Mexico and Israel Slowly Race To Legalize Pot

topicsdrugs

Mexico and Israel are racing to become the third country where marijuana is legal for recreational use at the national level. Racing may be too strong a word, because both governments are moving more slowly than originally advertised. But both are officially committed to joining Uruguay and Canada on the short list of countries that allow adults to consume cannabis without a medical justification.

In 2018, the Supreme Court of Mexico ruled that pot prohibition was unconstitutional because it violated “the fundamental right to the free development of the personality.” Although the court originally required the Mexican Congress to legalize cannabis within 90 days, it has repeatedly extended the deadline because of the legislature’s difficulties in settling on a detailed plan.

In November 2020, the Mexican Senate approved a legalization bill, sending it to the Chamber of Deputies, which was supposed to act on it by December 15. But the lower chamber asked for another extension and now has until the end of April to complete its work.

Under the Senate bill, adults 18 or older would be allowed to buy marijuana from state-licensed retailers, possess up to 28 grams (about an ounce), and grow up to six plants for personal use. President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, while expressing concern about technical “mistakes” in the bill, nevertheless said he was confident a law would be enacted early in 2021.

Around the same time that the Mexican Senate passed its bill, the Israeli government, based on recommendations from a committee appointed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, announced a plan to let adults 21 or older buy and consume cannabis. Public consumption, home cultivation, advertising, and the sale of edibles that resemble candy would be prohibited. The plan says the government should “ensure the prices are reasonable” to help displace the black market.

Legalization was backed by both parties in Israel’s coalition government: Netanyahu’s Likud bloc and Minister of Defense Benny Gantz’s Blue and White alliance. Legislation was supposed to be introduced in the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, in November and take effect nine months after passage.

That plan fell by the boards, and a national election scheduled for March introduced additional uncertainty. But as of December, the cannabis companies that serve Israel’s medical market were still confident that legalization would proceed no matter the election outcome.

Uruguay legalized recreational marijuana in 2013, followed by Canada five years later. In the U.S., cannabis has been legalized for recreational use in 15 states and D.C. but is still banned by federal law.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3c5bBsR
via IFTTT

Mexico and Israel Slowly Race To Legalize Pot

topicsdrugs

Mexico and Israel are racing to become the third country where marijuana is legal for recreational use at the national level. Racing may be too strong a word, because both governments are moving more slowly than originally advertised. But both are officially committed to joining Uruguay and Canada on the short list of countries that allow adults to consume cannabis without a medical justification.

In 2018, the Supreme Court of Mexico ruled that pot prohibition was unconstitutional because it violated “the fundamental right to the free development of the personality.” Although the court originally required the Mexican Congress to legalize cannabis within 90 days, it has repeatedly extended the deadline because of the legislature’s difficulties in settling on a detailed plan.

In November 2020, the Mexican Senate approved a legalization bill, sending it to the Chamber of Deputies, which was supposed to act on it by December 15. But the lower chamber asked for another extension and now has until the end of April to complete its work.

Under the Senate bill, adults 18 or older would be allowed to buy marijuana from state-licensed retailers, possess up to 28 grams (about an ounce), and grow up to six plants for personal use. President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, while expressing concern about technical “mistakes” in the bill, nevertheless said he was confident a law would be enacted early in 2021.

Around the same time that the Mexican Senate passed its bill, the Israeli government, based on recommendations from a committee appointed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, announced a plan to let adults 21 or older buy and consume cannabis. Public consumption, home cultivation, advertising, and the sale of edibles that resemble candy would be prohibited. The plan says the government should “ensure the prices are reasonable” to help displace the black market.

Legalization was backed by both parties in Israel’s coalition government: Netanyahu’s Likud bloc and Minister of Defense Benny Gantz’s Blue and White alliance. Legislation was supposed to be introduced in the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, in November and take effect nine months after passage.

That plan fell by the boards, and a national election scheduled for March introduced additional uncertainty. But as of December, the cannabis companies that serve Israel’s medical market were still confident that legalization would proceed no matter the election outcome.

Uruguay legalized recreational marijuana in 2013, followed by Canada five years later. In the U.S., cannabis has been legalized for recreational use in 15 states and D.C. but is still banned by federal law.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3c5bBsR
via IFTTT

Brickbat: Keeping Kids from Committing Crimes

handcuffed_1161x653

A British court has sentenced Darryl Moffatt to two years and eight months in prison after pleaded guilty to three counts of making indecent photos of a child, distributing an indecent image of a child, two counts of attempting to engage in sexual communication with a child, and attempting to cause or incite a teenage boy to engage in sexual activity. Moffatt had been working in schools for the West Midlands Police in a program that tries to steer young people away from crime. Police say none of his victims attended a school in which he worked.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3e9af2z
via IFTTT

Brickbat: Keeping Kids from Committing Crimes

handcuffed_1161x653

A British court has sentenced Darryl Moffatt to two years and eight months in prison after pleaded guilty to three counts of making indecent photos of a child, distributing an indecent image of a child, two counts of attempting to engage in sexual communication with a child, and attempting to cause or incite a teenage boy to engage in sexual activity. Moffatt had been working in schools for the West Midlands Police in a program that tries to steer young people away from crime. Police say none of his victims attended a school in which he worked.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3e9af2z
via IFTTT

One year without Supreme Court in-person oral arguments

On March 4, 2020, the Supreme Court held oral arguments in June Medical Services v. Gee. At the time, it seemed like the February siting came to a close, and the Court would resume oral arguments in the normal course. But things would not be normal.

Who among us could have anticipated what the following year would bring? A shutdown of the Court? Live-streaming of oral arguments? Opinions issued on non-decision days in March (with one or more cases coming in about six hours)? The replacement of Justice Ginsburg with Justice Barrett? Another impeachment trial of President Trump, not presided over by Chief Justice Roberts? What a year.

I hope and pray that by March 4, 2022, and hopefully sooner, the Justices have resumed holding arguments in person. And maybe the Court can use this time to improve the line-waiting process.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/30hKLI9
via IFTTT

One year without Supreme Court in-person oral arguments

On March 4, 2020, the Supreme Court held oral arguments in June Medical Services v. Gee. At the time, it seemed like the February siting came to a close, and the Court would resume oral arguments in the normal course. But things would not be normal.

Who among us could have anticipated what the following year would bring? A shutdown of the Court? Live-streaming of oral arguments? Opinions issued on non-decision days in March (with one or more cases coming in about six hours)? The replacement of Justice Ginsburg with Justice Barrett? Another impeachment trial of President Trump, not presided over by Chief Justice Roberts? What a year.

I hope and pray that by March 4, 2022, and hopefully sooner, the Justices have resumed holding arguments in person. And maybe the Court can use this time to improve the line-waiting process.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/30hKLI9
via IFTTT

Federal Spending Is Out of Control. No, Earmarks Won’t Change That.

matthias-oberholzer-IdpH__FGkro-unsplash

A fight is brewing over bringing back earmarks—provisions that are inserted into spending bills by individual members of Congress to send money to politically favored entities in their districts. There has been a moratorium on earmarks since 2011.

Those who want the return of earmarks claim the practice smooths out the budget process and fosters bipartisanship. Others insist that the return of earmarks would mean a surge of wasteful giveaways to special interest groups and congressional corruption. While both sides have valid points, this debate continues to distract us from the fact that the federal government is excessively big and, even without earmarks, spends money on things that it should never spend it on.

Making the most thoughtful case for bringing back earmarks is the American Enterprise Institute’s Kevin Kosar and Claremont McKenna College’s Zachary Courser. Their detailed research explains that right now, because of the absence of earmarks, legislators face overwhelming incentives to vote with their parties regardless of the legislation. That means no appropriations bills get through until they’re rolled into a giant omnibus bill and put on the floor the day before a government shutdown.

This leads them to conclude that if earmarks were sensibly reinstated, they would increase legislators’ incentives to bargain and enact proper appropriations bills. These incentives would be particularly effective for legislators in the minority. Without earmarks in an appropriations bill favored by the majority party, legislators in the minority have less incentive to cross party lines and vote for the bill. Earmarks that benefit their districts change that dynamic.

This bipartisanship sounds like more spending. However, as Kosar and Courser show, spending has still exploded in the last decade despite a lack of earmarking. Among other things, that’s because the power and incentive to fund these particular local political deals didn’t disappear. It was simply transferred to executive branch agencies. In the end, as the argument for the return of earmarks takes shape, the question is who should be in charge of spending. On that point, the pro-earmark crowd has a constitutional point.

But if the Constitution is to guide us, we must ask whether Congress should be spending that money at all. I understand that most earmarks are boring, e.g., funding exit-ramp construction on a highway. I even understand how restoring earmarks could promote bipartisanship. Though, considering the size of government, I’d argue there’s plenty of bipartisanship already. In spite of all this, it’s obvious to me that Congress has no place funding such local projects through earmarks or in any other way.

This is the irony of earmarks and their demise. Back in the day, they made headlines thanks to outrageous examples such as the “bridge to nowhere,” an earmark that would have paid millions of federal dollars for a bridge connecting a town of 8,900 people in rural Alaska to its airport on a tiny 50-person island. Small-government politicians were shocked and furious at the use of federal tax dollars to serve special interests in exchange for political contributions.

They were right to be outraged, but why stop at earmarks? Throwing money at special interests is what Congress does. Much of the Department of Education is a big earmark for powerful teachers unions. Infrastructure bills are packed with spending items that should be the responsibility of state and local government, or of the private sector, but not Uncle Sam. Have you looked at the thousands of federal grants distributed each year? It’s a cornucopia of special interest handouts.

Also, while I appreciate the pro-earmark side’s promise to install guardrails so that tax dollars don’t go to the private sector, I wish that rule applied to the entire federal budget. Why do we tolerate the existence of agencies like the Export-Import Bank, which is dedicated to boosting sales for large and well-connected companies such as General Electric and Boeing? We shouldn’t.

Earmarks are a distraction from our bigger problems. Yes, they’re used to fund items that shouldn’t be funded by the federal government. Yes, their return may give added incentives to legislators for working together. But what do we do about the fact that the call for earmarks exposes politicians for the self-serving actors that they are? This, after all, is the most honest admission that without a bride, politicians are unwilling to fulfill their main job of passing a federal budget on time and through the regular process.

COPYRIGHT 2021 CREATORS.COM

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3uVy0RJ
via IFTTT

Federal Spending Is Out of Control. No, Earmarks Won’t Change That.

matthias-oberholzer-IdpH__FGkro-unsplash

A fight is brewing over bringing back earmarks—provisions that are inserted into spending bills by individual members of Congress to send money to politically favored entities in their districts. There has been a moratorium on earmarks since 2011.

Those who want the return of earmarks claim the practice smooths out the budget process and fosters bipartisanship. Others insist that the return of earmarks would mean a surge of wasteful giveaways to special interest groups and congressional corruption. While both sides have valid points, this debate continues to distract us from the fact that the federal government is excessively big and, even without earmarks, spends money on things that it should never spend it on.

Making the most thoughtful case for bringing back earmarks is the American Enterprise Institute’s Kevin Kosar and Claremont McKenna College’s Zachary Courser. Their detailed research explains that right now, because of the absence of earmarks, legislators face overwhelming incentives to vote with their parties regardless of the legislation. That means no appropriations bills get through until they’re rolled into a giant omnibus bill and put on the floor the day before a government shutdown.

This leads them to conclude that if earmarks were sensibly reinstated, they would increase legislators’ incentives to bargain and enact proper appropriations bills. These incentives would be particularly effective for legislators in the minority. Without earmarks in an appropriations bill favored by the majority party, legislators in the minority have less incentive to cross party lines and vote for the bill. Earmarks that benefit their districts change that dynamic.

This bipartisanship sounds like more spending. However, as Kosar and Courser show, spending has still exploded in the last decade despite a lack of earmarking. Among other things, that’s because the power and incentive to fund these particular local political deals didn’t disappear. It was simply transferred to executive branch agencies. In the end, as the argument for the return of earmarks takes shape, the question is who should be in charge of spending. On that point, the pro-earmark crowd has a constitutional point.

But if the Constitution is to guide us, we must ask whether Congress should be spending that money at all. I understand that most earmarks are boring, e.g., funding exit-ramp construction on a highway. I even understand how restoring earmarks could promote bipartisanship. Though, considering the size of government, I’d argue there’s plenty of bipartisanship already. In spite of all this, it’s obvious to me that Congress has no place funding such local projects through earmarks or in any other way.

This is the irony of earmarks and their demise. Back in the day, they made headlines thanks to outrageous examples such as the “bridge to nowhere,” an earmark that would have paid millions of federal dollars for a bridge connecting a town of 8,900 people in rural Alaska to its airport on a tiny 50-person island. Small-government politicians were shocked and furious at the use of federal tax dollars to serve special interests in exchange for political contributions.

They were right to be outraged, but why stop at earmarks? Throwing money at special interests is what Congress does. Much of the Department of Education is a big earmark for powerful teachers unions. Infrastructure bills are packed with spending items that should be the responsibility of state and local government, or of the private sector, but not Uncle Sam. Have you looked at the thousands of federal grants distributed each year? It’s a cornucopia of special interest handouts.

Also, while I appreciate the pro-earmark side’s promise to install guardrails so that tax dollars don’t go to the private sector, I wish that rule applied to the entire federal budget. Why do we tolerate the existence of agencies like the Export-Import Bank, which is dedicated to boosting sales for large and well-connected companies such as General Electric and Boeing? We shouldn’t.

Earmarks are a distraction from our bigger problems. Yes, they’re used to fund items that shouldn’t be funded by the federal government. Yes, their return may give added incentives to legislators for working together. But what do we do about the fact that the call for earmarks exposes politicians for the self-serving actors that they are? This, after all, is the most honest admission that without a bride, politicians are unwilling to fulfill their main job of passing a federal budget on time and through the regular process.

COPYRIGHT 2021 CREATORS.COM

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3uVy0RJ
via IFTTT

Classes #12: “Offensive” Speech II & Estates IV

First Amendment Class #12: “Offensive” Speech II

  • Brown v. EMA (1484-1501) / (756-773)

Property I Class #12—Estates IV: Leasehold and Defeasible Estates

  • Leasehold estates, 282-283
  • Defeasible Estates, 283-286
  • Mahrenholz v. County Board of School Trustees, 286-292
  • Notes, 292-294
  • Review Problems 1-4, 310

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3sNNMw8
via IFTTT