Author: Jared Fallon

On August 28, 2008 Russia’s General of Staff stated that “Despite the apparent strength, the NATO naval group in the Black Sea is not battle-worthy,” adding that Russia’s Black Sea Fleet is capable of destroying NATO’s fleet “within 20 minutes”. Rising tensions between the US and Russia have diverted most of our attention to the Georgia/Russia conflict despite the fact that tensions are still incredibly high in the oil-rich Black Sea. For some time, US ally Turkey has been conducting extensive research with BP to explore the possibility of investing great sums of money within the region in its pursuit for greater energy independence. Security within the region is obviously a high priority.

To no surprise, Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) has pushed S.3001on the Hill in order to “authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2009 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy…”. As oil sources are coming under increasingly greater demands it is no wonder that such bills are being proposed – and of no coincidence that Senator Levin would like to expand the Department of Energy’s jurisdiction. Levin’s experience in such military and energy policies are quite extensive and include his current positions as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Governmental Affairs Committee, and member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. For Levin’s extensive record in serving the people of Michigan, click here.

Author: Jared Fallon

In a recent report conducted by the General Accountability Office (GAO) it was found that roughly two thirds of US corporations found ways to avoid paying federal income taxes between the years 1998 and 2005. Additionally, it was found that 68 percent of foreign companies doing business in the United States partook in the same exercise. The report was initially requested by Senators Byron L. Dorgan (D-ND) and Carl Levin (D-MI). Many people believe that it is unfair for these corporations to avoid such a tax but considering the complexities and time spent on complying, why wouldn’t they?

Despite the fact that the United States is home to one of the friendliest business climates in the world, it also is known to have one of the most complex federal tax codes that can, at times, encourage corporations to spend large sums of money to discover methods of tax evasion, rather than encourage innovation. The US increasingly causes both individuals and corporations to bare this monolithic burden that can, and should be made easier. Amidst the developments and changes that are matched with the newest waves of globalization, the US needs to figure out ways to help it become more welcoming not only for US entrepreneurs but foreign corporations as well. A simplified federal income tax code would help accomplish this and in turn, create more competitive benefits for America.

Author: Jared Fallon

The words we have all feared for so long are increasingly becoming a reality day after day. As forewarned at the 08 Fortune’s Brainstorm Tech conference by Stanford Law Professor Lawrence Lessig, “There’s going to be an i-9/11 event which will act as a catalyst for a radical reworking of the law pertaining to the internet”. Change is in the wind, and several key legislators are busier than ever thinking of new ways on how to use legislation as a tool to regulate the only true free frontier for media we have left.

At the time being, the two main federal bills to keep an eye on are: H.R.4279 and S.522. The first, sponsored by John Conyers Jr., (D-MI), would create an IP Dictator at the Department of Justice while attempting to “enhance remedies for violations of intellectual property laws, and for other purposes.”  S.522, on the other hand, is one of Evan Bayh’s (D-IN) bills and clearly only keeps the best of all of our mutual interests in mind by improving “…the effectiveness of domestic and international intellectual property rights enforcement…”.  It is no coincidence that both of these congressmen have sponsored several bills together and have many friends of reciprocity. More dialogue must be created about these bills for the future of the internet and free media as we know it.

Author: Jared Fallon

The word “change” has become one of the most paramount and beaten to death aspects of the 2008 Presidential Election. Given the average American’s view of President Bush and the War in Iraq, for most people it is no wonder that such a simple slogan could literally be the one-word brand that reminds everyone of Barack Obama – a man of many firsts. Aside from landmarks such as being the first black president of the Harvard Law Review and the first African American nominated for President by the Democratic Party, the dimensions Obama brings to this Presidential race are deep. The intriguing thing about Obama’s strategy for running predominately on the concept of change is that his VP pick is exactly the opposite of the kind of change that many Obama supporters desire.

Joe Biden is a seasoned product of the Hill that began his political career as a Delaware Senator when Obama was only 10 years old. Since then he has made many landmarks – most of which are not “change”, but a reincarnation of what many Obama supporters are avoiding the Republican Party for. Biden was not only awarded the “Face for the Future” by Time Magazine his first senatorial term but now stands as the sixth-longest serving senator in history. To get some insight into the long list of legislation Biden has been involved in, click here. For Obama and Biden dual-sponsored bills, click here. Is this the type of “change” Obama’s supporters are looking for? Obama might have just killed his chances.

AUTHOR: Crystal Fontaine

It was glamorous, stylish, and even sexy. Photos portrayed beautiful women and men as an advertised: Try it and you’ll be like us. Popular celebrities were walking advertisements as well, influencing their adoring public. Today, the affects of this addictive substance on health is well known. Where long ago it was once looked upon as cool, many people now view it as disgusting and repulsive. The substance is known as tobacco, which is contained in products such as cigarettes.

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, or H.R. 1108, protects public health by providing the Drug and Food Administration with certain authority to regulate tobacco products. Congress believes it is in the public interest to enact this legislation. The benefits to the American people would be significant in human and economic terms. The act lists numerous Congressional findings. Over the years, the Scientific and medical communities have concluded that tobacco products are intrinsically hazardous and cause cancer, heart-disease, and other serious unfavorable health affects. Today, many new users are usually under the legal age limit to purchase the products. Unfortunately, past efforts to curtail tobacco used by adolescents by inhibiting advertising and marketing has been unsuccessful; therefore, comprehensive restrictions on the sale promotion and distribution of such products are needed. Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of premature death in America. This product causes over 400,000 deaths in the U.S each year and roughly 8,600,000Americans have chronic illness linked to smoking.

Under the act, the Secretary shall establish within the Food and Drug Administration the Center for Tobacco Products, which shall report to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs. Each tobacco product manufacturer or importer shall submit various types

AUTHOR: Crystal Fontaine

Mark Twain once said that “[m]any public-school children seem to know only two dates—1492 and 4th of July; and as a rule they don’t know what happened on either occasion”. The education of our youth should be top priority. Education paves the way for future leaders, great philosophers as well as a better world and better opportunities. It opens up pathways that many may have not known existed.

House bill number 6525 proposes to amend the National Assessment of Education Progress Authorization Act to require State academic assessments of student achievement in U.S. History and Civics.

Certain findings by Congress paint a troubling picture. The 2006 National Assessment of Educational Progress demonstrated high percentages of students scoring below basic. In the subject of history, thirty percent of students in Grade 4 scored below basic. The percentages only go higher from there as thirty-five percent in Grade 8 scored below basic, while a whopping fifty-three percent in Grade 12 has the same scores. It is interesting to note that eighty-six percent (yes, you read right) of students in Grade 12 could not explain a reason for the U.S involvement in the Korean War.

Students seemed to fair a little better concerning Civics. Only twenty-seven percent of students in Grade 4 scored below basic. Students in grades 8 and 12 show a significant difference in percentage scores between history and civics. Only thirty percent in Grade 8 and thirty-four percent in Grade 12 scored below basic. Unfortunately, seventy-two percent of students in Grade 8 could not explain the historical purpose to the Declaration of Independence. That is simply amazing. According to the bill, there should be trail State academic assessment of student achievement in U.S civics and history from grades 8 through 12 in at least ten geographically diverse states. The states would be selected and identified to participate in the assessments with the consultation of the Commissioner for Education Statistics. In addition, H.R. 6525 allows for money appropriations of $7,000,000 for each fiscal year of 2008 and 2009 in order to carry out the United States History and Civics Assessments.

Although these percentages are just numbers, they still portray a disturbing fact. For one reason or another, our students are not doing so well concerning our nation’s history. I do not think I want to know what the percentage is of students not knowing how our nation was founded.

AUTHOR: Crystal Fontaine

Known as one of the worst humanitarian disasters in Africa, the Darfur Conflict has destroyed hundreds of thousands of lives. House Resolution 1351 portrays support and a call for the international community to come to the aid of the people of Darfur and the humanitarian efforts made by peacekeeping troops.

Since it gained its independence some forty three years ago, Sudan has spent more time in internal armed conflict than enjoying that independence. Just as one civil war ended with a peace accord in the Southern provinces, the Darfur Conflict emerged in 2003 as some issues still were not resolved within the nation. Many accuse the government of using aerial bombings and Janjaweed, an Arab Tribal militia, in response to the hostility and fighting. Khartoum officials deny the allegations. Hundreds of thousands of Darfur Refugees have fled with estimates of 180,000 people dead. Around two million have been displaced.

House Resolution 1351 states that seven UNAMID peacekeepers were killed with another 22 wounded on July 8, 2008. This attack is just one of several strings of attacks on aid workers. The UN Security Council had unanimously passed Resolution 1769, which had authorized the deployment of 26,000 peacekeeping troops to the area last summer. However, UNAMID has been thwarted by the Sudanese government and rebels since the decision. The UN announced on June 25, 2008, that UNAMID in Darfur lacked critical resources, including troops, police officers, and air transport. The resolution expresses Congresses condolences to the people of Rwanda, Ghana, and Uganda and to the family and friends of those killed and wounded. These attacks on UNAMID have been condemned. In addition, H. Res. 1351 calls upon the Sudanese government to ensure that those responsible are brought to justice. There is urgency within the resolution for the international community as well as members of the UN to contribute resources necessary to ensure UNAMID’s success.

Recently, Mr. Ocampo, the International Criminal Court Prosecutor, has asked for the arrest of Sudanese President al-Bashir. Mr. Ocampo would like to see the Sudanese President indicted on war crimes charges and wants rebels to help investigate two of their own commanders accused of attacking African Union peacekeepers. The allegations on President al-Bashir have sparked angry protests. Some UN officials fear that there will be reprisals against UN peacekeepers and aid workers in Darfur. The African Union also feels that the peace process would be jeopardized if the charges are not dropped by the UN Security Council.

Hope is like a light at the end of the tunnel. The people of Darfur need hope and they need our help.

Outside sources
Washingtonpost.com
BBC News (news.bbc.co.uk)

AUTHOR: Crystal Fontaine

As a young American in the 21st century, I have never known oppression. I have never longed for freedom because I was born free with the ability to make my own choices and be whoever I want. Thousands every day live in fear of just speaking their own minds. As Americans we look on to those nations of tyranny half-way across the world. We sympathize, but never truly realize. One such nation lives in our very own backyard just 90 miles off the tip of Florida. That nation is Cuba.

US-Cuban relations have been virtually non-existent for decades. Since 1961, official US policy has been economic embargo and diplomatic isolation. Key issues for America’s “beef” with the island nation arise from human rights violations, Guantanamo Bay, and the Cuban exile community living in Southern Florida. During his administration, President Bush has kept things tight concerning Cuba. Americans may only visit immediate family once every 3 years with an allowance of up to $300 to carry into Cuba. In 2003, President Bush established the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba, where several Cuban-Americans sit. Under the CAFC, a fund called the “Cuba Fund for a Democratic Future” was developed to support independent civil society, finance university scholarships, and break the information barricade in Cuba.  Congress has been a little more lenient on the island by amending the trade embargo to allow agricultural exports from the U.S. to Cuba.

Earlier in 2008, Fidel Castro stepped down and relinquished command to his brother, Raul. Who else better to leave your throne to than family? The change in power has sparked a debate on future US-Cuban relations. Raul seems to have indicated a willingness to at least listen to what the U.S government has to say. Perhaps it hasn’t gotten as much media time as the energy debate, but Cuba is still an important topic for the 2008 Presidential race. McCain and Obama have similar, yet different views concerning Cuba. John McCain would keep the embargo in place and not permit economic aid. In general, he has voted in support of restrictions on Cuba. In 1992, he cosponsored the Cuban Democracy Act. According to McCain, he would “press the Cuban regime to release all political prisoners unconditionally, legalize all political parties, labor unions, and free media and to schedule internationally monitored elections”. Barack Obama would also not lift the embargo unless Cuba liberates its political prisoners, start instituting free press and take other steps to democratize. He has voted twice to cut off TV Marti Funding.  However, Obama looks to stabilize relations at some point. He would allocate for unrestricted family travel and remittance to the island. In his May 2008 speech in Miami, Obama stated “There are no better ambassadors for Freedom than Cuban-Americans”.

The change in leadership within both nations may bring about more diplomatic relations in the future. Perhaps, one day we will see a free Cuba.

AUTHOR: Crystal Fontaine

We’ve all been warned by our parents time and time again as children that talking to strangers is bad. Of course, there are the exceptions. Your friends at school had once been strangers. In a time where technology has brought us the computer and then the internet, one of the scariest things that parents may face is their child ignoring the “Don’t Talk to Strangers” advice and making online “friends”. Sometimes, these so-called friends are not who they said they were. When a child decides to meet their online “friend”, there are times when that child goes missing.

The internet is probably the hardest area to regulate, especially to protect our children. Senate bill number 1965, also known as Protecting Children in the 21st Century Act, proposes an effort to protect our children from such cybercrimes produced by online predators and to educate parents in protecting their families from inappropriate materials online. In order to educate the public, the Federal Trade Commission would carry out a nationwide program that provides awareness as well as promoting strategies in safe use of the internet for children. The Commission would provide a yearly report to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation describing the activities carried out by the program.

The act also proposes to establish an Online Safety and Technology working group comprised of representatives from the business community and other appropriate groups to evaluate efforts to promote online safety and the practices of service providers in preserving the law in connection with crimes against children. After the first year that this group would convene a report will be submitted to the Committee on Science, Commerce, and Transportation and the Assistant Secretary that would give details of their findings. The report is to also include recommendations to increase effectiveness of any strategies or technologies.

Despite the efforts of the government, there is only so much they can do. It is up to the parents to make sure that their children are practicing safe ways to surf the internet.

The House recently passed legislation which promotes the increase of public transportation and the use of alternative fuels for public transport. Bill H.R. 6052 sanctions public transportation grants for each of the fiscal years of 2008 and 2009 in urbanized and other areas. These grants are to be used for a variety of reasons, such as the any operating costs that a grant recipient is incapable of paying due to lower fares and costs accrued as a result of expanding transportation services.  The bill also requires that a grant given that involves obtaining clean fuel or alternative fuel equipment for the purpose of acting in accordance with the Clean Air Act to be one hundred percent of the net project expenditures.

Furthermore, the act amends the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act. It requires that federal agency employees in urbanized regions of the United States must be offered transportation fringe benefits for their use of public transportation. Bill H.R. 6052 expresses that the Secretary is to distribute direction on realization of a transportation fringe benefits program on a nationalized scale. The Secretary will launch a pilot program to carry out vanpool illustration projects. In addition, the bill insists on a grant intended for a capital project during the years of 2008 and 2009, involving the acquisition of property for the creation of new parking facilities. The grant will be for one hundred percent of the project unless the recipient of the grant appeals for a smaller sum.

Public transportation is only one step towards a cleaner, more energy efficient world. We are in a turning point in history and what we do now will affect future generations. Our planet is precious and deserves better care.

AUTHOR: Megan Yarbrough

Keeping up with the candidates and their individual details can be difficult at times. This article, designed as a quick overview of four of the current presidential candidates, will help you feel and appear knowledgeable.

U.S. Senator John McCain (Republican)

Biographical Background
John McCain graduated from the Naval Academy in 1958, later serving as a pilot in the Vietnam War. During his service, he spent five years as a prisoner of war. McCain was elected to Congress in 1982, representing the 1st congressional district of Arizona. Four years later, he was elected to the Senate. He is now a senior senator and serves on the committee of commerce, committee of science and transportation, and the committee of Indian Affairs. McCain has seven kids and four grandchildren. Currently, McCain and his wife, Cindy, reside in Phoenix, Arizona.

Issues
Stem Cell Research: According to Senator John McCain’s statement on stem cell research, McCain realizes that stem cell research may provide new cures and treatments for diseases. He supports funding for adult stem cell research and other stem cell research provided that it does not involve the use of human embryos. He also supports legislation to ban the creation of human embryos, by any means, for scientific use. Additionally, he believes that scientists should only be able to conduct embryonic stem cell research on embryos that were leftover from in vitro fertilization and would otherwise be frozen or destroyed. The use of embryos in embryonic stem cell research, in his opinion, should be contingent upon the donor initially being aware that embryos adoption is an option, and then only later being informed of the ability to donate them to research. Written consent should be received and financial compensation should be illegal.

Education: McCain believes that the public school system is in need of reform. He supports the creation of additional recruiting and training for teachers, paid for through funding by the federal government. Furthermore, he believes that annual reports on the school’s performance should be available to the public. McCain is a strong advocate of the voucher, or school-choice, system that would allow parents to choose which school their child would benefit from the most. He believes that the voucher system would give disadvantage children a better chance of succeeding and improve the overall performance of schools.

U.S Senator Barrack Obama (Democrat)

Biographical Background
Married with two children, Malia and Sasha, Obama currently lives in Illinois. Born in Hawaii, he moved to Jakarta, Indonesia, with his mom and stepfather when he was six years old. He lived there for four years before returning to Hawaii to be raised, for the most part, by his grandparents. He attended Columbia University and later graduated from Harvard Law School.  Obama has always had a strong interest in civil rights and started his career working in Chicago as a community organizer. He served on the state senate for seven years. Obama and his wife, Michelle, have two children.

Issues
Stem Cell Research: Barrack Obama believes that stem cell research has the ability to cure many diseases that currently are difficult, or impossible, to cure. He supports the use of stem cell research, and realizes the limitations of the research on only adult and umbilical cord cells. Therefore, he does support embryonic stem cell research provided that it is done on the embryos that would otherwise be discarded. He also feels that review boards should monitor all scientific research involving embryonic research.

Education: Senator Obama supports an increase in funding for the early education program, Head Start. He supports a plan that involves all school district’s submitting a plan for improving their school through reforms. The top twenty plans would be accepted, and those schools would receive additional funding to implement their plans provided that they show results. He is also an advocate of the Step Up program (Summer Term Education Programs for Upward Progress) that would provide disadvantaged students with summer learning opportunities. Additionally, Obama supports an increase in the maximum of federal grant money available to future college students.

It can be challenging to research and understand each candidate running for the presidency. However, next time someone strikes up a conversation about the differences in the candidates, you will have some knowledge of the candidates.

Sources:
www.cnn.com
www.washingtonpost.com
mccain.senate.gov
www.exploremccain.com
www.newyorker.com
obama.senate.gov

Overview
The main issue involved in the use of marijuana for medical reasons can be summed up as follows: Do the medical benefits of properly prescribed marijuana to certain patients outweigh the medical risks thereof, and outweigh society’s legal, moral, ethical, religious and public health concerns? The U.S. Supreme Court found that it is not under the landmark case of Gonzales vs. Reich (below).

Marijuana has been used as an agent for medicinal purposes and for achieving euphoria since ancient times; it was described in a Chinese medical compendium traditionally considered to date from 2737 B.C. (5000 years ago). For most of human history, marijuana has been completely legal. It’s not a recently discovered plant, nor is illegality a long-standing law. Marijuana has been illegal for less than 1% of the time that it’s been in use.

The use of marijuana has been the source of criticism, racism and ridicule over the years, initiating an all out war against the substance by Uncle Sam. For instance Harry J. Anslinger, former Director of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics in the 1930’s, made the following “observations”: “Marijuana smokers in the US are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others”; “Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its user’s insanity, criminality, and death”; “Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind.” And “You smoke a joint and you’re likely to kill your brother; Marijuana makes fiends of boys in thirty days”. The term “killer weed” was formerly used to describe marijuana, and was the title of a motion picture in the 1930’s. These and similar attitudes exist even today and act to form a societal prejudice against any use of the “drug”, including for beneficial medical purposes.

Medical use of marijuana has undergone many medically supervised clinical trials and it is generally accepted that treatment including marijuana has some positive medical value. The counter medical argument is that, while concedingly medically beneficial, too little is known about the possible negative effects of the over 400 chemicals contained in marijuana At this point that the trend would be to include marijuana in the treatment of some conditions including appetite stimulation in AIDS and cancer patients, relief from nausea and vomiting from chemotherapy, pain relief, and increase in motor activity in cases of M.S., paraplegia, spasticity, and seizure disorders. It also lowers intraocular pressure (IOP) in glaucoma. More study is needed.

Four main issues comprise the debate on medical marijuana: (1) its role as a significant drug of abuse and the reluctance of policy makers to dissociate the potential harmful effects of recreational marijuana use from its potential therapeutic effects; (2) the wisdom of burning and inhaling the combustion products of a dried plant product as a valid therapeutic agent; (3) the view that smoked marijuana is not a unique therapeutic substance but rather represents an alternate, but more toxic, delivery vehicle for the active ingredient THC; and (4) the value of analyzing smoked marijuana’s potential medical use in the traditional manner of risk versus benefit in individual patients. The American Medical Association in its June 2001 report “concluded that marijuana should remain illegal but that further research should be done to verify its medical benefits and side effects.

For the most part, mainline religious denominations support the use of medical marijuana including The Presbyterian Church (USA), the United Methodist Church, Episcopal Church, United Church of Christ, Union for Reform Judaism, Progressive National Baptist Convention, and the Unitarian Universalist Association. Some or most of their collective views stem from the religious/moral duty to care for, and be compassionate to, the sick. “Legislators who give lip service to ‘moral values’ had better be consistent on the medical marijuana issue,” said Charles Thomas, executive director of the Interfaith Drug Policy Initiative. The Presbyterian Church (USA) joins six other major denominations explicitly supporting medical marijuana, while no denominations’ governing bodies have ever taken an official position against it .

The Courts have recognized “medical necessity” a valid defense only in cases involving religious organizations. The court rejected that defense in this case. The Supreme Court did support religious rights regarding drugs in a 2006 case. There, U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 was constitutional and applied to the DEA. The DEA was required to return Schedule I drugs and related materials to the members of the UDV church and was required to meet the conditions of the Act regarding religious defense.

—State initiatives concerning medical marijuana—

The Federal law making marijuana illegal is called Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, Title II, Code of Federal Regulations or CFR. The law makes it unlawful to manufacture, distribute, dispense, or possess Schedule I drugs [marijuana]. States have since enacted laws making it legal to dispense, cultivate and/or use marijuana for medical purposes. Twelve states, including California, Alaska, Colorado, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Rhode Island, Arizona and Vermont have enacted by statute or referendum the legalization for research and use of marijuana for medicinal purposes only fifteen states have never had a positive medical marijuana law. Ten states, plus the District of Columbia, have symbolic medical marijuana laws, laws that support medical marijuana but do not provide patients with legal protection under state law.

In September 1999, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that “medical necessity” is a valid defense against federal marijuana distribution charges, provided the distributor can prove that the patients it serves are seriously ill, face imminent harm without marijuana, and have no effective legal alternatives. The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court (hereafter Court).

—The United States Supreme Court Rules

Despite state legalization acts the United States Supreme Court (hereafter Court) overruled a decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that marijuana should be legalized for medical purposes. [It may be noted here that the 9th Circuit Court and the US Supreme Court have been at odds for many years and the 9th Circuit is overruled by the Supreme Court more than any other]. The Supreme Court held that under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Federal criminalization of the medical use of marijuana could be enforced by the Federal government irrespective of state law to the contrary (state laws were not repealed, only that Federal agents could arrest and prosecute those who distributed and/or used marijuana including for medicinal purposes; it was not unlawful for physicians to prescribe marijuana).

In its decision in Raich the Court framed the legal issue at the outset: “The question presented in this case is whether the power vested in Congress by Article I, §8, of the Constitution includes the power to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana in compliance with California law”. This is called “Commerce Clause” of the Constitution This Clause has been used (many say over-used) throughout the Court’s history to regulate anything having to do with interstate (state to state) commerce. The test as to when the Clause allows the Court (Federal government) to regulate some aspect of commerce has become increasingly more liberal over the last 200 years to the point that the Court can invoke the clause just about any time it wants to expand the Federal government’s power to regulate.

Gonzales v Raich was a California case. The Court noted that California has been a pioneer in the regulation of marijuana. In 1913, California was one of the first States to prohibit the sale and possession of marijuana and at the end of the century, California became the first State to authorize limited use of the drug for medicinal purposes. In 1996, California voters passed Proposition 215, now codified as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996. The proposition was designed to ensure that “seriously ill” residents of the State have access to marijuana for medical purposes, and to encourage Federal and State Governments to take steps towards ensuring the safe and affordable distribution of the drug to patients in need.

The facts before the Court were:
Plaintiffs Angel Raich and Diane Monson were California residents who suffered from a variety of serious medical conditions and had sought to avail themselves of medical marijuana pursuant to the terms of the Compassionate Use Act. They are being treated by licensed, board-certified family practitioners, who have concluded, after prescribing a host of conventional medicines to treat respondents’ conditions and to alleviate their associated symptoms, that marijuana is the only drug available that provides effective treatment. Both women have been using marijuana as a medication for several years pursuant to their doctors’ recommendation, and both rely heavily on cannabis to function on a daily basis. Indeed, Raich’s physician believes that forgoing cannabis treatments would certainly cause Raich excruciating pain and could very well prove fatal.

Plaintiff Monson cultivates her own marijuana, and ingests the drug in a variety of ways including smoking and using a vaporizer. Respondent Raich, by contrast, is unable to cultivate her own, and thus relies on two caregivers, litigating as “John Does” (anonymous parties to the suit) to provide her with locally grown marijuana at no charge. These caregivers also process the cannabis into hashish and Raich herself processes some of the marijuana into oils, balms, and foods for consumption.

On August 15, 2002, county deputy sheriffs and agents from the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) came to Monson’s home. After a thorough investigation, the county officials concluded that her use of marijuana was entirely lawful as a matter of California law. Nevertheless, after a 3-hour standoff, the federal agents seized and destroyed all six of her cannabis plants.

Plaintiffs thereafter brought this action against the Attorney General of the United States and the head of the DEA seeking injunctive and declaratory relief prohibiting the enforcement of the Federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) in that it prevented them from possessing, obtaining, or manufacturing cannabis for their personal medical use. In their complaint and supporting affidavits, Raich and Monson described the severity of their afflictions, their repeatedly futile attempts to obtain relief with conventional medications, and the opinions of their doctors concerning their need to use marijuana. Respondents claimed that enforcing the CSA against them would violate the Commerce Clause, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the Constitution, and the doctrine of medical necessity.

The Commerce Clause emerged as the Framer’s response to the central problem giving rise to the Constitution itself: the absence of any federal commerce power under the Articles of Confederation. For the first century of our history, the primary use of the Clause was to preclude the kind of discriminatory state legislation that had once been permissible. Then, in response to rapid industrial development and an increasingly interdependent national economy, Congress “ushered in a new era of federal regulation under the commerce power,” beginning with the enactment of the Interstate Commerce Act in 1887.

Cases during this “new era” identified three general categories of regulation in which Congress is authorized to engage under its commerce power. First, Congress can regulate the channels of interstate commerce. Second, Congress has authority to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and persons or things in interstate commerce. Third, Congress has the power to regulate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. The case here was decided pursuant to the third category.

The plaintiffs raised three main objections to Congress exercising its power under the facts of this case. First they argued that the fact that marijuana used “for personal medical purposes on the advice of a physician” can itself serve as a distinguishing factor exempting marijuana from Federal regulation. The Court countered that the CSA designated marijuana as contraband for any purpose by characterizing marijuana as a Schedule I drug, Congress expressly found that the drug has no acceptable medical uses (apparently without any government initiated studies).

“Second, the plaintiffs’ argued that limiting the ability of a state to pass laws legalizing only marijuana use to marijuana possession and cultivation should put the state’s law Federal congressional reach. However, the Court found that the “Supremacy Clause” in the constitution unambiguously provides that if there is any conflict between federal and state law, federal law shall prevail [called preemption]. It said that it is beyond argument that federal power over commerce is “‘superior to that of the States to provide for the welfare or necessities of their inhabitants, however legitimate or dire those necessities may be”.

Plaintiffs nonetheless contended that their activities were not “an essential part of a larger regulatory scheme” because they had been “isolated by the State of California, and are policed by the State of California,” and thus remain “entirely separated from the market” (commerce clause). The Court responded: “The notion that California law has surgically excised a discrete activity that is hermetically sealed off from the larger interstate marijuana market is a dubious proposition and, more importantly, one that Congress could have rationally rejected”.

The Court also said that the effect on interstate commerce would be substantial if the California law was to remain. It would allow illegal activity to occur by transporting marijuana across state lines for both legal and illegal purposes.

—Conclusion—
Basically, the Court said that as long as Congress’ inclusion of the medical use of marijuana in its list of banned drugs was “rational”, the Federal law preempted state law to the contrary. In other words, it seems the centralized Federal government is better able to regulate the affairs of all 50 states by Thus, by the Court’s ruling, in California the marijuana distribution centers are legal under state law but illegal under Federal law. Many still operate but many have been raided and shut down by the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA).

The court’s decision makes the Federal government justified in sweeping and broad criminalization statutes, trumping whatever the people of the state decide is more beneficial for them. Although the Supremacy of Federal law over state law has long ago been established, there seems a determined effort in cases over the years to protect this power rather than relinquish it. If those who are subject to the criminalizing law were arch criminals themselves that would be one thing. However, most are otherwise and many times providing their services for the bettering of medical care (and of course their pocketbooks as is any capitalistic business). Although medical research has not conclusively proven the medical use of marijuana to be more beneficial than conventional drug therapies, there is little direct evidence that it is not helpful in many ways or that that its harmful effects out-weigh its benefits; or that its benefits should not be the subject of more clinical testing. Where the price of some drug therapies exceed the price of marijuana by multiples, and with the economic outcry about increasing healthcare costs (substantially influenced by profits of drug companies) why not consider the naturally occurring medicinal plants, such as marijuana, as an alternative treatment for those whom conventional therapies are ineffective.

AUTHOR: John Elsik

Senate Joint Resolution 33, sponsored by Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) on May 21, 2008, recognizes the efforts of Ohio’s Departments of Mental Health and of Alcohol & Drug Services, in addressing the stigma associated with mental health and substance abuse disorders. The resolution pertains to, and recognizes, those American and Ohio citizens affected by mental illnesses and substance abuse disorders, as well the plethora of exceptional costs incurred through the neglect of treatment, and continued suffering, of American and Ohio citizens. Furthermore, this resolution recognizes the results of treatment, and of subsequent cost benefits. This resolution further recognizes the reality of the stigma attached with mental illnesses and substance abuse disorders. The resolution has been forwarded to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

The resolution points to the fact that 54,000,000 Americans suffer from a mental illness, and another 26,000,000 live with addiction. Recently within the entirety of the United States, only 10.8% of those suffering from mental illness or addiction received treatment. The resolution further recognizes the social and economic costs incurred through loss of productivity, crime, and other issues associated with mental illnesses and addiction. The estimated costs per year of untreated mental illnesses amounts to $100,000,000,000, while the costs of untreated addiction is $500,000,000,000. The Surgeon General has reported that mental illness and substance abuse account for one fifth of work days missed. This exceeds the combined burden of cardiovascular disease and cancer.

While recognizing the numbers of Americans affected by mental illness and addiction, and the further economic and social costs associated with neglecting treatment, this resolution recognizes the proven results of treatment. The resolution states that 70% to 90% of individuals with a mental illness or substance use disorder find a reduction in symptoms, and subsequent improvement in quality of life, from treatment. Furthermore, treatment has proven to cut substance use in half, reduce crime by upwards of 80%, and reduce arrests by some 64%. Within Ohio, the cost-benefit stands that for every dollar invested and spent on treatment there is an economic savings of 7$ through reduction of crime, child abuse and neglect, homelessness, and lost work productivity.

Whole focusing on the numbers who suffer, the costs, and the benefits of treatment, the resolution also recognizes the complications and reality of the stigma attached to mental illness and addiction. The resolution points to the damage resulting from mental illness and addiction stigmas in such ways as inadequate insurance coverage for health services, fear and mistrust towards those who suffer from such illnesses and disorders, and ultimately in the potential of family and friends to turn their backs on their loved ones. In point of fact, the Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration has found that individuals would rather admit to a petty crime than to spending time in a psychiatric facility. Furthermore, the Surgeon General stated that stigma towards mental illness and addiction can no longer be tolerated if there is to be a reduction in the burdens placed on society by mental illness, improvement in actual access to care for those suffering from mental illness and addiction, and ultimately in achieving knowledge of the brain, mind, and human behavior that is urgently needed to combat the multiplicity of problems associated with mental illness and addiction. The resolution also recognizes that the American Medical Associated, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and the National Institute on Alcohol & Addiction all concur that addiction is a chemical change in the brain.

In concluding, the Senate and House of Representative’s jointly recognize that stigma fosters discrimination and discourages victims from seeking treatment, and encourages efforts to increase awareness of the existence and impact of mental illness and substance abuse disorder stigmas. Further, it encourages Americans to work towards overcoming the stigma associated with mental illness and substance abuse disorders. Finally, it recognizes Ohio’s “Think Outside the Stigma Campaign”.

AUTHOR: John Elsik

The “Close the London Loophole Act of 2008”, Senate Bill 3129, proposes to amend the Commodity Exchange Act to “prevent price manipulation and excessive speculation and to increase transparency with respect to energy trading on foreign exchanges conducted within the United States”. Introduced on June 12, 2008 by Senator Carl Levin for himself and Senators Feinstein, Durbin, Dorgan, and Bingaman, the bill details the authority of the commission over traders, as well as speculative limits and transparency for off-shore oil trading. The bill itself has been introduced, and was referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

Regarding the authority of the Commission, the bill provides and includes for provisions relating to the “manipulation or attempted manipulation, the making of false statements, and willful violations” of the Act. Further, the bill requires and directs the Commission to “limit, reduce, or liquidate any position to prevent or reduce the threat of price manipulation, excessive speculation, price distortion, or disruption of delivery or the cash settlement process”, as well as to apply those recordkeeping requirements that the Commission deems necessary. Consultation is to occur prior to the issue of any order to “reduce a position on a foreign board of trade, exchange, or market located outside the United States) including the territories and possessions of the United States), and this consultation is to occur between the Commission and with foreign boards of trade, exchange, or market and other appropriate regulatory authorities.

With regards to speculative limits and transparency for off-shore oil trade, the bill will amend Section 4 of the original Commodity Exchange Act. This amendment will detail registered entities attempting to physically deliver an energy commodity to the United States. Prior to granting relief to these entities, the Commission must determine that the appropriate foreign board of trade applies similar principles and requirements regarding the publication of trading information and accountability for speculators as it is applied to the markets, facilities, and other registered entities trading energy commodities within the United States. Furthermore, the Commission must determine that these foreign boards of trade have provided such information on the extent of speculative and non-speculative trade of energy commodities that is to be comparable with the information the Commission determines in publishing a Commitment of Trader’s report for registered entities trading energy commodities within the United States. The final item of this amendment would provide 18 months after the first year from the bill’s enactment for the Commission to determine whether to continue granting relief to existing foreign boards of trade.

AUTHOR: John Elsik

The “National Guard & Reserve Mental Health Act of 2008”, Senate Bill 2939 as introduced by Senator Edward Kennedy on April 30th, 2008, is intended to “expand and improve the mental health care and reintegration programs for members of the national guard and reserve”. The bill calls for the implementation and creation of a “Joint Psychological Health Program” (JPHP), various pilot programs, and a campaign to reduce pejorative perceptions associated with mental health care.

The JPHP is to be created with the purpose of improving access to mental health care, as well as improving coordination amongst Department of Defense components involved with the provision of mental health care to National Guard members during their transition to civilian life. Two directors of psychological health are to be respectively appointed to the Army and Air National Guard by the National Guard Bureau Chief. Those appointed must meet the certifications and qualities determined necessary by the National Guard Bureau Chief. The duties of the directors will involve the coordination and management of programs within their jurisdiction for the specific purpose of addressing the needs of National Guard members through providing easier access to, and education of, psychological care. To this end, the directors shall work with various national and regional groups in an effort to better address the mental care needs of the National Guard. The National Guard Psychological Health Council is to be created with these specific purposes: to manage the program’s development, to advise the National Guard Bureau Chief, and to ensure national consistency with JPHP programs.

Collaboration amongst the National Guard Bureau and DoD is called for in both the implementation and management of JPHP programs. Further collaboration is to involve the Department of Veteran Affairs, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration of the Department of Health and Human Resources, and appropriate state agencies. Implementation of the JPHP is to occur within 180 days of the bill’s enactment, along with a report detailing an assessment of the implementation process, the program, and any further necessary financial needs. Specific appropriations total $8,035,000.

Pilot programs are to be created for the purpose of assessing and advising the feasibility of utilizing technology for the provision of mental health services. These programs are to focus on rural areas, and are to make use of “evidence-based practices”. The Secretaries of Defense and Veteran Affairs are to coordinate and implement these programs in coordination with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services of the Department of Health and Human Resources, and other appropriate agencies. Specific appropriations total $2,005,000.

The final item is the creation and implementation of an Anti-Stigma Campaign for the purpose of reducing negative societal perceptions associated with mental health care. Aside from the various programs to be created and managed as called for in the duties assigned to the directors of psychological health for the JPHP, the Secretaries of Defense and Veteran Affairs shall carry out such programs in coordination with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration of the Department of Health and Human Resources as necessary to reduce stigma associated with mental care amongst the members of the national guard returning from deployment. Specific appropriations total $2,000,000.

AUTHOR: John Elsik

House Resolution 6088, the “National Domestic Violence Volunteer Attorney Network Act” as introduced by Congressmen Conyers and Poe on May 20th, 2008, will establish a domestic violence attorney network to represent domestic violence victims. The main sections of the bill include the establishment of a National Domestic Violence Volunteer Attorney Network (NDVVAN), a Domestic Violence Volunteer Attorney referral program, and establish a technical assistance network for the NDVVAN. A study of legal representation of domestic violence victims is called for along with the establishment of a domestic violence legal advisory task force. The resolution also calls for amendments regarding the National Domestic Violence Hotline.

Regarding the NDVVAN, the resolution allows for the Attorney General to award grants to the American Bar Association (ABA) Commission on Domestic Violence to collaborate with the ABA Committee on Pro Bono and Public Service to assist in the recruiting, training, and mentoring of lawyers for the creation of the NDVVAN. Funds allocated to the ABA Commission on Domestic Violence shall be used for the purposes described above, as well as to assist in coordination with state domestic violence agencies, as well as to maintain contact with statewide legal coordinators regarding the coordination, training, mentoring, and supporting of volunteer attorneys for the NDVVAN. Specific appropriations for the program total $2,000,000 for 2009. $3,000,000 is appropriated for 2010 through 2013.

The Domestic Violence Volunteer Attorney referral program will evolve to a nationwide program following a 5-state pilot program. The pilot program will run throughout 2009. The purpose is to provide a coordinated system of ensuring domestic violence victims have access to safe and appropriate representation, and to support statewide legal coordinators in managing referrals for victims to attorneys, and further providing training for attorneys regarding domestic violence issues. A statewide legal coordinator will assist in developing and updating a database of attorneys, legal service programs, volunteer programs, organizations serving immigrant women, law school clinical programs, bar associations, attorneys in the NDVVA network, and local domestic violence programs. The coordinator must consult and manage existing statewide and local programs, as well as provide referrals to victims seeking legal representation. They must further disseminate information regarding volunteer attorneys. Furthermore, coordinators must work with the ABA Commission on Domestic Violence, the Legal Advisory Task Force, and other national agencies to assess the effectiveness of the pilot program. $750,000 has been appropriated for the pilot programs. The national program will seek to provide the services established in pilot programs to the entire nation, and will further develop guidelines to implement the program based upon the effectiveness of the pilot programs.

Technical assistance for the NDVVAN will be established to allow providers to expand their services to deliver training and technical assistance to volunteer attorneys involved with the network. Furthermore, the resolution will allow for additional funding to help train and assist attorneys involved in a plethora of domestic violence issues. Specific appropriations total $800,000.

The resolution further calls for a study of the legal representation of domestic violence victims. The National Institute of Justice will study the scope and quality of legal representation for victims of domestic violence, of organizations providing legal services and support to victims, and other various programs. An overall assessment will include figures regarding the legal assistance provided, lawyers employed, effectiveness of the program, and other items that might assist in bettering the overall program.

The final item called for in the resolution is the establishment of a domestic violence legal advisory task force to provide guidance and advice regarding the implementation of the study previously described. The task force shall be composed of legal experts in domestic violence, as well as those who excel in the development of effective programs. The responsibilities of the task force are to provide ongoing advice regarding the implementation of the pilot and national programs, assisting in the selection of the pilot states, and reporting to Congress every 2 years on developments. Specific appropriations total $100,000 from 2009 through 2013.