Cannabis in the United States

By Elorm Sallah

According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), marijuana in the United States “is the most commonly use illicit drug” with 17.4 million past-month users in 2010. And in 2012 it was reported by the NIDA that 78.6 percent of illicit users use marijuana, with 60.1 percent of users stating marijuana was the only drug that they used.¹

Although marijuana has a strong presence in many cultures in America, particularly adolescence, and young adults, efforts to prevent users has been strongly enforced since the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, as well as President Nixon’s declaration of the “War on Drugs” in 1971, which is federal policies, and military efforts to prevent the use of illicit drugs within the United States.

As of 2013, only two states in the nation have legalized cannabis, Washington state, and Colorado, while many states which include California, Nevada, Oregon, Alaska, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island all have enacted both medical and decimalization laws with in the last 15 years.

In addition, numerous states that have either decriminalized marijuana possession laws, or have enacted medical cannabis laws, almost half of the states in the United States have no such laws or regulations, making users susceptible to severe fines, and possible jail time.

In 2009, Gil Kerlikowske, the director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy clarified that the federal government will uphold their position of marijuana as being “dangerous and has no medical benefit.” ² Additionally in 2012, the Obama administration stated that it “steadfastly opposed legalization of marijuana and other drugs because legalization would increase the availability and use of the illicit drug, and pose significant health and safety risks.”³

According to the FBI, there have been nearly eight million cannabis arrests in the United States since 1993, and the majority of these arrests are possession – which does not include manufacturing or distributing marijuana.⁴ In 2008 alone, there were 847,864 persons arrested for marijuana possession, and of that number only 752,224 were charged with possession only. Marijuana accounts for nearly half of all drug arrests in the United States.⁴

In recent years, many prominent politicians have come out in favor of the legalization of marijuana or the reduction of penalties faced with possession of cannabis.  Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson (R) is for some sort of federal legalization of the drug.  In an April 2012 interview for rawstory.com, he stated, “When we legalize marijuana, we’re going to take steps toward drug reform, which will start off with looking at drugs as a public health issue, rather than a legal issue.”⁵

In addition to legalizing marijuana usage based on recreational purposes, many political figures state that legalizing cannabis would lead to a reduction of cartel violence in Mexico and Central America. US officials state that 60 percent of Mexican cartel revenues come from marijuana that is sold in the United States, so with current legalization and future initiatives for the legalization, it is possible that the current drug cartel violence within Mexico can decrease, as there will be a greater legal availability of American grown marijuana.

¹ http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/marijuana-abuse/what-scope-marijuana-use-in-united-states

² http://www.komonews.com/news/local/52676987.html

³ http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/marijuanainfo

⁴ http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/arrests/index.html

⁵ http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/20/former-nm-gov-gary-johnson-legalize-marijuana-to-reduce-violence/

⁶ http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/20/former-nm-gov-gary-johnson-legalize-marijuana-to-reduce-violence/

What the Navy Yard Shooting Will Mean for Gun Control Reform

By Rosalba Gleijeses

Often a source of much contention in national policy debate, gun control legislation has been once again thrust into the limelight in the tragic aftermath of this week’s Navy Yard shooting. In the wake of the Newton massacre this past winter, a Senate bill was introduced that sought to establish more rigorous background checks in the purchase of firearms, ban the purchase of military-style rifles, and limit the size of ammunition magazines. Despite attempts to overrule a filibuster, the bill failed to pass in April. Ardently dismayed by Congress’s squandering of the bill, President Obama has since pledge to make control a priority. However, the issue has yet to resurface on the floor on Congress, which begs the question: will this issue quickly fade into legislative oblivion after the immediate shock and grief subside?

The answer seems dismal, if patterns perpetuate. After the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting, gun control received a surge in media coverage.  Interest quickly dissolved when the issue no longer remained a legislative issue being addressed on the floor. The President’s statements prove influential in spiking media coverage, but only briefly, where this issue will likely remain untouched until violent tragedy strikes again. An unfortunate side effect of the waning media coverage is that many citizens are unaware or the current gun control legislation.

As of 2010, 40-45% of households in the US had at least one firearm. Roughly 67% of documented murders in the United States are committed with firearms. What are the current rules to regulate this? In 1976, Washington, DC passed a law that prohibited individuals from possessing handguns, while also requiring that all firearms in private home be kept unloaded and rendered temporarily inoperable, by means of disassembly or installation of a trigger law. In 2008, however, the US Supreme Court struck down the law as unconstitutional in a 5-4 ruling. Current federal law deems it illegal to import, manufacture, deal, or transport a firearm without a license to do so (64 USC 18). However, federal law does not require that an individual undergo a background check when transferring or selling a firearm within the same state. Are these means alone the extent of sufficient, constitutional gun control?

In the immediate aftermath of situations like those of Navy Yard, and all other mass shootings, the public ardently preaches the need for stricter gun control. But as with the trend of media coverage, this fervor softens as tragedies slip farther into the past. Alternatively, there are a considerable amount of Americans that would vehemently defend their Second Amendment rights. Unless another bill soon reaches the floor, this issue will remain addressed only when immediately apparent, an occasional captivating story with undulating media popularity.

7 Things You Don't Know about Law School Admissions

Bloomberg Law....

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declares Proposition 8 to be Unconstitutional

By: Charles Press

On February 7, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declared Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional because the court ruled that it violated the equal protection clause.  The court’s ruling was narrow and did not address the broader question of whether or not same-sex couples have the constitutional right to marry.  Rather, the court pointed to the fact that proposition 8 rescinded a right that was held and exercised by California residents when many of them legally married.   The court ruled 2-1 on the issue, and the lone dissenter, N.R. Smith, expressed the possibility of voters believing that there might have been a rational basis in passing the law to promote “responsible procreation”.  Justice Scalia, however, in Lawrence v. Texas, dismissed this idea when he asked “what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising [t]he liberty protected by the Constitution? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry.”

The case could very well find its way to the Supreme Court, as it will likely be appealed. 

Further reading:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/calif-same-sex-marriage-ban-ruled-%20unconstitutional/2012/02/07/gIQAMNwkwQ_story.html

Social Media and Public Records

By: Graham I. Rabinowitsch

With the increase in use of social media by government agencies and public officials, questions about the public record status of social media posts, comments, tweets, etc. have risen and will likely continue to persist. Laws pertaining to public meetings and records are referred to as Sunshine Laws. Under sunshine laws, typically, government agencies must conduct all business at open, public meetings, officials may not discuss any business which may come before their body with other members of the body outside of such meetings, and all records pertaining to public business must be made available to the public. Social media, an interactive part of the lives of many Americans (especially the younger generations), can complicate matters.

For traditional public records (ex. paper documents, email, etc), a designated custodian of records maintains copies of the records for the official file. Facebook posts and comments and tweets and direct messages are not saved to the file servers of government agencies. Should the public official manually archive such data and transmit it to their agency’s designated custodian? It becomes an issue when public officials blend their personal and official social media presences. If it relates to public business or is an official page or feed, the information should be available to the public and maintained as a record just as traditional paper documents and emails are. The public has a right to know how their officials make decisions that affect their lives. Where is the line drawn? Should public officials have separate accounts for their private life and their official role, making sure they do not post anything that could be interpreted as a public record on their private accounts? In a world like today, can public officials afford to avoid social media entirely?

Further Reading

·       Best Practices for Social Media Usage in North Carolina http://www.records.ncdcr.gov/guides/best_practices_socialmedia_usage_20091217.pdf

·       Naples Daily News – School district officials Twittering cautiously to avoid violating open records laws http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2009/jun/25/school-district-officials-twittering-cautiously-av/

·       National Council of State Legislatures – Examples of Policies Related to Legislative Use of Social Media http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/telecommunications-information-technology/policies-for-legislative-social-media-social-net.aspx

·       News Service of Florida – Open Records Challenged by Social Networking http://www.jaxobserver.com/2010/02/23/open-records-challenged-by-social-networking/

·       Sun-Sentinel – Tweets, postings trigger public records rules for officials http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/palm-beach/fl-social-media-government-20120206,0,3353953.story

Affordable Care Act: Helpful or Harmful?

November 30^th, 2011

Giulia Stavropoulos

One of the biggest, and possibly most obvious, issues with health insurance is that many Americans are unable to afford it. On November 14^th, 2011, the Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari, reviewing a prior decision that was made by the United States Court of Appeals to declare a mandate in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) unconstitutional. This specific mandate required all people to have at least the minimal coverage requirement for heath insurance.

In addition to reviewing this decision, the Supreme Court specifically decided to review the Medicaid expansion that was incorporated in the ACA. The ACA proposed to add Medicaid expansions to cover qualified adults under the age of sixty-five and would supposedly add an addition sixteen million Americans to Medicaid’s policy. The government would pay for the first three years of expansion, but would then rely on states’ share that would grow to ten percent. The states originally challenged this expansion believing that it was unwarranted due to the possibility of Medicaid losing all its funding, consequently negatively affecting the states for which Medicaid holds the largest source of federal funding. This case will be argued in front of the Supreme Court in mid-2012 and will be decided in the summer.

There are numerous opinions on the proper healthcare coverage and insurance plan mostly due to the fact that being covered with health insurance is an important issue to all Americans, especially in today’s economic crisis. It is possible that this case will bring positive changes to the Affordable Care Act, and hopefully positive changes to all Americans who are at risk of losing all of their income from unpredictable illnesses. But will it make all Americans sufficiently content? Probably not.

Is it beneficial for Medicaid to implement this expansion? Could this specific case bring us any closer to satisfying everyone’s needs?

Further reading:

Care And Cost:

http://careandcost.com/2011/11/16/high-court-to-review-acas-minimum-coverage-requirement-medicaid-expansion/

The New York Times:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/25/the-supreme-court-and-health-care-2/?scp=2&sq=supreme%20court&st=cse