do the following:

Receive and investigate reports of possible child abuse and neglect, provide services to families that need assistance in the protection and care of their children, arrange for children to live with kin or with foster families when they are not safe at home, and arrange for reunification, adoption, or other permanent family connections for children leaving foster care.

Public and private agencies also work to provide services such as “in-home family preservation services, foster care, residential treatment, mental health care, substance abuse treatment, parenting skills classes, domestic violence services, employment assistance, and financial or housing assistance.”

The Children’s Bureau, part of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is the primary federal institution working with state and local agencies to implement federal child and family legislation. Collaboratively, they create programs that prevent child abuse and neglect. Such efforts are authorized by the Child Abuse and Treatment Act (CAPTA) of 1974. CAPTA provides “federal funding to states in support of prevention, assessment, investigation, prosecution, and treatment activities” and awards “grants to public agencies and nonprofit organizations for demonstration programs and projects.”

The Process

First, a concerned person reports suspected child abuse or neglect. More often than not, this person is a “mandatory reporter,” a person required by law to submit a report if he or she suspects child abuse or neglect. Mandatory reporters include individuals who have regular contact with children such as social workers, school personnel, healthcare workers, mental health professionals, child care providers, medical examiners or coroners, and law enforcement officers. Approximately 48 states and other territories have mandatory reporter laws. In many states, every person, regardless of occupation, is legally required to make such a report.

After a report is submitted, it is either “screened in” or “screened out” depending on the amount of information and sufficiency of evidence. If a report is screened in, a Child Protective Services Caseworker will come in and assess the situation. He or she will talk to the child and relatives. If a child is suspected of being in immediate danger, then the child will be brought to a shelter, foster home, or relative’s house while the investigation plays out. At the end of the investigation, the case worker will typically either find the case unsubstantiated or substantiated depending on the evidence. The agency can then initiate a court action if it feels the authority of juvenile court is required during the trial in order to remove the child from the home. In substantiated cases where there has been child abuse or neglect, the threat is labeled as low, moderate, or high. Depending on the severity of the case, the caseworker may recommend community-based resources and service systems, or recommend complete removal of the child from the home. Low-risk parents are often provided support or treatment services, while high-risk parents may be indicted on criminal charges.

Child Welfare System Challenges

Many of the most severe challenges in the Child Welfare System lie in the Foster Care System. Nearly 400,000 children in the United States are living in the foster care system without permanent families.

Over-Institutionalization of Children

You don’t need to be a licensed therapist to know that a positive family dynamic is essential to a child’s well being and mental health. Today, a disturbing amount of children in the child welfare system are placed in institutions rather than homes. Approximately 57, 000 children are living in group placements. The Annie E. Casey Foundation, a children’s advocacy group, recently published a report on this serious issue, advocating that “secure attachments provided by nurturing caregivers are vital to a child’s healthy physical, social, emotional and psychological development throughout his life.”

Children in group placements are at greater risk of abuse and arrest. One in seven children in the child welfare system lives in group placements and 40 percent of those children do not have “documented behavioral or medical need that would warrant placement in such a restrictive setting.” Young people stay in group placements for an average of eight months, although research recommends a stay of three-to-six months for those who require residential treatment. Kids in group placements also suffer from an inappropriate mixing of ages. According to the Society of Research in Child Development, young adults are more susceptible to peer influence. Younger children can suffer from being placed with older kids with behavioral health problems.

Insufficient Background Checks

A major source of controversy in the child welfare system is adequate background checks performed by case workers. There is an overload of cases of foster parents with a criminal background taking in children. For example, Oklahoma is currently under investigation for child abuse and neglect in its foster care system. A recent report, conducted after the death of a 20-month-old boy in foster care, showed that less than 5 percent of the 125 cases investigated for abuse in Oklahoma contained criminal background checks for foster parents.

Caseloads

Caseworkers across all child welfare systems consistently have extensive caseloads. The more cases, the less time and effort a caseworker can devote to each individual child. It also minimizes the ability for a child and caseworker to develop a meaningful relationship, and caseworkers are sometimes blamed for child abuse or neglect in foster homes under their supervision. For example, Catherine Davis, a family services agency caseworker in New Jersey, was suspended after seven-year-old Faheem Williams was found starved to death in his home. His two brothers were also malnourished and burned. Davis had somewhere between 99 and 107 cases. The Child Welfare League of America recommends that “workers carrying ongoing in-home protective services cases…carry no more than 15-17 families.”

Aging Out

When foster children turn 18, they age out of the child welfare system. Many of these children move forward with very little or no support at all. In 2012, 23, 396 foster children aged out of the system. Almost 40 percent were homeless or couch surfing, and 48 percent were unemployed. Fifty percent experienced issues with substance abuse, while 60 percent of the young men had been criminally charged. Nearly a quarter of those aging out did not obtain a high school diploma or GED, and only six percent had graduated with a two or four-year degree.

Case Study: Active Class-Action Suit MD. vs Perry

On behalf of the children in the Texas child welfare system, the Children’s Rights Law Firm of New York, along with co-counsel Haynes & Boone, Yetter Coleman and Canales & Simonson, filed suit against the state of Texas  for “violations of plaintiff children’s constitutional rights, including their right not to be harmed while in state custody and their right to familial association.”

M.D. is one representative of the plaintiff children. She entered foster care at the age of eight. Although initially sent to live with relatives, she returned to state custody after sexual abuse occurred in the home. She moved to multiple placements, including group institutions, where her mental health suffered. When the original complaint was filed, M.D. “lived in a restrictive short-term therapeutic placement with no visitors or basic privileges.”

The main focus of Children’s Rights in this suit is to give children in the Texas welfare care system permanency, whether obtained from reunification with relatives or adoption. Children’s Rights primarily looked at cases where the child had been in foster care for a minimum of 12-18 months, as after a year to a year and a half, foster children’s success rates plummet. Chances for emotional and psychological distress increase and they often act out and exhibit unruly behavior, severely ruining their chances for adoption/permanency. Children without a permanent home age-out without any kind of safety net.

The suit was filed March 29, 2011 and is currently in progress. Children’s Rights is currently in litigation with eight other states as well.

Conclusion

Child welfare systems are broken and reform is inevitable. Travesties occur way too often and are not publicized enough. We need to give foster children a fighting chance to survive on their own after 18. That starts with creating a safe and permanent environment for them while in the welfare system. Turning 18, after a lifetime of struggle and little support, does not make an adult. Fortunately, there are multiple advocacy groups across the country on a mission for reform.

Sources

Primary

Child Welfare Information Gateway: How the Child Welfare System Works

Additional

AFSCME: Caseloads

Annie E. Casey Foundation: Too Many Kids in U.S. Child Welfare Systems Not Living in Families

CCAI: Facts and Statistics

Children’s Rights: In Oklahoma, Asking a Few Questions Might Have Prevented a Boy’s Tragic Death

Child Welfare Information Gateway: Mandatory Reporters of Child Abuse and Neglect

The New York Times: Caseworkers Say Overload Makes it Risky For Children

Society of Research in Child Development: The Detrimental Effects of Group Placements/Services For Youth With Behavioral Health Problems

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 The Child Welfare System: Kids Falling Through the Cracks appeared first on Law Street.

Sponsored Content

The world’s biggest charitable bike ride will be taking over the streets of New York City for the thirty-eighth time on May 3, 2015. The TD Five Boro Bike Tour, run by the non-profit organization Bike New York, attracts 32,000 cyclists from across the globe to its major annual event. Participants experience all five boroughs of the city on a beautiful 40-mile, car-free ride, all united in the name of charity. Teams raise money and awareness for more than 60 partner charities and causes.

Team Partnership With Children is participating in the TD Five Boro Bike Tour this year with a mission; riding to help New York City school children succeed academically and emotionally by providing comprehensive, on-site counseling services at K-12 schools throughout the city.

Read More: Team Partnership With Children

Partnership With Children (PWC) is a New York City-based organization that provides support and resources to students and schools to combat the stress that children growing up in poverty may experience. PWC has a long tradition of helping New York City’s children overcome the severe and chronic stress of growing up in poverty, and the organization works with over 17,000 public school students to ensure that they arrive at school each day ready to learn.

The money raised by Team Partnership With Children at the TD Five Boro Bike Tour will not only help to further that goal, but will also support Bike New York’s mission. Given the focus on improving the lives of everyday New Yorkers–particularly children–the partnership between these effective organizations is a natural fit. Click here to support Team Partnership With Children in the TD Five Boro Bike Tour.

While it’s certainly grown over the years, the TD Five Boro Bike Tour isn’t a new event by any means. It began as part of an effort to teach New York’s youth about the benefits of cycling and bicycle safety. The program ended with a ride around the five boroughs in an attempt to explore the urban landscape in a new way. The program was a success, and as New York became more bike friendly, it continued to grow. Now the event is capped at 32,000 participants and welcomes riders from all over the country and the world. True to its name, the route does involve going through all five boroughs, and includes rides through Central Park and over the Pulaski Bridge. In order to further guarantee the safety of all its riders, the tour now involves blocking off the route so the riders can ride freely and without the fear of cars. Mayor Bill de Blasio praised the event, saying:

New York is at the forefront of making streets safe and accessible for all pedestrians, drivers, and cyclists…More and more New Yorkers are utilizing bikes for transportation and recreation, and Bike New York has been an important ally in teaching cyclists of all ages and skill levels the fundamentals of biking in urban environments and how to ride with confidence and greater regard for street safety.

The money raised for Bike New York during the Tour goes to benefit the lessons and programs that it provides to 16,000 New Yorkers annually. As Bike New York puts it, the event is an opportunity “for the global cycling community to come together to grab life by the handlebars and ride for a reason.”

The President and CEO of Bike New York, Ken Podziba, explained the motivation for the event, stating:

Since the first Tour in 1977, we’ve been reminding the world that the streets are public spaces. Bikes are as welcome and deserving of a place on the blacktop as they are on the greenways, and we’re empowering New Yorkers with that knowledge and the know-how to put it to use and rediscover their rights and their City.

The TD Five Boro Bike Tour is a great opportunity for charity partners like Partnership with Children to unite around a common goal, and promises to be a day of fun for all the riders and supporters who participate. If you’re interested in cheering on the teams or signing up to participate in next year’s event, check out the information here. To support Team Partnership With Children and its critical mission of ensuring that all of New York’s at-risk youth succeed in the classroom and beyond, visit the team page here.

Partnership With Children

Partnership With Children works to strengthen the emotional, social, and academic skills of at-risk children to help them succeed in school, society, and life. PWC has a long tradition of helping New York City’s children overcome the severe and chronic stress of growing up in poverty, ensuring that over 17,000 public school students arrive at school each day ready to learn. Partnership With Children is a partner of Law Street Creative. The opinions expressed in this author’s articles do not necessarily reflect the views of Law Street.

http://www.partnershipwithchildren.org/

The post Partnership With Children to Ride For At-Risk Youth in TD Five Boro Bike Tour appeared first on Law Street.

Across the United States, it is estimated that more than 61,000 youth are incarcerated each night, and more than 65 percent of these young people are youth of color. The overwhelming majority, 75 percent, are incarcerated for non-violent offenses.

The U.S. incarcerates youth at vastly higher rates than any other country in a world. Given that these incarcerated youth die from suicide at a rate of two to three times higher than the non-incarcerated youth population, there is no shortage of controversies surrounding the jailing of youth.

Read on to learn about the different controversies surrounding the incarceration of juveniles in the American justice system.

Death in Prison Without a Jury: An Overview of Youth Incarceration

Though all 50 states and the District of Columbia have defined legal differences between adults and youth who are accused of committing crimes, different states have different standards and definitions for what age someone has to be in order to be prosecuted as a juvenile. Additionally, there are many provisions that allow for certain juveniles to be prosecuted as adults, even if they are technically considered to be juveniles.

For some youth, this can be seen as an initial advantage: juveniles accused of crimes are not entitled to a trial by jury in light of a 1971 Supreme Court decision. Instead, youth are sentenced at the discretion of judges. But this exposes youth to tremendous vulnerability at the hands of judges who are accused of making decisions on the basis of race, even if it’s unconsciously. As Judge LaDoris Cordell argues, regarding the grossly disproportionate number of youth of color in the juvenile justice system:

What is hard is that if you go up to your average juvenile court judge, and that judge is the one who sends these kids off–we’re the ones ultimately responsible for these statistics–that judge will look you dead in the eye and say, “I’m not unfair, I’m not racist, I’m not prejudiced. I do the best I can.” And that judge is telling you the truth. . . . But what is at play here in most cases? I’m not saying there aren’t those judges who are so prejudiced and so racist; there are those. But I think, in the main, most are not. But I think what happens is that stereotypes are so embedded in the psyche of human beings, that those stereotypes come to play. So that when a young black kid comes into court before a white male judge, who perhaps doesn’t have any experience dealing with young black males… a mindset comes up in that judge’s head… Assumptions get made. . . . I think, in the main, that’s what happens, and I think that’s what accounts for those statistics. . . .

However, the risks of being tried in adult courts are also astronomical: approximately 2,500 youth are currently enduring life in prison without parole for crimes committed when they were children. In addition, youth are likely to experience extreme abuse in adult prisons. According to the Equal Justice Initiative, “Children are five times more likely to be sexually assaulted in adult prisons than in juvenile facilities and face increased risk of suicide.”

Additionally, according to Human Rights Watch, while one out of every eight black youths who are convicted of killing someone are sentenced to life in prison, only one out of every 13 white youths convicted of killing someone are sentenced to life in prison.

In New York and North Carolina, this fate is particularly dangerous for youth: these are the only two states that try 16 and 17-year-old young people as adults. In both of these states, the age of adult criminal responsibility is 16, so judges must automatically treat these youth as adults. The prosecution of 16 year olds as adults–and their subsequent processing through the adult, rather than juvenile, system of incarceration–occurs in New York automatically, regardless of the severity of the accused crime. This means that every year, over 200,000 youth under the age of 18 in the U.S. are tried, prosecuted, and incarcerated as adults.

Even young people who are incarcerated as juveniles, however, experience tremendous hardship within the system. In addition to some debilitating and abusive conditions, youth in the juvenile justice system, whether currently incarcerated or on probation, are required to pay money to the courts for their own incarceration and probation. Youth on probation are responsible for payments such as supervisory fees, as well as fees for staying in juvenile hall while awaiting placement in group homes.

The School-to-Prison Pipeline

As schools are militarized across the country–with increased police presence and military training for the police placed in some of our schools–the number of students being funneled from schools into the juvenile justice system is correspondingly increasing. Overall, a 38 percent increase in law enforcement presence in schools between 1997 and 2007 is intimately related to 5 times more students being arrested in schools.

Most of these youths–even those who are not incarcerated extensively after their arrest–lose out on further educational opportunities due to schools’ zero tolerance policies. Zero tolerance policies in schools, which mandate harsh punishments for first-time (and often minor) offenses, emerged from zero tolerance approaches to President George H.W. Bush’s “war on drugs.” According to Professor Nancy A. Heitzeg, sociology instructor and the Program Director of the Critical Studies of Race/Ethnicity program at St. Catherine University, zero tolerance policies in schools are directly related to the funneling of students from schools into prisons:

While the school to prison pipeline is facilitated by a number of trends in education, it is most directly attributable to the expansion of zero tolerance policies. These policies have no measurable impact on school safety, but are associated with a number of negative effects‖ racially disproportionality, increased suspensions and expulsions, elevated drop-out rates, and multiple legal issues related to due process.

By criminalizing “bad behavior” among children in schools instead of supporting students who are in need, zero tolerance policies have, according to Washington Times reporter Nikki Krug, “produced unnecessary student suspensions for even the slightest violations of conduct, leading to higher risk of failing, dropping out and criminal prosecution for minors.” These higher drop-out rates make recidivism and further involvement in both the juvenile and adult justice systems much more likely, with 70 precent of students who become involved with the juvenile justice system dropping out of school entirely.

Young People in Solitary Confinement

Once involved in the juvenile justice system, many youths find themselves devastated by the impacts of solitary confinement. While New York has recently stated that it will end the solitary confinement of youth and those who are pregnant, the punishment is still a reality for many incarcerated youth elsewhere.

Locked in total isolation in small cells for 23 hours a day, children under the age of 18 are locked in solitary for days, weeks, and months on end across the United States every day. The mental health consequences of youth being locked in solitary are even more extreme than they are for adults. The Attorney General’s office has reported, for example, that half of youths who kill themselves while incarcerated do so while they are in solitary. Of those who are not in solitary at the time of their death, 62 percent had endured solitary confinement before.

The youths who do survive solitary are often plagued by the trauma they endure for years to come. In fact, Juan E. Méndez, a United Nations expert on torture, has argued that solitary confinement, especially when practiced on children under 18, amounts to torture.

Juvenile Justice and Racial Justice

According to the National Juvenile Justice Network, youth of color are disproportionately targeted by the juvenile justice system: “In every juvenile offense category—person, property, drug, and public order—youth of color receive harsher sentences and fewer services than white youth who have committed the same category of offenses.” This means that even though white youth commit the same crimes as youth of color, youth of color are criminalized and receive harsher sentences while white youth are more likely to get community service rather than incarceration.

Among these youth of color who are targeted by the juvenile justice system, a great number identify as LGBT. According to the Center for American Progress, around 300,000 LGBT youth are arrested and detained each year in the U.S., and approximately 60 percent of these youth are black and Latina. These youth are much more likely than non-LGBT peers to be targeted for abuse once incarcerated.

Juvenile Injustice?

Though issues abound in the juvenile justice system, many individuals and organizations are committed to making changes to the system. While efforts to reform and overhaul the juvenile justice system are underway, it is clear that youth who have gone through the juvenile justice system are taking the lead in efforts to ensure that justice, rather than injustice, is served. Until these problems are solved, the youth justice system may continue to be unjust.

Resources

Annie E. Casey Foundation: A Collection of Juvenile Justice Resources

Human Rights Watch: The Rest of Their Lives

Human Rights Watch: Growing Up Locked Down

American Civil Liberties Union: Stop Solitary

Center for American Progress: The Unfair Criminalization of Gay and Transgender Youth

PBS: Is the System Racially Biased?

Equal Justice Initiative: Children in Prison

Colorlines: Paying to Get Locked Up

Colorlines: More Police in Schools Means More Students Arrested

Advancement Project: Momentum Grows Against Zero Tolerance Discipline and High-Stakes Testing

NOLO: Do Juveniles Have a Right to Trial by Jury?

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Juvenile Justice System: Inequality and Unjust Treatment appeared first on Law Street.

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

What are electronic cigarettes?

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

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

Components

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

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

Nicotine 

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

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

How are conventional cigarettes regulated?

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

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act

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

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

E-Cigarette Regulation

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

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

Are e-cigarettes dangerous?

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

E-Cigs as a Gateway to Smoking for Young Adults

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

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

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

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

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

Targeting youth?

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

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

 Do e-cigs help people quit smoking?

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

JAMA Study Findings

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

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

Discussions for Future Regulation

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

Conclusion

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

Resources

Primary

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

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

FDA: E-Cigarettes

Additional

BeTobaccoFree.gov: Law/Policies

American Cancer Society: Tobacco-Related Cancers Fact Sheet

American Lung Association: General Smoking Facts

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

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

American Lung Association: Statement on E-Cigarettes

Medical News Today: What Are E-cigarettes?

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

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

Jessica McLaughlin

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

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

Despite the uproar about some of the Supreme Court’s latest rulings, there was also recently a lesser-known progressive SCOTUS decision that deserves applause. The court decided to not hear two related challenges–Pickup v. Brown and Welch v. Brown–to California’s ban on LGBT conversion therapy. The Pickup suit was brought by David Pickup, a therapist and spokesperson for the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH); the plaintiff in the Welch case was Donald Welch, a San Diego pastor. The two suits were backed by religious and anti-LGBT groups in California, but because of SCOTUS’s dismissal, the ban on conversion therapy will go into effect.

In both Pickup and Welch, the plaintiffs claimed that developing adolescents have the choice between heterosexuality or homosexuality. They not only see LGBT orientation as a choice, but also as one that can be corrected and changed with treatment. These suits attested that the minors this ban applies to can reject their unwanted urges. They argue that counselors can help these children in the same way that fitness trainers and nutritionists help people who struggle with their weight. From this point of view, the plaintiffs argued that the ban violated the “constitutional rights of the counselors or parents.“

But what about the rights of the minors? Why weren’t they the ones being discussed in the appeal? Overall, the cases seemed to bypass the minors, who would actually be receiving this conversion therapy, and discussed mostly the rights of their narrow-minded parents or “counselors.” The appeal did claim that the minors firmly believed their same-sex attractions were wrong, unwanted, and correctable. But that being said, those minors could have also been heavily influenced by their families, conversion therapists, and others. It’s easy to agree that your sexual attractions are wrong when the adults you look up to–parents, societal leaders, and religious authorities–are telling you that you’re wrong.

There are also many scientific flaws in conversion therapy. Dr. Jack Drescher MD, a distinguished Fellow of the American Psychological Association, states, “not only is homosexuality ‘not a choice,’ as most efforts to try and change a person’s sexual orientation fail, but some attempts to change can cause harm or damage to an individual’s well-being.” Studies have found that there are no “methodologically sound” studies to support the use of sexual orientation conversion therapy, thus discounting any scientific proof to support these practices.

Furthermore, science has proven that, besides being completely ineffective at converting someone’s sexuality, these therapy techniques can result in permanent psychological and emotional damage to LGBT youth. Instances of societal prejudice and familial rejection have resulted in LGBT youth being nearly six times as likely to report high levels of depression, and more than eight times as likely to have attempted suicide. The pressure that closeted LGBT kids face from family to reject their feelings can be confusing and traumatic. Openly gay youths, or those that have admitted their urges and sought advice from parents, can be met with furious disgust, and even disowned. These reactions, especially from the people that are supposed to provide unconditional love, can be heartbreaking and life-threatening. Conversion therapy only prolongs and falsely validates these reactions.

This issue is tied to the Hobby Lobby case in a way, because some critics were worried that the precedent set in Hobby Lobby would “open the floodgates” to suits from companies asking for religious exceptions to laws. Fortunately, the judges explicitly stated in their decision that their ruling was unique to the specific contraceptive case. The decisions in Pickup and Welch serve as some indication that that will hold true. The Court’s decision not to hear those cases was handed down just moments before the Hobby Lobby decision, possibly proving that religious challenges are not going to end up a SCOTUS free-for-all. While Hobby Lobby certainly made more headlines, Pickup and Welch are incredibly important as well.

The decision on behalf of the Supreme Court not to hear the religious appeal to the ban on LGBT conversion therapy was not only a victory for gay, lesbian and transgender rights advocates, but also set an important legal precedent. In refusing the appeal, the court allowed the official prohibition to finally be enforced in California after being held up by these law suits. This law was the first of its kind, signed back in 2012, and was followed by similar legislation in New Jersey about a year later. In my opinion, no one can use guilt and anxiety to induce change, and call it therapy or counseling. In my book, and fortunately the Supreme Court’s as well, they’re just plain wrong.

—

Erika Bethmann (@EBethmann) is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [@mjb via Flickr]

Erika Bethmann

Erika Bethmann is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Good Call, SCOTUS: Conversion Therapy Banned in California 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.

It goes without saying that bullying is a condemnable practice and that it remains a crucial problem to solve in this country. But can we really punish children for bullying with the law?

A bill, which ultimately failed during a final vote held on May 20, would have made bullying a criminal offense in Carson, California. Jim Dear, the mayor of Carson, wanted to designate his city as a bully-free zone. Dear and the city council supported a bill that would have made bullying a misdemeanor for culprits that are 25 and under. The ordinance imposed a fine on those convicted of the misdemeanor. Mayor Dear felt that this measure would help to prevent bullying.

Two reasons why the bill failed:

1. The language used was extremely vague, making the bill hard to interpret. The bill did not define bullying, and it’s lack of specifications as to what actions constitute bullying was worrisome to many. The ambiguous language could have allowed law enforcement officers to determine that bullying had occurred at their own discretion.

2. Many members of the Carson community expressed concerns over the measure’s application to young children, noting that elementary school children are still beginning to develop and cannot fully comprehend the consequences of their actions.

But while the measure failed, the fact that it was close to passing puts great importance on the matter of whether ordinances against bullying should be enacted into law. Moreover, although the Carson bill did not pass, a similar measure in Florida will soon be put to a vote.

Controversy: should bullying be considered a criminal offense?

Susan Porter, author of Bully Nation, thinks not. Porter, a seasoned educator and counselor, debated the issue with Mayor Dear on a public radio station in California. In her book, Ms. Porter expressed that through her experience in schools, she found that increasingly harsh anti-bullying policies in schools did not decrease the amount of bullying in schools but made the situation worse. She claimed that school policies labeled children as bullies or victims, and that these children continued to adhere to those roles in the future.

Many anti-bullying policies treat the situations as black and white, attempting to solve the problem by shielding victims rather than working with both children to resolve their conflict in a less harmful way. By focusing on the punishment rather than the problem, the issue of bullying in American schools has yes to be resolved. Given this view on bullying, Ms. Porter argued against Carson’s proposed law, viewing the measure as another method of focusing on the punishment rather than taking steps to prevent children from bullying in the first place.

For more insight into Susan Porter’s argument against anti-bullying laws, check out this interview with her from Reason TV:

Despite Susan Porter’s reasoned argument, many municipalities and cities are still considering anti-bullying laws on the books. In fact, several cities already have, including Milton, Wisconsin. But while Carson’s potential anti-bullying law was met with a great deal of criticism and media attention, Milton’s law, which has been in place for four years, has not had any issues in its enforcement.

What, then, can cities like Carson learn from Milton’s law in shaping anti-bullying policy?

For one thing, Milton’s policy allows for schools to internally handle the first instances of bullying rather than immediately resorting to law enforcement. This can allow schools a chance to work with students to teach them why bullying is wrong rather than simply stating that it is wrong through formal punishment. While schools still need to improve the ways that they handle bullying, allowing the schools to handle offenses first gives them the opportunity to guide children in the error of their ways before they are convicted of bullying. This practice, if coupled with successful school counseling, could lessen the number of bullies that would be formally charged by the law.

Additionally, the policy gives a clearer definition on the kind of practices that constitute severe bullying. Jim Martin, the Milton school policer officer, noted that he “only engages the most severe cases, and draws a sharp distinction between the kind of behavior that requires intervention and the usual push and pull of the schoolyard.” Ensuring that only serious cases of bullying could be brought to court gives a clearer sense of what actions would violate the law and does not put children who name call and those who beat up others into the same category. 

With a clearer definition of what actions make bullying a crime and allowing schools to work with children to teach them about the harm bullying causes rather than immediately punishing them, the Milton law remains a good example of an anti-bullying policy. If cities feel that enacting an ordinance against bullying will help curb the problem in their schools and communities, careful wording must be put into the law to allow for the proper handling of these situations.

[NPR] [SCPR] [Susan Porter] [Desert News]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post New Anti-Bullying Bill: 2 Reasons Why it Failed appeared first on Law Street.

The GOP has really struggled over the last few years with how to woo the young demographic. Voters between 18-29 overwhelmingly voted for Obama in the last two Presidential elections — 66 and 60 percent in 2008 and 2012, respectively. Pundits have done analysis after analysis into the GOP’s young voter problem, and the conclusion is that…many young voters just don’t like the GOP’s message.

So, the GOP has tried to reach out to those wayward young voters, despite this fact. And that effort has created some hilarious results. Here are the top five weirdest ways the GOP has tried to attract young people…and whether or not they’re any good.

Let’s start with the most recent:

5. GOP Hipster Ads

A couple days ago, the GOP released these two ads:

They feature your friendly neighborhood hipster who’s here to tell you why he’s a Republican! There have already been a few parodies released, and to be honest, before I inserted those clips I had to make sure that those weren’t, in fact, parodies. These ads will air on networks that young voters, minorities, and women (all groups the GOP doesn’t do well with) frequent, such as Bravo, Food, E!, Hall, HGTV, Life, LMN, Oxygen, OWN, TLC and We.

Ok so here’s the thing about these ads. They depict a white, 20-something male, who is complaining because a lot of his paycheck goes to filling up his gas tank. But he has a gas tank to fill up. He has a paycheck. He can afford to pay his heating bill. As a white male he has probably faced very little discrimination in his life. He’s doing way better than most millennials. The entire ad campaign comes off as entitled, whiny, and alarmingly fake.

And as Gawker points out, the gas policies that he supposedly thinks will make his gas cheaper would actually probably just make energy companies richer and have no affect on his gas.

4. The one time the GOP tried Crowdsourcing 

One thing that the Democratic Party has always been good at is rallying young people online. So the GOP jumped on the bandwagon and tried crowdsourcing — reaching out to the internet community for ideas. It was called “America Speaking Out.” And it went spectacularly badly.

The ASO site was glitchy and outdated. Despite Rep. Kevin McCarthy’s (R-CA) claim that he, “personally traveled to Washington state and discovered a Microsoft program that helped NASA map the moon,” the site looked like this, with a terrifying mix of fonts and interfaces:

Thanks, ThinkProgress!

The site was almost immediately trolled, because, really, it’s just too fun to mess with an attempt this bad.

A close runner up though, is this throwback:

Thank you for saving this, Tech Crunch.

3. When the Heritage Foundation tried to use Buzzfeed. 

I do give them some credit here. At least they chose a relevant medium, even though it was poorly done. This summer they created a list called, “That One Time I was Really, Really Excited About Obamacare: Until I Realized Everything I Thought About Obamacare was Totally Wrong.”

The entire list truly is a tutorial in contrived marketing, contains a heavy helping of blatant lies, and feels rather patronizing, but my personal favorite is this part:

“… and made the announcement on the 4th of July … WHO IS PAYING ATTENTION TO NEWS ON THE FOURTH OF JULY?!”

Really, Heritage Foundation? You had a list to make a dozen or so points about Obamacare and that’s one of the ones you chose? The 4th of July is Thursday. Sure, most people have it off work, but the news still exists. I still have access to my computer and TV and newspapers.

But really, guys, stop trying. This isn’t even a well done Buzzfeed list.

And speaking of badly done anti-Obamacare propaganda…

2. Remember this creepy Uncle Sam Ad?

Nothing attracts me to a political party like being incredibly creepy. Really, I want to be a part of the party that tells me some terrifying mascot/clown hybrid will soon be my OB-GYN.

On a more substantive note — we all realize what this ad is, right? It’s encouraging young people not to get health care. There’s no way around it. The message is don’t get your health insurance through Obamacare or you will be assaulted by “Uncle Sam.”

AHHHH!

And young Americans didn’t respond well. Pretty much everyone agreed that instead of getting the message across, the ad was just creepy and off-putting.

1. Make Abortion “Funny” 

This was a stated strategy of certain groups in the GOP, particularly in the youth wings. Students for Life President Kristan Hawkins stated at a conference last year, “You can engage with sarcasm, it’s hard with the abortion issue, but you have to. Unfortunately we have to, because this is the generation that we’ve been dealt.”

Abortion is a serious issue. It is a personal issue. It is by no means a thing that you joke about. Ever. This right here is so completely indicative of all the issues the GOP has with young people. They think that we care more about energy policies (like the hipster dude in the first ad) than being given autonomy over our bodies. They think we care more about sarcasm than respect. They think we can be bought with cheap taglines and shoddy listicles. Until they learn how wrong they are, I bet you that 2016 election results will be similar to 2008 and 2012.

—

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 [Flickr/Don DeBold/Klearchos Kapoutsis]

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 The Top 5 Lamest Attempts by the GOP to Reach Young Voters appeared first on Law Street.