iftttwall

Today, as a
Senate panel debates National Security Administration metadata
bulk collection reforms – a public debate that would never have
happened without Edward Snowden leaking valuable information to the
media and ultimately the public – The Freedom of the Press
Association announced the whistleblower at the center of the
controversy has
joined their board of directors.

From the New York Times:

Edward J. Snowden, the former National Security Agency
contractor whose leaks of secret documents set off a national and
global debate about government spying, is joining the board of a
nonprofit organization co-founded by Daniel Ellsberg, the
well-known leaker of the Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam
War.

The announcement by the group, the Freedom of the Press
Foundation, is the latest contribution to a public relations tug of
war between Mr. Snowden’s critics, who portray him as a criminal
and a traitor, and his supporters, who say he is a whistle-blower
and source for the news media in the tradition of Mr. Ellsberg.

The foundation’s board already includes two of the journalists
Mr. Snowden gave N.S.A. documents to, Glenn Greenwald and Laura
Poitras. But the organization — which consulted with lawyers about
whether adding Mr. Snowden to its board could jeopardize its
nonprofit tax status — is trying to emphasize parallels between Mr.
Snowden and Mr. Ellsberg.

Read the full story
here.

Follow this story and more at Reason
24/7.

Spice up your blog or Website with Reason 24/7 news and
Reason articles. You can get the widgets
here. If you have a story that would be of
interest to Reason’s readers please let us know by emailing the
24/7 crew at 24_7@reason.com, or tweet us stories
at @reason247.

A new
study (pdf) published in the Journal of Study on Alcohol
and Drugs based on 361 high school students assessed one year
apart finds that student drug testing “was not associated with
changes in substance use, whereas perceived positive school
climates were associated with a reduction in cigarette and
marijuana initiation and a reduction in escalation of frequency of
cigarette use.”

The study also found that neither drug testing nor a “positive
school climate” affected alcohol use, because, the study authors
claim, it is “normative.” The study defined a positive school
climate based on asking students who were followed how they felt
about whether: “(a) the rules in the school are clear, (b) teachers
can handle problems in the school, and the level of respect between
(c) students, (d) teachers for students, and (e) students for
teachers is high.”

Ten years ago, in the 2004-2005 academic year, one
in seven school districts had some kind of random drug testing
program. Sometimes the introduction of drug testing, or even drug
dogs, in schools is met with
thunderous applause. Sometimes some parents put up opposition.
Parents at one high school in New Jersey have recently taken their
school district to court looking for documents the district said
showed drug testing was needed, but also claimed those documents
were confidential and privileged. A state judge decided in the

parents’ favor, awarding them $7,500 in legal fees and ruling
the school shouldn’t have withheld documents and that using private
e-mail didn’t mean they could evade open records laws. You can put
up a fight, or
let the Marge Simpsons win.

More Reason on drug
testing.

The
Associated Press
reports that the city of Deming, New Mexico, where David Eckert
was pulled over for a rolling stop last January, and nearby Hidalgo
County, where he was taken for the ensuing
exploration of his digestive tract, have agreed to settle his
civil rights lawsuit for $1.6 million. That amounts to about
$200,000 for each of the increasingly intrusive searches Eckert was
forced to undergo: two X-rays, two digital probes of his anus,
three enemas, and a colonoscopy, none of which discovered the
slightest trace of the drugs that police claim to have thought he
was hiding inside himself. Eckert, whose case was first
noted here by Brian Doherty, also sued various Deming and
Hidalgo County police officers; Gila Regional Medical Center, the
Hidalgo County hospital where these indignities occurred (and which
billed him more than $6,000 for the procedures); and two
physicians, Robert Wilcox and Okay Odocha, who executed
the elaborate assault under the cover of medicine. 

“It was medically unethical and unconstitutional,” Shannon
Kennedy, Eckert’s attorney, told A.P. “He feels relieved that this
part is over and believes this litigation might make sure this
doesn’t happen to anyone else.” Eckert added:

I feel that I got some justice as I think the settlement shows
they were wrong to do what they did to me. I truly hope that no one
will be treated like this ever again. I felt very helpless and
alone on that night.

Although this measure of justice is welcome, it is too bad we
may never get a definitive ruling on the
legality of Eckert’s humiliating ordeal, which was inflicted
based on a search warrant that police obtained by claiming a
drug-detecting dog “alerted” to the driver’s seat of Eckert’s
pickup truck. They also said he seemed nervous and was standing
with his legs together, which suggested to them that he was
concealing contraband up his butt. That last detail received a lot
of attention, but it seems clear that the warrant would not have
been issued without the alleged
dog alert. The Supreme Court has said such evidence by itself
provides probable cause for a search unless the suspect can show
the dog is unreliable—an opportunity that does not arise until long
after the search is carried out.

Remember when the Chicago City Council,
unlike its counterpart in
New York, decided not to rush into banning the use of
electronic cigarettes in public places? As I
noted last month, the proposal, backed by Mayor Rahm Emanuel,
encountered what the Chicago Sun-Times called “a
surprise outpouring of opposition” from critics who cited the
dearth of evidence that e-cigarettes pose a hazard to bystanders
and worried that treating them like the real thing would discourage
smokers from switching to a much healthier alternative. While those
points remain valid, they are no longer dissuading Chicago’s
aldermen from imposing the same restrictions on vaping that
currently apply to smoking. Yesterday, by a vote of 15 to 5, the
city council’s health and finance committtees
approved a bill adding e-cigarettes to Chicago’s Clean Indoor
Air Act. The full city council, where a total of 26 votes are
needed to pass the ordinance, is
expected to follow suit tomorrow. 

As in New York, supporters of the ban say vaping looks too much
like smoking to be tolerated. E-cigarettes “normalize smoking,”
complained Alderman Will Burns, a co-sponsor of the ordinance.
“They make it seem OK to smoke.” Alderman Ray Colon, who opposes
the ban, highlighted the absurdity of this argument:

The campaign is [more] against normalization of the appearance
of mimicking smoking inside than it is [about] the health benefits.
If we could prove that there is no health risk, you would still be
here before us saying that normalization of smoking indoors is bad
enough. We don’t want the look of smoking inside. We don’t even
want you to pretend to smoke.

Chicago’s
Clean Indoor Act “prohibits smoking in virtually all enclosed
public places and enclosed places of employment, including but
not necessarily limited to bars, restaurants, shopping malls,
recreational facilities (including enclosed sports arenas,
stadiums, swimming pools, ice and roller rinks, arcades and bowling
alleys), concert halls, auditoriums, convention facilities,
government buildings and vehicles, public transportation
facilities, coin laundries, meeting rooms, private clubs, public
restrooms, lobbies, reception areas, hallways and other common-use
areas in public buildings, apartment buildings and condominium
buildings.” Hence vaping will be allowed only in private
residences, designated hotel rooms, and tobacco (and e-cigarette?)
stores. You also can vape outdoors, as long as you remain more than
15 feet from building entrances. The temperature
in Chicago peaked at 34 degrees today; the expected low tonight is
16.

“You’re making people go outside,” Colon
noted. “You’re treating it just as you would [a] tobacco
cigarette. You’re lumping it together in the same category,
even though you don’t really have any proof that it has any harm.
You’re saying, ‘We’re going to regulate first and ask questions
later.'” Although New York City Health Commissioner Thomas
Farley claims
regulating out of ignorance is the only responsible approach,
that’s true only if you ignore the costs of regulation. Alderrman
Brendan Reilly told his fellow council members he has “friends and
family members who are using [e-cigarettes] to quit, to get away
from combustible tobacco that kills people.” If pushing vapers out
into the cold deters such harm reduction, which seems likely, it
will endanger people’s health instead of protecting
it.  

Remember when the Chicago City Council,
unlike its counterpart in
New York, decided not to rush into banning the use of
electronic cigarettes in public places? As I
noted last month, the proposal, backed by Mayor Rahm Emanuel,
encountered what the Chicago Sun-Times called “a
surprise outpouring of opposition” from critics who cited the
dearth of evidence that e-cigarettes pose a hazard to bystanders
and worried that treating them like the real thing would discourage
smokers from switching to a much healthier alternative. While those
points remain valid, they are no longer dissuading Chicago’s
aldermen from imposing the same restrictions on vaping that
currently apply to smoking. Yesterday, by a vote of 15 to 5, the
city council’s health and finance committtees
approved a bill adding e-cigarettes to Chicago’s Clean Indoor
Air Act. The full city council, where a total of 26 votes are
needed to pass the ordinance, is
expected to follow suit tomorrow. 

As in New York, supporters of the ban say vaping looks too much
like smoking to be tolerated. E-cigarettes “normalize smoking,”
complained Alderman Will Burns, a co-sponsor of the ordinance.
“They make it seem OK to smoke.” Alderman Ray Colon, who opposes
the ban, highlighted the absurdity of this argument:

The campaign is [more] against normalization of the appearance
of mimicking smoking inside than it is [about] the health benefits.
If we could prove that there is no health risk, you would still be
here before us saying that normalization of smoking indoors is bad
enough. We don’t want the look of smoking inside. We don’t even
want you to pretend to smoke.

Chicago’s
Clean Indoor Act “prohibits smoking in virtually all enclosed
public places and enclosed places of employment, including but
not necessarily limited to bars, restaurants, shopping malls,
recreational facilities (including enclosed sports arenas,
stadiums, swimming pools, ice and roller rinks, arcades and bowling
alleys), concert halls, auditoriums, convention facilities,
government buildings and vehicles, public transportation
facilities, coin laundries, meeting rooms, private clubs, public
restrooms, lobbies, reception areas, hallways and other common-use
areas in public buildings, apartment buildings and condominium
buildings.” Hence vaping will be allowed only in private
residences, designated hotel rooms, and tobacco (and e-cigarette?)
stores. You also can vape outdoors, as long as you remain more than
15 feet from building entrances. The temperature
in Chicago peaked at 34 degrees today; the expected low tonight is
16.

“You’re making people go outside,” Colon
noted. “You’re treating it just as you would [a] tobacco
cigarette. You’re lumping it together in the same category,
even though you don’t really have any proof that it has any harm.
You’re saying, ‘We’re going to regulate first and ask questions
later.'” Although New York City Health Commissioner Thomas
Farley claims
regulating out of ignorance is the only responsible approach,
that’s true only if you ignore the costs of regulation. Alderrman
Brendan Reilly told his fellow council members he has “friends and
family members who are using [e-cigarettes] to quit, to get away
from combustible tobacco that kills people.” If pushing vapers out
into the cold deters such harm reduction, which seems likely, it
will endanger people’s health instead of protecting
it.